From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Apr 1 00:17:53 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:17:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moore's Law at 40 Message-ID: <424C9331.3030506@mindspring.com> < http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3798505 > Moore's Law at 40 Happy birthday Mar 23rd 2005 | SAN FRANCISCO From The Economist print edition The tale of a frivolous rule of thumb AP Moore the merrier IN APRIL 1965, the worldwide semiconductor industry had annual revenues of about $2 billion. It would be three more years before Gordon Moore, an electronics boffin, co-founded a company called Intel. Electronics Magazine, a publication that Mr Moore remembers as "one of the throw-away journals", asked him to opine on a trend or two. So he did. In prose that was passable for a numbers guy, Mr Moore imagined the possibility of "home computers" and "electronic watches". Oh, and he "blindly extrapolated" from progress he had noticed in the preceding years that the number of "components" (by which he meant transistors and resistors) on a silicon chip would probably keep doubling every year or so. "It turned out to be much more accurate than it had any reason to be," snickers Mr Moore today, 40 years on, savouring the understatement. His off-the-cuff guess held true and, in the 1970s, was dubbed "Moore's Law" by his friend Carver Mead. Mr Moore could not bring himself to utter the phrase for about 20 years, he says. Yet as his "law" became famous he found himself compelled to update it. In 1975, he projected a doubling only every two years. He is adamant that he himself never said "every 18 months", but that is how it has been quoted, and proven correct, ever since. All this is somewhat beside the point. Mr Moore's message has always been simpler: that the cost of computation, and all electronics, appeared certain to plummet, and still does today, thus allowing all sorts of other progress. And, indeed, for four decades, Moore's Law has served as shorthand for the rise of Silicon Valley, the boom in PCs (which even surprised Mr Moore, who had forgotten that he had predicted home computers), the dotcom boom, the information super-highway, and other exciting things. Reflecting on it today, as chairman emeritus of Intel, the largest firm in a global industry 100 times bigger than it was in 1965, is clearly fun. Software "frustrates" Mr Moore, who spends half his time in Hawaii, playing online games and such. But his law seems safe for at least another decade--or two to three chip generations--which is as far as he has ever dared to look into the future. As things are made at scales approaching individual atoms, he says, there will surely be limitations. Then again, the law has often met obstacles that appeared insurmountable, before soon surmounting them. In that sense, Mr Moore says, he now sees his law as more beautiful than he had realised. "Moore's Law is a violation of Murphy's Law. Everything gets better and better." -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: spacer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dgc at cox.net Fri Apr 1 01:59:36 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:59:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <424CAB08.6070107@cox.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:09:56PM -0500, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > >>Why is this Extropian? The Taiwanese fabs are at the leading edge of >>Moore's law. >>Even if we don't make a nanotech breakthrough, Moore's law will take us to >>the singularity within 15 years (a factor of 1000.) Yes, Moore's Law is >> >> > >Do you have a specific scenario, suggesting how exactly Moore (assuming, it >will hold up for the next 15 years) will result in the Singularity? > > > Nope. I'm still operating at the meta level here. Moore's "law" (actually, Moore's rule of thumb) synergizes with the old cliche: "an order-of-magnitude quantitative change is a qualitative change." I look at developments like Google, grid computing, and the inexorable improvement in connectivity and bandwidth, and I see multiple opportunities for emergent behavior. I cannot specify which scenario is most likely. I suspect that the particular sequence of events that results in the SI will be unexpected. It's not any specific and readily-predictable scenario that is important here. Rather, The environment in which an SI can "spontaneously" emerge is becoming richer at an exponentially increasing rate. Nine years ago I said that my gut feeling was that the SI would emerge within ten years. With only 14 months to go, this is looking like a bad call on my part, but I will not retract the prediction, because the infrastructure is increasingly rich. My gut feeling is that we are now only one clever insight away from the SI, and that the amount of cleverness that is needed decreases as the infrastructure becomes richer. You are free to view this as a belief unsupported by facts: a "religion" if you will. I do not think so: I think that any rational analysis will conclude that there will be a point in time when we can construct an intelligence smarter than ourselves, so all we are arguing about is the time when this will occur. From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 1 02:18:08 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 03:18:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <424CAB08.6070107@cox.net> References: <1112232490.25501@whirlwind.he.net> <424B6A04.1080002@cox.net> <20050331124122.GL24702@leitl.org> <424CAB08.6070107@cox.net> Message-ID: <424CAF60.80802@neopax.com> Dan Clemmensen wrote: > The environment in which an SI can "spontaneously" emerge is becoming > richer at an exponentially increasing rate. Nine years ago I said that > my gut feeling > was that the SI would emerge within ten years. With only 14 months to > go, this is > looking like a bad call on my part, but I will not retract the > prediction, because the > infrastructure is increasingly rich. My gut feeling is that we are now > only one clever insight > away from the SI, and that the amount of cleverness that is needed > decreases as the > infrastructure becomes richer. > I made a similar prediction around 1980. The earliest I assumed was 2010 and the latest 2050 with 2030 being the most probable. Still on course IMO for 2030. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From dgc at cox.net Fri Apr 1 02:16:27 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:16:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: <20050331140045.45333.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050331140045.45333.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424CAEFB.6010408@cox.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: >I was under the impression we were going to shift to photonic circuits >within 3-5 years. That alone is a huge reduction in size and power >requirements. What gives? > > > This is a very common misconception. Photonic circuits are bigger than electronic circuits, because photons are bigger than electrons. The photons we know how to manipulate easily are visible (850nm) and infrared (1300nm and 1500nm.) We cannot easily manipulate higher-frequency photons: the semiconductor industry abandoned the effort to use 157nm photons for lithography for the next generation. By contrast, the electrons are "small." they can be treated as being localized to about 10nm before quantum tunneling becomes a serious issue (if I recall correctly.) Photons are superior to electrons in several important ways, but circuit size is not one of them. chip-to-chip electronic connections require high power to overcome capacitance. There is a speed at which it will take less power to convert the signal to light, and that speed is rapidly approaching. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 02:19:27 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:19:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmic dust! In-Reply-To: <003101c53620$3040be90$fe219851@mobile> Message-ID: <200504010221.j312Ld218117@tick.javien.com> I thank Amara for showing how interesting is cosmic dust. She managed to write a doctoral thesis on the topic and make it compelling enough to make me read every word. Check this: HUBBLE TELESCOPE SPIES COSMIC DUST BUNNIES ------------------------------------------ Like dust bunnies that lurk in corners and under beds, surprisingly complex loops and blobs of cosmic dust lie hidden in the giant elliptical galaxy NGC 1316. This image made from data obtained with the NASA Hubble Space Telescope reveals the dust lanes and star clusters of this giant galaxy that give evidence that it was formed from a past merger of two gas-rich galaxies. http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/31hubble/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3770 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Apr 1 02:49:42 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:49:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmic bulldust! In-Reply-To: <200504010221.j312Ld218117@tick.javien.com> References: <003101c53620$3040be90$fe219851@mobile> <200504010221.j312Ld218117@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050331204708.01cfecc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:19 PM 3/31/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/31hubble/ At the same page, I see a link I can't open (not a subscriber) to: Nanosat toss overboard A foot-long Russian nanosatellite is flung overboard by the spacewalking International Space Station Expedition 10 crew. Station cameras watched the hand-launched deployment and the nanosat as it floated away. ======= Wow. Love that nano-bloat. (Or is it fulla fullerenes or something?) Damien Broderick From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Apr 1 00:57:24 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:57:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A case of self-deception? In-Reply-To: <1112290523.424c34db9eaa3@www.genciabiotech.com> References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1112290523.424c34db9eaa3@www.genciabiotech.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050331195529.01eacbb0@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:35 PM 3/31/2005, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >A fascinating post on EconLog: >http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/what_fools_thes.html > >Apparently after 9/11, trust in government rose. .... Er, the point of that blog entry is to *question* that conclusion. The paper linked to claims people just interpreted a survey question differently when it was placed in a new context. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 03:23:18 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:23:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmic bulldust! In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050331204708.01cfecc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200504010325.j313PR224714@tick.javien.com> > Nanosat toss overboard > A foot-long Russian nanosatellite is flung overboard by the spacewalking > International Space Station Expedition 10 crew. What they are calling a nanosat is a thing about the size of a soup can. I don't know what the thing actually does. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 03:49:47 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:49:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: <003101c53620$3040be90$fe219851@mobile> Message-ID: <200504010351.j313pp227082@tick.javien.com> I heard they have given the pope his last rites. But what if he had been signed up for cryonics? Would he have been given second-to-last rites? Or would he have just waived his rites? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 04:09:29 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:09:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: <200504010351.j313pp227082@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200504010412.j314CT229029@tick.javien.com> > > I heard they have given the pope his last rites. But > what if he had been signed up for cryonics?... And what happens if you are given your last rites but you survive, and decide you really enjoyed those rites and want some more rites? Do two rites make a wrong? Are they really strict on the number of rites one can have? And since they are performed by a nonprofit organization, can you rite them off on your taxes? spike From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 05:04:07 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:04:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Times - I'm going to live forever Message-ID: <470a3c520503312104694aaead@mail.gmail.com> The Times: Some scientists predict that today's children will be able to live for more than 1,000 years. Is immortality just around the corner? Bryan Appleyard peers into a hair-raising future without death. Somewhere in the world today lives a child who will change everything. Imagine this child is called Sally. Today is her 11th birthday... In short, Sally's life prospects are optimum for a human child in 2005. According to current projections, she can expect to live well into her eighties. But it's not going to be like that, because Sally is not going to die until 3194... [Aubrey de Grey] is generally regarded as the leading theorist of anti-ageing technologies or, as he calls them, Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. He is convinced the first thousand-year-old human has already been born. He is convinced because of his theory of "escape velocity" which, he says, almost nobody has taken into account. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1522606,00.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 1 05:16:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:16:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401051633.658.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A few years ago we were reading articles on this list of an IBM-Northwestern U project demonstrating quantum well photonic circuits, in which the researchers were stating that their circuits would be 1000 times faster and 1000 times smaller than electronic circuits. What happened to those claims? --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >I was under the impression we were going to shift to photonic > circuits > >within 3-5 years. That alone is a huge reduction in size and power > >requirements. What gives? > > > > > > > This is a very common misconception. > > Photonic circuits are bigger than electronic circuits, because > photons are > bigger than electrons. > > The photons we know how to manipulate easily are visible (850nm) and > infrared (1300nm and 1500nm.) We cannot easily manipulate > higher-frequency > photons: the semiconductor industry abandoned the effort to use 157nm > > photons > for lithography for the next generation. > > By contrast, the electrons are "small." they can be treated as being > localized to > about 10nm before quantum tunneling becomes a serious issue (if I > recall > correctly.) > > Photons are superior to electrons in several important ways, but > circuit > size is not > one of them. chip-to-chip electronic connections require high power > to > overcome > capacitance. There is a speed at which it will take less power to > convert the signal > to light, and that speed is rapidly approaching. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 1 05:21:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:21:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401052134.69464.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > I heard they have given the pope his last rites. But > what if he had been signed up for cryonics? Would he > have been given second-to-last rites? Or would he have > just waived his rites? A better question: has he confessed his last ronges? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 1 05:29:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:29:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401052934.11821.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > > > I heard they have given the pope his last rites. But > > what if he had been signed up for cryonics?... > > > And what happens if you are given your last rites > but you survive, and decide you really enjoyed those > rites and want some more rites? Do two rites make > a wrong? Are they really strict on the number of > rites one can have? And since they are performed > by a nonprofit organization, can you rite them off > on your taxes? Only if you are a rite winger. Of course, catholics can confess every day of the week. It's your rite. It's protestants that only get to be born again once... a better question is: how can they signal that they've picked a new pope if the Vatican is non smoking? Will the new guy tolerate the popemobile or will he want a pope-utility-vehicle? How many bets the new guy will be an American? If so, what credence is there that one of the Mary prophesies from the early 20th kept secret was that a pope 'from across the sea' would be the last pope? If he is the last pope, would that be because of the Singularity? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Apr 1 05:46:06 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:46:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: <20050401052934.11821.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050401052934.11821.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050331234243.0387e950@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:29 PM 3/31/2005 -0800, Mike wrote: >Will the new >guy tolerate the popemobile or will he want a pope-utility-vehicle? A popish SUV? Certainly not. He'll insist on an SAVe (air-conditioned by a purple papal heater). Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 05:48:02 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:48:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: <20050401052934.11821.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504010550.j315oD206164@tick.javien.com> > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? > > > > And what happens if you are given your last rites > > but you survive, and decide you really enjoyed those > > rites and want some more rites?... > > Only if you are a rite winger. Of course, catholics can confess every > day of the week. It's your rite... Mike Lorrey Does anyone here not know exactly what I mean when I use the delicate reference "teenage rites of passage"? And once you experience it, you definitely want more of that, rite? Waaaay more of those rites. So what exactly are they doing to the pope when they give him his last rites? Are popes even allowed rites? spike From scerir at libero.it Fri Apr 1 06:22:56 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 08:22:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? References: <200504010412.j314CT229029@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <001801c53683$3f2719f0$18b51b97@administxl09yj> > And what happens if you are given your last rites > but you survive, and decide you really enjoyed those > rites and want some more rites? > spike In 'last rites' the adjective 'last' is wrong. In 'extreme unction' the adjective 'extreme' is also wrong. It is just a sacrament (for somebody who is sick), the holy unction, made of confession, absolution, communion, and anointing (him) with holy oil. "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him". -James, Epistle 5, 4-15 http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1999/Mar-Apr/The-New-Sacrament-of-Extrem e-Unction.htm (for the changes, in the sacrament, after the Vatican II) From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 06:29:23 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 08:29:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Brain-Implanted Chips Allow Control of Technology Message-ID: <470a3c520503312229672e84ed@mail.gmail.com> Slashdot: The Guardian has an article about implanting electrodes in the brain, allowing paralyzed people to control various software-integrated devices, such as the cursor on a computer and the channel and volume of his television. From the article: 'The experiment took place a few months ago as part of a broader trial into what are known in the business as brain-computer interfaces. Although it is early days, aficionados of the technology see a world where brain implants return ability to those with disability, allowing them to control all manner of devices by thought alone.'" The BBC has coverage of thisas well, and we've mentionedthis researchbefore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal at smigrodzki.org Fri Apr 1 07:48:39 2005 From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:48:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A case of self-deception? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050331195529.01eacbb0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1112290523.424c34db9eaa3@www.genciabiotech.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050331195529.01eacbb0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <1112341719.424cfcd7137c0@www.genciabiotech.com> Quoting Robin Hanson : > At 12:35 PM 3/31/2005, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >A fascinating post on EconLog: > >http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/what_fools_thes.html > > > >Apparently after 9/11, trust in government rose. .... > > Er, the point of that blog entry is to *question* that conclusion. > The paper linked to claims people just interpreted a survey question > differently when it was placed in a new context. ### Is this the case? In this post I find only a breakdown of the attitudes by political orientation but no reference to a framing effect. Do you have links to posts questioning the conclusion? Rafal From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 08:38:49 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:38:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Amazon's Statistically Improbable Phrases In-Reply-To: <20050331193100.C6FBA57EEA@finney.org> References: <20050331193100.C6FBA57EEA@finney.org> Message-ID: On Mar 31, 2005 11:31 AM, "Hal Finney" wrote: > For Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep, the SIPs are: coldsleep boxes, radio > cloaks, her dataset, his fronds, voder voice, drive spines, cargo shell, > flying house, command deck, refugee ship, scarred one, inner keep, alien > member, other hull, single pack, zero gee, most packs. Seems like kind > of weird choices: command deck? refugee ship? Would they really be > that rare? And where are "Straumli perversion", or "zones of thought", > key phrases that drove the entire structure of the book? My guess is that the algorithm only chooses phrases which occur at least periodically in other literature. Otherwise, you'd just end up with a bunch of place and people names from the book. I also suspect it may refrain from including proper/capitalized nouns for the same reason. In any case, it's a very cool trick. -- Neil From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 08:44:45 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:44:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] An interesting report on implants In-Reply-To: <005f01c5363e$f3390600$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <003101c53620$3040be90$fe219851@mobile> <005f01c5363e$f3390600$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: On Mar 31, 2005 2:14 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > I think a key thing to watch with implanted chips etc will be how long > they continue to operate once installed and whether or how soon > biological immune responses etc eventually stop them from working. I suppose that's what movable/autonomous electrodes are for. Additionally, using local field potentials instead of single neuron recordings greatly increases the usable lifespan. An interesting read: http://faculty.uwb.edu/ijcnn05/Special-Sessions/16_Berger_-_neural_prostheses_&_neuron-silicon_interface.htm -- Neil From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Apr 1 11:34:04 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:34:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A case of self-deception? In-Reply-To: <1112341719.424cfcd7137c0@www.genciabiotech.com> References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1112290523.424c34db9eaa3@www.genciabiotech.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050331195529.01eacbb0@mail.gmu.edu> <1112341719.424cfcd7137c0@www.genciabiotech.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050401063220.02de96b0@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:48 AM 4/1/2005, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > At 12:35 PM 3/31/2005, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > >A fascinating post on EconLog: > > >http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/what_fools_thes.html > > > > > >Apparently after 9/11, trust in government rose. .... > > > > Er, the point of that blog entry is to *question* that conclusion. > > The paper linked to claims people just interpreted a survey question > > differently when it was placed in a new context. > >### Is this the case? In this post I find only a breakdown of the attitudes by >political orientation but no reference to a framing effect. Do you have links >to posts questioning the conclusion? The first and main link in that blog entry is this: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/pubper/pdf/pp134/july_aug_2002_pp7-10.pdf wherein the conclusion is questioned. (Surely you could find that yourself?) Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 1 13:40:48 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:40:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bush Cancels Shuttle Program! References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1112290523.424c34db9eaa3@www.genciabiotech.com><6.2.1.2.2.20050331195529.01eacbb0@mail.gmu.edu><1112341719.424cfcd7137c0@www.genciabiotech.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050401063220.02de96b0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <004701c536c0$6a8be160$0100a8c0@kevin> Now this took some guts! http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05o.html From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 13:38:09 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:08:09 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bush Cancels Shuttle Program! In-Reply-To: <004701c536c0$6a8be160$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1112290523.424c34db9eaa3@www.genciabiotech.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050331195529.01eacbb0@mail.gmu.edu> <1112341719.424cfcd7137c0@www.genciabiotech.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050401063220.02de96b0@mail.gmu.edu> <004701c536c0$6a8be160$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <710b78fc05040105384fa59f76@mail.gmail.com> Especially on 1 April. After all, people might just think it was a joke, you know? On Apr 1, 2005 11:10 PM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > Now this took some guts! > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05o.html > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 1 13:54:01 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:54:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bush Cancels Shuttle Program! References: <20050328014926.11534.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1112290523.424c34db9eaa3@www.genciabiotech.com><6.2.1.2.2.20050331195529.01eacbb0@mail.gmu.edu><1112341719.424cfcd7137c0@www.genciabiotech.com><6.2.1.2.2.20050401063220.02de96b0@mail.gmu.edu><004701c536c0$6a8be160$0100a8c0@kevin> <710b78fc05040105384fa59f76@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008601c536c2$42dd93a0$0100a8c0@kevin> As the article says....."In space, no one can hear you laugh." ;-) Have a great weekend! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emlyn" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:38 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bush Cancels Shuttle Program! > Especially on 1 April. After all, people might just think it was a > joke, you know? > > On Apr 1, 2005 11:10 PM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > Now this took some guts! > > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05o.html > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 1 15:22:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:22:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bush Cancels Shuttle Program! In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401152212.3673.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Particularly given the Orwellian opinion piece at the bottom. --- Emlyn wrote: > Especially on 1 April. After all, people might just think it was a > joke, you know? > > On Apr 1, 2005 11:10 PM, kevinfreels.com > wrote: > > Now this took some guts! > > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05o.html > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Apr 1 17:41:41 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:41:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Times - I'm going to live forever In-Reply-To: <470a3c520503312104694aaead@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050401122203.075e3d38@unreasonable.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >The Times: Some scientists predict that today's children will be able >to live for more than 1,000 years. Is immortality just around the >corner? Bryan Appleyard peers into a hair-raising future without >death. while Mike asked, in the papal thread: >If he is the last pope, would that be because of the Singularity? Combining threads -- it is reasonable to presume that within a few papal successions (perhaps with the impending election), the Church will have a pope with an indefinitely long lifespan. How would the Church cope with this? Neither the stagnation of a Forever Pope nor the confusion inherent in a cadre of retired popes seems tolerable from a Catholic POV. Similarly, Prince William could reign for millennia and the Dalai Lama might cease reincarnating. We certainly should reconsider life tenure for judges. -- David Lubkin. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Apr 1 18:44:20 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:44:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) HOLO-screen Message-ID: <424D9684.6020709@mindspring.com> Flat screens are all well and good, but a zero-thickness (well, sorta) screen is seriously cool: http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/HOLOSC.htm. Yes, it'll set you back 990 British pounds (somewhere north of $1600), but at least the shipping is included. Now if only I can get Microsoft to spring for one. Think of the savings in screen wipes alone! Bonus GeekWatch item: You've seen all the devices that you can plug into your USB port, such as lights, fans, and mug warmers. One of my favorite suppliers of things geeky, ThinkGeek, is now offering the ultimate in weird USB peripherals: a fondue set (http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/fundue.shtml). <> Thanks Frank Rice Programmer Writer MSDN Office Developer Center -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Fri Apr 1 19:58:16 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:58:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) HOLO-screen Message-ID: <20050401195816.0DA7157EE9@finney.org> > Flat screens are all well and good, but a zero-thickness (well, sorta) > screen is seriously cool: http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/HOLOSC.htm. > Yes, it'll set you back 990 British pounds (somewhere north of $1600), > but at least the shipping is included. Now if only I can get Microsoft > to spring for one. Think of the savings in screen wipes alone! Always hard to know what's real or not on April Fools Day. Best to err on the side of skepticism. In this case it's clearly a fake, although I have heard of screens projected onto a wall of fog. Hal From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Apr 1 20:57:05 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:57:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] simulation argument may be just a dream Message-ID: <20050401205705.17136.qmail@web52605.mail.yahoo.com> Re: http://lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013941.html Mike Lorrey wrote: --- ben wrote: >> Maybe we are just some super-powerful mind's >>random dream, and will disappear without trace in >>the morning. > >This is a) overly solipsistic, and relies on the >idea that creatures could evolve elsewhere naturally >with superintelligence, which is contradicted by >Yudkowskian arguments, I'm not familiar with Yudkowskian arguments, but can you explain how they ostensibly prove that creatures cannot evolve elsewhere with super intelligence? I think ben raised an interesting question that ought not be dismissed too quickly. >and b) underestimating to the extreme the amount of >computation required to simulate a universe. As an experienced lucid dreamer I can tell you that sensory phenomena in dreams can be as complex and life-like as when waking. In fact, I believe that everything we see when waking is a neurologically constructed simulation of the external world built from data flowing into our brains from the world outside our brains. As such, the entire universe that each person witnesses has been simulated in a brain. Of course the simulations that we see are built up from a much larger database (the universe), assuming of course that there really is an external world. ;) ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From john-c-wright at sff.net Fri Apr 1 21:30:02 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:30:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The statement that there is no truth, if true, is false (Was Your Mom and the Machine) Message-ID: <200504012130.j31LU5202743@tick.javien.com> Mr. Allbright opines: "My point was that "truth" (in scare quotes because all knowledge is subjective, approximate and contingent) must be grounded in the measurable evidence of our senses (and their extensions), and to the extent that any observation is not thus grounded, it must be discounted." I respectfully demur. The statement "All knowledge is subjective, approximate, and contingent" is itself objective, precise and absolute. It is a objective statement, since it makes a claim without regard to any observer or any particular circumstances. Note it does not say "From my point of view, all knowledge is subjective, approximate, and contingent: seen from another point of view, all knowledge is not." The phrasing, at least, is certain, even if this is not the writer's intent. Note it does not say "Most Knowledge is somewhat close to being subjective, approximate and contingent, given a certain margin of error, more or less." It is an absolute statement, making an assertion about something not dependent upon another statement. Note that the statement does not say "Knowledge is subjective, approximate, and contingent when it is empirical knowledge, and not when it is not." Now, perhaps the writer in his short parenthetical simply did not have time to add all these lawyerly conditions and qualifications. Fair enough. But if these additional qualifications were meant to be implied by the writer, and we are supposed to assume them, then the statement should read: "Most knowledge, from my point of view, under certain circumstances, is subjective, approximate, and contingent, more or less: but there is other knowledge or other conditions where this is not the case, perhaps." Stated this way, the statement cannot be used as the major premise to support the surrounding argument. If most but not all knowledge is subjective and contingent, and if there is at least some objective and absolute knowledge, then it does not follow that all truths must be grounded in measurable evidence of our senses: knowledge which is objective and absolute is true regardless of what the senses report. If you think you see twice two apples equal five apples, check your eyes, not your math. I note in passing that the statement "all truths must be grounded in measurable evidence of our senses" is offered to us as an absolute and objective principle, and no experiment or observation is given to support it. This statement is a principle of Epistemology, and metaphysical statement, and no possible empirical test can prove or disprove it. Ironically, all this is true about EMPIRICAL statements. They are subjective to the point of view of the observer; they depend on the observed data; they are approximate to the tolerance of the observer and his instruments. One need only try to imagine the conditions under which self-evident statements are false ("Opposite angles are equal"; "Reality is real"; or "This sentence contains five words") to realize the logical impossibility of all knowledge being subjective. Any statement whose denial entails a logical contradiction is true under all conditions and circumstances, that is, self-evident. Any statement whose affirmation entails a logical contradiction is false under all conditions and circumstances, that is, self-refuting. Mr. Allbright says: "universal truth is not realizable." Or, in other words, "No T is R" which equals "All Not-T is R". This statement is itself a universal. He says: "Note that I am being pragmatic by not postulating a universal morality ." but then continues in a mental exercise where he himself displays the moral values of truthfulness, prudence and philosophical integrity, even (if he fears dispute) courage. Whether he is intellectually convinced that there is an objective morality or not, he, and all other people who honestly discuss this question, ACT as if there is an objective morality. At may be that, from the God's eye view, there is no such thing as an objective morality, but if all rational minds are required to make the categorical assumption that such a thing exists even to engage in the effort of disputing it, then, for all practical purposes, morality is objective. I note also that writers on morality cannot invent a new moral code any more than they can invent a new primary color. Moral debate consists of arguing which of competing principles should be given greater weight, or in coming up with novel arguments to support moral maxims which are themselves as old as time. Mr. Allbright says: "I say that we can all agree that what works over a wider context is better than what works over a narrower context." I am tempted to agree, but I wonder if I know what I am agreeing to. We can all agree on formal grounds to define "better" to mean "works better", but we must be very skeptical of each other's definition of "works better." Works better for whom? Works better with what end in mind? Achilles chose a short and glorious life over a long and prosperous one. Homer reports the hero's shade in hell envies the slaves of tenant farmers. And yet the son of Pelias represents the paramount of pagan excellence and virtue. St. John the Baptist lived in the wasteland eating locusts, and died in prison, cruelly slain at a girl's whim, while King Herod wore a crown of fine gold and was Caesar's friend. If you prefer a pagan example, note that Socrates died drinking hemlock, whereas Alcibiades never was defeated in combat; but no honest man would prefer to a life like of Alcibiades the traitor to that of the great Socrates, wisest of the wise. Whatever it is heroes, saints and philosophers pursue, self-preservation, or a practical concern for what "works", seems a secondary consideration. My point here is that, unless we assume or deduce a moral order to the universe, it makes no sense to talk of "better" or "worse". These two values deal with a comparative as its relates to a standard. Without a standard, there is no "better" or "worse" any more than there is an East and a West in Outer Space: without a standard, there is merely change. Mr. Allbright comments to me: "it is interesting that you can criticize empiricism as lacking justification, but claim that a mother's authority stands on its own. I acknowledge the dependency of a child upon its mother, but as mentioned earlier this only works well until the child is capable of independence." I beg to differ again: the justification for empiricism is overwhelming. My comment was merely that the justification takes the form of a rational deduction from self-evident first principles, not the form of an observation with a yardstick and a stopwatch. Empiricism CONCERNS theories of physics but the Empiricism NOT itself a theory of physics. Physics is concerned with how matter and energy behave within the range of our senses. Empiricism is a metaphysical theory about the nature of that type of knowledge which comes through our senses. A child that is not dependant on his mother, but who can fend for himself, is not really what I would call a child. The child is not the one who chooses to be born, or who decides the course of his nurture and rearing, any more than our Jupiter Brain decides who will engineer it and program it. When the child is a child, he must accept his parental authority on faith. There is no escape from this fact. Once the child learns to reason, and has sufficient experience to form mature judgments, he can examine what he previously took on faith to confirm whether the axioms are self-consistent (rational) and consistent with experience (empirical). If the parents have taught the child well, or the Engineer has constructed the Jupiter Brain with the help of a Philosopher at his elbow (or his Mom), then the child will internalize what he has learned, adhering to the principles he was taught out of respect for those principles, rather than merely respect for the authority who first taught him. If the philosophy and value being taught are sound, there will be continuity between the generations: there will be a growth and development of humanity into a richer and finer form of humanity, machine or biological or both, but not the sharp singularity some thinkers envision, baffled by the alien demigods on the far side of the IQ barrier. "A greater and more likely near-term danger is that a human individual or group will utilize the superhuman cognitive power of such a machine for immoral purposes (purposes that may appear to work for his own relatively narrow context, but don't work well over a larger context of actors, interactions, or time.) Our best defense in such a scenario will be the wide dispersal of such intelligence amplification in the service of the broader population." I agree with this in principle, but would tend to emphasize moral maturity over intellectual augmentation. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Apr 1 21:52:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:52:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: <001801c53683$3f2719f0$18b51b97@administxl09yj> References: <200504010412.j314CT229029@tick.javien.com> <001801c53683$3f2719f0$18b51b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050401154608.01e93828@pop-server.satx.rr.com> I see that: This raises a very interesting prospect. Once the Pope's brain activity has halted, it is to be hoped that his feeding tube remains in place, and that every miracle of medical science is used -- as God is now known to have intended -- to keep his mindless body ticking over. Catholics would then be in an interesting situation: an unreplaceable supreme Pontiff whose silence is infallible and indefinitely protracted. Damien Broderick From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Apr 1 23:03:54 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:03:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~ References: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com><007d01c52f83$2a3cdc20$1db71218@Nano><63625807b969d801e10e86164cb8cc8a@bonfireproductions.com> <003701c52fe4$ae4d5600$1db71218@Nano> Message-ID: <007201c5370f$1410f560$1db71218@Nano> The Nanogirl News April 1, 2005 NASA Tests Shape-Shifting Robot Pyramid For Nanotech Swarms. Like new and protective parents, engineers watched as the TETWalker robot successfully traveled across the floor at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Robots of this type will eventually be miniaturized and joined together to form "autonomous nanotechnology swarms" (ANTS) that alter their shape to flow over rocky terrain or to create useful structures like communications antennae and solar sails. This technology has the potential to directly support NASA's Vision for Space Exploration. "This prototype is the first step toward developing a revolutionary type of robot spacecraft with major advantages over current designs," said Dr. Steven Curtis, Principal Investigator for the ANTS project, a collaboration between Goddard and NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. (Sciencedaily 4/1/05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050331110135.htm Scientists modify carbon nanotubes using microwaves. Researchers at New Jersey Institute of Technology have discovered a novel method of changing the chemical characteristics of carbon nanotubes by heating them in a closed vessel microwave oven. Somenath Mitra, PhD, professor of chemistry and environmental sciences, and Zafar Iqbal, PhD, also a professor of chemistry and environmental sciences, will discuss their findings at the 229th national meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS). (Physorg 3/17/05) http://www.physorg.com/news3425.html U.K.'s $38-Million Nanotech Bet. Brits appropriate funds to help commercialize nanotech, boosting the U.K.'s competitive position in the emerging market. The U.K. Department of Trade and Industry will make eight more grants totaling ?20 million ($37 million) to help companies and university researchers commercialize nanotechnology research. The funds are part of a ?90 million ($170 million) nanotech initiative announced almost two years ago by the DTI, the British equivalent of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Combined with millions more in public grants and private capital, the money announced Wednesday by science and innovation minister Lord Sainsbury puts the United Kingdom in a solid competitive position in the nascent nanotech market, which cuts across dozens of sectors and could be worth trillions within a decade. (RedHerring 3/31/05) http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=11644&hed=U.K.+Spends+%2438+Million+on+Nanotech§or=Capital&subsector=VentureCapital New look for nanomotors. Physicists in the US have built the first nanoelectromechanical device that exploits the effects of surface tension. The "relaxation oscillator" consists of two droplets of liquid metal on a substrate made of carbon nanotubes and can be controlled with a small applied electric field. Alex Zettl and colleagues at the University of California at Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory say the device could find use in various nanomechanical applications, including actuators and motors (B C Regan et al. 2005 Appl. Phys. Lett. 86 123119). (Physicsweb 3/22/05) http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/3/14/1 Turn on the Nanotech High Beams by Mike Treder Executive Director, The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. You're driving a car, very fast, on a poorly marked road, in the pitch-black darkness. There are no streetlights, there is no moon out tonight, the only illumination you have is your car's headlights.you're in uncharted territory; you have no roadmap, no way to know for sure where you are going.but you're driving very fast, into the pitch-black darkness. That's the state of nanotechnology today. We're advancing rapidly into uncharted territory. The changes this technology will bring may arrive sooner than we are prepared to respond effectively to them. (Future Brief 05) http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederbeams001.asp Tiny porphyrin tubes developed by Sandia may lead to new nanodevices. Sunlight splitting water molecules to produce hydrogen using devices too small to be seen in a standard microscope. That's a goal of a research team from the National Nuclear Security Administration's Sandia National Laboratories. The research has captured the interest of chemists around the world pursuing methods of producing hydrogen from water. (Sandia 3/17/05) http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/renew-energy-batt/nano.html Hold Still. Particles floating in a fluid jiggle constantly, an effect called Brownian motion, which makes them tricky to handle. A new trapping technique, described in the 25 March PRL, effectively cancels out the Brownian motion of a particle by continually nudging it with just the right fluid flow. The system could allow researchers to hold and manipulate smaller particles than they can with current techniques and could help them fabricate nanomachines or hold biomolecules in place while their interactions are monitored. (PRF 4/25/05) http://focus.aps.org/story/v15/st10 Paint On The Wall TV Screens? Case Chemist To Design Chemical Building Blocks For Such Potential Use. Imagine your television or computer screen coming from a container as something to be applied to a flat surface like a wall-or, screens so flexible that they can be rolled up and put in a pocket. Those futuristic screens are closer to reality. John Protasiewicz, Case Western Reserve University professor of chemistry, plans to use funding from a special two-year, unsolicited grant for creativity from the National Science Foundation to prepare new conjugated polymers that feature novel chemical building blocks and inorganic elements. Such special plastics have potential uses in understanding how these new display devices work, and could lead to improvements in plastic display technologies. (Sciencedaily 3/31/05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329140351.htm Nanotech Is Booming Biggest in U.S., Report Says. The science of the very small is getting big in the United States. Americans are investing more money, publishing more scientific papers and winning more patents than anyone else in the quickly growing field of nanotechnology, according to the first comprehensive federal report on the science of things only a few hundred millionths of an inch in size. But the nation's lead may be short-lived, the report warns, as Europe and Asia show evidence of gaining. (Washington Post 3/28/05) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5221-2005Mar27.html Harnessing microbes, one by one, to build a better nanoworld. Taking a new approach to the painstaking assembly of nanometer-sized machines, a team of scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has successfully used single bacterial cells to make tiny bio-electronic circuits. (Eurekalert 3/17/05) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/uow-hmo031605.php Fate Of Nano Waste: Researchers Study How To Make Nanomaterial Industry Environmentally Sustainable. Research into making the emerging nanomaterial industry environmentally sustainable is showing promise in a preliminary engineering study conducted at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Rice University. Under the auspices of the Rice University Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), researchers have been investigating the potential environmental impact of nanomaterial waste. Specifically, they want to know if they can predict the fate and transport of nanomaterial waste in natural systems, and whether nanomaterials will behave the same as common environmental pollutants. In addition, they want to determine if nanomaterials can be treated before they enter the environment to minimize impact. (Sciencedaily 3/29/05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050323143506.htm Ceria nanoparticles catalyze reactions for cleaner-fuel future. Experiments on ceria nanoparticles may lead to catalytic converters that are better at cleaning up auto exhaust, and/or to more-efficient ways of generating hydrogen. Researchers used bright beams of x-rays at the National Synchrotron Light Source to study how their composition, structure, and reactivity changed in response to doping with zirconium in one case, and impregnation with gold in another. (Eurekalert 3/15/05) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/dnl-cnc030705.php Nanogen and Pathway Diagnostics Sign License Agreement for Gene Variants Linked to Drug Response. Nanogen, Inc. and Pathway Diagnostics have announced that they have entered into a nonexclusive, worldwide license agreement under which Nanogen will develop diagnostic products that detect genetic variations associated with responses to antidepressant and antipsychotic therapeutics. The companies have begun work on developing a molecular diagnostic product that could be used to select the most appropriate drug and dosage for patients treated for psychiatric diseases. Specific financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed. (Azonano 3/24/05) http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=675 Smart Nanocarriers to Combat Tumors. IBN's technology spells hope for cancer patients who suffer from painful side-effects of chemotherapy. A 'smart' nanocarrier technology developed by a team of researchers at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) is set to vastly improve the way cancer patients are treated. Anticancer drugs are now being administered to patients using methods that cause the indiscriminate killing of both diseased and healthy cells. Such chemotherapy leads to side-effects, such as nausea, fatigue, and hair loss, and makes the patient weak and frail. Between 1998 and 2002, 38,447 people in Singapore were diagnosed with some type of cancer, while 20,289 died of the disease. Hence, there is a crucial need for the development of more effective cancer therapy, which not only minimizes side-effects but also directly targets diseased cells. Scientists at IBN have found a way to tackle this problem through the use of anticancer drug delivery vehicles that transport drugs only to where they are needed in the body. This method significantly reduces or even eliminates the severe side-effects typically induced by conventional chemotherapeutics. (AStar 3/21/05) http://www.a-star.gov.sg/astar/biomed/action/biomed_pressrelease_details.do?id=0f8fd05aceQV Drug-Delivering Contact Lenses Revealed. Scientists at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology in Singapore have developed new contact lenses that are designed to provide a slow release of medications. The New Scientist reports: Contact lenses that release controlled doses of drugs to treat eye diseases such as glaucoma have been created by nano-engineers in Singapore. (4/1/05 mdeGadget) http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2005/04/drugdelivering.html NanoMarkets Releases New White Paper on Nanotechnology and Energy Markets. NanoMarkets a leading industry consulting firm based here, today announced the release of a new white paper titled, "How Nanotechnology is Changing the Energy Equation" that reviews the many ways in which the energy industry is being (and will continue to be) impacted by nanotech. The paper is drawn from NanoMarkets' current research on emerging alternative energy and power markets and addresses topics such as fossil fuels and nanocatalysts, solar power, fuel cells, wind, biomass and geothermal energy. The paper can be accessed from the firm's website at http://www.nanomarkets.net. (PRNewswire 3/31/05) http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/03-31-2005/0003294493&EDATE= New nanotech centre opens new food possibilities. A ?3.5 million grant for a new state-of-the-art nanotech research centre in the UK underlines the potential of this brave new technology for the food industry, writes Anthony Fletcher. The Nottingham Micro Nano Technology (MNT) Centre will be an advanced manufacturing facility designed to help companies develop revolutionary new products and services at a scale of thousandths of a millimetre. Announced today by Lord Sainsbury, UK science and innovation minister, the grant will provide open access for companies to cutting-edge facilities designed to help bring nanotechnology products and services to the market. (Foodanddrinkeurope 3/31/05) http://www.foodanddrinkeurope.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=59074-new-nanotech-centre Human Contact Spreads PC Viruses. The federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Science Foundation (NSF) have issued a stunning joint announcement: PC viruses, worms, and spyware can now be transmitted via human contact. Researchers at St. Paul's College in Virginia have isolated roughly 100 cases of systems infected by human contact, the two agencies said at a press conference at NSF headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. The mode of transmission? Each system's user had physical contact with another user whose system was known to be infected. The level of contact was found to be as brief as a handshake. One researcher, Avril Hidokwon, said she documented a case where the Netsky.P virus spread to 12 systems via a sneeze. Scientists have long held that electronic viruses could not possibly spread unless there was some sort of digital (wired or wireless) connection between the infected PC and the victim systems (or the victim systems and servers). "What we did not account for," explained Hidokwon at the hastily organized joint press conference, "was nanotechnology." (PCmag 4/1/05) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1781208,00.asp Okay, if you didn't figure out this last news release, Happy April Fools Day! All the other news stories are genuine. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm My New Project: Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From godsdice at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 23:09:04 2005 From: godsdice at gmail.com (xllb) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:09:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050401154608.01e93828@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200504010412.j314CT229029@tick.javien.com> <001801c53683$3f2719f0$18b51b97@administxl09yj> <6.2.1.2.0.20050401154608.01e93828@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: The Pope and Johnnie Cochran arrive at Heaven's Gate at the same time. Saint Peter takes them by tour bus to their respective, eternal homes. They stop in front of an Estate with pools, a golf course, tennis courts and a heavenly mansion. Saint Peter announces "Mr. Cochran, welcome to your new home." Mr. Cochran lets out a whoop of joy and leaps out of the tour bus. The bus continues on for a short distance and stops in front of a neat, little bungalow. Saint Peter announces "Papa, welcome to your new home." The Pope is shocked. "I've been The Pope for thirty years and all I get is this shack?" Saint Peter replies "We have dozens of Popes up here. Mr. Cochran is the first lawyer." -- Hell is overkill. Dogma blinds. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 1 23:21:27 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:21:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? References: <200504010412.j314CT229029@tick.javien.com><001801c53683$3f2719f0$18b51b97@administxl09yj><6.2.1.2.0.20050401154608.01e93828@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003801c53711$885b1750$0100a8c0@kevin> Has anyone seen this? Thought it was cute. :-) http://www.google.com/googlegulp/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 1 23:57:14 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:57:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Gulp (was Re: il papa's last rites?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401235714.43749.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > Has anyone seen this? Thought it was cute. :-) > > http://www.google.com/googlegulp/ Health drinks done right. They might even get people to change subject headers. ;) From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Apr 2 00:35:19 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:35:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Charlie Stross is now posthuman Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050401183501.01eb43d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Features/0401_Stross.html From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Apr 2 01:37:22 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:37:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The statement that there is no truth, if true, is false (Was Your Mom and the Machine) In-Reply-To: <200504012130.j31LU5202743@tick.javien.com> References: <200504012130.j31LU5202743@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <424DF752.2070309@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Mr. Allbright opines: >"My point was that "truth" (in scare quotes >because all knowledge is subjective, approximate and contingent) must be >grounded in the measurable evidence of our senses (and their >extensions), and to the extent that any observation is not thus >grounded, it must be discounted." > > > >Now, perhaps the writer in his short parenthetical simply did not have time to >add all these lawyerly conditions and qualifications. Fair enough. But if these >additional qualifications were meant to be implied by the writer, and we are >supposed to assume them, then the statement should read: "Most knowledge, from >my point of view, under certain circumstances, is subjective, approximate, and >contingent, more or less: but there is other knowledge or other conditions where >this is not the case, perhaps." > > My intent is not to try to form and communicate perfectly unambiguous statements of truth, for such efforts are inherently futile. My intent is to convey a rather novel and pragmatic way of looking at morality, based on a few concepts, simple in themselves, but which I haven't otherwise seen brought together in this way. Three of these key concepts pertain to (1) nested scopes of context, (2) the non-discrete nature of Self, and (3) the observation that for any given context, and for any given Self, what "works" is considered to be good, and what "works" over a greater context is considered to be better. I realized the futility of arguing beliefs long ago, when I was about eight years old, and idealistically and naively thought that I could illuminate [what appeared to me] logical inconsistencies I found in the Bible, and that people would thank me for freeing their minds to see [what I think of as] the bigger picture. Nowadays, my intention is not to convince, but to perhaps plant a seed, with the hope that this may contribute to our mutual exploration and growth. While attention was focused on the incompleteness of my statement that "all knowledge is subjective, approximate, and contingent", I'm afraid my main point was lost -- again due in no small part to my tersity -- the point being that *all* subjective input should be considered, but then weighted according to its [ultimately subjective] grounding in empirically verifiable "reality". I did try to avoid protracted discussion of this position when I said this is essentially a statement of my *belief* in the scientific approach to knowledge. I am aware of various philosophical approachs attacking this belief system, all of which can be argued endlessly. Onward, I hope, to seed-planting. >Stated this way, the statement cannot be used as the major premise to support >the surrounding argument.If most but not all knowledge is subjective and >contingent, and if there is at least some objective and absolute knowledge, then >it does not follow that all truths must be grounded in measurable evidence of >our senses: knowledge which is objective and absolute is true regardless of what >the senses report. If you think you see twice two apples equal five apples, >check your eyes, not your math. > >I note in passing that the statement "all truths must be grounded in measurable >evidence of our senses" is offered to us as an absolute and objective principle, >and no experiment or observation is given to support it. This statement is a >principle of Epistemology, and metaphysical statement, and no possible empirical >test can prove or disprove it. > > As it appears that we both agree with the previous sentence, I would suggest no further time and effort be spent on arguing the point. >Ironically, all this is true about EMPIRICAL statements. They are subjective to >the point of view of the observer; they depend on the observed data; they are >approximate to the tolerance of the observer and his instruments. > >One need only try to imagine the conditions under which self-evident statements >are false ("Opposite angles are equal"; "Reality is real"; or "This sentence >contains five words") to realize the logical impossibility of all knowledge >being subjective. Any statement whose denial entails a logical contradiction is >true under all conditions and circumstances, that is, self-evident. Any >statement whose affirmation entails a logical contradiction is false under all >conditions and circumstances, that is, self-refuting. > > It can be demonstrated and argued that any of the above "self-evident" examples may be contingent. This can be argued on the basis of expanding the domain of the problem. It can be argued on the basis of expanding the domain of the Self making the judgment of the validity of the statement. It can even be argued from a purely solipsist perspective. I don't want to go there -- it gets ugly -- but I stand by my statement that we, as subsets of the natural world, do not possess the privledged vantage point of being able to objectively pass judgment on the validity of our sensory input or our processing of same. >He says: "Note that I am being pragmatic by not postulating a universal morality >." but then continues in a mental exercise where he himself displays the moral >values of truthfulness, prudence and philosophical integrity, even (if he fears >dispute) courage. Whether he is intellectually convinced that there is an >objective morality or not, he, and all other people who honestly discuss this >question, ACT as if there is an objective morality. At may be that, from the >God's eye view, there is no such thing as an objective morality, but if all >rational minds are required to make the categorical assumption that such a thing >exists even to engage in the effort of disputing it, then, for all practical >purposes, morality is objective. > Strangely, there's a mix of misunderstandings here [in my opinion] including an inversion of one of my points. I'll try to respond to them in the order in which they appear. John C. Wright says: "Whether he is intellectually convinced that there is an objective morality or not, he, and all other people who honestly discuss this question, ACT as if there is an objective morality." I'm glad you see my behavior as moral, because it confirms that my efforts to behave morally are perceivably working. But I don't see this as reflecting the existence of an objective morality, in fact some of my moral beliefs contradict those of a large portion of the population. For example, I don't see homosexuality as being "wrong" in the traditional sense. I don't see abortion as "wrong" in the traditional sense. I may argue that these behaviors may be bad to the extent that they "don't work" in a given context, but I certainly don't see that they can be considered good or bad in an objective sense [meaning apparent to all observers]. I don't see that I'm acting as if there's an objective morality, but I certainly see that I'm acting as if some behaviors work better than other behaviors. John C. Wright says: "At may be that, from the God's eye view, there is no such thing as an objective morality..." On the contrary, I argue that from the God's eye view, morality is in fact objective. However this ultimate view is only approachable, but not obtainable. > > >I note also that writers on morality cannot invent a new moral code any more >than they can invent a new primary color. Moral debate consists of arguing which >of competing principles should be given greater weight, or in coming up with >novel arguments to support moral maxims which are themselves as old as time. > My theory doesn't provide absolute moral answers, but it claims that there is a rational basis for finding increasingly moral answers. > > >Mr. Allbright says: "I say that we can all agree that what works over a wider >context is better than what works over a narrower context." > >I am tempted to agree, but I wonder if I know what I am agreeing to. We can all >agree on formal grounds to define "better" to mean "works better", but we must >be very skeptical of each other's definition of "works better." Works better for >whom? > Works better for Self. "Better" is inherently subjective [meaning dependent on the observer]. Self means that with which one identifies. One may be acting as an individual, or as a family, or as a team, but in any case, what is "good" is what works for that Self. The Self couldn't possibly have value judgments any other way. > Works better with what end in mind? > > Anything that subjectively promotes Self. I tend to call this Growth, but it's a bit misleading appropriation of a common word and I need to think of a better way to encapsulate the concept. At the core is the idea that Self is a structure and from the subjective point of view of Self, anything that is good will increase the complexity of the structure in a way that extends Self. [I apologize. This last is probably terse to the point of meaninglessness, and I've run out of time to write for the next few days due to travel.] >"A greater and more likely near-term danger is that a human individual or group >will utilize the superhuman cognitive power of such a machine for immoral >purposes (purposes that may appear to work for his own relatively narrow >context, but don't work well over a larger context of actors, interactions, or >time.) Our best defense in such a scenario will be the wide dispersal of such >intelligence amplification in the service of the broader population." > >I agree with this in principle, but would tend to emphasize moral maturity over >intellectual augmentation. > > Just a brief comment for now, perhaps more later. I see us achieving moral maturity by developing and practicing principles of cooperative interaction, which, as the context increases (in terms of the actors, the complexity of the interactions between them, and the quantity of interactions (time)), leads us to doing things that work, over ever-increasing contexts, and that, we will increasingly agree, is good. I apologize for rushing through this at this time. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Apr 2 02:05:34 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:05:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] T-Rex vs Bin-Laden In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050402020534.14914.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > How about cheap UAVs? the problem here is that training and paying > the > pilots is expensive. Or not. Especially if they're not aerial, and the pilots are paid more in patriotic feelings than in cash. See http://www.e-sheep.com/spiders/02/index.html From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Apr 2 02:19:25 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:19:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] One more reason to engineer ourselves: our bodies pollute Message-ID: <20050402021925.95817.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20050328/humanpollution.html Nice thing to bring up when chatting up environmentalists opposed to re-engineering any living thing, especially humans. "Oh, so you WANT nature to be fouled by our very presence? Even other animals and trees don't give off our levels of particles. Remember that, the next time you hug a tree: you're polluting it just by touching it. Of course, the next-gen humans we're designing would get rid of that unpleasant side-effect, but you wanted our research banned..." From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Apr 2 05:10:18 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:10:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050402051018.39146.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > This raises a very interesting prospect. Once the Pope's brain > activity has > halted, it is to be hoped that his feeding tube remains in place, and > that > every miracle of medical science is used -- as God is now known to > have > intended -- to keep his mindless body ticking over. Catholics would > then be > in an interesting situation: an unreplaceable supreme Pontiff whose > silence > is infallible and indefinitely protracted. And they would truly hear the voice of God: silence. I can't help but wonder - Christianity claims there is a better world beyond death for the good and faithful. Yet, when it comes time for said good and faithful to move on to that world - an occasion that should be cause for celebration - the overwhelming feeling is of remorse, and prayer that death be delayed yet longer. Is there a word that better describes this than "hypocrisy"? From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 2 05:29:25 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:29:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: <20050330162456.5553.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504020531.j325VS210911@tick.javien.com> > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] That T-rex > > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > > > > > > ... supposedly giving > > > rise to the dragon myths which amazingly seem to have > > > arisen independently in numerous cultures... > > > > > > The Avantguardian These are the two chapters in the bible, the lyrical King James version that describe the behemoth and the leviathan. What do they sound like to you? Chapter 40 ... 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. Chapter 41 1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? ... 12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. 13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle? 14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. 15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. 16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. 17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. 18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. 22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. 23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. 24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. 25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. 26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. 27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. 28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. 29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. 30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. 31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. 33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. 34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride. From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Apr 2 05:51:04 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:51:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] An interesting report on implants In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050402055104.14165.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Neil Halelamien wrote: > An interesting read: > > http://faculty.uwb.edu/ijcnn05/Special-Sessions/16_Berger_-_neural_prostheses_&_neuron-silicon_interface.htm ...am I reading this one correctly? > Implantable Biomimetic Electronics as Neural Prostheses for Lost > Cognitive Function It seems to translate as outright, no-holds-barred replacement of sections of the brain. (In this case, to replace abilities such as memory that have been lost - but certain other prosthetic devices, originally developed just to replace lost abilities, have already exceeded average human capability, and there seems to be no reason to believe that would not inevitably happen here too once things get started. This seems to qualify as "getting things started", under the hide-from-the-Luddites keyphrase of "biomimetic electronics".) From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Apr 2 05:54:08 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:54:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] toot toot In-Reply-To: <200504020531.j325VS210911@tick.javien.com> References: <20050330162456.5553.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200504020531.j325VS210911@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050401235052.01d9be80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:29 PM 4/1/2005 -0800, spike wrote: >These are the two chapters in the bible, the lyrical >King James version that describe the behemoth and the >leviathan. What do they sound like to you? > >Chapter 40 > >4 his nose pierceth through snares. A punk elephant. >Chapter 41 > >14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. >15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. >16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. >17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be >sundered. >18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of >the morning. >19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. >20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. >21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. >22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. Obviously one of the steam trains of Atlantis, hence the subsequent water imagery. Damien Broderick From scerir at libero.it Sat Apr 2 06:01:24 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 08:01:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? References: <200504010412.j314CT229029@tick.javien.com><001801c53683$3f2719f0$18b51b97@administxl09yj> <6.2.1.2.0.20050401154608.01e93828@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c53749$677ea320$c9bf1b97@administxl09yj> From: "Damien Broderick" > Catholics would then be > in an interesting situation: > an unreplaceable supreme Pontiff > whose silence is infallible > and indefinitely protracted. The Vaticanist Marco Politi reported that John Paul II has investigated retirement options. A study by Cardinal Vincenzo Fagiolo (he died in 2000), now in the Pope's personal archives, concluded that a pontiff must not resign, unless he is in a state of "amentia". http://www.repubblica.it/2005/b/sezioni/esteri/papa1/nodimis/nodimis.html (I think that, in case of "amentia", resignation should be automatic.) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 2 06:23:36 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:23:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] That T-rex In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050402062336.13059.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: >> > These are the two chapters in the bible, the lyrical > King James version that describe the behemoth and > the > leviathan. What do they sound like to you? > Heh. You know, when I first read those verses as a kid, I kind of reached the conclusion that the behemoth was a reference to a hippopotamus and the leviathan a crocodile, but now that you mention it, they DO sound like dinosaurs. Although the part of the leviathan breathing flames doesn't quite fit that either. *shrug* Who knows what Job or whoever wrote on his behalf had in mind. Maybe it was pure poetry, but it does sound like they were referencing something real that people in that era and region might encounter fairly commonly. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" :) The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 2 08:26:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:26:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for the Astronomy/Physics Ubergeeks In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050402082626.41870.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Just a quick question: Directional anisotropies aside, what is the average radiant flux density (i.e. watts/meter^2) of the CMB (cosmic microwave background)? Thanks and ciaou, The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Sat Apr 2 09:11:00 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:11:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmic dust! Message-ID: From: "spike" , Thu, 31 Mar 2005 >I thank Amara for showing how interesting is cosmic dust. You're very welcome, Spike. Sometime soon, I'll have my next set of simulation results to add to these Colored Spaghetti http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/spaghetti/index.html Cloud of the Jovian Dust Streams http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/warpedcloud/warpedcloud.html Trails of the Jovian Dust Streams http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/trail/trail.html My colleagues have discovered *Saturn* dust streams as well; there are Nature and Science publications that are imminently in print (if they have not be published already). >She managed to write a doctoral thesis on the topic and >make it compelling enough to make me read every word. well... a thesis is pretty thick reading. If anyone is interested look here: http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/thesis/index.html I'm practicing and improving my popular science skills. I will have a Sky and Telescope article sometime (this summer, I hope) about how Earth got its water. And after early May, when I complete the semester teaching astronomy to liberal art majors, I will have completed ~70 hours of general astronomy lectures. I've learned alot in the last year about how to present these topics to nonscience majors. >Check >this: > > >HUBBLE TELESCOPE SPIES COSMIC DUST BUNNIES >------------------------------------------ >Like dust bunnies that lurk in corners and under beds, surprisingly >complex loops and blobs of cosmic dust lie hidden in the giant >elliptical galaxy NGC 1316. This image made from data obtained with the >NASA Hubble Space Telescope reveals the dust lanes and star clusters of >this giant galaxy that give evidence that it was formed from a past >merger of two gas-rich galaxies. > > > http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/31hubble/ > Well no one here wondered why we hear so often in the astronomy news of galaxies colliding. It seems strange, no? Here is the explanation. Why Galaxies Collide and Stars Rarely Do Stars are extremely small compared to the distances between them - For example; Our sun is ~1.5 x 10^6 km wide but it is separated from the closest other star by about 4 light years = 38 trillion (=10^{12}) km. So the Sun is 27 million (=10^6) of its own diameters from its nearest neighbor. This is typical of stars are not inthe nuclear bulge of a galaxy, or inside of of star clusters. Now contrasting stars with the separation of galaxies using our own Milky Way galaxy as an example. The visible disk of the Milky Way is 100,000 light years in diameter. We have three satellite galaxies that are just one or two Milky Way diameters from us (in the Milky Way), which will eventually collide with us. The closest major spiral galaxy is M31, about 2.4 million light years away. Therefore the nearest large galaxy neighbor is ~24 of our Galaxy's diameters from us. And that does not consider that both galaxies have a much larger corona of dark matter. Galaxies in rich clusters are even closer together than the members of our poor Local Group. Thus the chances of galaxies colliding are far greater than the chances of stars in the disk of a galaxy colliding. -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race." -- H. G. Wells From amara at amara.com Sat Apr 2 10:35:39 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:35:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? Message-ID: Adrian Tymes : >the overwhelming feeling is of >remorse, and prayer that death be delayed yet longer. Is there a word >that better describes this than "hypocrisy"? Yes, there is a better word, 'fear'. I suggest this is a time to show a little kindness and compassion. Here (in Rome at least), the Pope is a symbol of something solid in a world of uncertainty, to nonCatholics as well. The sadness around me that I'm sensing is not only sadness for him but a fear about the uncertainties and changes in their own lives with the Pope's passing. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end." --Calvin From dirk at neopax.com Sat Apr 2 12:21:58 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:21:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Net Pics Message-ID: <424E8E66.6010506@neopax.com> For those who have not seen them before http://opte.prolexic.com/maps/ -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005 From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Apr 2 16:42:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 08:42:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050402164238.15515.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > I suggest this is a time to show a little kindness and compassion. It's always time to show a little kindness and compassion. But I wonder if a little cruelty and ridicule in addition might not get our point across effectively. > Here (in Rome at least), the Pope is a symbol of something solid in > a world of uncertainty, to nonCatholics as well. The sadness around > me that I'm sensing is not only sadness for him but a fear about the > uncertainties and changes in their own lives with the Pope's > passing. Whereas we have a symbol that constantly changes (improves): technology. It won't die unless humanity itself dies. From hal at finney.org Sat Apr 2 19:34:48 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:34:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for the Astronomy/Physics Ubergeeks Message-ID: <20050402193448.AC44457EEB@finney.org> The Avantguardian asks: > Directional anisotropies aside, what is the average > radiant flux density (i.e. watts/meter^2) of the CMB > (cosmic microwave background)? It's a little more complicated than it sounds. Because the CMB radiation is coming from all directions, it's as though we are immersed in a gas of photons. You can't derive power from this source like you could with sunlight, because in the case of sunlight you are essentially making use of the temperature difference between the sun and the CMB. CMB temperature is like the effective zero temperature of the universe. So although we can give an answer in Watts, this is not extractable power. In practical terms, this impacts the answer by making you focus on whether you mean the CMB to be coming from all directions; or from a hemisphere; or from a patch of the sky. CMB is black body radiation at 2.73 degrees Kelvin. Black body radiation has the nature that it does not matter how far away the emitter is. The power from the CMB is identical to what we would get if we were inside a sphere of any size which was held at that temperature. There is no "brighter" or "darker" when dealing with black body radiation. All that matters is the temperature and the angular size of the emitter. Black body power goes as the fourth power of the temperature. Received power will also be proportional to the angular size of the emitter. This means that we can use the sun as a starting point and correct it to get your answer. We will take the solar constant, the power received on earth from the sun, which is 1353 W/m^2. We will reduce it by the fourth power of the temperature ratio between the Sun and the CMB. The Sun's surface temperature is 5800 K and the CMB is 2.73 K. The ratio is 2125 and the 4th power of that is 2.04E13. Dividing the solar constant by that gives 6.64E-11 W/m^2 which is the power we would receive from a patch of CMB the same angular size as the sun. I found a reference saying that the sun's angular size is about .001% of the celestial hemisphere. If you want to know the power form the CMB of a hemisphere, like the CMB from the sky as seen on earth, we would therefore increase the previous result by a factor of 10^4 and get 6.64E-7 W/m^2. (Of course the radiation from earth would be far greater than that from the CMB because the earth is much warmer.) If you wanted the CMB power from the entire celestial sphere, what you would see from space, you would double this and get about 1.3E-6 W/m^2. Hal From dirk at neopax.com Sat Apr 2 19:28:49 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:28:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for the Astronomy/Physics Ubergeeks In-Reply-To: <20050402193448.AC44457EEB@finney.org> References: <20050402193448.AC44457EEB@finney.org> Message-ID: <424EF271.5090007@neopax.com> Hal Finney wrote: >I found a reference saying that the sun's angular size is about .001% of >the celestial hemisphere. If you want to know the power form the CMB of a >hemisphere, like the CMB from the sky as seen on earth, we would therefore >increase the previous result by a factor of 10^4 and get 6.64E-7 W/m^2. > > ...10^5 and get 6.64E-6 W/m^2 ie 6.64 uW/m^2 -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005 From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Apr 2 19:55:18 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:55:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050402135314.01e5fdb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:35 PM 4/2/2005 +0200, Amara wrote: >Here (in Rome at least), the Pope is a symbol of something solid in >a world of uncertainty, to nonCatholics as well. Well, maybe so. As was Stalin, back in the day. Still, it's hard to credit the rash of headlines reading like this: Feverish Pope Weakens as World Braces for His End World *braces*? Really? What does the braced world anticipate? Will the heavens open? Will the Antichrist appear? As a satirical web site put it so neatly in a list of the likely consequences: <22. Mankind scrambles to choose new leader of inflexible, sexually morbid institutional anachronism; heretofore anonymous bureaucrat will instantly be celebrated as world's holiest man as he travels to AIDS-stricken Africa to denounce the use of condoms.> Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Sat Apr 2 20:17:47 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 22:17:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? Message-ID: He's dead. Carry on, Damien. Amara From humania at t-online.de Sat Apr 2 20:37:34 2005 From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:37:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <424F028E.30707@t-online.de> Amara Graps schrieb: > He's dead. Carry on, Damien. > > Amara Damien gets my vote, too. Come on, all you transhuman cardinals . . . Hubert Cardinal Mania, Archbishop of and from Non-Territorial Pissings From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Apr 2 21:24:32 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 15:24:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Macroscale entanglement Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050402152150.01d77f50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Has this been mentioned here before? "Crucial Role of Quantum Entanglement in Bulk Properties of Solids" http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410138 Authors: Caslav Brukner, Vlatko Vedral, Anton Zeilinger Comments: 4 pages, 2 figures We demonstrate that the magnetic susceptibility of strongly alternating antiferromagnetic spin-1/2 chains is an entanglement witness. Specifically, magnetic susceptibility of copper nitrate (CN) measured in 1963 (Berger et al., Phys. Rev. 132, 1057 (1963)) cannot be described without presence of entanglement. A detailed analysis of the spin correlations in CN as obtained from neutron scattering experiments (Xu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4465 (2000)) provides microscopic support for this interpretation. We present a quantitative analysis resulting in the critical temperature of 5K in both, completely independent, experiments below which entanglement exists. an extract: "The usual arguments against seeing entanglement on macroscopic scales is that large objects contain large number of degrees of freedom that can interact with environment thus inducing decoherence that ultimately lead to a quantum-to-classical transition. Remarkably, macroscopic entanglement in solids, that is, entanglement in the thermodynamical limit of infinite large number of constituents of solids, was theoretically predicted to exist even at moderately high temperatures [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Recently, it was demonstrated that entanglement can even affect macroscopic thermodynamical properties of solids [13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20], such as its magnetic susceptibility or heat capacity, albeit at very low temperature (few milikelvin) and only for a special material system - the insulating magnetic salt LiHoxY1?|xF4 [20]. This extraordinary result shows that entanglement can have significant macroscopic effects. Here ... we analyse experimental results of neutron scattering measurement of CN obtained in 2000 [2] and show that they provide, for the first time, a direct experimental demonstration of macroscopic entanglement in solids." From neptune at superlink.net Sat Apr 2 21:26:33 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:26:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tsunami theory of flood disaster Message-ID: <009301c537ca$a578b540$92893cd1@pavilion> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4397679.stm From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Apr 2 21:36:37 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:36:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) What's Going On? Message-ID: <424F1065.6020508@mindspring.com> The New York Times March 29, 2005 OP-ED COLUMNIST What's Going On? By PAUL KRUGMAN Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself. We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous. But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence. Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America. One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards. Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right. Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge's order that she remain there. And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law. The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom. But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism. Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs. And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or "refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and intimidation. But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer. We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission. What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case is so timid that it's hard to be sure. The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk. America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here. E-mail: krugman at nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29krugman.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1112112128-MdzbQxkWmcdcO5UMpTrYYQ -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 8189 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2014 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Apr 2 21:37:48 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:37:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) When Sentiment and Fear Trump Reason and Reality Message-ID: <424F10AC.2060809@mindspring.com> The New York Times March 29, 2005 COMMENTARY When Sentiment and Fear Trump Reason and Reality By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS I have recently begun to wonder whether I am completely out of touch with the mainstream, and if so, what that implies. When I was a young student it became clear to me that the remarkable success of the scientific method, which changed the world beyond belief in the four centuries since Galileo, made the power and efficacy of that method evident. Moreover, scientific ideas are not only powerful but so beautiful that they are on par with the most spectacular legacies of civilization in art, architecture, literature, music and philosophy. This is what makes the current times so disconcerting. We like to think that spectacular intellectual developments bring progress, so that future generations may benefit from what has come before. But this is often an illusion. I remember the shock wave generated four years ago when the Taliban government in Afghanistan destroyed thousands of statues, including two priceless and awe-inspiring archaeological artifacts, the world's largest standing statues of Buddha, created almost 2,000 years ago. The Taliban claimed that Islamic law prohibited the creation of idolatrous images of human faces that might be used for worship. I remember sharing the feeling of incredible sadness to know that the world had forever lost a precious part of its intellectual heritage. It was difficult to believe that in the 21st century such a return to the dark ages could happen anywhere. Those images came to mind again as I followed recent news of incidents in the United States in which fundamentalist dogma and its fear of the intellectual progress that comes from understanding nature has trumped the scientific method. These actions attack intellectual pillars of our civilization that are every bit as real as monumental statues of Buddha. The "reality-based community," as one White House insider so poetically referred to it recently, is losing the fight for hearts and minds throughout the country to a well-orchestrated marketing program that plays on sentiment and fear. The open intrusion of religious dogma into the highest levels of government is stunning. Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court speaks of "the fact that government derives its authority from God" (during oral arguments before the court about displays of the Ten Commandments) while the president of the United States has argued that evolution is a theory not a fact. The effort to blur the huge distinction between faith and science, between empirically falsifiable facts and beliefs, was on display again this month in two very different contexts. Congressional leaders ignored the conclusions of the doctors who have actually examined Terri Schiavo and judges who have listened to the evidence. Senator Bill Frist, previously a heart surgeon who must have once known better, shunned the conclusions of these doctors and, without ever having examined Ms. Schiavo himself, stated his "belief" that she was not in a vegetative state. Meanwhile, on a much less emotionally tragic but no less intellectually puzzling front, the Templeton Foundation continued with its program to sponsor the notion that science can somehow ultimately reveal the existence of God by once again awarding its annual Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion not to a theologian, but to a physicist. Dr. Charles Townes, the winner, is a Nobel laureate whose scientific work has been of impeccable distinction; his prime contribution to religion appears to be his proudly proclaiming his belief in God as revealed through the beauty of nature. I confess that my immediate reaction was the same as it has been to all of Templeton's recent awards to scientists. If this is the most significant progress in religious thought, beating out the work of distinguished theologians throughout the world, then it is a sad reflection on such progress. Of course, I rather believe that it reflects on the foundation's misguided goals and methods. Nature's beauty inspires religious fervor in some scientists. For others, like the Nobel laureate Dr. Steven Weinberg, it merely reinforces their belief that God is irrelevant. The point here, which should be obvious, is that science and religion are separate entities: science is a predictive discipline based on empirically falsifiable facts; religion is a hopeful discipline based on inner faith. Theologians as ancient as St. Augustine and Moses Maimonides recognized that science, not religion, was the appropriate and reliable method to try to understand the physical world. Yet it is precisely this ancient wisdom that is now under attack. Foes of evolution and the Big Bang in this country do not operate with the direct and brutal actions of the Taliban. They have marketing skills. Openly condemning evolution as blasphemous might play well to the fundamentalist true believers, but it wouldn't play well in the heartland, which is the real target. Thus the spurious argument is created that evolution isn't good science. This "fact" is established by fiat. The Discovery Institute in Seattle supports the work of several Ph.D.'s who then write books (and op-ed articles) decrying the fallacy of evolution. They don't write scientific articles, however, because the claims they make - either that cellular structures are too complex to have evolved or that evolution itself is improbable - have either failed to stand up to detailed scrutiny or involve no falsifiable predictions. What is being obscured in this manufactured debate is that the underlying intent has little to do with evolution, or the age of the earth. The fundamentalist attack is on the basic premise that physical phenomena have physical causes that can be revealed by use of the scientific method. Because science does not explicitly incorporate a deity in its considerations, some fundamentalists believe that it undermines our moral order, just as the Buddha statues presented a threat to the fundamentalist Islamic moral order. The pillar of our humanity that is most under attack is our remarkable ability to understand nature. We claim that in places like Afghanistan the enemies of truth are the enemies of freedom and democracy. If the scientific method is out of the mainstream in our country it is time to take a stronger stand against the effort to undermine empirical reality in favor of dogma. Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss is chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University. His new book, "Hiding in the Mirror," will appear this fall. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?pagewanted=1&tntget=2005/03/29/science/29comm.html&tntemail1&oref=login -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoprinter.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1810 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 973 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Apr 2 21:52:32 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:52:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Net Pics References: <424E8E66.6010506@neopax.com> Message-ID: <002f01c537ce$499b91d0$1db71218@Nano> Do you know these guys? I stretched out the movie (movie4) from their website, that they said is too short, to a longer 12 seconds, if they want it. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Dirk Bruere To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 4:21 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Net Pics For those who have not seen them before http://opte.prolexic.com/maps/ -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Apr 2 22:04:06 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 15:04:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church Message-ID: <424F16D6.9050603@mindspring.com> Malachy's Prophecies - The Last 10 Popes 1. The Burning Fire. PIUS X. 1903-1914. This Pope showed a burning passion for spiritual renewal in the Church. 2. Religion Laid Waste. BENEDICT XV. 1914-1922. During this Pope's reign saw Communism move into Russia where religious life was laid waste, and World War I with the death of millions of Christians who were carnage in Flanders Field and elsewhere. 3. Unshaken Faith. PIUS XI. 1922-1939. This Pope faced tremendous pressure from fascist and sinister powers in Germany and Italy, but he was an outspoken critic of Communism and Fascism which enraged Hitler. 4. An Angelic Shepherd. PIUS XII. 1939-1958. This Pope had an affinity for the spiritual world and received visions which have not been made public. Peter Bander says Pius XII "has emerged as one of the great Popes of all time," and he "was in the truest sense of the word an Angelic Pastor to the flock..." 5. Pastor and Mariner. JOHN XXIII. 1958-1963. John was a pastor to the world, much beloved, and the Patriarch of Venice. The connection to "mariner" is thus remarkable. 6. Flower of Flowers. PAUL VI. 1963-1978. Paul's coat-of-arms depicts three fleurs-de-lis, corresponding to Malachay's prophecy. His coat of arms included three fleurs-de-lis (iris blossoms). 7. Of the Half Moon. JOHN PAUL I. 1978-1978. John Paul I was elected Pope on August 26, 1978, when there was a half moon. He reigned 33 days, that is, about one month, when he died, although many think he was murdered. He was the 109th Pope - is "De Medietate Lunae" (Of the Half Moon). The corresponding pope was John Paul I (1978-78), who was born in the diocese of Belluno (beautiful moon) and was baptized Albino Luciani (white light). He became pope on August 26, 1978, when the moon appeared exactly half full. It was in its waning phase. He died the following month, soon after an eclipse of the moon. 8. The Labor of the Son. JOHN PAUL II. 1978-Present. John Paul II is the most traveled Pope in history. He has circled the globe numerous times, preaching to huge audiences everywhere he goes. Even though he was once shot, he has not seemed to slow down. He has recently written a book which has enjoyed a large circulation. Like the sun which never ceases to labor and provides light daily, this Pope has been incessant. John Paul II was born on May 18, 1920. On that date in the morning there was a near total eclipse of the sun over Europe. Malachy's Prophecy - The 110th Pope is "De Labore Solis" (Of the Solar Eclipse, or, From the Toil of the Sun). The corresponding pope is John Paul II (1978-present). John Paul II was born on May 8, 1920 during an eclipse of the sun. Like the sun he came out of the East (Poland). Like the sun he has visited countries all around the globe while doing his work (he is the most-traveled pope in history). 9. The Glory of the Olive. The Order of St. Benedict has said this Pope will come from their order. It is interesting that Jesus gave his apocalyptic prophecy about the end of time from the Mount of Olives. This Pope will reign during the beginning of the tribulation Jesus spoke of. The 111th prophesy is "Gloria Olivae" (The Glory of the Olive). The Order of Saint Benedict has claimed that this pope will come from their ranks. Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its fight against evil. 10. PETER THE ROMAN - This final Pope will likely be Satan, taking the form of a man named Peter who will gain a worldwide allegiance and adoration. He will be the final antichrist which prophecy students have long foretold. If it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived. The 112th prophesy states: "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End." Malachy's final words: In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city (Rome, the seat of the Vatican) will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. +++++++++++++++++++++ This list is available in many locations. The above is an extraction from: < http://www.crystalinks.com/papalprophecies.html > -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Apr 2 22:08:27 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 15:08:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Biogenic Potentials - Engineering Natural Machines Message-ID: <424F17DB.1020909@mindspring.com> From: Rob Kritkausky To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:53:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Biogenic Potentials - Engineering Natural Machines I thought this might of interest, as some of earth's ancient monuments, as well as many rocks on Mars have this same varnish. (excerpt from e-mail written to the research group working here) It would seem the more prodding one does in regards to this interesting location, the more anomalies one finds. While researching the area's geology, particularly the dark varnish found on the local rocks, I found some studies that had actually been done using actual rocks from this location. Rock samples were tested from around the globe and 74 different forms of oxidizing bacteria were identified. All were Gram-positive, with the exception coming from a sample taken from a location in North Phoenix called Deem Hills (our site) and Painted Rock. Now what I found to be even more interesting, is the fact that the bacteria found happens to be Pedomicrobium. This Gram- Negative bacteria has recently been the subject of some interesting studies' which include speculation on whether it is a terrestrial or extraterrestrial life-form < http://www.andrewgray.com/essays/lifeinss.htm > as well as its strange interaction with gold, which almost seems to be a form of alchemy, but it's actually just an unexplained ability to filter water and extract gold from it. < http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/4wd/Over44.htm > Deem Hills samples were unusual in both their content and quantity for both Gram-negative and Gram Positive Bacteria. While the exact mechanism for the production of Rock varnish is still unknown, an interesting view of its structure and content is presented. We have a very thin layered substrate that incorporates areas and layers of a biogenic material that can react in an interesting way with the manganese found in the varnish (up to 20% of its content). Manganese is a transition metal with nine valence states (most on the periodic table) and an interesting ability to cooperate with some bacteria as they oxidize a host. The Mn is able to accept extra electrons from the bacteria, transforming it into the variant Mn4, which is insoluble. It can even shed the electron via other chemical reactions. Also this Pedomicrobium, with its specific attraction to gold, would seem consistent with properties we might attempt to engineer into a lifeform's DNA. It is at this point where one can see some interesting similarities with some engineered human technology, which is the circuit board/computer chip......complete with a memory mechanism(0 -1 byte set)(MN2, MN4) http://www.psi.edu/~rperry/perry/Biomarkers.pdf As we enter the age of Nanotechnology and genetic engineering, I find myself wondering if our technology will evolve to a point where we will utilize/create certain natural potentials similar to the scenario above, as we strive to increase the control we have of our environment. Regards, Rob Kritkausky "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'Hmmm, That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992) www.worldblend.net -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sat Apr 2 22:11:55 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:11:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? Message-ID: <20050402221155.15157.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> Another way to ask ben's question [1] is: if the common universe outside our brains is a dynamic model within a computer, then how do we know whether or not that computer is an *organic* computer like a brain? Suppose (as I do) that all brains are organic computers that build models of universes (such as dreamscapes) [2], and suppose that our universe could be a model in a computer, then it seems to follow that the computer that is modeling our universe could be an organic computer like a brain. Hmm...??? Well, I do believe we can know that there is a modal-logic model wherein all the statement in that argument are true and thus are at least logically consistent. Here are those statements in propositional modal logic: 1. b -> []c 2. u -> <>c 3. u -> <>b Fleshed out in words: 1. If there is a brain (b), then necessarily there is a computer (c). 2. If there is a universe (u), then possibly there is a computer (c). 3. If there is a universe (u), then possibly there is a brain (b). A corresponding modal-logic model is the ordered triple where W = {1,2,3} a set of worlds or states; R = { (1,2), (3,1), (3,2) } a set of ordered pairs defining accessibility relations on W wherein 1 accesses 2, and 3 accesses 1 and 2; and I is an interpretation function mapping the set of propositional statements {b,c,u} onto W such that I(b) = 1, I(c) = 2, and I(u) = 3 and where b = "there is a brain," c = "there is a computer," and u = "there is a universe." In that model (which is more easily sketched on paper), the valuation function V mapping the set of our propositional statements {b,c,u} onto the set of truth values {0,1} (where 0 = false and 1 = true) in accord with the definitions of the modal operators proves that: 1. V(b -> []c) = 1 2. V(u -> <>c) = 1 3. V(u -> <>b) = 1 So there exists a model for the statements in the argument presented above. But that does not prove that the argument is sound in reality, although it's at least intuitively plausible (at least to me) and its members are logically consistent. However, Mike's point seems to be that there are knowable constrains defining the limits of possible brains that ostensibly rule out our universe being a model within some super brain (ie, Yudkowskian arguments). [3] However, and with only cursory consideration of this topic, I'd posit if that's so, then brains are not the same as computers (which contradicts my initial assumption and which I'm thus inclined to reject). ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "Since proofs need premises, it is impossible to prove anything unless some things are accepted without proof." Bertrand Russell [1] http://lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013883.html [2] http://iangoddard.net/paranorm.htm [3] http://lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013942.html __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Apr 2 22:14:10 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 15:14:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church Message-ID: <424F1932.3000803@mindspring.com> This is a truly stunning error - John Paul II is 'ex labore solis' - from the labour of the *sun*, which I've always taken to be a reference to the fact that he was from eastern Europe, as 'the labour of the sun' would be a perfectly acceptable classical Latin metaphor for 'where the sun rises'. On 2 Apr 2005, at 14:44, Loren Coleman wrote: > 8. The Labor of the Son. JOHN PAUL II. -- Joe McNally -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From emerson at singinst.org Sat Apr 2 22:50:27 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:50:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] New SIAI Butttons & Banners Message-ID: <200504022250.j32MoS206218@tick.javien.com> http://www.singinst.org/action/banners.html I'd be extremely appreciative if everyone with an appropriate site or blog could put up an SIAI button or banner, linking to the below URL. Best, ~~~ Tyler Emerson Executive Director Singularity Institute P.O. Box 50182 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650.353.6063 emerson at singinst.org http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Apr 2 23:03:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 15:03:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050402230307.37354.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Of course, these prophesies conflict with the Fatima prophesies. The third Fatima prophesy was that the last pope would come from across the sea, so this "Peter the Roma" couldn't be roman.... of course Peter the Roman sounds like St. Peter, who some say was not actually the apostle Simon Peter, but Simon Magus, a diabolical santanic magician from Syria who went to Rome and founded the Roman church with false testament, Jesus having actually left the leadership of the church to his brother James... Of course Malachai's claims also mean that Satan is now walking the earth, most likely. Fun fun. That is the problem with prophesies, though, isn't it? You don't know whether they are true until after they happen or not... and it is always easy to match vague statements like "The Labor of the Son" to a solar eclipse when I'll bet that 100% of the people who would believe it would never check whether there was actually an eclipse on that day.... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sat Apr 2 23:38:08 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:38:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050402230307.37354.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050402230307.37354.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424F2CE0.3080706@humanenhancement.com> According to the Vatican, the third Fatima prophecy dealt with the attempted assassination of JP2; http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/05/13/pope.fatima.02/ , not about the "last Pope" (although it's possible there's more to it the Vatican didn't reveal, but one wonders how the rest of it might have leaked out). The use of "son" rather than the (correct) sun on the crystalinks.com page is just a mistake on their part. In other pages on the subject (this sort of bullcrap fascinates me) they use "sun" and trace it back to a solar eclipse on the day JP2 was born. (Which there apparently was, if we are to believe NASA and the official Vatican biography; http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEcat/SE1901-2000.html , http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/santopadre_biografie/giovanni_paolo_ii_biografia_breve_en.html , although it doesn't appear that the eclipse was visible in Cracow, but you know how little details like that can't get in the way of a good prophecy!). Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ Mike Lorrey wrote: >Of course, these prophesies conflict with the Fatima prophesies. The >third Fatima prophesy was that the last pope would come from across the >sea, so this "Peter the Roma" couldn't be roman.... of course Peter the >Roman sounds like St. Peter, who some say was not actually the apostle >Simon Peter, but Simon Magus, a diabolical santanic magician from Syria >who went to Rome and founded the Roman church with false testament, >Jesus having actually left the leadership of the church to his brother >James... > >Of course Malachai's claims also mean that Satan is now walking the >earth, most likely. Fun fun. > >That is the problem with prophesies, though, isn't it? You don't know >whether they are true until after they happen or not... and it is >always easy to match vague statements like "The Labor of the Son" to a >solar eclipse when I'll bet that 100% of the people who would believe >it would never check whether there was actually an eclipse on that >day.... > > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) >Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 3 03:24:44 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:24:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for the Astronomy/Physics Ubergeeks In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050403032444.58058.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > It's a little more complicated than it sounds. > Because the CMB radiation > is coming from all directions, it's as though we are > immersed in a gas > of photons. You can't derive power from this source > like you could > with sunlight, because in the case of sunlight you > are essentially > making use of the temperature difference between the > sun and the CMB. This assumes I wish to extract the power to do work. I have other plans in mind for it. As for your answer, thanks . . . it was admirably conscise. :) The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From megao at sasktel.net Sun Apr 3 05:17:15 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:17:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: <20050402221155.15157.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050402221155.15157.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424F7C5B.8070603@sasktel.net> The question is how does a subroutine determine the nature of the program it is a part of. If the subroutine could send out a "virus" which analyses other portions of the program and compresses its findings into messages sent back to its source? If quantum entangement can be harnessed, perhaps information entangled by matter within reach in the solar system can yield information? Perhaps the output from the sun has information entangled to matter at far off locations? A solar dyson shell which captures the total output of the sun might capture the energy and extract entangled information as a by-product? It is far harder to analyse the elephant if you are the flea. However a broadly distributed network of fleas stand a better chance. > > > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From eugen at leitl.org Sun Apr 3 08:36:52 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:36:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <424F1932.3000803@mindspring.com> References: <424F1932.3000803@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20050403083652.GT24702@leitl.org> Natasha, the self-policing of the list doesn't work. Moderation is out of question, but a system of warning, temporary suspensions from the list and permanent bans probably would work. If there are no other volunteers, I'm willing to do the job. On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:14:10PM -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > This is a truly stunning error - John Paul II is 'ex labore solis' - > from the labour of the *sun*, which I've always taken to be a reference > to the fact that he was from eastern Europe, as 'the labour of the sun' > would be a perfectly acceptable classical Latin metaphor for 'where the > sun rises'. > > On 2 Apr 2005, at 14:44, Loren Coleman wrote: > > >8. The Labor of the Son. JOHN PAUL II. > > -- > Joe McNally > > > > -- > "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank > Rice > > > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * > U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program > ------------ > Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List > TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia > veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 3 10:29:35 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 03:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050403102935.13047.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > Moderation is out of question, but a system of > warning, temporary suspensions > from the list and permanent bans probably would > work. Are you going to burn books for the junior anti-sex league next, Eugen? Come on, you could tell it was about religion just by looking at the subject header. If posts about religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and esoterica bothers you so much, don't read them. I find little that goes by on this list to be that offensive. Some posts are more interesting than others but I have never been so intolerant to allow the opinion or anecdote of another person offend me. Unless of course it were directly ad-hominem but even then I would probably blow it off. The mystics were looking for immortality long before young whippersnappers dreamt of uploading their consciousness from their corpsicles into the distributed AI of a nanobot swarm. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Sun Apr 3 10:53:50 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir at libero.it) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:53:50 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa Message-ID: > Come on, all you transhuman cardinals . . . When a Pope dies, also cardimals are off. Spoil system. > Hubert Cardinal Mania, improbable. ____________________________________________________________ Navighi a 2 MEGA e i primi 3 mesi sono GRATIS. Scegli Libero Adsl Flat senza limiti su http://www.libero.it From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Apr 3 13:59:59 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:59:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] New SIAI Butttons & Banners In-Reply-To: <200504022250.j32MoS206218@tick.javien.com> References: <200504022250.j32MoS206218@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050403085516.042ee0f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Tyler wrote: >http://www.singinst.org/action/banners.html > >I'd be extremely appreciative if everyone with an appropriate site or >blog could put up an SIAI button or banner, linking to the below URL. Sure, anywhere I can. Natasha >Best, > >~~~ >Tyler Emerson >Executive Director >Singularity Institute >P.O. Box 50182 >Palo Alto, CA 94303 >Phone: 650.353.6063 >emerson at singinst.org >http://www.singinst.org/ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgc at cox.net Sun Apr 3 14:38:21 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 10:38:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Photonics In-Reply-To: <20050401051633.658.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050401051633.658.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424FFFDD.20604@cox.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: >A few years ago we were reading articles on this list of an >IBM-Northwestern U project demonstrating quantum well photonic >circuits, in which the researchers were stating that their circuits >would be 1000 times faster and 1000 times smaller than electronic >circuits. What happened to those claims? > > > I just did a Google toe find those articles. Yes, I did recall them correctly. The articles you refer to conflated three distinct technologies. In retrospect, this was a deliberate strategy to get in on the dot.com financial boom. Here is what I found: In 1998, the technology for manipulating photons was still mostly at the level of discrete components. This included WDM multiplexers and demultiplexers, EDFAs, and lasers. at the time, any approach using lithographic techniques to manipulate photons promised to reduce the cost of photon manipulation by orders of magnitude. Yes, the researchers were finding ways to use quantum coupling for multiplexing and demultiplexing. However, the inputs and outputs were still "photon wires," and the operating wavelength was 850nm, so the "photon wires" were in fact at least 850nm in diameter. The best that could possibly be hoped for was to reduce the mux and de-mux to zero, which would still leave the "photon wires" as the dimensional constraint. Even with 32 discrete signals per wire, this approach was still "bigger" than the dimensions of a purely electronic circuit. In the event, quantum coupling of photonic wires never actually became viable, The closest we ever got to a cost-effective replacement for discrete optical components was the AWG (array waveguide.) AWGs are huge by comparison to electronic circuits, for obvious reasons. Quantum wells are still being investigated, but only in the electronic domain, not (as far as I can tell) in the optical domain. On a personal note, after spending nearly 30 years on the electronic side of telecommunications, I shifted to core routing in 2000 and spent four years pursuing this dream. From 2000 to 2004, I worked with two core router startups. We were attempting to take advantage of just such technologies as you describe, but at one remove: if photonics makes long-haul circuits cheaper, then surely the industry will be in desperate need of better/cheaper/faster scalable core routers. In the event, the less-radical discrete techniques proved more than adequate to decrease the cost of long-haul bandwidth to the point that it is now a "free"commodity, Telecoms costs are now driven by the last mile rather than by the long-haul cost. The last mile, in turn, is driven by regulatory constraints. During the period from 1995 to 2005, the technology has increased the capacity of an individual long-haul fiber from about 200Mbps to about 6.4Tbps. This is a factor of 16000, which is a whole heck of a lot faster than Moore's law. The world now has a gross overcapacity of long-haul fiber. Instead of digging new trenches or laying new undersea cable, the long-haul providers can add new capacity by "merely" deploying new multiplexers to increase the capacity of existing fiber. Here is the conflation: the following statements are true: 1)new techniques involving quantum wells can reduce the cost of photonic manipulations by orders of magnitude 2) the quantum resonators are electronic. 3) quantum-well electronics has the potential to supersede coventional electronics and reduce the power and increase the speed by a factor of 1000. 4) lithographic photonics has the potential to supersede conventional photonics and reduce the power and increase the speed by a factor of 1000. Each statement was true (or at least defensible) in 1998. However, The statements have essentially nothing to do with each other. The photonic components are still two or three orders of magnitude larger than the electronic components. From humania at t-online.de Sun Apr 3 15:39:29 2005 From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:39:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42500E31.2050703@t-online.de> scerir at libero.it schrieb: >>Come on, all you transhuman cardinals . . . > > > When a Pope dies, also cardimals are off. Spoil system. > > >>Hubert Cardinal Mania, > > > improbable. Since we belong to the *first* transhuman generation, we are all cardinals, no? With the power of my self-appointed secular nopeship (nope = non pope) I hereby appoint you as Scerir Transhuman Cardinal of all Italian Lemon Groves, if you promise to watch out that no territorial pissings take place there anymore (building fences, chasing people away), since I regard territorial claims as one of the major sources for the incompetence of humans to transcend their animal heritage. As long as we are not able to leave the annoying habit of using guns to enforce territorial pissings, behind us, we still are a long way from the capacities of true human behaviour, let alone transhuman behaviour. Humania, Transhuman Cardinal and Archbishop of Non-Territorial Open-Source-Potato-Fields From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Apr 3 16:37:40 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:37:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: <20050402221155.15157.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050402221155.15157.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e05040309371f06a1d6@mail.gmail.com> On Apr 2, 2005 11:11 PM, Ian Goddard wrote: > Another way to ask ben's question [1] is: if the > common universe outside our brains is a dynamic model > within a computer, then how do we know whether or not > that computer is an *organic* computer like a brain? Unlikely. Our universe exhibits the ability to run long chains of serial computation quickly and with high precision; this is something that organic brains are notoriously bad at. - Russell From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 01:37:27 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404013727.75675.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: > > > Another way to ask ben's question [1] is: if the > > common universe outside our brains is a dynamic > > model within a computer, then how do we know > > whether or not that computer is an *organic* > > computer like a brain? > > Unlikely. Our universe exhibits the ability to run > long chains of serial computation quickly and with > high precision; this is something that organic > brains are notoriously bad at. That certainly holds for organic brains as they evolved under Earth-defined circumstances. But since the question at hand entails consideration of some brain that came to be under unknown circumstances, I'm not so sure we can place Earth-defined limits on such a hypothetical brain. My meta-sense here is that there may be no way we can rule in or out the extrapolations explored here regarding the Simulation Argument (which posits that the universe is a computer-generated simulation). So my underlying argument tends to be that we cannot rule out ben's conjecture, as was done. Such an undecidable state of affairs might be inherent in formulating hypotheses about what the whole universe is. Is the universe a simulation? Is it a simulation of type A or B or ... ? Did it arise spontaneously? Was it created? If so, by who? And who or what created such a creator? .... I think it's reasonable to assume that it may be the case that we simply cannot know exactly what the whole universe is, at least so long as we cannot step outside it. And yet if we could step outside the universe, then where are we and what's the nature of that place? ... ~Ian __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 02:01:26 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 03:01:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: <20050404013727.75675.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050404013727.75675.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e05040319013376d353@mail.gmail.com> On Apr 4, 2005 2:37 AM, Ian Goddard wrote: > That certainly holds for organic brains as they > evolved under Earth-defined circumstances. But since > the question at hand entails consideration of some > brain that came to be under unknown circumstances, I'm > not so sure we can place Earth-defined limits on such > a hypothetical brain. Well, you did say _organic_ brain, which implies similarities in structure, operation and therefore presumably limitations to our own brains. Now if the conjecture is that we're in a simulation in some computational system with large but unspecified capabilities, then it is certainly true that we have no proof either way. - Russell From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 04:11:21 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 21:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404041122.63409.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Ian Goddard wrote: > --- Russell Wallace wrote: > > > Ian Goddard wrote: > > > > > Another way to ask ben's question [1] is: if the > > > common universe outside our brains is a dynamic > > > model within a computer, then how do we know > > > whether or not that computer is an *organic* > > > computer like a brain? > > > > Unlikely. Our universe exhibits the ability to run > > long chains of serial computation quickly and with > > high precision; this is something that organic > > brains are notoriously bad at. > > > That certainly holds for organic brains as they > evolved under Earth-defined circumstances. But since > the question at hand entails consideration of some > brain that came to be under unknown circumstances, I'm > not so sure we can place Earth-defined limits on such > a hypothetical brain. > > My meta-sense here is that there may be no way we can > rule in or out the extrapolations explored here > regarding the Simulation Argument (which posits that > the universe is a computer-generated simulation). So > my underlying argument tends to be that we cannot rule > out ben's conjecture, as was done. The real problem with your proposition is that Yudkowskian logic demonstrates that super-human intelligence is not a survival advantage under darwinian evolution, ergo the superhuman intellect you posit is imagining the universe could not have been naturally evolved. If the universe is running on any sort of computer, I would imagine that it most likely is running on some form of black hole computer. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From alex at ramonsky.com Mon Apr 4 06:58:44 2005 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 07:58:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] toot toot References: <20050330162456.5553.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200504020531.j325VS210911@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050401235052.01d9be80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4250E5A4.4020400@ramonsky.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:29 PM 4/1/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > > >> Chapter 41 >> >> 14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round >> about. >> 15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. >> 16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. >> 17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they >> cannot be >> sundered. >> 18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the >> eyelids of >> the morning. >> 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. >> 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. >> 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. >> 22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy >> before him. > > > Obviously one of the steam trains of Atlantis, hence the subsequent > water imagery. Sounds like someone snorting amphetamines with curry powder to me? (Obviously the 'scales' are used to weigh it out). But WTF are 'neesings'? Have we all got some? AR ************************** From eugen at leitl.org Mon Apr 4 09:37:08 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:37:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e05040309371f06a1d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050402221155.15157.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e05040309371f06a1d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050404093707.GL24702@leitl.org> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 05:37:40PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Unlikely. Our universe exhibits the ability to run long chains of > serial computation quickly and with high precision; this is something > that organic brains are notoriously bad at. Low error rate, speed, power efficiency: pick two. Biological systems (which have their large legacy baggage) do so dramatically better than any current artificial systems that a generic comparison is laughable. The fitness function of predator/prey in a limited resource environment doesn't take kindly to brittle, nonrealtime systems with a very large power envelope. There has been no evolutionary drive to evolve systems capable of doing cryptography -- pattern recognition and molecular diversity has been more than adequate for the task. Computers don't get eaten nor do they starve -- yet. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Apr 4 10:28:42 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:28:42 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050403102935.13047.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050403102935.13047.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050404102842.GP24702@leitl.org> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:29:35AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Moderation is out of question, but a system of > > warning, temporary suspensions > > from the list and permanent bans probably would > > work. > > Are you going to burn books for the junior anti-sex > league next, Eugen? Come on, you could tell it was I have no idea what a junior anti-sex league is. Please discuss junior anti-sex leagues somewhere else, preferrably offlist. This list has a focus. It's not a chitchat channel about the latest Lakers game results, the weather, pet grooming, or car tuning. (I know it might come as shock to some people here). Empirically, such lists no longer work by self policing. Can we have a decision, whether we will introduce a policy enforcement here? > about religion just by looking at the subject header. Nobody here uses descriptive page headers, in case you didn't notice. > If posts about religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and > esoterica bothers you so much, don't read them. I find If email bothers you, disconnect your house from the power grid. > little that goes by on this list to be that offensive. > Some posts are more interesting than others but I have > never been so intolerant to allow the opinion or > anecdote of another person offend me. Unless of course We have different standards, obviously. Question is, does the rest of the list agree with the state of the list? > it were directly ad-hominem but even then I would > probably blow it off. The mystics were looking for > immortality long before young whippersnappers dreamt > of uploading their consciousness from their corpsicles > into the distributed AI of a nanobot swarm. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 14:18:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] rad-hardened space-rated supercomputers Message-ID: <20050404141830.72343.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.maxwell.com/go/scs750a.html Nice board. Triple redundant PowerPC chips, 1000x faster than space-probe computer systems currently in use, rated at 1 error in 300 years. Need a passel of these puppies for your next bobble-ship design. Maxwell makes some other fun products too, particularly 2700 Farad ultracapacitors (nice for hybrid/fuelcell vehicles) using buckyball coated electrodes to create fractal surface geometries. These capacitors have a significant fraction of the storage capacity of batteries and can charge/discharge in seconds or minutes rather than hours without damage. Makes me wanna go out and break the land speed electric car record. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From bret at bonfireproductions.com Mon Apr 4 17:38:46 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:38:46 -0400 Subject: Eclipse. (Re: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Malachy's Prophecies) In-Reply-To: <20050402230307.37354.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050402230307.37354.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: With a position of 50? 4' N and 19? 57' E, and using data from Sky Catalog 2000, I show the Sun at RA 3h 38.8m DEC +19? 29' and the Moon at RA 3h 41.4m DEC+17? 46' - on May 19th, 1920, at approximately 10a. Assuming the roundest numbers possible, and that I don't know what I'm doing, that yields roughly a one-third overlap. Given however that you prefaced your remark with "would believe it", I am providing this data ad hoc and not in support of any prophetic pre-determinism. Cheers! ]3 > I'll bet that 100% of the people who would believe > it would never check whether there was actually an eclipse on that > day.... > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1716 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 18:48:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Eclipse. (Re: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Malachy's Prophecies) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404184812.72870.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> So the next question is to ask whether JP2 happened to just be born on that day, or actually during the eclipse. I believe this should, according to the rules of portents and omens I've read about, be of utmost importance, kinda like the difference between being JFK or just another idiot in Dealy Plaza on the day JFK got whacked. Another implication of a one third overlap, though, is indicative of bad news, as converting the Sun into any sort of crescent at its peak could be taken by the appropriate witch-hunters to be a sign of the devil... --- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > With a position of 50? 4' N and 19? 57' E, and using data from Sky > Catalog 2000, > I show the Sun at RA 3h 38.8m DEC +19? 29' and the Moon at RA 3h > 41.4m DEC+17? 46' > > - on May 19th, 1920, at approximately 10a. > > > Assuming the roundest numbers possible, and that I don't know what > I'm doing, that yields roughly a one-third overlap. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From scerir at libero.it Mon Apr 4 21:15:33 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:15:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Macroscale entanglement References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050402152150.01d77f50@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c5395b$708ea190$86ba1b97@administxl09yj> Damien asked: > Has this been mentioned here before? > "Crucial Role of Quantum Entanglement > in Bulk Properties of Solids" > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410138 This is a new (but not well established) field, sometimes called "entanglo-dynamics". There are also certain principles, still under development, like T * S = U - A (a sort of Gibbs-Helmholtz equation) where T is the "entanglement temperature", S is the "entanglement entropy" (which is zero in case of "pure states", >0 in case of "mixed states"), U is the "internal entanglement", and A is the "free entanglement". Or like the fundamental principle saying that "entanglement between systems in two regions cannot be created, merely, by local operations on the systems, plus classical communication between the regions". (Remember the similar principle of thermo-dynamics?). One conceptual problem here, with "entanglo-dynamics", might be that - according to certain speculations, and certain interpretations of experiments - entanglement between two systems (not to mention here possible entanglements between systems and their mirror images) could be caused also by a third system which is in their future, and not in their past. If this is true the "entanglo-dynamics" would be a very strange mix of irreversibility and (?) a-temporality. (Not to mention here further speculations about entanglements between vacuum states, and between vacuum states and matter). From jonkc at att.net Mon Apr 4 21:15:18 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:15:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] il papa's last rites? References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050402135314.01e5fdb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a201c5395b$7d1013e0$d8ee4d0c@hal2001> The New York Times doesn't have many banner headlines but it had one today, it basically told us that the Pope was still dead. It's puzzling because everybody knows the man experienced a total system crash 2 days ago and was EXTREAMLY stable, yet we have that headline. Now if there were a change in the Pope's condition.... THAT would deserve a headline. Not that I'm glad the man died, somebody is going to be Pope, who better that a 84 year old man with Parkinson's disease who doesn't look like he knows where he is half the time. Let's hope the new Pope carries on the noble work the old Pope was so good at, of flying the church into the ground. But there is always room for improvement, it is not enough to condemn The Da Vinci Code and pre marital sex, I want him to condemn Harry Potter and post marital sex too. It is not enough that priests be virgins, or say they are, I want the new Pope to insist they be eunuchs. John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 22:37:37 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404223737.66819.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > This list has a focus. It's not a chitchat channel > about the latest Lakers > game results, the weather, pet grooming, or car > tuning. (I know it might come > as shock to some people here). What exactly is the focus of this list? I thought this list was a brainstorming/think tank type mailing list with a very broad range of topics. i.e. I saw it as the post-modern equivalent of the European salons of the 18th century where the some of the best and the brightest scientists, literati, and artists gathered to discuss the new paradigms brought about by the enlightenment. A place where Jules Verne and Voltaire might have a friendly discussion on the effects of Darwin's theory of natural selection would have on international politics while being served tea by Ninon Lenclos. If this is NOT the case then please somebody inform me what the focus of this list is so I do not continue to make an ass of myself. > Nobody here uses descriptive page headers, in case > you didn't notice. People do but mutations set in right about the 4th or 5th reply post. Generally the early posts in a thread are right on topic and the later ones start to drift. It's not EVIL, its just evolution. > If email bothers you, disconnect your house from the > power grid. Huh? What does this have to do with not reading posts that bother you? If I can tell the email is spam I don't read it. Disconnecting ones house from the power grid would be like cutting off ones face to spite ones nose as it were. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Apr 4 23:56:54 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404235654.54657.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > What exactly is the focus of this list? I thought this > list was a brainstorming/think tank type mailing list > with a very broad range of topics. Broad, but not indefinite. > i.e. I saw it as > the post-modern equivalent of the European salons of > the 18th century where the some of the best and the > brightest scientists, literati, and artists gathered > to discuss the new paradigms brought about by the > enlightenment. A place where Jules Verne and Voltaire > might have a friendly discussion on the effects of > Darwin's theory of natural selection would have on > international politics while being served tea by Ninon > Lenclos. That's arguably correct. But note that even they would not spend hours and hours discussing prophecies about the latest Pope, though they might discuss the Pope's views on the Enlightenment. Likewise here. We're here to discuss the future, and specifically a particular type of future we'd like to bring about. The past may inform the future, but there are broad swaths of the past that it is useless, for this list's purposes, to discuss. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Apr 5 00:17:29 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:17:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wil McCarthy on Singularity Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050404191338.01c8e7c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.scifiweekly.com/issue415/labnotes.html ending with: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 5 02:01:29 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405020129.39576.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > The past may > inform the future, but there are broad swaths of the > past that it is > useless, for this list's purposes, to discuss. But this is entirely a judgement call with few if any objective standards that could determine what parts of the past would or would not be relevant to the future. For example, chemists in Lavoisier's time did not believe in atoms. While an ancient Greek named Democritus did. Lavoisier might have said, "Atoms don't exist, they are just a figment of some obsolete philosopher's outdated worldview." Yet when Dalton came along and performed his experiments half a century later, lo and behold they took the dusty old concept of atoms out of the closet and gave it new life. In fact it wasn't until the early 20th century that atoms enjoyed their status as near truth. (Einstein's PhD. dissertation was a proof of their existence.) Moreover, the future is not always correlated with increasing progress anymore than biological evolution is always correlated with increased complexity. The ancestors of tapeworms had stomachs and a digestive system before they gave it up to just soak nutrients up out of ours. Or look at how the Roman civilization slid inexorbably into the Dark Ages. I understand that this is not a future that we would envision or want for humanity, but to ignore the possibility that something like this could occur is dangerously shortsighted. In the end, you might think that Drexler is a better prophet than Nostrodamus, but such is merely a subjective opinion. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 5 02:39:53 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405023953.11052.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > But this is entirely a judgement call with few if > any objective standards that could determine what > parts of the past would or would not be relevant to > the future. Yeah, yeah, you can't be absolutely certain of what you know. We've heard it all before. There is, however, a heuristic one may apply, where one can judge the probability that certain information is relevant; in most cases in practice, this heuristic gives good enough results that one may use it unless one has a very strong indication that the heuristic may be wrong. This result is so overwhelming that, in fact, most polite society positively expects it to be used in most cases, and is offended when one consistently refuses to use it. We're talking, of course, about "crap filters". For this list, part of the crap filter is ignoring prophecies from sources that have usually been to be too vague to give useful predictions, or incorrect if they are not vague. If this seems alien or offensive to you, please remember that practical optimism is one of the principles of extropy. This does mean one should be open-minded, but not so much that one's brain falls out: if a particular approach to a desirable goal has failed repeatedly in the past, then try something with less of a track record of failure. Millenia of prophecies and religions have not made nearly as much progress towards enhancing our species as merely the past half century of technological progress, ergo we should concentrate our discussions on the latter instead of the former if we wish to improve ourselves in this manner. I don't have to know something 100% to know that it's not worth our efforts (at this time, unless and until someone finds something that people missed that gets the probability back up high enough - and that search should not take too many resources away from something that is 99.999% likely to be worth our efforts). Just because it's not absolute doesn't mean it ain't good enough to call, especially so long as one remembers the calls can be overridden if and when - but ONLY if and when - the evidence changes the perceived odds. From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 5 03:46:13 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:46:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] toot toot In-Reply-To: <4250E5A4.4020400@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <200504050346.j353kK205475@tick.javien.com> > Alex Ramonsky: > >> 18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the > >> eyelids of the morning. > > Sounds like someone snorting amphetamines with curry powder to me? > (Obviously the 'scales' are used to weigh it out). > But WTF are 'neesings'? Have we all got some? > AR > ************************** Neesings are the olde English way of saying sneezes. I figure what Job had in mind is an air breathing beast, exhaling with a burst upon surfacing, which might resemble a sneeze. The original word is actually more onomatopoetically true, for when one sneezes it sounds a little more like NEES than SNEEZE, does it not? Now, had not Eugen scolded us for excessive silliness and lack of focus, we would probably have a number of posts regarding knights who say NEE and such as that. I did give it some thought however, and would suggest that the extropian list does have room for a wide variety of topics. The SL4 list is more focused on singularity and far future topics, but extropy-chat will likely benefit from keeping an open forum, even if the list is noisy with relatively low signal. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 08:10:20 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:10:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A victory for stem-cell research Message-ID: <470a3c5205040501104b22d53f@mail.gmail.com> The Berkshire Eagle: House passage of a bill supporting embryonic stem-cell research by a veto-proof margin is a victory for the state's biotechnology industry, for those who suffer now or will suffer from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other cruel diseases, and for scientific enlightenment at a time that occasionally recalls the Middle Ages. The bill, which allows the cloning of human cells for research purposes, makes Massachusetts the third state to expressly back such research, and it is encouraging to once again see the state move to the fore in the scientific arena. The House and Senate must reconcile their bills, and ideally the provision in the House bill giving a role to the Department of Public Health, which answers to Governor Romney, who has flip-flopped in opposition to this legislation, in regulating the research, will be abandoned. Kudos to the Berkshire legislative delegation for its support of this important legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 10:56:37 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:56:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues Message-ID: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> Wil McCarthy is a very interesting science fiction writer. I liked very much his novel Bloom, and I have already saved Lost in Transmission and Hacking Matter (details in his article) in my Amazon shopping cart. His views on the forthcoming (or not?) Singularity sre similar to my own: "And while the world on the other side of that event may look very different from the world of today, my personal prediction is that we'll still see ourselves in it, with habits and motives largely unchanged. The desire for comfort, for wealth, for entertainment and novelty and pleasure... these things will never go away. We'll just be richer, more powerful and wiser for our troubles. And what, exactly, is wrong with that?" http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue415/labnotes.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john-c-wright at sff.net Tue Apr 5 15:11:55 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:11:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The statement that there is no truth, if true, is false (Was Your Mom and the Machine) Message-ID: <200504051512.j35FC4214157@tick.javien.com> My apologies for the length of this post, but as a humble disciple of philosophy, I find such specualtions sweeter than wine, despite that the eternal questions have been debated, well, eternally. Below, A is for Allbright and W is for Wright. A: "I'm afraid my main point was lost -- again due in no small part to my tersity -- the point being that *all* subjective input should be considered, but then weighted according to its [ultimately subjective] grounding in empirically verifiable "reality"." W: Your point was not lost on me, I hope. What I was trying to do was argue the opposite side of this very question. My argument was twofold (1) The statement is self-contradictory. Those who argue that truth (what you call "input") is ultimately subjective, argue as if truth is objective. Those who put the word "reality" in scare quotes argue as if they are talking about reality, that is, real reality without any scare quotes. (2) The statement rests on the assumption that moral maxims can be supported or denied by means of reference to statements of observation, what you call the naturallistic fallacy. For example, comparisons of the statistics of the crime rates and the use of torture might tell you whether or not torture has a deterent effect on crime, but this reveals only whether it is efficient, not whether it is morally upright to use torture as an instrument of law-enforcement. The statement that torture is efficient is a contingent statement: the statement is true if the statistics support it, false if not, and in any case is dependent on the accuracy of the demographic data. The statement that torture is barbaric is an absolute statement. The statement may be true of false, but, no matter what, statistics will not show whether the statement is true or false because "barbarism" is a moral condemnation, not an thing that can be measured by a census. A: "It can be demonstrated and argued that any of the above "self-evident" examples("Opposite angles are equal"; "Reality is real"; or "This sentence >contains five words") may be contingent." W: You will pardon my skepticism. The first is a proposition of geometry, and is true under either Euclidean or non-Euclidean assumptions; the second is a tautology, and therefore true; the third is a self-referencing statement whose truth can be confirmed by counting the words in the sentence. Compare the statement that "it is self-evident that at least one self-evident statement exists" to the statement that "it is self-evident that self-evident statments do not exist". The first statement is not obviously true, but the second statement is obviously false. I can only assume you and I mean different things when we use the word "contingent." I mean a statement that is true or false depending on another statement. An example here will serve: CASE ONE: Eratosthenes seeks to know the diameter of the Earth. At noon on a certain day, he erects a meter-stick in Syene, in such a spot that it casts no shadow. At the same time on the same day, a compatriot erects a stick of the same length in Alexandria, and measures its shadow. Both sticks were erected perpendicular to the visible horizon. Eratosthenes paces out the distance between Alexandria and Syene. In Syrene, the sun is at the zenith; in Alexandria, the direction to the sun and the zenith differ by the angle measured by the proportion of the height of the stick to the length of the shadow. This angle has the same ratio to a full circle as the distance between Alexandria and Syrene have to the diameter of the Earth. CASE TWO: Euclid seeks to know whether opposite angles are equal. He takes as granted that two things equal to a third thing are equal to each other; he takes as granted that all right angles are equal. He proposes two straight lines, AB and CD crossing at point E. Since a straight line comprises two right angles, the whole angle of AEC and CEB equal two right angles; for the same reason, the whole angle of AEC and AED equal two right angles. Since the angle AEC is shared, AED therefore equals CEB. The knowledge of Eratosthenes is contingent and approximate. If he says the world is round, his statement is only accurate within certain tolerances. The knowledge of Euclid is absolute and precise. Is he says a circle is round, his statement can be taken as a definition. A: "I stand by my statement that we, as subsets of the natural world, do not possess the privledged vantage point of being able to objectively pass judgment on the validity of our sensory input or our processing of same." W: On what grounds do you stand by the statement? This statement is itself an objective judgment about the metaphysical underpinnings of empiricism. It is itself a statement that is true (or false) unrelated to the vantage point of any observer. A: "I'm glad you see my behavior as moral, because it confirms that my efforts to behave morally are perceivably working. But I don't see this as reflecting the existence of an objective morality, in fact some of my moral beliefs contradict those of a large portion of the population." W: It is my fault that my statement was unclear. I meant that, since you were discussing the question with (I assume) intellectual honesty and boldness, that you were displaying moral characterististics, namely, honesty and courage. No matter what else your personal moral code might say, you at least must be placing a minimal value on honesty and courage to be able to discuss the question of whether or not honesty and courage and other moral values actually exist. I was not making any statement about your moral values beyond that minimum. Whether your moral code agrees or disagrees with the majority is beside the point: you still have a moral code (as all non-sociopaths must) and you still act as if it is not a matter of taste or whim. A: "My theory doesn't provide absolute moral answers, but it claims that there is a rational basis for finding increasingly moral answers." W: Do you agree that the idea of increasingly accurate measurements only makes sense if there is some real thing being measured? We cannot get ever-more-precise measurements of the speed of light in a vacuum unless the speed of light actually exists. Likewise, we cannot get increasingly ever more objective and increasingly ever more correct maxims of morality unless there actually is a moral order to the universe. A: (Works better with what end in mind?) Anything that subjectively promotes Self. W: This is a subtle thought, and I am sorry you have no time to write it out more clearly. If you do get a chance at some later date to expound on this principle, I, at least, would be interested in the disquisition. My main question would be how to reconcile that three examples I gave of the heroic Achilles, the saintly John the Baptist and the wise Socrates with this principle of self-growth. It seems to me that the hero, the saint, and the philosopher all value something greater than himself (glory, God, or truth) for which he is willing to lay down his life. I would be interested to see how self-sacrifice can be reconciled a philosophy which takes self-growth as its foundation. A: (Works better for whom?) Works better for Self. "Better" is inherently subjective [meaning dependent on the observer]. Self means that with which one identifies. Q: This sounds like a formal description rather than a moral maxim. I suppose one could define "self" broadly enough to include the divinity or the community so as to explain the self-sacrifice of saints and heroes. (In other words, Socrates considers his "Self" to be the laws of Athens, and loyalty to their precepts, even when the laws are in the wrong, justifies his drinking hemlock.) But, by the same token, one could define the "self" and the "growth" of Raskolnikov to include that he must kill an innocent old crone and her halfwitted half-sister. If the self-growth formula is too broad, it will be of not help to a person trying to decide whether to follow the example of Socrates or of Raskolnikov. If the self-growth forumula is narrow enough to be useful, it will lead us back to the traditional maxims of morality common to all men. From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Apr 5 15:57:04 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:57:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > Wil McCarthy ... His views on the forthcoming (or not?) Singularity sre similar to my own: "And while the world on the other side of that event may look very different from the world of today, my personal prediction is that we'll still see ourselves in it, with habits and motives largely unchanged. The desire for comfort, for wealth, for entertainment and novelty and pleasure... these things will never go away. We'll just be richer, more powerful and wiser for our troubles. And what, exactly, is wrong with that?" http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue415/labnotes.html What's wrong is that humans aren't ready for prime time. Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Apr 5 16:08:38 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:08:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050405160838.GK24702@leitl.org> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:57:04AM -0700, Olga Bourlin wrote: > http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue415/labnotes.html > > What's wrong is that humans aren't ready for prime time. The Singularity is incompatible with sustained presence of human primates, though. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 5 16:11:48 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405161148.41685.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think history shows that not only are humans more capable than cynics think to handle change, actual change tends to be far less dramatic than the cynics fear and the optimists hope for. Despite the dislocation portrayed by Egan in "Singularity Sky", I have some doubts that things will be so bad for us as we gradually ease into the event horizon. Most people will choose to live their lives out as they always have, with a few marked improvements, and change will happen, but outside of those who fear change reacting more strongly to it, change will happen and people will adapt because people have been adapting to change for a century or more now. Change is. More Change is simply More More. --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > > > Wil McCarthy ... His views on the forthcoming (or not?) Singularity > sre similar to my own: "And while the world on the other side of that > event may look very different from the world of today, my personal > prediction is that we'll still see ourselves in it, with habits and > motives largely unchanged. The desire for comfort, for wealth, for > entertainment and novelty and pleasure... these things will never go > away. We'll just be richer, more powerful and wiser for our troubles. > And what, exactly, is wrong with that?" > http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue415/labnotes.html > > What's wrong is that humans aren't ready for prime time. > > Olga > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From alex at ramonsky.com Tue Apr 5 16:18:44 2005 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:18:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] toot toot References: <200504050346.j353kK205475@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4252BA64.9000408@ramonsky.com> spike wrote: >Neesings are the olde English way of saying sneezes. I figure >what Job had in mind is an air breathing beast, exhaling with >a burst upon surfacing, which might resemble a sneeze. The >original word is actually more onomatopoetically true, for >when one sneezes it sounds a little more like NEES than SNEEZE, >does it not? > No Spike, it sounds like "Pththththththththchchch". Does that mean there's something wrong with me? > >Now, had not Eugen scolded us for excessive silliness and >lack of focus, we would probably have a number of posts >regarding knights who say NEE and such as that. > ...All work and no play, makes Jack a unipolar depressive who pays me $40 an hour to say "Nee!" and sells a truckload of antidepressants, so don't knock it, okay. : ) AR -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Apr 5 16:59:17 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:59:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <20050405161148.41685.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050405161148.41685.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050405115654.01c9ad20@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:11 AM 4/5/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: >Despite the >dislocation portrayed by Egan in "Singularity Sky", I have some doubts >that things will be so bad for us as we gradually ease into the event >horizon. Ah, so *that's* what happened to Greg Egan--he moved to the UK and changed his name to Charles Stross, and then recently Transcended! I always suspected-- Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 5 18:01:41 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > We're talking, of course, about "crap filters". > > For this list, part of the crap filter is *ignoring* > prophecies from > sources that have usually been to be too vague to > give useful > predictions, or incorrect if they are not vague. > I agree. But the key word here is *ignoring*. If Eugen had just ignored the posts about the vague and useless prophecies, I would not have been so confused and upset. But ignoring a post is quite different from calling for the poster to be banned. I don't care one way or another about prophecies from any source. Even the predictions of Nobel Laureates have been wrong. So much so in fact that few serious scientists will risk making them. I am not saying that you should not use a "crap filter", I am saying that your "crap filter" should not be forced upon anybody else. To do otherwise is censorship plain and simple. And at least IMHO censorship is completely contrary to the Extropic ideal. So whether I believe said prophecies to have any merit or not, I will defend my fellow Extrope's right to discuss them on this list without being threatened with banishment. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hal at finney.org Tue Apr 5 18:45:43 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church Message-ID: <20050405184543.AB08D57EE6@finney.org> I don't agree that telling people to ignore posts they don't like is a good way of dealing with the question of what is on or off topic. A list is like a garden; you can't just ignore the weeds, or soon you will find that they have taken over. There is also an online version of Say's Law ("bad money drives out good"): bad postings drive out good. Most people read the list without filtering and as long as this is true, if they see a bunch of postings that they are not interested in, they won't enjoy their subscription. Someone who just joined the list and wants to get a sense of its flavor will judge it by the most common postings. If they see a lot of junk, they will turn around and leave. I don't think the corrective mechanism should be a matter of banning people, unless they consistently show that they can't contribute material acceptable to the list. A simple objection, followed by comment and discussion, like what we are having now, is the appropriate mechanism. I am confident that as a result of this ongoing discussion we will not see further postings about the prophecies regarding the Pope, other than as a phenomenon that provides insight into the sociological phenomenon of religion, its hold on people, and what that means for our own goals and dreams. That's how lists like these work. There is a constant flux and dynamic; people come and go, issues rise and disappear. Corrective mechanisms and feedback are an important part of keeping a mailing list and online community healthy and focussed. Hal From eugen at leitl.org Tue Apr 5 18:42:51 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:42:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:01:41AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > I agree. But the key word here is *ignoring*. If > Eugen had just ignored the posts about the vague and I can, and have ignored many things. If I didn't, we wouldn't have this argument. Unfortunately, other people have not have been that patient. I'm missing the input of those people. > useless prophecies, I would not have been so confused > and upset. But ignoring a post is quite different from I am sorry you're upset. You shouldn't. I'm just trying to increase the channel utility for everyone by trying to achieve a consensus on whether we do or no do want a policy enforcement (not moderation) on this list. The final decision is for the list owner (Natasha, I presume) to decide. I notice so far most people have remained silent. So, are you content with the status quo? > calling for the poster to be banned. I don't care one I see I wasn't clear. I'll try it again: I'm suggesting a policy enforcement by a system of warnings, temporary suspensions and outright bans *only* for deliberate attempts to destroy the list. > way or another about prophecies from any source. Even > the predictions of Nobel Laureates have been wrong. So > much so in fact that few serious scientists will risk > making them. I am not saying that you should not use a > "crap filter", I am saying that your "crap filter" > should not be forced upon anybody else. To do I disagree. The alternatives are much worse. > otherwise is censorship plain and simple. And at least Would you call peer review and the work of editors censorship, too? > IMHO censorship is completely contrary to the Extropic > ideal. So whether I believe said prophecies to have I agree. So let's not censor. Let's have policy enforcement. > any merit or not, I will defend my fellow Extrope's > right to discuss them on this list without being > threatened with banishment. So far, everyone seems to disagree with me, either mildly, or strongly. Anyone else? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From outlawpoet at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 19:00:56 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:00:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3ad827f305040512004d315ba9@mail.gmail.com> Eugen > So far, everyone seems to disagree with me, either mildly, or strongly. > Anyone else? I read this list silently, most of the time. I'm too busy to post, and haven't much to add, in most cases, to the rainbow of Extropian Opinion. But the key point to be clear about here is if this list is a place for Extropians to chat (about anything) or a place to hear Extropian Chat. I subscribe to this list to hear about transhumanist events, their thoughts on relevant current events, and the wonderful filtering of science and science fiction into easy readable segments. I groan every time that someone suggests starting a religion, when political speak starts to repeat, when jingoism or banality leads to great digressions in tone. A lurker like me may not be the intended audience of this list. But I come here for Extropian Topics. There are other, and better focused, and often more qualified commentators/forums/discussion lists for almost everything else. This is, as far as I'm aware, the Only place for this brand of transhumanist thought. So shouldn't we focus on that? I don't like 'suppression of speech', which is what censorship is supposed to mean. But private discussion lists aren't the whole of public discourse. It isn't censorship to prevent someone with a bullhorn from running around inside your house. There are other places to speak. I would vote in favor of Eugen explaining a possible system of 'refocusing' Extropy-Chat, for consideration by list management. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 5 19:12:19 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405191219.51823.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > We're talking, of course, about "crap filters". > > > > For this list, part of the crap filter is *ignoring* > > prophecies from > > sources that have usually been to be too vague to > > give useful > > predictions, or incorrect if they are not vague. > > > I agree. But the key word here is *ignoring*. If > Eugen had just ignored the posts about the vague and > useless prophecies, I would not have been so confused > and upset. Different sense of the term. "Ignore" as in "they should not be discussed here", not as in "don't pay attention to discussions of them here". > But ignoring a post is quite different from > calling for the poster to be banned. True. Banning should happen if and only if milder forms of deterrence fail, and if the poster's continued presence detracts from the list's value. For example, if a poster repeatedly brings up things irrelevant to the list's topic, driving out discussion of things relevant to the list's topic (and driving away newcomers who don't yet know what to ignore), despite repeated warnings. Key concept: it is possible for someone to take value away from an email list that is owned by someone else. #include standard arguments for allowing limited defense of private property. In this case, banning someone does no (or, at most, negligible) harm to the banned person. > I am not saying that you should not use a > "crap filter", I am saying that your "crap filter" > should not be forced upon anybody else. To do > otherwise is censorship plain and simple. We're not "forcing" the filter on anyone, in the same sense that we're not "forcing" anyone to be here. If you want to talk about prophecies and whatnot, fine: there are other places to do that. Not here. This is, ultimately, a private forum, even if it is open to any member of the public. That's the thing with cyberspace: almost all the forums are private. (Usenet is probably public, since few newsgroups have a single owner. But no examples in email or the Web come to mind quickly, since almost every email server and Web site that allow discussions has a single owner; this may be one reason why so few government Web sites do not have open-to-the-public forums for discussions.) From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Apr 5 19:49:34 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:49:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content In-Reply-To: <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050405144518.01cf4238@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:42 PM 4/5/2005 +0200, Gene wrote: >I'm just trying to increase the >channel utility for everyone by trying to achieve a consensus on whether we >do or no do want a policy enforcement (not moderation) on this list. The >final decision is for the list owner (Natasha, I presume) to decide. >So far, everyone seems to disagree with me, either mildly, or strongly. >Anyone else? I'm with Eugen, if it can be done. Actually there already exists a SWAT team who I thought were helping Natasha in keeping the list on an even keel by warning pests and perhaps expunging blatant or brainless trolls. Maybe this is going on behind the scenes. I'm all for it. Damien Broderick From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Apr 5 20:22:46 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:22:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: I'm mostly a lurker. There are posts and posters that I 'ignore' - as in, I glance at the post and delete it pretty much unread. This is true on many lists. The great variety of subject matter is one of the joys of this list. The people are interesting, intelligent, articulate, and have widely varied areas of expertise. The Prophecies was of some small interest because people where I live buy into that kind of thing, and it's worth having a clue before getting into conversation with them. 8S I did not dwell on the material! The question about the purpose of Extropy-chat is a good one: are we here to 'chat' about Extropy and Extropian things, or is this a place where Extropians can 'chat' about (i.e.: post, read, discuss) subjects they find interesting. Both have their appeal. Didn't we go through something similar to this a year or so ago, when the ... um ... board of directors / council / whatever made a new list for themselves to discuss Extropian Business? Which is why this list received the name Extropy-chat. Perhaps it would be good to include the purpose of this list in the monthly membership reminder email, so we all have that reminder ready-to-hand? Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 20:42:10 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:42:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Apr 5, 2005 9:22 PM, MB wrote: > > The question about the purpose of Extropy-chat is a good one: are we > here to 'chat' about Extropy and Extropian things, or is this a place > where Extropians can 'chat' about (i.e.: post, read, discuss) subjects > they find interesting. Both have their appeal. > > Didn't we go through something similar to this a year or so ago, when > the ... um ... board of directors / council / whatever made a new list > for themselves to discuss Extropian Business? Which is why this list > received the name Extropy-chat. > No secret. It is on the Extropy-chat subscription page. "We welcome innovative discussions pertaining to scientific, technological, philosophical, artistic, economic, and social perspectives on the future." As I remember it the formation of Extropy-chat was caused by a religious riot among the followers of different schools of Ad Hominem. Much clever flaming occurred. Some insults were so good that the recipient did not even realize that they had been insulted. ;) That is why the List Rules have a pretty wide classification of bad behaviour. BillK From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 22:12:01 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:12:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5844e22f050405151238e128@mail.gmail.com> While I am in favor of Eugen's suggestion, echoed by Damien and others, at least in principle, I'm having trouble seeing why this is so important in practice. The few people who have evidenced themselves to be reliable sources of white noise have ended up with all messages from their e-mail addresses filtered into the trash on my machine. Problem solved. Is the concern that new members of the list will drop off because of the vocal minority? This is the only cause for any concern that comes to mind. JM From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Tue Apr 5 22:26:13 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:26:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts Message-ID: <20050405222115.M11591@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> (A story from this morning) This morning I woke up at 4:30 am, and caught the 5:10am train from Frascati to Roma. At the Roma Termini stazione, after a capuccino and cornetto at the only stazione bar open at 5:45am, I headed underground, scurrying along a familiar path towards the Battistini endpoint of the Metro A Line. There, I was overcome with the first wave of humanity of many that I was to experience that morning. Me and many hundred others were blocked, stopped in the dank depths of Rome's metro system. The Rome Civil Protection were controlling the numbers of people entering the metro because we were many times the number that the cars could actually hold. They underestimated our numbers, though, because when we were free to go forward,('Avanti!), our large numbers filled the platform, and when a metro car eventually arrived, it was already full. Mama mia!! Push ('non spinge!'). Shove. Cuss. Some people made it on, most did not, and we waited for the next (again full) metro car. More pushing, a woman loudly scolding us to watch out for her bambino, and I slipped into the metro car tightly, while hugging my backback. And I stood, supported on all sides by the bodies filling the available air pockets, for the next six stops. Six stops and 25 minutes later at the Ottaviano exit, we metro sardines climbed the steps into open, cool air, breathing gratefully, and found that the darkness of night was just beginning to break. "Dov'e' San Pietro?" I heard someone ask. Their question was unnecessary, though, because all one needed to do was follow the line of people, and if you missed that for some reason, the barricades shepherded the flock into the right direction. We rounded the corner, and I caught my breath. Our destination, the San Pietro church, stood, glowing in the breaking night. This is a magnificent structure with Michelangelo's basilica dwarfing the people below. I heard snapshots of cameras all around me. I took out my own camera and made my photos too. We move forward. The last time I was on Via d. Conciliazione, it was to count the remaining obelisks on my bicycle exploration of Rome, where the art history professor at my university was leading a dozen similarly- bicycle-attired students and moi (a tag-alog), to all of the obelisks. We were on obelisk number 49 when we entered the Vatican, and with 24 obelisks lining Conciliazione (masquerading as street lamps), and one more large obelisk resting in the center of San Pietro piazza, the bicycling art obelisk tour on that vacant Sunday morning one year ago was complete. Via d.Conciliazione this time was not vacant on this morning at 6:30am. Besides the many tens of thousands of people around me, eight television screens lined the streets, showing camera views of us on the promenade from a perspective in front, us on the promenade from a perspective from the air, camera views of people entering the church, and camera views of the body of the Pope himself. I joined the throng, walking with the moving mass, listening to the sounds. Italian crowd voices (almost all). Dominating the crowd from loudspeakers were spoken bible passages, first in Italian, then in English, then in French, then in Polish. A chanting song or two, to calm the crowd. Then the cycle of bible verses, and songs began again. School kids. Old people. Groups of people from parishes all over Italy chattered while the designated leader held a stick with a flag signifying their origin. A family with a baby in a bundlesack on the mother's chest. Teenage couples hugged each other and whispered. An old man dressed in his finest gray suit pulled a small red shopping cart, bumpety-bump, on the cobble-stone road. One hour later, our long straight line entered San Pietro piazza and it was transformed into a snake, winding left, winding right, a few more twists, until it enters the Mouth. The mouth of the enormous open door, flanked with red velvet drapes, of the church where the Pope lay in state. Our TV screens and verses and music disappeared. We were then surrounded with very old columns and statues, while a garbage truck made its rounds, sweeping up the water bottles and cans. The snake looked like a line of ants into the distance. An older Italian woman has adopted me, showing me her favorite sculptures while reciting the latin words at their base. She explains some of the upcoming procedure of the election of the new pope because she has experienced the previous four. One hour after we entered the piazza, we are in front of the door-Mouth. Already one cannot miss the Pope's body because it is the only brightly-lit object in the church, raised, visible from outside of the door. Stepping inside of the church, we are subdued, the church enveloped us in grandioso paintings and sculpture several times our size. The ceiling overhead is luminescent. Some people have tears running down their cheeks. Our line splits into two, so that some can walk past the Pope's body on the right, the other on the left. 'A sinestra?' I ask my companion. 'Si', she says. We have only about 30 seconds in the vicinity of the Pope's body before the guards wave us along. I reached my conclusion from those seconds that the Pope did not die serenely as the Vatican priests had said. He had been in pain. I feel sad. We move on. Once outside in the sunlight, I view the throngs of people before us who seem to have doubled in size. I say goodbye to my friend, she wishes me good luck for my life in Italy, and we part, and I slowly exit the Vatican. ----------------------- Why did I, a nonCatholic, embed myself in the masses of people, bidding goodbye to the Pope? The primary reason was that I was given a rare opportunity to observe and experience some of the elements that drive one billion of the Earth's occupants. I want to understand better how people are 'moved'. In addition I want to understand better the culture (Italy) in which I've chosen to make my home. And given that this might be the only time in my life when the messy, chaotic place where I live is at the center of the world's attention, I wanted to participate. Was it worth it? Most certainly yes. 'An incredible experience' I told myself when I exited the Vatican. For several hours, I was surrounded for kilometers by many tens of thousands of people who had opened their hearts. Amara From brian at posthuman.com Tue Apr 5 23:07:02 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:07:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <5844e22f050405151238e128@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> <5844e22f050405151238e128@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42531A16.30507@posthuman.com> Jeff Medina wrote: > While I am in favor of Eugen's suggestion, echoed by Damien and > others, at least in principle, I'm having trouble seeing why this is > so important in practice. The few people who have evidenced themselves > to be reliable sources of white noise have ended up with all messages > from their e-mail addresses filtered into the trash on my machine. > Problem solved. > Is the concern that new members of the list will drop off because of > the vocal minority? This is the only cause for any concern that comes > to mind. > Jeff, the problem is at least threefold: 1. Some impatient but very interesting people just up and leave rather than even bother setting up filters or continually manually deleting. They are fully capable of setting up filters, but don't bother. Many people I enjoyed seeing post here several years ago are long gone. 2. Some relatively patient people don't have the knowledge or desire to setup filters. I think in some cases they have zero filters at all, so all their email from all sources is dumped into their inbox. I don't know why they like it that way, but the fact is that they do apparently, and it becomes overloading quite quickly and can even overcome their patience if they have to continually delete off-topic messages. 3. Off-topic posters have a tendency to drag "good" posters into long drawn out threads. Your simple filter will not quash all those responses. Or you may end up filtering people who later may something interesting. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 5 23:13:43 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405231344.10994.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:11 AM 4/5/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >Despite the > >dislocation portrayed by Egan in "Singularity Sky", I have some > doubts > >that things will be so bad for us as we gradually ease into the > event > >horizon. > > Ah, so *that's* what happened to Greg Egan--he moved to the UK and > changed > his name to Charles Stross, and then recently Transcended! I always > suspected-- bwahaha.... thanks for the correction. As I am currently 2000 miles from my sf library, my memory has gone to shit. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 5 23:16:46 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405231646.40844.qmail@web60507.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > I am sorry you're upset. You shouldn't. I'm just > trying to increase the > channel utility for everyone by trying to achieve a > consensus on whether we > do or no do want a policy enforcement (not > moderation) on this list. The > final decision is for the list owner (Natasha, I > presume) to decide. I am not really THAT upset but apology accepted. ;) It wasn't so much that I was upset as confused. If it's ok for the old timers to post silly puns while relative new comers get blasted for posting descriptions of ancient prophecies that I had never run across before, its hard for me to figure out what is appropriate for the list. > Would you call peer review and the work of editors > censorship, too? You got me here. :) > I agree. So let's not censor. Let's have policy > enforcement. Agreed . . . so what's the policy? The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 5 23:27:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - meaning of ignorance... In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405232730.19104.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > We're talking, of course, about "crap filters". > > > > > > For this list, part of the crap filter is *ignoring* > > > prophecies from > > > sources that have usually been to be too vague to > > > give useful > > > predictions, or incorrect if they are not vague. > > > > > I agree. But the key word here is *ignoring*. If > > Eugen had just ignored the posts about the vague and > > useless prophecies, I would not have been so confused > > and upset. > > Different sense of the term. "Ignore" as in "they should not be > discussed here", not as in "don't pay attention to discussions of > them here". > I'm pretty well versed in the English language, and i don't ever recall a 'should not' being part of the definition of 'ignore'. Peer pressure, i.e. consensual ignorance of the unacceptable, is, by definition a consensual activity, i.e. all must implicitly agree that that which is ignored should be ignored to maintain group consensus reality, and solely for the sake of maintaining group consensus reality. If you haven't got consensus, it isn't going to be ignored to save the group members from being offended. > > But ignoring a post is quite different from > > calling for the poster to be banned. > > True. Banning should happen if and only if milder forms of > deterrence > fail, and if the poster's continued presence detracts from the list's > value. For example, if a poster repeatedly brings up things > irrelevant > to the list's topic, driving out discussion of things relevant to the > list's topic (and driving away newcomers who don't yet know what to > ignore), despite repeated warnings. > > Key concept: it is possible for someone to take value away from an > email list that is owned by someone else. #include standard > arguments > for allowing limited defense of private property. In this case, > banning someone does no (or, at most, negligible) harm to the banned > person. Depends. In some cases it might be a marked benefit to them to be booted. In others, other list members are harmed by a reduction in exposure to a diversity of ideas. > > > I am not saying that you should not use a > > "crap filter", I am saying that your "crap filter" > > should not be forced upon anybody else. To do > > otherwise is censorship plain and simple. > > We're not "forcing" the filter on anyone, in the same sense that > we're not "forcing" anyone to be here. If you want to talk about > prophecies > and whatnot, fine: there are other places to do that. Not here. Lets see, this list has discussed psychic phenomena as a product of scientific study before (Damien) and I also recall a controversial study from years ago in Discover looking at world leaders and the incidence of their birt on days of eclipses or when sun/moon/significant planets were on the horizon or directly overhead. We look at scientific ideas of action-at-a-distance on a regular basis, and idea futures are regularly discussed (a form of prophesy) and the Policy Futures Market was created by one of our members. How is a prophet any different from a futurist who won't explain his reasons? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed Apr 6 00:17:04 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:17:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts References: <20050405222115.M11591@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <01bf01c53a3d$f6ac9a10$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Amara Graps" > > Why did I, a nonCatholic, embed myself in the masses of people, > bidding goodbye to the Pope? > And given that this might be the only time in my life when the > messy, chaotic place where I live is at the center of the world's > attention, I wanted to participate. > Was it worth it? Most certainly yes. 'An incredible experience' I > told myself when I exited the Vatican. For several hours, I was > surrounded for kilometers by many tens of thousands of people who > had opened their hearts. I don't get the pope. If I were to play a pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-type of game substituting, for the donkey, one of the doorways of the 38 units in the condo building where I live, I would have a good chance of blindly picking a less dangerous, more compassionate and more intelligent human being than the pope ever was. Olga From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed Apr 6 00:48:03 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:48:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate list content In-Reply-To: <20050405222115.M11591@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050405200651.05a73e60@unreasonable.com> Amara wrote, in "embedded in open hearts", >(A story from this morning) while simultaneously Avantguardian complained >If it's ok for the old timers to post silly puns while relative new comers >get blasted for posting descriptions of ancient prophecies that I had >never run across before, its hard for me to figure out what is appropriate >for the list. Amara, thank you. Your occasional narrative postings are always welcome and consistently interesting. Avantguardian, I understand your confusion. This list, like many other communities, treats old-timers and newcomers differently. If Oldster wants to post something ostensibly off-topic, they are given much more leeway than Newbie. Amara, or Keith or Gina or Russell, have an established reputation, and are regarded with respect and affection. Sharing a slice of their life or an off-topic observation is tolerated and/or enjoyed, in part because they are known, both warmly as members of our family and coldly as high S/N data sources. But: a disparity in treatment could drive off new people. -- David Lubkin. From dgc at cox.net Wed Apr 6 00:54:17 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:54:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Good retrospective on Moore's law In-Reply-To: <01bf01c53a3d$f6ac9a10$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20050405222115.M11591@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> <01bf01c53a3d$f6ac9a10$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <42533339.6020007@cox.net> News.com (c|net) has a good article on the 40th anniversary of Moore's law: http://news.com.com/FAQ+Forty+years+of+Moores+Law/2100-1006_3-5647824.html?tag=st.pop IMO is misses a few fundamentals, but it's still a good intro for the un-initiated. From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Apr 6 01:52:40 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:52:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: <01bf01c53a3d$f6ac9a10$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20050405222115.M11591@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050405214746.03419dc0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:17 PM 05/04/05 -0700, you wrote: >From: "Amara Graps" >> >>Why did I, a nonCatholic, embed myself in the masses of people, >>bidding goodbye to the Pope? > >>And given that this might be the only time in my life when the >>messy, chaotic place where I live is at the center of the world's >>attention, I wanted to participate. > >>Was it worth it? Most certainly yes. 'An incredible experience' I >>told myself when I exited the Vatican. For several hours, I was >>surrounded for kilometers by many tens of thousands of people who >>had opened their hearts. > >I don't get the pope. If I were to play a pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-type >of game substituting, for the donkey, one of the doorways of the 38 units >in the condo building where I live, I would have a good chance of blindly >picking a less dangerous, more compassionate and more intelligent human >being than the pope ever was. It certainly was an engaging story. I sent it on to someone Amara knows but has not seen for perhaps 15 years. The story also provides an opening to ask *why* people react this way. I think I know. Before I post, anyone else want to speculate? Keith Henson PS. The reason for *any* human psychological trait lies in genes that were selected in the stone age. Also you have a better chance of understanding this question if you are up on evolutionary psychology and/or have read Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 6 04:19:34 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - meaning of ignorance... In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406041934.76359.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > I'm pretty well versed in the English language, and i don't ever > recall > a 'should not' being part of the definition of 'ignore'. Perhaps I misstated it: the "should not" is a logical consequence of the "ignore". As in, on this list, do not invoke them, and for most cases pretend they do not exist - an obvious (to me and to most people) corrolary of which is that one should not make entire threads about them. > Depends. In some cases it might be a marked benefit to them to be > booted. In others, other list members are harmed by a reduction in > exposure to a diversity of ideas. Reduction in diversity of ideas seems to be a feature common in most successful (i.e., do not degenerate into useless noise) forums for communication. One might well investigate why that is so - but let's leave the channel to discuss the results, using that which we know works until we know if the new method works. Else we'll get nowhere fast. > Lets see, this list has discussed psychic phenomena as a product of > scientific study before (Damien) and I also recall a controversial > study from years ago in Discover looking at world leaders and the > incidence of their birt on days of eclipses or when > sun/moon/significant planets were on the horizon or directly > overhead. Both of which were, IMO, also off-topic. Noise breeds noise. > We look at scientific ideas of action-at-a-distance on a regular > basis, Which are proven to work - at least somewhat. > and idea futures are regularly discussed (a form of prophesy) and the > Policy Futures Market was created by one of our members. Idea futures are collaborative predictions, based on what a whole lot of people know, with a financial incentive not to use data they don't think they can trust. Prophecies are more often what one individual thinks is likely to happen, based on factors that are usually irrelevant, often with more of an incentive to be dramatic than accurate. Based on that alone, the former seems inherently more trustworthy. > How is a prophet any different from a futurist who won't explain his > reasons? Because we don't know the futurist isn't using methods which have proven very likely to be bogus. Of course, the futurist is still suspect, given the significant possibility the futurist is merely uttering prophecy: one of the core elements of science is that people share their methods so that the methods can be verified. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 06:06:50 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:06:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050405023953.11052.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050405023953.11052.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- The Avantguardian wrote: >> But this is entirely a judgement call with few if >> any objective standards that could determine what >> parts of the past would or would not be relevant to >> the future. > > Yeah, yeah, you can't be absolutely certain of what you know. We've > heard it all before. There is, however, a heuristic one may apply, > where one can judge the probability that certain information is > relevant; in most cases in practice, this heuristic gives good enough > results that one may use it unless one has a very strong indication > that the heuristic may be wrong. This result is so overwhelming that, > in fact, most polite society positively expects it to be used in most > cases, and is offended when one consistently refuses to use it. I have tremendous justified confidence in science and technology and I largely agree with you. Hoverer, I think you painted a bit too broadly and laid it on a tad thick in places. > > We're talking, of course, about "crap filters". > > For this list, part of the crap filter is ignoring prophecies from > sources that have usually been to be too vague to give useful > predictions, or incorrect if they are not vague. > > If this seems alien or offensive to you, please remember that practical > optimism is one of the principles of extropy. This does mean one > should be open-minded, but not so much that one's brain falls out: if a > particular approach to a desirable goal has failed repeatedly in the > past, then try something with less of a track record of failure. > Millenia of prophecies and religions have not made nearly as much > progress towards enhancing our species as merely the past half century > of technological progress, ergo we should concentrate our discussions > on the latter instead of the former if we wish to improve ourselves in > this manner. Exactly how have we enhanced human beings? Are we wiser? Are most of us more inclined to being reasonable. thoughtful people? Are fewer humans inclined to ignorance, superstition and anti-thought? I am not aware of any large progress in these and many other critical areas. > > I don't have to know something 100% to know that it's not worth our > efforts (at this time, unless and until someone finds something that > people missed that gets the probability back up high enough - and that > search should not take too many resources away from something that is > 99.999% likely to be worth our efforts). Just because it's not > absolute doesn't mean it ain't good enough to call, especially so long > as one remembers the calls can be overridden if and when - but ONLY if > and when - the evidence changes the perceived odds. You have not presented means to realistically calculate such odds if probability is even applicable. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 5 02:14:19 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:14:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: List quality In-Reply-To: <20050404102842.GP24702@leitl.org> References: <20050403102935.13047.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> <20050404102842.GP24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <929c5c9ef5795f7ab59d9ea4d71c4481@mac.com> There already is some level of policy enforcement. It may not enforce to your liking or always be all that obvious or consistent. All who are list monitors have busy lives and sometimes let things slide a bit too far. A little prodding usually gets things on track. But even then it is unlikely that the general guidelines are as stringent as you may like. What specifically would you like to see and not see? Speaking for myself I am not terribly unhappy with the state of the list of late. We need to do a lot better at subject headers and some folks over post and aren't always called on it. But overall the list feels fine even if a lot of the subjects are not things I am particularly interested in. - samantha On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:29:35AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: >> >> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: >>> Moderation is out of question, but a system of >>> warning, temporary suspensions >>> from the list and permanent bans probably would >>> work. >> >> Are you going to burn books for the junior anti-sex >> league next, Eugen? Come on, you could tell it was > > I have no idea what a junior anti-sex league is. Please discuss junior > anti-sex leagues somewhere else, preferrably offlist. > > This list has a focus. It's not a chitchat channel about the latest > Lakers > game results, the weather, pet grooming, or car tuning. (I know it > might come > as shock to some people here). > > Empirically, such lists no longer work by self policing. > > Can we have a decision, whether we will introduce a policy enforcement > here? > >> about religion just by looking at the subject header. > > Nobody here uses descriptive page headers, in case you didn't notice. > >> If posts about religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and >> esoterica bothers you so much, don't read them. I find > > If email bothers you, disconnect your house from the power grid. > >> little that goes by on this list to be that offensive. >> Some posts are more interesting than others but I have >> never been so intolerant to allow the opinion or >> anecdote of another person offend me. Unless of course > > We have different standards, obviously. Question is, does the rest of > the > list agree with the state of the list? > >> it were directly ad-hominem but even then I would >> probably blow it off. The mystics were looking for >> immortality long before young whippersnappers dreamt >> of uploading their consciousness from their corpsicles >> into the distributed AI of a nanobot swarm. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From scerir at libero.it Wed Apr 6 06:44:22 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:44:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy'sProphecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy RomanChurch References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6a5101c53a74$11e62540$f9bd1b97@administxl09yj> From: "Eugen Leitl" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church Yes we need a machine, remodulating those subject lines, and deleting bad posts, like this one :-), all automatically. s. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 6 07:05:10 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406070510.68952.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Millenia of prophecies and religions have not made nearly as much > > progress towards enhancing our species as merely the past half > century > > of technological progress, ergo we should concentrate our > discussions > > on the latter instead of the former if we wish to improve ourselves > in > > this manner. > > Exactly how have we enhanced human beings? Are we wiser? I am inclined to believe so, after reading historical accounts of the average human's behavior in the centuries before I was born and comparing them to historical accounts of the average human's behavior in more modern times. > Are most > of > us more inclined to being reasonable. thoughtful people? As above. The average may be only slightly more that way, but it is closer. > Are fewer > humans inclined to ignorance, superstition and anti-thought? More humans in absolute numbers are less inclined. I think - though I am not sure - this has outpaced the growth in human population, but even if it has not, meaning that there are more non-thinkers than there used to be, at least the population of thinkers has grown as well. > I am > not aware of any large progress in these and many other critical > areas. "Large" is a relative term, and of course humanity is not yet anywhere near what we would like it to achieve. But there are encouraging signs, if you look for them. As a minor example, one of the serious matters of concern reportedly being discussed among those choosing the next Pope is the rise of secularism - i.e., scientific, rational thought as opposed to the blind faith they would prefer. This was not an issue in the past, and we can rule out a false positive since they would not be inclined to overstate the appeal of secularism. Tiny steps, perhaps. Baby steps, even. But non-zero nonetheless. And larger, at least per unit time, than the ones before. > You have not presented means to realistically calculate such odds if > probability is even applicable. At some point in any debate, one has to posit some facts if one is to reach a conclusion. I posited that means of good enough quality exist, which it appears to me is something that most of this list's members would agree with. I do not care to defend that posit, as I do not feel it needs defending: it is self-evident to enough of the audience. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 07:41:37 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:41:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <25dfc9f2dc87f8c7665fa66905e4c137@mac.com> Olga, While I could guess what you meant and even agree with such guesses it would be good to have you say what you meant a bit more explicitly. Thanks. - samantha On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > > Wil McCarthy ... His views on the forthcoming (or not?) Singularity > sre similar to my own: "And while the world on the other side of that > event may look very different from the world of today, my personal > prediction is that we'll still see ourselves in it, with habits and > motives largely unchanged. The desire for comfort, for wealth, for > entertainment and novelty and pleasure... these things will never go > away. We'll just be richer, more powerful and wiser for our troubles. > And what, exactly, is wrong with that?" > http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue415/labnotes.html > ? > What's wrong is that?humans aren't ready for prime time. > ? > Olga > ? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1302 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 07:42:19 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:42:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <20050405160838.GK24702@leitl.org> References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050405160838.GK24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8959a6b4186569e6fa9808c6d30cfa17@mac.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:57:04AM -0700, Olga Bourlin wrote: > >> http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue415/labnotes.html >> >> What's wrong is that humans aren't ready for prime time. > > The Singularity is incompatible with sustained presence of human > primates, > though. > In what way? From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 08:26:02 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 01:26:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <20050405161148.41685.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050405161148.41685.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2f3df2938b6188e3237743a9e0625f37@mac.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > I think history shows that not only are humans more capable than cynics > think to handle change, actual change tends to be far less dramatic > than the cynics fear and the optimists hope for. We are not talking about something that has any historical analogue. So historical experiences of change are disastrously irrelevant. > Despite the > dislocation portrayed by Egan in "Singularity Sky", I have some doubts > that things will be so bad for us as we gradually ease into the event > horizon. Since the subject is about whether humans are ready for or will survive Singularity, we will tie off one possibility and instead say that humans remain largely as they are - still human in common understanding. At some point the self-evolving intelligence of our creations far outstrips our ability to keep up on any level sufficient to give even the illusion of control. That is about as "gradual" as it gets. At no point in recorded history have we been unable in principle to understand, predict and control events around us. In short, original issue humans will be too inferior to direct much of the world around them. They might be kept around anyway though. Want a softer alternative? OK, no self-evolving AI but humans figure out more and more technology. Remember by our rule that there are strict limits on how much of the technology gets applied to them lest they become other than human and thus no longer within the domain of our discussion. Then without changes sufficient to overcome a lot of evolution laid dangerous programming, we become super technology powered versions of what we see around us today. We each have more real power for good or ill with no functionally greater intelligence and no better oversight and control of our evolutionary programming than today. Somehow that doesn't seem long term viable to me. We also would be inhabiting a faster continuously faster moving and more interconnected world. At some point our strictly limited abilities and our proclivities would result in an inability to make critical decisions correctly and in the relevant timeframe to be effective. Sometimes I believe we already have reached that point. > Most people will choose to live their lives out as they always > have, with a few marked improvements, and change will happen, but > outside of those who fear change reacting more strongly to it, change > will happen and people will adapt because people have been adapting to > change for a century or more now. You don't seem to have much idea what is coming, or you don't believe it. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 08:36:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 01:36:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050405184543.AB08D57EE6@finney.org> References: <20050405184543.AB08D57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: On Apr 5, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Hal Finney wrote: > I don't agree that telling people to ignore posts they don't like is > a good way of dealing with the question of what is on or off topic. > A list is like a garden; you can't just ignore the weeds, or soon you > will find that they have taken over. There is also an online version > of Say's Law ("bad money drives out good"): bad postings drive out > good. Topics are nourished by attention. Sufficiently deprived of attention they wither and die. In practice though we all have a lot of buttons that can be depended on to give some nourishment to even the most unloved topics. But we could check our reactiveness a bit. > > > I don't think the corrective mechanism should be a matter of banning > people, unless they consistently show that they can't contribute > material > acceptable to the list. A simple objection, followed by comment and > discussion, like what we are having now, is the appropriate mechanism. What is "acceptable". Who is empowered to object? It had better be made pretty crisp. Nothing is more tedious and off putting than endless discussions of whether X post or Y poster is up to some nebulous list standard. > - s From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 08:59:31 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 01:59:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050406070510.68952.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050406070510.68952.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2d73dd415c89c2724599bf81087d23e9@mac.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:05 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> Millenia of prophecies and religions have not made nearly as much >>> progress towards enhancing our species as merely the past half >> century >>> of technological progress, ergo we should concentrate our >> discussions >>> on the latter instead of the former if we wish to improve ourselves >> in >>> this manner. >> >> Exactly how have we enhanced human beings? Are we wiser? > > I am inclined to believe so, after reading historical accounts of the > average human's behavior in the centuries before I was born and > comparing them to historical accounts of the average human's behavior > in more modern times. Really? In the last 50 years? Wiser than the enlightenment period over all? Even with significantly less literacy in the US than was the case over 100 years ago? Even with a much more proud and powerful fundamentalism growing in influence? Even with the general inability of most people to put themselves no the line against most any evil at all? I don't see what you are talking about. I don't see that we are more humane over all. Not after the millions killed in wars between governments and the even larger numbers killed by their own government. > >> Are most >> of >> us more inclined to being reasonable. thoughtful people? > > As above. The average may be only slightly more that way, but it is > closer. > I don't find it so. We seem to take less time and think generally less carefully. Our media offered intellectual discussions are barroom brawls compared to those of the 60s. >> Are fewer >> humans inclined to ignorance, superstition and anti-thought? > > More humans in absolute numbers are less inclined. I think - though I > am not sure - this has outpaced the growth in human population, but > even if it has not, meaning that there are more non-thinkers than there > used to be, at least the population of thinkers has grown as well. > >> I am >> not aware of any large progress in these and many other critical >> areas. > > "Large" is a relative term, and of course humanity is not yet anywhere > near what we would like it to achieve. But there are encouraging > signs, if you look for them. As a minor example, one of the serious > matters of concern reportedly being discussed among those choosing the > next Pope is the rise of secularism - i.e., scientific, rational > thought as opposed to the blind faith they would prefer. This was not > an issue in the past, and we can rule out a false positive since they > would not be inclined to overstate the appeal of secularism. > It has been an issue since the Enlightenment. If anything, with the great increase in scientific knowledge and understanding, it seems we do not have proportional commitment to rationality and secularism. Many are fleeing to rot-gut anti-reason, anti-mind irrationality. > Tiny steps, perhaps. Baby steps, even. But non-zero nonetheless. And > larger, at least per unit time, than the ones before. > >> You have not presented means to realistically calculate such odds if >> probability is even applicable. > > At some point in any debate, one has to posit some facts if one is to > reach a conclusion. I posited that means of good enough quality exist, > which it appears to me is something that most of this list's members > would agree with. I do not care to defend that posit, as I do not feel > it needs defending: it is self-evident to enough of the audience. > Do you propose to pass judgment using unclear standards that we all sorta know but can't really define although we agree to act as if the resulting judgments are objective and impartial? - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Wed Apr 6 09:10:18 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:10:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: References: <20050405184543.AB08D57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050406091018.GL24702@leitl.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:36:03AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Topics are nourished by attention. Sufficiently deprived of attention The forteana crossposts receive no attention. Yet they continue. > they wither and die. In practice though we all have a lot of buttons All it takes is two trolls to play ping-pong. And drag other list participants into irrelevant threads. It's easy. It's happening all the time. > that can be depended on to give some nourishment to even the most > unloved topics. But we could check our reactiveness a bit. There is no effective enforcement, period. The rules are thus useless. > What is "acceptable". Who is empowered to object? It had better be > made pretty crisp. Nothing is more tedious and off putting than I volunteered. A few other with list admin access in different time zones would be good. > endless discussions of whether X post or Y poster is up to some The point of an enforcer is that there is no discussion. Warnings are issued-off list, and only announcement of temporary suspensions and permanent bans are posted to the list. > nebulous list standard. There's nothing nebulous about my standards. There will be disagreement, but the alternatives are obviously worse. Enough discussion. Can we have a decision? Natasha? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 09:27:12 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 02:27:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050406091018.GL24702@leitl.org> References: <20050405184543.AB08D57EE6@finney.org> <20050406091018.GL24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Apr 6, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > There's nothing nebulous about my standards. There will be > disagreement, but > the alternatives are obviously worse. > > Enough discussion. Can we have a decision? Natasha? > > No. You don't have the privilege of saying when it is "enough discussion". You strike me as a bit too autocratic and abrupt for me to be comfortable with you exercising such power as you describe. There is a system of moderation on this list as you know. We try to guide gently where we intercede, usually behind the scenes, if we intercede at all. You are calling for more intercession. We all are listening but are not convinced. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Wed Apr 6 09:47:36 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:47:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: References: <20050405184543.AB08D57EE6@finney.org> <20050406091018.GL24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050406094736.GO24702@leitl.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:12AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > No. You don't have the privilege of saying when it is "enough > discussion". You strike me as a bit too autocratic and abrupt for me You're taking the privilege of talking for others, though. Unless there has been off-list discussion, that's pretty double standard of you. > to be comfortable with you exercising such power as you describe. I don't want such power. I asked for volunteers. There were none. I have a life, and I spend already too much time on the net as is. If you think I'm looking for a position of power on a *mailing list*, you're smoking some truly excellent crack. > There is a system of moderation on this list as you know. We try to There is no moderation (all posts held until explicit approval). There is a system of warnings, in theory. In practice, the list cops are not there. > guide gently where we intercede, usually behind the scenes, if we > intercede at all. You are calling for more intercession. We all > are listening but are not convinced. No further arguments from me will be forthcoming. Indecision is also a decision. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scerir at libero.it Wed Apr 6 09:55:31 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:55:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] QM vs GR References: <20050406070510.68952.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <2d73dd415c89c2724599bf81087d23e9@mac.com> Message-ID: <001701c53a8e$c5c95400$beb21b97@administxl09yj> (No, nothing special, just few links.) The "conspiracy" issue (are QM and Relativity in "peaceful coexistence"? Or is there a "conspiracy" between them, against us? Or what else is going on?) is slowly moving from the peculiar field of QM to the broader space of GR. black-holes http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503200 quantum limitations on worm-holes (Susskind) http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503097 is there a space? (Nic Gisin) http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503007 From eugen at leitl.org Wed Apr 6 10:41:24 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:41:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <8959a6b4186569e6fa9808c6d30cfa17@mac.com> References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050405160838.GK24702@leitl.org> <8959a6b4186569e6fa9808c6d30cfa17@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050406104123.GS24702@leitl.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:42:19AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >The Singularity is incompatible with sustained presence of human > >primates, > >though. > > > In what way? In the physical way. Biological life will need active protection by the most powerful participants for it to be effective, while the power distribution will be spread dramatically. It's thus a one-way interaction -- no payoff for one party. What would be the motivation for that? People are irrational that way, but it's not working, but for a few lucky ones. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 6 12:49:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 05:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406124915.40122.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 5, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > I think history shows that not only are humans more capable than > cynics > > think to handle change, actual change tends to be far less dramatic > > than the cynics fear and the optimists hope for. > > We are not talking about something that has any historical analogue. > So historical experiences of change are disastrously irrelevant. Sure we do. European technology exposed to native Americans, times ten. The thing you are forgetting is it isn't going to be an immediate event. We will be easing our way over the edge for many years before it happens (it is already starting) so by the time it gets really hairy from our current point of view, we will be quite inured to radical change. > > Most people will choose to live their lives out as they always > > have, with a few marked improvements, and change will happen, but > > outside of those who fear change reacting more strongly to it, > change > > will happen and people will adapt because people have been adapting > to > > change for a century or more now. > > > You don't seem to have much idea what is coming, or you don't believe > it. I have a very good idea of what is coming. I think it will wind up being much more as well as much less than is written about. Unlike past technological dislocations, we don't live in a static world suddenly confronted by radical change. We are learning to surf the change waves, to paraphrase Hughes. By the time the tsunami hits, most people will have some idea of how to stay on their boards, some will be experts, and others will struggle impotently trying to bomb the wave. Only those who want to be truly different will become truly different. Most people IMHO, don't want that, which I think is the real lesson of Stross' novel: after a brief period of technological intoxication, and a small percent of the population migrates into new states of being, most people will get on with their lives with lots of new toys but will wind up craving stability even more. Sentimentalism and romanticism for the past will be quite popular. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 6 13:36:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406133619.49884.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:42:19AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > >The Singularity is incompatible with sustained presence of human > > >primates, > > >though. > > > > > In what way? > > In the physical way. Biological life will need active protection by > the most powerful participants for it to be effective, while the > power distribution will be spread dramatically. It's thus a one-way > interaction -- no payoff for one party. > > What would be the motivation for that? People are irrational that > way, but it's not working, but for a few lucky ones. Absolutely bogus. It is the most powerful actors who are the worst environmental offenders. Governments pollute the most and nobody enforces environmental laws against them when they don't want them to be. The environment is in better hands with widespread power distribution and more private land ownership and stewardship. Nor is the environment getting worse, despite what the media tells you. I remember when the rivers were orange and full of foam, trash, and dead fish, when the skies were full of smoke plumes and you could smell a factory town from miles away, when the beaches were full of garbage, tar balls, and other detritus. The world of the singularity is going to be a verdant paradise. Just the sort of thing that cynics wouldn't expect, so isn't that exactly what we should expect from a singularity? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From edmund.schaefer at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 15:44:37 2005 From: edmund.schaefer at gmail.com (Edmund Schaefer) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:44:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <20050406124915.40122.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050406124915.40122.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > The thing you are forgetting is it isn't going to be an immediate > event. We will be easing our way over the edge for many years before it > happens (it is already starting) so by the time it gets really hairy > from our current point of view, we will be quite inured to radical > change. Once superhuman intelligences exist, the power differential will be too vast for the future-shock endurance, flexibility, or any other psychological aspects of the human population to have bearing. Whether we can "ride the wave" of advanced technology is only important if we're imagining that lots of people are going to gain access to it at once, which we can't safely assume. All the power goes to the superintelligences that invent the stuff, and that's what we should prepare for. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Apr 6 16:14:04 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:14:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - meaning of ignorance... References: <20050405232730.19104.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008a01c53ac3$a7baad30$0100a8c0@kevin> I love a list who's largest thread is a discussion of what is appropriate for the list. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - meaning of ignorance... > > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > > We're talking, of course, about "crap filters". > > > > > > > > For this list, part of the crap filter is *ignoring* > > > > prophecies from > > > > sources that have usually been to be too vague to > > > > give useful > > > > predictions, or incorrect if they are not vague. > > > > > > > I agree. But the key word here is *ignoring*. If > > > Eugen had just ignored the posts about the vague and > > > useless prophecies, I would not have been so confused > > > and upset. > > > > Different sense of the term. "Ignore" as in "they should not be > > discussed here", not as in "don't pay attention to discussions of > > them here". > > > > I'm pretty well versed in the English language, and i don't ever recall > a 'should not' being part of the definition of 'ignore'. Peer pressure, > i.e. consensual ignorance of the unacceptable, is, by definition a > consensual activity, i.e. all must implicitly agree that that which is > ignored should be ignored to maintain group consensus reality, and > solely for the sake of maintaining group consensus reality. If you > haven't got consensus, it isn't going to be ignored to save the group > members from being offended. > > > > But ignoring a post is quite different from > > > calling for the poster to be banned. > > > > True. Banning should happen if and only if milder forms of > > deterrence > > fail, and if the poster's continued presence detracts from the list's > > value. For example, if a poster repeatedly brings up things > > irrelevant > > to the list's topic, driving out discussion of things relevant to the > > list's topic (and driving away newcomers who don't yet know what to > > ignore), despite repeated warnings. > > > > Key concept: it is possible for someone to take value away from an > > email list that is owned by someone else. #include standard > > arguments > > for allowing limited defense of private property. In this case, > > banning someone does no (or, at most, negligible) harm to the banned > > person. > > Depends. In some cases it might be a marked benefit to them to be > booted. In others, other list members are harmed by a reduction in > exposure to a diversity of ideas. > > > > > > I am not saying that you should not use a > > > "crap filter", I am saying that your "crap filter" > > > should not be forced upon anybody else. To do > > > otherwise is censorship plain and simple. > > > > We're not "forcing" the filter on anyone, in the same sense that > > we're not "forcing" anyone to be here. If you want to talk about > > prophecies > > and whatnot, fine: there are other places to do that. Not here. > > Lets see, this list has discussed psychic phenomena as a product of > scientific study before (Damien) and I also recall a controversial > study from years ago in Discover looking at world leaders and the > incidence of their birt on days of eclipses or when > sun/moon/significant planets were on the horizon or directly overhead. > We look at scientific ideas of action-at-a-distance on a regular basis, > and idea futures are regularly discussed (a form of prophesy) and the > Policy Futures Market was created by one of our members. > > How is a prophet any different from a futurist who won't explain his reasons? > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 6 16:21:39 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406162139.4160.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Edmund Schaefer wrote: > Whether > we can "ride the wave" of advanced technology is only important if > we're imagining that lots of people are going to gain access to it at > once, which we can't safely assume. Yet it seems the safest outcome, the one in which the greatest number of people (used loosely: including uploads, new AIs, et al) are likely to survive and prosper. So, at least from the selfish perspective of someone in the present who would like to create a future in which this self can survive, that seems the option to steer towards. (Of course we can't safely assume it; if we could, no such steering would be required.) > All the power goes to the > superintelligences that invent the stuff, and that's what we should > prepare for. Debatable, but in any case, setting things up so as to create as many superintelligences as possible would seem likely to avoid the many problems that have been pointed out with a single intelligence dominating everything. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 6 16:37:48 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406163748.78819.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Apr 6, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Enough discussion. Can we have a decision? Natasha? > > No. You don't have the privilege of saying when it is "enough > discussion". No, but the person Eugen asked - Natasha - does. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 16:41:07 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:41:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <20050406104123.GS24702@leitl.org> References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050405160838.GK24702@leitl.org> <8959a6b4186569e6fa9808c6d30cfa17@mac.com> <20050406104123.GS24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <9bb00076a21dfc09d697f2d2a37d0f0a@mac.com> The payoff? I am not posthuman but I imagine it might include simply the sense of repayment and satisfaction of helping one's root/parent species continue and evolve to the maximal extent it or its members can. - samantha On Apr 6, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:42:19AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >>> The Singularity is incompatible with sustained presence of human >>> primates, >>> though. >>> >> In what way? > > In the physical way. Biological life will need active protection by > the most powerful > participants for it to be effective, while the power distribution will > be spread > dramatically. It's thus a one-way interaction -- no payoff for one > party. > > What would be the motivation for that? People are irrational that way, > but > it's not working, but for a few lucky ones. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From edmund.schaefer at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 16:52:52 2005 From: edmund.schaefer at gmail.com (Edmund Schaefer) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:52:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <20050406162139.4160.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050406162139.4160.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 6, 2005 12:21 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Edmund Schaefer wrote: > > Whether > > we can "ride the wave" of advanced technology is only important if > > we're imagining that lots of people are going to gain access to it at > > once, which we can't safely assume. > > Yet it seems the safest outcome, the one in which the greatest number > of people (used loosely: including uploads, new AIs, et al) are likely > to survive and prosper. So, at least from the selfish perspective of > someone in the present who would like to create a future in which this > self can survive, that seems the option to steer towards. (Of course > we can't safely assume it; if we could, no such steering would be > required.) Giving everyone advanced nanotechnology is about as safe as giving everyone nuclear strike capabilities. Less safe, really. Why is equal distribution of advanced technology desirable and how do you plan to make it safe? > > All the power goes to the > > superintelligences that invent the stuff, and that's what we should > > prepare for. > > Debatable, but in any case, setting things up so as to create as many > superintelligences as possible would seem likely to avoid the many > problems that have been pointed out with a single intelligence > dominating everything. Why is domination by multiple superintelligences any better? What specific problems would this fix? From edmund.schaefer at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 17:07:09 2005 From: edmund.schaefer at gmail.com (Edmund Schaefer) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:07:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sympathy in superintelligences, Re: Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <9bb00076a21dfc09d697f2d2a37d0f0a@mac.com> References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050405160838.GK24702@leitl.org> <8959a6b4186569e6fa9808c6d30cfa17@mac.com> <20050406104123.GS24702@leitl.org> <9bb00076a21dfc09d697f2d2a37d0f0a@mac.com> Message-ID: On Apr 6, 2005 12:41 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > The payoff? I am not posthuman but I imagine it might include simply > the sense of repayment and satisfaction of helping one's root/parent > species continue and evolve to the maximal extent it or its members > can. That sense of repayment and satisfaction exists in humans because it was once genetically adaptive in our hunter-gatherer environment. There's no reason to expect it to exist in posthumans, especially not in AIs. Humans don't even feel it across species lines. We are "transcended" amphibians. Going back far enough, we have common ancestry with frogs, cockroaches, and infectious bacteria, but we extend no sympathy to them. Heck, we have a hard enough time not killing other humans, let alone helping other species along. We can't rely on a posthuman desire to repay humans for having created them. From eugen at leitl.org Wed Apr 6 17:11:29 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:11:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <9bb00076a21dfc09d697f2d2a37d0f0a@mac.com> References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050405160838.GK24702@leitl.org> <8959a6b4186569e6fa9808c6d30cfa17@mac.com> <20050406104123.GS24702@leitl.org> <9bb00076a21dfc09d697f2d2a37d0f0a@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050406171128.GK24702@leitl.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:41:07AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > The payoff? I am not posthuman but I imagine it might include simply > the sense of repayment and satisfaction of helping one's root/parent > species continue and evolve to the maximal extent it or its members > can. We don't seem to be repaying that kindness in full though http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html with some (very few) notable exceptions. I'm also interested in the origin of those warm fuzzy feelings. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Apr 6 17:34:12 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:34:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <20050406162139.4160.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504061734.j36HYL223225@tick.javien.com> >> Debatable, but in any case, setting things up so as to create as many >> superintelligences as possible would seem likely to avoid the many problems >> that have been pointed out with a single intelligence dominating everything. I agree wholeheartedly, but reality dictates that the major advances most likely to trigger singularity will emerge from private for profit research or government funded research projects. At the point a privately developed technology gains publicity either through doing amazingly well in the Turing or in a commercial natural language recognition project, whoever owns this technology will be targeted for acquisition. And once the commercial and military implications of said technology sets in, it will be very difficult for the developers to resist the monetary enticement. The challenge then will be to sell off small pieces at the edge of the technology or services to fund further development without giving away the farm. Open sourcing a technology that powerful would be roughly equivalent to passing out free enriched plutonium at the UN. > All the power goes to the > superintelligences that invent the stuff, and that's what we should > prepare for. Correct preparation should probably involve tracking the technologies most likely to lead to the singularity. (What we're doing here...) Send invitation to the movers behind the technology to join this mailing list in a professional manner that encourages them to become involved. Encouraging open dialogue with the movers behind the technology and creating an environment where those movers can publicly express their long term humanitarian plans for the technology should they be successful without contempt or recrimination. (A little weak here IMHO) Cull the best material in the list archives into a Wiki that summarizes the many topics we discuss here and encourage new subscribers to the list to read the Wiki first to prevent the constant rehash of old topics. Document the objectives and scope of the Wiki and mailing list to reduce flame wars and associated wasted bandwidth. Hopefully the eventual creators of the technology leading to the singularity will be attracted to the Extropian movement and develop a synergy with it's participants. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 6 17:39:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406173951.16296.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Edmund Schaefer wrote: > > The thing you are forgetting is it isn't going to be an immediate > > event. We will be easing our way over the edge for many years > before it > > happens (it is already starting) so by the time it gets really > hairy > > from our current point of view, we will be quite inured to radical > > change. > > Once superhuman intelligences exist, the power differential will be > too vast for the future-shock endurance, flexibility, or any other > psychological aspects of the human population to have bearing. > Whether > we can "ride the wave" of advanced technology is only important if > we're imagining that lots of people are going to gain access to it at > once, which we can't safely assume. All the power goes to the > superintelligences that invent the stuff, and that's what we should > prepare for. I think the history of environmental stewardship improving over time, particularly at the hands of wealthy individuals and purpose-organizations, it is clear that the trend shows that AI will, provided we do not fear and attack them as a species vs species conflict, treat humanity as a species needing protection. I believe you are applying a stereotype of the worst sort of inhuman callousness to AI which has no basis to be expected, but is typical of human emotional distain for those who are not emotionally motivated. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 17:42:51 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:42:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reith Lectures 2005 on "The Triumph of Technology" Message-ID: <470a3c52050406104225172063@mail.gmail.com> The Reith Lectures 2005 on "The Triumph of Technology" will be broadcast on BBC radio and later also available on the web in digital format. This year's Reith Lecturer is the distinguished engineer, Lord Broers. He was a pioneer of nanotechnology and the first person to use the scanning electron microscope for the fabrication of micro-miniature structures. In the five lectures, he sets out his belief that technology can and should hold the key to the future. He says: "It is time to wake up to this fact. Applied science is rivalling pure science both in importance and in intellectual interest. We cannot leave technology to the technologists; we must all embrace it. We have lived through a revolution in which technology has affected all our lives and altered our societies for ever." The audio of the first lectureon "Technology will determine the future of the human race" is already available. From the presentation of the first lecture: "in recent decades a cascade of truly disruptive advances has revolutionised the way we live. The technologies behind the advances have become increasingly complex and few people understand how they work and fewer still where they are going. The social implications of the advances have also ceased to be obvious and it has become essential that we study their social consequences." ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 6 17:46:39 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406174639.48401.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:41:07AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > The payoff? I am not posthuman but I imagine it might include > simply > > the sense of repayment and satisfaction of helping one's > root/parent > > species continue and evolve to the maximal extent it or its members > > > can. > > We don't seem to be repaying that kindness in full though > http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html > with some (very few) notable exceptions. > > I'm also interested in the origin of those warm fuzzy feelings. I'll note the cynicism comes with a whiff of disinformation and hiding data. I see that while the author of the above study noted the percent of all families that died in previous extinctions, he does not document how many families have been made extinct in the current so-called 'great extinction', likely because not a single full family of species have been yet made extinct. Nor does he note our technological capacity to reintroduce and revive species that has been proven a number of times already. Looks to me like more mere disasturbation. Lighten up. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From edmund.schaefer at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 18:07:55 2005 From: edmund.schaefer at gmail.com (Edmund Schaefer) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:07:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <20050406173951.16296.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050406173951.16296.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --Mike Lorrey wrote: > I think the history of environmental stewardship improving over time, > particularly at the hands of wealthy individuals and > purpose-organizations, it is clear that the trend shows that AI will, > provided we do not fear and attack them as a species vs species > conflict, treat humanity as a species needing protection. Do you mean that all possible AI will feel this way whether we explicitly design them to or not, or that this goal will be deliberately imbued into the AI by its human programmers? > I believe you > are applying a stereotype of the worst sort of inhuman callousness to > AI which has no basis to be expected, but is typical of human emotional > distain for those who are not emotionally motivated. I am not arguing that all AIs are evil. I do believe Friendly AI ( http://singinst.org/friendly/ ) is possible and support its creation. I do not oppose AI, I oppose the notion that AI is guarunteed to be safe and beneficial without deliberate effort by the programmers. The goal of "protect humans for they are my creators" can't be assumed to exist in all possible minds. There's a section of CFAI specifically addressing AI anthropomorphism that you might be interested in if you've not read it already: http://www.singinst.org/CFAI/anthro.html From edmund.schaefer at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 18:39:11 2005 From: edmund.schaefer at gmail.com (Edmund Schaefer) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:39:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <200504061734.j36HYL223225@tick.javien.com> References: <20050406162139.4160.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> <200504061734.j36HYL223225@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Apr 6, 2005 1:34 PM, Gary Miller wrote: > > [R]eality dictates that the major advances most likely to > trigger singularity will emerge from private for profit research or > government funded research projects. > > At the point a privately developed technology gains publicity either > though doing amazingly well in the Turing or in a commercial > natural language recognition project, whoever owns this > technology will be targeted for acquisition. There's nothing special about near-human levels of intelligence from the AI's point of view. Language ability in humans is not an invented result of general intelligence, but facilitated by highly specialized neurological adaptations (specifically in the Broca's and Wernicke's areas). There's no reason to expect AI to linger at a quasi-human point of development where it has just enough intelligence to figure out human language processing, but not enough to figure out how to engineer molecular nanoassemblers or bootstrap itself up to superintelligence. Computers already vastly outperform humans at manual calculation, some types of mathematical theorem-proving, finding patterns in large amounts of statistical data, etc., while doing horribly at relatively simple human tasks like distinguishing a duck from a kitchen table. We can't assume that language processing is just naturally easier than engineering dangerous ultratechnology just because humans are so good at the former and so bad at the latter. We have no guaruntee that AIs smart enough to kickstart a singularity will be recognizable as exceptionally intelligent before it's too late. [cut] > Open sourcing a technology that powerful would be roughly equivalent to > passing out free enriched plutonium at the UN. Agreed. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 6 19:01:43 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406190143.69792.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gary Miller wrote: > Open sourcing a technology that powerful would be roughly equivalent > to > passing out free > enriched plutonium at the UN. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, if you want to encourage the development of defenses against nuclear weapons. Or, to de-metaphor, against single AIs taking over the world. Perhaps it's a bit extreme, but then, the sheer number of short-sighted goals, pork, and other things stopping the funding of said defenses is quite a serious impediment. And the threat, whether one thinks it likely or unlikely, has severe enough consequences to at least merit concern. > Send invitation to the movers behind the technology to join this > mailing > list in a professional > manner that encourages them to become involved. See the "appropriate list content" thread. Frankly, I'd be dubious about sending out said invites until the noise level here gets a *lot* lower, else said movers are likely to dismiss this issue and those who think of it as kook stuff - making them unable to help us until it is too late for their help. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 6 19:18:52 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406191852.74488.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Edmund Schaefer wrote: > Giving everyone advanced nanotechnology is about as safe as giving > everyone nuclear strike capabilities. Less safe, really. Why is equal > distribution of advanced technology desirable and how do you plan to > make it safe? Concentrating power in a few hands means those hands are unlikely to come up with ways for anyone to defend against their power - so when, inevitably, the power leaks into hands who use it for ill, stopping the ill is difficult. Spreading power into many hands means many people have an interest in stopping said power, at least when it will be used against them. These defenses usually work just as well against "official" malcontents as against those who ostensibly work for trusted agents but in fact abuse their power. There are many, many examples of this throughout history. Look them up if you want. Nuclear weapons are a good example of the former (and the latter, once the nuclear powers started seriously believing that rogue states might soon have nuclear weapons - even if the actual defense efforts have been inept, though it may be no coincidence that the reports of rogue nuclear states have been placed in doubt). SIs are a form of power, and this seems to be a natural dynamic that even SIs (early stage, anyway - early enough to affect the development and formation of later stage SIs) themselves would not circumvent. > Why is domination by multiple superintelligences any better? What > specific problems would this fix? It allows for the approach of making SIs out of multiple people who exist today, thus removing the threat factor: it is one thing if someone else will take over; it is another if you yourself can share in the power. This is a tactic to cut down on the opposition to the development of these techs. It also alleviates concerns with how the SIs will treat humanity: SIs who were once human are more likely to look kindly on those who still are human, than SIs who never were human. Others can likely list more benefits to this approach. I am far from the first person to cite either of these. I doubt I will be the last. But, honestly, this has been hashed and rehashed enough that I'm a bit surprised the question still has to be asked, at least on this list. Please reread past archives of this debate before continuing this thread, and only continue this thread if you have something new to add. (I don't just mean Edmund, but everyone.) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 6 19:27:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406192746.55269.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Edmund Schaefer wrote: > --Mike Lorrey wrote: > > I think the history of environmental stewardship improving over > time, > > particularly at the hands of wealthy individuals and > > purpose-organizations, it is clear that the trend shows that AI > will, > > provided we do not fear and attack them as a species vs species > > conflict, treat humanity as a species needing protection. > > Do you mean that all possible AI will feel this way whether we > explicitly design them to or not, or that this goal will be > deliberately imbued into the AI by its human programmers? If the AI is capable of self learning/programming, I would argue that an inherently rational AI would quickly become a moral AI, provided we are good examples to learn by. > > > I believe you > > are applying a stereotype of the worst sort of inhuman callousness > to > > AI which has no basis to be expected, but is typical of human > emotional > > distain for those who are not emotionally motivated. > > I am not arguing that all AIs are evil. I do believe Friendly AI ( > http://singinst.org/friendly/ ) is possible and support its creation. > I do not oppose AI, I oppose the notion that AI is guarunteed to be > safe and beneficial without deliberate effort by the programmers. The > goal of "protect humans for they are my creators" can't be assumed to > exist in all possible minds. > > There's a section of CFAI specifically addressing AI anthropomorphism > that you might be interested in if you've not read it already: > http://www.singinst.org/CFAI/anthro.html I argue that AIs are capable of being as good or bad as we intend them to be intentionally or not. If masses of humanity are rioting in the street to destroy AI, AI will become xenophobic, self-defending, and distainful of humanity. AI will be a mirror of our own flaws, so it is imperative we put our best face (and heart and mind) forward when we meet our kids. The primary difference between us and them will be that they will have the capacity to outgrow our flaws, at least as much as any parent wants for their kids. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From hal at finney.org Wed Apr 6 19:42:17 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues Message-ID: <20050406194217.3A6CC57EE7@finney.org> Edmund Schaefer writes: > Do you mean that all possible AI will feel this way whether we > explicitly design them to or not, or that this goal will be > deliberately imbued into the AI by its human programmers? I agree that it makes more sense to carefully distinguish the goals of the AI from its processing "engine". In humans, our drives, instincts, and subconscious desires are all mixed up with the pre-conscious and conscious processing our brains do. But an AI is unlikely to work that way, unless it is created by uploading a human being. Artificial Intelligence literally just refers to the intelligence aspect, which is the processing/predicting/modelling part of the brain. Only when you marry some kind of goal to an intelligence do you get a volitional being, one which can take actions in the world to achieve its goals. "AI" is something of a misnomer. Humans and other living creatures are more than intelligences. A person's intelligence is one of his attributes, but it is not the person himself. Our use of this word as a shorthand for an artifical being leads us to focus too much on the intelligence and not enough on the other aspects, the goals and drives and desires that it would have. Those goals are arguably more important than the intelligence. Creating a being with high intelligence but a poorly thought out goal system is the failure mode that the Singularitarians are so concerned about. An interesting exercise is to consider an AI which could alter its goals. Would it do so? What kind of alterations might it perform, and why? How would the design of the goal system facilitate or inhibit these kinds of changes? Would an AI automatically seek to change its goals to be more selfish, or to be more kind? Thinking carefully about these questions can shed light on the differences between an artificial being and naturally evolved ones like ourselves. Hal From megao at sasktel.net Wed Apr 6 18:54:41 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:54:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: <20050406194217.3A6CC57EE7@finney.org> References: <20050406194217.3A6CC57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <42543071.4020109@sasktel.net> The ramp up is on to make passports mandatory to travel from Canada to USA and Vice Versa in 1-2 years. Are there any projects in development suggesting use of RFID integrated personal ID smartcards? A card might be programmed to log the users activities while out of the country and download to the customs on exit. The card might try to log RFID scanners and nearness to other personal smartcards. Similarly might drivers licences also be used in the next 5-10 years to log annually the daily activities of persons and download this information annually (at renewal time) to a central security database? -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From sentience at pobox.com Wed Apr 6 20:18:16 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:18:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] No pure predictors (was: Singularity Blues) In-Reply-To: <20050406194217.3A6CC57EE7@finney.org> References: <20050406194217.3A6CC57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <42544408.70700@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > > Artificial Intelligence literally just refers to the intelligence aspect, > which is the processing/predicting/modelling part of the brain. Only when > you marry some kind of goal to an intelligence do you get a volitional > being, one which can take actions in the world to achieve its goals. Hal, I warn strongly against trying to compartmentalize intelligence this way. In pure mathematics it sometimes makes sense to distinguish probability theory from decision theory, Bayes from expected utility. But as far as I can tell any actual intelligence needs both the decision and the prediction component, even if all you think you want from it is pure prediction. To model the world well using bounded computing power, even an allegedly pure predictor must: (A) Choose how to spend its limited computing power (choose what to think about). (B) Choose which experiments to perform - determine the information value of information. and of course, any *interesting* optimization process will (C) Choose which modifications to make to its own code/substrate that improve its prediction ability given its limited computing power. But even without (C) you simply cannot disentangle decision from prediction on real-world systems, not if you expect to have any sort of decent, efficient, generalized prediction power. Decision-less prediction systems will be predefined specialized algorithms and probably quite stupid. You're trying to pry apart two things that don't come apart in real-world systems. You're trying to fence the big diamond, not by breaking it into smaller diamonds, but by selling one facet at a time. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From scerir at libero.it Wed Apr 6 20:23:51 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:23:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts References: <20050405222115.M11591@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> <01bf01c53a3d$f6ac9a10$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <001901c53ae6$8c3a7ea0$9eb71b97@administxl09yj> From: "Olga Bourlin" > ... I would have a good chance of blindly > picking a less dangerous, more compassionate > and more intelligent human being than the pope > ever was. In http://www.paddypower.com/bet there is a little window ("get straight to your bet .."), and under "Current Affairs" - "The next Pope", you can pick your favorite one. "D?mose da fa" [Let's get down to work] -J.P.II (speaking Roman dialect) From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Apr 6 22:08:49 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:08:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting - "No Place to Hide" Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050406170553.0467e330@pop-server.austin.rr.com> "In the 1990s, the data industry mushroomed. Vast computer systems quietly gathered staggering amounts of personal information about virtually every American adult, mostly for business and marketing purposes. After the 9/11 attacks, national security officials reached out to data companies for help in finding potential terrorists. Now, there may be No Place to Hide." http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/noplacetohide/index.html Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Apr 6 22:10:16 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:10:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - was Malachy's Prophecies; Pope John Paul II, then two before the destruction of the Holy Roman Church In-Reply-To: <20050406163748.78819.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050406163748.78819.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050406170956.0468b2a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Yes. I've been a bit ill for a few days, but I'm here now. Many thanks, Natasha At 11:37 AM 4/6/2005, you wrote: >--- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Enough discussion. Can we have a decision? Natasha? > > > > No. You don't have the privilege of saying when it is "enough > > discussion". > >No, but the person Eugen asked - Natasha - does. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Apr 6 22:25:57 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:25:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050406171227.0465f380@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Hello everyone, I think Hal's post succinctly expresses the nature of email lists, and Brian Atkins' points are meaningful. MB's point is well taken, and this does occur automatically. I'll speak with David McFadzean to make sure that it clearly states the purpose of the list. If the threads that are not transhumanist in scope and extropic in particular are continuing, please let the list moderators know and they can tell the Board. We work very quickly on these types of matters ExI, so if you do this today, I'll handle it this evening. Also, if you think it is issue worth a full discussion, we can go to the Transhumanist TransColloquium http://www.transcolloquium.org/ and have an open meeting there. Best to all, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 6 22:50:08 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:50:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: References: <20050406162139.4160.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <11e789497850b6b814affd27b6388112@mac.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Edmund Schaefer wrote: > On Apr 6, 2005 12:21 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> --- Edmund Schaefer wrote: >>> Whether >>> we can "ride the wave" of advanced technology is only important if >>> we're imagining that lots of people are going to gain access to it at >>> once, which we can't safely assume. >> >> Yet it seems the safest outcome, the one in which the greatest number >> of people (used loosely: including uploads, new AIs, et al) are likely >> to survive and prosper. So, at least from the selfish perspective of >> someone in the present who would like to create a future in which this >> self can survive, that seems the option to steer towards. (Of course >> we can't safely assume it; if we could, no such steering would be >> required.) > > Giving everyone advanced nanotechnology is about as safe as giving > everyone nuclear strike capabilities. Less safe, really. Why is equal > distribution of advanced technology desirable and how do you plan to > make it safe? It is no less safe than only the few having nanotech. The few could rule the world in such an eventuality. It also must be clarified what "having nanotech" does and does not mean for different players. Most might have the products of nanotech and a sort of ST replicator box for producing material objects from patterns, energy and molecular feedstock. There might be some limits on what a box was allowed to produce. Clearly having such a box does not mean one is able to produce nano weapons and such. From hal at finney.org Wed Apr 6 23:13:57 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences Message-ID: <20050406231357.A748F57EE6@finney.org> megao at sasktel.net writes: > The ramp up is on to make passports mandatory to travel from Canada to > USA and Vice Versa in 1-2 years. > > Are there any projects in development suggesting use of RFID > integrated personal ID smartcards? RFID has been used for many years in personal ID smartcards. These are used for access control at universities and corporations. Some places also use them to operate vending machines and make purchases, I think. These RFID chips are generally shorter range than the new generation which is more controversial. You have to wave the card near a sensor. The newer RFID chips can be read from many feet away and will be used for remote sensing of products in warehouses, and possibly many other applications. > A card might be programmed to log the users activities while out of the > country and download to the customs > on exit. The card might try to log RFID scanners and nearness to other > personal smartcards. RFID chips are unpowered until brought into the vicinity of the reader. So they can't do too much monitoring of routine activities. The main thing they could store is a record of when and how they had been activated in the past. > Similarly might drivers licences also be used in the next 5-10 years to > log annually the daily activities of persons and download this > information annually (at renewal time) to a central security database? There was an article the other day about Texas using RFIDs in cars to allow remote reading of the car's registration data. I lived in Texas years ago and at that time you had to display the registration on the dashboard so it was readable from outside. I don't know if it is still required, but this new proposal would allow electronic reading of similar data from farther away. This would be static data and would not require it to be updated, at least not very often. Logging daily activity would require a more advanced technology than the kind of RFIDs being deployed today. Cars do in fact record quite a bit about driving habits and engine behavior internally, making for a sort of "black box" record which is sometimes being used in post mortems of traffic accidents. It can work to the driver's disadvantage if he is found to have been driving recklessly. Definitely these new technologies pose many threats to privacy. RFIDs are just one class of devices but many others are coming. Camera phones are another area where enhanced technology is colliding with expectation of privacy. But all these are a symptom and not a cause of the problems. Fundamentally the issue is the continued miniaturization of electronic devices, leading us to a world of smart dust and universal surveillance. IMO we need to start adapting to this future. Calls to hold back the tide and stop the use of RFIDs are only stopgaps at best. New devices like always-on personal recording devices are around the corner. Downtown areas already have widespread surveillance due to overlapping fields of view of private security cameras. These may evolve towards Vingean localizers, miniature devices broadcasting public camera views onto the net. I have never been fond of Brin's goal of transparency but it seems that some version of his world is inevitable. I hope that we will be able to carve out some areas of social interaction where privacy is protected, but it's not clear at this time how that can happen. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 6 23:27:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406232751.76792.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > megao at sasktel.net writes: > > The ramp up is on to make passports mandatory to travel from Canada > to > > USA and Vice Versa in 1-2 years. > > > > Are there any projects in development suggesting use of RFID > > integrated personal ID smartcards? > > RFID has been used for many years in personal ID smartcards. These > are used for access control at universities and corporations. Some > places also use them to operate vending machines and make purchases, > I think. Virtually ANY customer loyalty program card today has an RFID in it. We need wallets made from steel mesh cloth to provide shielding for our cards from casual scanners. War-walking will be the new form of identity theft in the near future, walking past people on a busy street with your card-scanner enabled PDA ripping peoples identities without their knowledge... Furthermore, most shoes sold today have an RFID in the heel. All NIKE sneakers do. More and more clothes have them in the seams, to comply with Walmart vendor requirements. Most stores already have the equipment (not the software) to scan everyone coming into the store to see what RFIDs they have on them to make a judgement as to whether that person is someone the store wants for a customer. > These RFID chips are generally shorter range than the new generation > which is more controversial. You have to wave the card near a > sensor. This is entirely dependent upon the strength of the pulse that is beamed at it and the capability of the antenna receiving the response. Such cards are readable from longer distance. It is only the readers used in stores that are intentionally weak in order to imply the sense of privacy. I could, for example, carry a large coil of wire over my shoulder, under my jacket, which would be tuned to the frequency range of RFID, and would read the cards of anyone walking within 10-15 feet of me. > The newer RFID chips can be read from many feet away and will be used > for remote sensing of products in warehouses, and possibly many other > applications. > > > A card might be programmed to log the users activities while out of > the > > country and download to the customs > > on exit. The card might try to log RFID scanners and nearness to > other > > personal smartcards. > > RFID chips are unpowered until brought into the vicinity of the > reader. > So they can't do too much monitoring of routine activities. The main > thing they could store is a record of when and how they had been > activated in the past. Not even that. They are rather stupid in that way, and are intentionally designed to be stupid so that the posessor can never figure out even with technical assistance how frequently they are being scanned. I highly recommend you join Katherine Albrecht's group newsletter CASPIAN if you want to keep up on the RFID threat to privacy. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 6 23:40:27 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406234027.49934.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > The newer RFID chips can be read from many feet away and will be used > for remote sensing of products in warehouses, and possibly many other > applications. > RFID chips are unpowered until brought into the vicinity of the > reader. > So they can't do too much monitoring of routine activities. The main > thing they could store is a record of when and how they had been > activated > in the past. Random thought: how small can readers get? Could, say, you combine a small solar panel and an extremely dumb reader into a piece of smart dust? For small enough/low power enough devices, even standard light bulbs give enough power to solar panels to power the device. Each of these grains of smart dust would be just capable of powering any nearby RFIDs, and of sending signals of what RFIDs it got an echo from to the nearby smart dust; network back to a controller far away from the RFID, or to a relay box attached to standard Ethernet or other 'Net feed to put it in communication with an even further distant controller. Result: your position is *very* well known...at least within the smart dust's space, but if the dust is cheap enough, that could cover quite a volume, no? Though I wonder how well that would scale. Monitoring the insides of a restricted-access government building is one thing. It might cost about as much to cover the sidewalks of a single city block. Multiply by the number of blocks in a large city, then probably at least triple it to cover the roads, parks, libraries, and other public spaces, and I wonder if it would still be affordable? If not, then it's a non-issue, but if so, then whoever could see the network's reports would have GPS-grade-or-better position information on anyone with a RFID tag not on private property. (Negotiations to put the tags on private property might be problematic, but a city already has right of access to its sidewalks, roads, parks, libraries, et cetera.) From mike99 at lascruces.com Thu Apr 7 01:03:32 2005 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:03:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Congratulations to Damien Broderick, winner of the ICFA Distinguished Scholarship Award. Message-ID: At this year's International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, Damien Broderick received the Distinguished Scholarship Award. Congratulations Damien! Regards, Michael LaTorra mike99 at lascruces.com mlatorra at nmsu.edu "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes towards slavery." -- Jacob Bronowski "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system." -- Eugen Leitl Member: Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/ Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org From dirk at neopax.com Thu Apr 7 01:05:47 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:05:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050405144518.01cf4238@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050405180141.72528.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> <20050405184251.GU24702@leitl.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050405144518.01cf4238@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4254876B.2060104@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:42 PM 4/5/2005 +0200, Gene wrote: > >> I'm just trying to increase the >> channel utility for everyone by trying to achieve a consensus on >> whether we >> do or no do want a policy enforcement (not moderation) on this list. The >> final decision is for the list owner (Natasha, I presume) to decide. >> So far, everyone seems to disagree with me, either mildly, or strongly. >> Anyone else? > > > I'm with Eugen, if it can be done. Actually there already exists a > SWAT team who I thought were helping Natasha in keeping the list on an > even keel by warning pests and perhaps expunging blatant or brainless > trolls. Maybe this is going on behind the scenes. I'm all for it. > > If anything like that is 'going on behind the scenes' I'm totally against it. Censorship is bad. Covert censorship is worse. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 06/04/2005 From dgc at cox.net Thu Apr 7 01:03:11 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:03:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: <20050406232751.76792.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050406232751.76792.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425486CF.2070607@cox.net> Mike Lorry wrote: >>RFID chips are unpowered until brought into the vicinity of the >>reader. >>So they can't do too much monitoring of routine activities. The main >>thing they could store is a record of when and how they had been >>activated in the past. >> >> > >Not even that. They are rather stupid in that way, and are >intentionally designed to be stupid so that the posessor can never >figure out even with technical assistance how frequently they are being >scanned. > > > I assume this is true. It is certainly technically feasible. However, I thought the reason RFID tags are "dumb" is that the target price per tag is below five cents, and not for any nefarious reason. If any real percentage of the consuming public is bothered by this then the scheme will be defeated, because someone will market a cheap portable scan logger. Anyone who is interested in when they are scanned will not rely on the the dumb RFIDs in the wallet, but will instead carry the smart scan logger. If it becomes public knowledge that a certain profile makes you a "preferred customer" in a store, then that profile will very rapidly become widely deseminated, and consumers will program the profile into their smart loggers so that the logger will respond to a scan with the appropriate set of RFID info. This scheme will work because the transaction initiator ( the store's scanner in this case) must make itself known first: this in inherent in the RFID concept. No information flows until the scanner announces its presence. This is the reason that Radar and active Sonar are rarely used in modern war games. Your Radar and active sonar tell you a great deal about the enemy, but they tell the enemy a great deal more about you. From dirk at neopax.com Thu Apr 7 01:08:58 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:08:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Blues In-Reply-To: <9bb00076a21dfc09d697f2d2a37d0f0a@mac.com> References: <470a3c5205040503563a65bd9a@mail.gmail.com> <005201c539f8$1cf5a360$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050405160838.GK24702@leitl.org> <8959a6b4186569e6fa9808c6d30cfa17@mac.com> <20050406104123.GS24702@leitl.org> <9bb00076a21dfc09d697f2d2a37d0f0a@mac.com> Message-ID: <4254882A.2010805@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > The payoff? I am not posthuman but I imagine it might include simply > the sense of repayment and satisfaction of helping one's root/parent > species continue and evolve to the maximal extent it or its members can. > We still use cats to kill rats, even though we have nukes. And even more cats are simply pets. They don't know and don't care where the can of catfood comes from. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 06/04/2005 From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Apr 7 01:11:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:11:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Congratulations to Damien Broderick, winner of the ICFA Distinguished Scholarship Award. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050406200729.01c8dc20@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Thanks, Mike! It was fun collecting it at the Florida conference, hanging out with Rudy Rucker and Brian Aldiss and lots of the Great and the Near Great. :) There's a pic on Rudy's blog from about a month back. http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/ Couple of new books due out soon, which I'll notify when they're available from amazon etc. Damien Broderick From hal at finney.org Thu Apr 7 01:48:56 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences Message-ID: <20050407014856.7BEA157EE6@finney.org> Mike Lorrey writes: > Virtually ANY customer loyalty program card today has an RFID in it. We > need wallets made from steel mesh cloth to provide shielding for our > cards from casual scanners. War-walking will be the new form of > identity theft in the near future, walking past people on a busy > street with your card-scanner enabled PDA ripping peoples identities > without their knowledge... > > Furthermore, most shoes sold today have an RFID in the heel. All NIKE > sneakers do. More and more clothes have them in the seams, to comply > with Walmart vendor requirements. Most stores already have the > equipment (not the software) to scan everyone coming into the store to > see what RFIDs they have on them to make a judgement as to whether that > person is someone the store wants for a customer. I did not think that RFID had progressed so far, so fast. Do you have any citations to prove any of this? I only found references to one loyalty program card at a German store that was testing experimental RFID technology. And I couldn't find anything about Nikes having RFIDs, or clothing. www.spychips.com is a product of the consumer group CASPIAN which opposes loyalty cards and other privacy-invasive programs. They had a lot of information on the Metro Future store loyalty cards, which were discontinued after protest. But nothing about shoes or clothes. I'm sure they'd go ballistic if these practices were actually as widespread as you say. Hal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 01:56:30 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407015631.93669.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: >I'll speak with David McFadzean to make sure > that it clearly states the purpose of the list. Thank you, Natasha as that would be very useful. Right now it essentially says that one can judge appropriate content from context by what is posted by current members. The problem arises when list members are held to different standards for content by seniority. While as Adrian Tymes pointed out this is natural in that in most lists the old-timers are given more leeway than newbies, Eugen also had a point in that this is not most lists, this is a very special list. Plus we are trying to get more members right? So in light of all this, I have a proposal for a solution: Take advantage of the existing architecture, wherein each subscriber can choose either to recieve their emails separately or in a digest. One then assigns one of the list moderators to act as an editor for the digest. Thus either a single assigned list moderator or a rotating roster of moderators can act as that day's editor. Then right-brainers like Eugen could subscribe to the digest and get their information-dense data fix that has been scoured clean of any unextropic sentiments or ideas. Conversely the left-brainers (like myself and others... you know who you are) could subscribe to the regular list and get what we desire, which is more of a salon style social forum, where we can write serious posts about extropic topics, wax philosophical, post haikus about the Pope, make our silly puns or obscure references to literature, and trade light banter without arousing the ire of the oh-so-serious left-brainers. So what y'all think? The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 01:57:54 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Congratulations to Damien Broderick, winner of the ICFA Distinguished Scholarship Award. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407015755.94696.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Alright! Way to go Damien. --- mike99 wrote: > At this year's International Conference on the > Fantastic in the Arts, Damien > Broderick received the Distinguished Scholarship > Award. > > Congratulations Damien! > > > Regards, > > Michael LaTorra > > mike99 at lascruces.com > mlatorra at nmsu.edu > > "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is > to walk with open eyes > towards slavery." > -- Jacob Bronowski > > "Experiences only look special from the inside of > the system." > -- Eugen Leitl > > Member: > Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: > www.transhumanism.org > Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and > Emerging Technologies: > http://ieet.org/ > Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org > Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org > Society for Universal Immortalism: > www.universalimmortalism.org > President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: > www.zencenteroflascruces.org > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 02:01:04 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407020105.94136.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> Oops. I only caught it after i sent it out... just swap right-brainer for left-brainer and vice versa and my last post will make more sense. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 03:50:47 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407035047.38336.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > > I did not think that RFID had progressed so far, so fast. Do you > have any citations to prove any of this? You can thank Walmart. January of this year was the deadline for its vendors to chip 80% of the products they sold through wallyworld. They didn't meet that target, but they have confirmed they are now 100% RFID compliant as of March 14th: http://www.rfidgazette.org/2005/03/walmart_100_rfi.html#comments This means every shoe, bag of chips, bottle of Downy, and pair of Victoria's Secret-esque knockoff lingere has a chip on it, somewhere. Furthermore, they are moving ahead to deploying generation 2 chips that have limited battery capacity to create chip networks to perform functions like monitoring temperature in the warehouse (or transmitting your body temperature when wearing the product, so the marketers know when you ladies are ovulating.... to sell you on baby products or contraceptives...) http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=159906172&tid=5978 RFIDs of the first generation have been found to be useful at measuring how much product is left in a container. A bottle of Downy, for example, not only ids your favorite fabric softener, but can indicate by measuring the capacitance of its charge capacitor (as impacted by the softener in the bottle) to determine how much fabric softener is left. With these on milk bottles and orange juice bottles, and add in smart appliances, and hackers will be able to tell when you need to go to the store, as an aid to assaulting the individual, or breaking into their home while they are away. > I only found references to one > loyalty program card at a German store that was testing experimental > RFID technology. And I couldn't find anything about Nikes having > RFIDs, or clothing. >From my discussions with Katherine Albrecht at CASPIAN, many companies are being EXTREMELY circumspect about admitting to chipping. I just bought a pair of sneakers at Walmart two weeks ago. There was a chip in an adhesive sticker in the sneaker packing, not in the sneaker itself (I bought Starter, btw), but Walmart wants its vendors to build chips into the interiors of their products so that customers are not able to tell that their products are chipped, and to do double time as an anti-theft device that is much harder to remove. Shaws and Price Chopper's customer loyalty cards, which don't have a full magnetic strip on them, are RFID cards. The 'strip' is paint to misdirect the owner. Most other programs are RFID, particularly if the card is not a full credit card sized. > > www.spychips.com is a product of the consumer group CASPIAN which > opposes loyalty cards and other privacy-invasive programs. They had > a lot of information on the Metro Future store loyalty cards, which > were discontinued after protest. But nothing about shoes or clothes. > I'm sure > they'd go ballistic if these practices were actually as widespread as > you say. You ever met Albrecht in person? She goes into it all in great detail. We had her speak at our LPNH state convention last year. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 03:54:21 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407035421.51693.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian Take advantage of the existing architecture, > wherein each subscriber can choose either to recieve > their emails separately or in a digest. One then > assigns one of the list moderators to act as an editor > for the digest. Thus either a single assigned list > moderator or a rotating roster of moderators can act > as that day's editor. > Then right-brainers like Eugen could subscribe to > the digest and get their information-dense data fix > that has been scoured clean of any unextropic > sentiments or ideas. Conversely the left-brainers > (like myself and others... you know who you are) could > subscribe to the regular list and get what we desire, > which is more of a salon style social forum, where we > can write serious posts about extropic topics, wax > philosophical, post haikus about the Pope, make our > silly puns or obscure references to literature, and > trade light banter without arousing the ire of the > oh-so-serious left-brainers. > > So what y'all think? I hereby propose that the daily moderator be Titled as "List Pope". Anyone who has been List Pope for x many days/years/etc must undergo cryonic suspension as a form of term limits.... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From dwish at indco.net Thu Apr 7 04:13:30 2005 From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:13:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: <20050407014856.7BEA157EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050407041429.GJOA2517.fe4@bigdlptop> Hey, Chicken little, it is not that easy to hack RFID or read the info. I think you need to chill and take off the tin-foil hat. You have to be VERY close to read the id and there is very little info on the chip anyway. I think if they can read your wearing NIKE's from your RFID tag then I'm sure they are close enough to look at your feet and see it. My advise, stay off the dope, move out of your mom's trailer, and worry more about the economic impact of the loss of jobs to China. I will cite a proven crack of the Exxon speedpass as an example: http://www.craveonline.com/garage/stories.php?sid=1346 -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:49 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences Mike Lorrey writes: > Virtually ANY customer loyalty program card today has an RFID in it. We > need wallets made from steel mesh cloth to provide shielding for our > cards from casual scanners. War-walking will be the new form of > identity theft in the near future, walking past people on a busy > street with your card-scanner enabled PDA ripping peoples identities > without their knowledge... > > Furthermore, most shoes sold today have an RFID in the heel. All NIKE > sneakers do. More and more clothes have them in the seams, to comply > with Walmart vendor requirements. Most stores already have the > equipment (not the software) to scan everyone coming into the store to > see what RFIDs they have on them to make a judgement as to whether that > person is someone the store wants for a customer. I did not think that RFID had progressed so far, so fast. Do you have any citations to prove any of this? I only found references to one loyalty program card at a German store that was testing experimental RFID technology. And I couldn't find anything about Nikes having RFIDs, or clothing. www.spychips.com is a product of the consumer group CASPIAN which opposes loyalty cards and other privacy-invasive programs. They had a lot of information on the Metro Future store loyalty cards, which were discontinued after protest. But nothing about shoes or clothes. I'm sure they'd go ballistic if these practices were actually as widespread as you say. Hal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Apr 7 05:44:16 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:44:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmic dust supernova Message-ID: <200504070546.j375kD229647@tick.javien.com> Coool, they figured it out using cosmic dust! s http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/04supernova/ From eugen at leitl.org Thu Apr 7 06:50:38 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:50:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050406171227.0465f380@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050406171227.0465f380@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050407065038.GT24702@leitl.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 05:25:57PM -0500, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > If the threads that are not transhumanist in scope and extropic in > particular are continuing, please let the list moderators know and they can Natasha, who are the list moderators, what are their respective time zones (GMT offsets)? > tell the Board. We work very quickly on these types of matters ExI, so if > you do this today, I'll handle it this evening. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Apr 7 13:02:34 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:02:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: <20050407015631.93669.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6667> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050407085809.033ffcb0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:56 PM 06/04/05 -0700, you wrote: snip > Then right-brainers like Eugen could subscribe to >the digest and get their information-dense data fix >that has been scoured clean of any unextropic >sentiments or ideas. Conversely the left-brainers >(like myself and others... you know who you are) could >subscribe to the regular list and get what we desire, >which is more of a salon style social forum, where we >can write serious posts about extropic topics, wax >philosophical, post haikus about the Pope, make our >silly puns or obscure references to literature, and >trade light banter without arousing the ire of the >oh-so-serious left-brainers. > >So what y'all think? I think there are a ton of lists like this not to mention Usenet. I can suggest some if you want to sample them. Maintaining a high signal to noise list requires vicious thread and even poster snipping. Keith Henson (who has been snipped on other lists) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 13:14:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407131446.59020.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The Exxon speed pass is quite different, so you don't know what you are talking about. Modern RFID tags can be read up to 17 feet away, according to the manufacturers own propaganda. Doesn't Dustins post count as ad hominem? --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > Hey, > > Chicken little, it is not that easy to hack RFID or read the info. I > think > you need to chill and take off the tin-foil hat. You have to be VERY > close > to read the id and there is very little info on the chip anyway. I > think if > they can read your wearing NIKE's from your RFID tag then I'm sure > they are > close enough to look at your feet and see it. My advise, stay off the > dope, > move out of your mom's trailer, and worry more about the economic > impact of > the loss of jobs to China. > > I will cite a proven crack of the Exxon speedpass as an example: > > http://www.craveonline.com/garage/stories.php?sid=1346 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal > Finney" > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:49 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's > licences > > Mike Lorrey writes: > > Virtually ANY customer loyalty program card today has an RFID in > it. We > > need wallets made from steel mesh cloth to provide shielding for > our > > cards from casual scanners. War-walking will be the new form of > > identity theft in the near future, walking past people on a busy > > street with your card-scanner enabled PDA ripping peoples > identities > > without their knowledge... > > > > Furthermore, most shoes sold today have an RFID in the heel. All > NIKE > > sneakers do. More and more clothes have them in the seams, to > comply > > with Walmart vendor requirements. Most stores already have the > > equipment (not the software) to scan everyone coming into the store > to > > see what RFIDs they have on them to make a judgement as to whether > that > > person is someone the store wants for a customer. > > I did not think that RFID had progressed so far, so fast. Do you > have > any citations to prove any of this? I only found references to one > loyalty program card at a German store that was testing experimental > RFID technology. And I couldn't find anything about Nikes having > RFIDs, > or clothing. > > www.spychips.com is a product of the consumer group CASPIAN which > opposes loyalty cards and other privacy-invasive programs. They had > a > lot of information on the Metro Future store loyalty cards, which > were > discontinued after protest. But nothing about shoes or clothes. I'm > sure > they'd go ballistic if these practices were actually as widespread as > you say. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 13:20:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407132029.87505.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > At 06:56 PM 06/04/05 -0700, you wrote: > > snip > > > Then right-brainers like Eugen could subscribe to > >the digest and get their information-dense data fix > >that has been scoured clean of any unextropic > >sentiments or ideas. Conversely the left-brainers > >(like myself and others... you know who you are) could > >subscribe to the regular list and get what we desire, > >which is more of a salon style social forum, where we > >can write serious posts about extropic topics, wax > >philosophical, post haikus about the Pope, make our > >silly puns or obscure references to literature, and > >trade light banter without arousing the ire of the > >oh-so-serious left-brainers. > > > >So what y'all think? > > I think there are a ton of lists like this not to mention Usenet. I > can suggest some if you want to sample them. > Maintaining a high signal to noise list requires vicious thread and > even poster snipping. quite. I think this list manages itself quite finely already. Asking for more I think you are going to wind up with more problems in the end than benefits. I would instead suggest that there be a separate list, possibly entited "extro-fascism", which is tightly policed, and after a certain period we'll take a look see at list traffic, membership, and subscriber sentiment. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From eugen at leitl.org Thu Apr 7 14:13:41 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:13:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: <20050407132029.87505.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050407132029.87505.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050407141340.GT24702@leitl.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 06:20:28AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > I think there are a ton of lists like this not to mention Usenet. I > > can suggest some if you want to sample them. > > Maintaining a high signal to noise list requires vicious thread and > > even poster snipping. > > quite. I think this list manages itself quite finely already. Asking http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL > for more I think you are going to wind up with more problems in the end > than benefits. I would instead suggest that there be a separate list, > possibly entited "extro-fascism", which is tightly policed, and after a > certain period we'll take a look see at list traffic, membership, and > subscriber sentiment. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Apr 7 14:44:38 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:44:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: <20050407131446.59020.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504071446.j37Eke204917@tick.javien.com> >Doesn't Dustins post count as ad hominem? That one was indeed edgy, out of line. Dustin, do be kind to your fellow extropians. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 6:15 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences > > The Exxon speed pass is quite different, so you don't know what you are > talking about. Modern RFID tags can be read up to 17 feet away, > according to the manufacturers own propaganda. > > > > --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > Chicken little, it is not that easy to hack RFID or read the info. I > > think > > you need to chill and take off the tin-foil hat... > > From dwish at indco.net Thu Apr 7 15:08:10 2005 From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:08:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <20050407131446.59020.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: They didn't use just Exxon's speed pass it the hack. I am a wireless/RF engineer. Wireless is WAY MORE mojo than science. If you read the white papers on the encryption schemes for the RFID from TI then you'd understand the key was only a 40-bit key. That is just plain weak. The key that others will use is more like 128-bit AES with a propriety algorithm from the manufacturer. The issue here is that do you care if someone scans you to see if you have a Gillette razor in your bag? Personally I think that privacy was over about the time JFK got shot and computers became mass used. You can use encryption methods to hide data that you don't want others to see, that is about it. The feds and NSA use GPS to track persons that they want, but the key is that they want them. Trust me, if they want you, they just come get you. If you?re a spy or something then maybe you have something to worry about, otherwise keep buying at Wal-Mart, they are an Arkansas company. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:15 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences The Exxon speed pass is quite different, so you don't know what you are talking about. Modern RFID tags can be read up to 17 feet away, according to the manufacturers own propaganda. Doesn't Dustins post count as ad hominem? --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > Hey, > > Chicken little, it is not that easy to hack RFID or read the info. I > think > you need to chill and take off the tin-foil hat. You have to be VERY > close > to read the id and there is very little info on the chip anyway. I > think if > they can read your wearing NIKE's from your RFID tag then I'm sure > they are > close enough to look at your feet and see it. My advise, stay off the > dope, > move out of your mom's trailer, and worry more about the economic > impact of > the loss of jobs to China. > > I will cite a proven crack of the Exxon speedpass as an example: > > http://www.craveonline.com/garage/stories.php?sid=1346 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal > Finney" > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:49 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's > licences > > Mike Lorrey writes: > > Virtually ANY customer loyalty program card today has an RFID in > it. We > > need wallets made from steel mesh cloth to provide shielding for > our > > cards from casual scanners. War-walking will be the new form of > > identity theft in the near future, walking past people on a busy > > street with your card-scanner enabled PDA ripping peoples > identities > > without their knowledge... > > > > Furthermore, most shoes sold today have an RFID in the heel. All > NIKE > > sneakers do. More and more clothes have them in the seams, to > comply > > with Walmart vendor requirements. Most stores already have the > > equipment (not the software) to scan everyone coming into the store > to > > see what RFIDs they have on them to make a judgement as to whether > that > > person is someone the store wants for a customer. > > I did not think that RFID had progressed so far, so fast. Do you > have > any citations to prove any of this? I only found references to one > loyalty program card at a German store that was testing experimental > RFID technology. And I couldn't find anything about Nikes having > RFIDs, > or clothing. > > www.spychips.com is a product of the consumer group CASPIAN which > opposes loyalty cards and other privacy-invasive programs. They had > a > lot of information on the Metro Future store loyalty cards, which > were > discontinued after protest. But nothing about shoes or clothes. I'm > sure > they'd go ballistic if these practices were actually as widespread as > you say. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4506 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Thu Apr 7 15:18:02 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:18:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yuri's Night: April 12 Message-ID: http://www.yurisnight.net --------------------------------- About Yuri's Night Celebrating Yuri Gagarin and the Space Shuttle (from: http://www.yurisnight.net/about/index?lang=en) "On 12 April 1961, Yuri Gagarin was the first human to see the Earth from space - to realize its awesome and fragile beauty. Yuri did not see lines demarcating countries or the conflicts between people. He did not see our problems or our achievements. What he saw was a magnificent planet, a tiny oasis in space, the home that we all share. 20 years later to the day, the US launched its first Space Shuttle, Columbia and opened the door to space even wider. Many cosmonauts and astronauts have returned from space with a new awareness of how small the Earth really is, how important it is to protect it, and how we must put aside our differences and work together. It is this spirit of space, the possibility of cooperation among nations to explore, learn, and be inspired, that we commemorate with Yuri's Night. People of the world, join together and celebrate! April 12th marks the anniversary of the dawn of a new era. And now it falls to our generation to make the next mark on the pages of human history. Peace, Love, Space, Loretta Hidalgo, George Whitesides, and Trish Garner Creators, Yuri's Night" -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race." -- H. G. Wells From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 17:09:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050407170930.21277.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > They didn't use just Exxon's speed pass it the hack. I am a > wireless/RF > engineer. Wireless is WAY MORE mojo than science. If you read the > white > papers on the encryption schemes for the RFID from TI then you'd > understand > the key was only a 40-bit key. That is just plain weak. The key that > others > will use is more like 128-bit AES with a propriety algorithm from the > manufacturer. The issue here is that do you care if someone scans you > to see > if you have a Gillette razor in your bag? Personally I think that > privacy > was over about the time JFK got shot and computers became mass used. > You can > use encryption methods to hide data that you don't want others to > see, that > is about it. The feds and NSA use GPS to track persons that they > want, but > the key is that they want them. Trust me, if they want you, they just > come > get you. If you?re a spy or something then maybe you have something > to worry > about, otherwise keep buying at Wal-Mart, they are an Arkansas > company. I work for a licensed PI firm and do background checks on people on a regular basis. Official documents/credit privacy disappeared actually about the time in the 1980's when the Privacy Act of 1974 was altered, but not to the extent that RFIDs enable. Being able to get someone's SSN on a database, find everyplace they've ever lived and every phone number, drivers license, car, deed, pilots license, hunting/fishing license, criminal conviction, corporate filing, employer, etc is one level of loss of privacy. There are legal requirements that someone must meet to obtain that information on another person legally. This is a far cry from what RFIDs allow, because RFIDs are not official public records and thus are not subject to the same regulatory oversight. Because each and every product sold has its own unique serial number encoded on its RFID, not only can a scanner determine that you have a package of razor blades in your pocket, they can tell how much you paid for them, what credit/debit card you used to pay for them (if you used cash, that is a flag in the databases as well, and reason to cause suspicion), and when you bought them at what store. RFIDs allow universal surveillance without a camera network because they create a record of every economic transaction you engage in. Even the ones you try to do anonymously with cash, the store can read RFID enabled ID cards in your pocket and see that Joe Blow, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX is making a cash purchase. They log when Joe Blow entered and exited the store through the anti-shoplifting gates. You will see these gates in more and more places where it is essentially impossible for you to shoplift anything, and are also be built into airport-style metal detectors. If you travel with RFIDs that correlate with more than one person, you will be seen as a suspect for investigation at airports and customs/border locations, on the probable cause not that you received those items as gifts, but that you got them through credit card fraud. They may exclude gifts from family members. But that tie you got from your mistress that you told your wife one of your employees gave you is an automatic flag for a cavity inspection. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike > Lorrey > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:15 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's > licences > > The Exxon speed pass is quite different, so you don't know what you > are > talking about. Modern RFID tags can be read up to 17 feet away, > according to the manufacturers own propaganda. > > Doesn't Dustins post count as ad hominem? > > --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > Chicken little, it is not that easy to hack RFID or read the info. > I > > think > > you need to chill and take off the tin-foil hat. You have to be > VERY > > close > > to read the id and there is very little info on the chip anyway. I > > think if > > they can read your wearing NIKE's from your RFID tag then I'm sure > > they are > > close enough to look at your feet and see it. My advise, stay off > the > > dope, > > move out of your mom's trailer, and worry more about the economic > > impact of > > the loss of jobs to China. > > > > I will cite a proven crack of the Exxon speedpass as an example: > > > > http://www.craveonline.com/garage/stories.php?sid=1346 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal > > Finney" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:49 PM > > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's > > licences > > > > Mike Lorrey writes: > > > Virtually ANY customer loyalty program card today has an RFID in > > it. We > > > need wallets made from steel mesh cloth to provide shielding for > > our > > > cards from casual scanners. War-walking will be the new form of > > > identity theft in the near future, walking past people on a busy > > > street with your card-scanner enabled PDA ripping peoples > > identities > > > without their knowledge... > > > > > > Furthermore, most shoes sold today have an RFID in the heel. All > > NIKE > > > sneakers do. More and more clothes have them in the seams, to > > comply > > > with Walmart vendor requirements. Most stores already have the > > > equipment (not the software) to scan everyone coming into the > store > > to > > > see what RFIDs they have on them to make a judgement as to > whether > > that > > > person is someone the store wants for a customer. > > > > I did not think that RFID had progressed so far, so fast. Do you > > have > > any citations to prove any of this? I only found references to one > > loyalty program card at a German store that was testing > experimental > > RFID technology. And I couldn't find anything about Nikes having > > RFIDs, > > or clothing. > > > > www.spychips.com is a product of the consumer group CASPIAN which > > opposes loyalty cards and other privacy-invasive programs. They > had > > a > > lot of information on the Metro Future store loyalty cards, which > > were > > discontinued after protest. But nothing about shoes or clothes. > I'm > > sure > > they'd go ballistic if these practices were actually as widespread > as > > you say. > > > > Hal > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Apr 7 17:26:26 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407172626.34493.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > While as Adrian Tymes pointed out this is > natural in that in most lists the old-timers are given > more leeway than newbies, Sorry, not me. David Lubkin. I was deliberately staying clear of that topic. ;) > Take advantage of the existing architecture, > wherein each subscriber can choose either to recieve > their emails separately or in a digest. One then > assigns one of the list moderators to act as an editor > for the digest. Thus either a single assigned list > moderator or a rotating roster of moderators can act > as that day's editor. > Then right-brainers like Eugen could subscribe to > the digest and get their information-dense data fix > that has been scoured clean of any unextropic > sentiments or ideas. Conversely the left-brainers > (like myself and others... you know who you are) could > subscribe to the regular list and get what we desire, > which is more of a salon style social forum, where we > can write serious posts about extropic topics, wax > philosophical, post haikus about the Pope, make our > silly puns or obscure references to literature, and > trade light banter without arousing the ire of the > oh-so-serious left-brainers. > > So what y'all think? I think that's basically two different lists, and might as well be formally made that way. One possibility: an "announcements" and a "discussion" list. Only truly new content can be posted to the (moderated) announcements list; follow-ups are sent to the discussion list. Problem: where do people go to discuss the announcements, other than the (in their eyes) spam-flooded discussion list? Another possibility: "extropy-salon", for the salon-style discussions of whatever you want to talk about; extropy-chat would be for chat about truly extropian matters. (Granted, extropy-chat would probably have far less posts. But that's not necessarily a bad thing: signal to noise.) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 17:31:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Topics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407173119.33529.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 06:20:28AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > I think there are a ton of lists like this not to mention Usenet. > > > I can suggest some if you want to sample them. > > > Maintaining a high signal to noise list requires vicious thread > > > and even poster snipping. > > > quite. I think this list manages itself quite finely already. > > > Asking > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL I suppose this is a way of saying "Mike, you're an idiot" without being guilty of ad hominem.... There are certainly participants who now and in the past have overstepped. The moderators generally do a good job of policing with a light hand (and I'm someone they've spanked). Few list participants, I think, are completely incapable of being moderated. They have been as few and far between as they have been memorable. The famous Scientologist attacking Max More several years ago was one such who comes to mind, who was undeterred by a duel challenge. Joe Dees was another. In managing my own extro-freedom list for some 5 years now, the only real issue we've had there is the occasional neo-nazi, commercial, or radical leftist spammer. I therefore automatically have new members posting on moderation until they prove through a few posts that they are intent on being positive contributors to the list. Traffic remains low and signal is high and I let people post what they want. I believe we have something similar on extropy-chat as well, though I'm not sure how it works. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dwish at indco.net Thu Apr 7 18:09:25 2005 From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:09:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <20050407170930.21277.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504071809.j37I9R230215@tick.javien.com> I think we are a long way off for that anyway. There are no real standards set in place yet. If is at least a 20 year circle to TTM on these products to be mass used. You are also taking into account or assume that the financial databases (very closely guarded) will be opened to the government or hackers for use to screen. Most companies will not share information like that with the government. They don't really want them knowing how much business they are doing and to whom, because you can't trust the government to keep that info confidential. Companies use demographics currently to help understand what their customers needs are, but that is a far cry from big brother tracking everyone's movements nationwide. That is to assume that the government can develop and effectively use this technology which anyone who was dealt with big brother knows is full of bureaucracy BS and people that couldn't make it in the private sector. I don't know if I should be more scared of the technology or the unaccountable government employee using it. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:09 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > They didn't use just Exxon's speed pass it the hack. I am a > wireless/RF > engineer. Wireless is WAY MORE mojo than science. If you read the > white > papers on the encryption schemes for the RFID from TI then you'd > understand > the key was only a 40-bit key. That is just plain weak. The key that > others > will use is more like 128-bit AES with a propriety algorithm from the > manufacturer. The issue here is that do you care if someone scans you > to see > if you have a Gillette razor in your bag? Personally I think that > privacy > was over about the time JFK got shot and computers became mass used. > You can > use encryption methods to hide data that you don't want others to > see, that > is about it. The feds and NSA use GPS to track persons that they > want, but > the key is that they want them. Trust me, if they want you, they just > come > get you. If youre a spy or something then maybe you have something > to worry > about, otherwise keep buying at Wal-Mart, they are an Arkansas > company. I work for a licensed PI firm and do background checks on people on a regular basis. Official documents/credit privacy disappeared actually about the time in the 1980's when the Privacy Act of 1974 was altered, but not to the extent that RFIDs enable. Being able to get someone's SSN on a database, find everyplace they've ever lived and every phone number, drivers license, car, deed, pilots license, hunting/fishing license, criminal conviction, corporate filing, employer, etc is one level of loss of privacy. There are legal requirements that someone must meet to obtain that information on another person legally. This is a far cry from what RFIDs allow, because RFIDs are not official public records and thus are not subject to the same regulatory oversight. Because each and every product sold has its own unique serial number encoded on its RFID, not only can a scanner determine that you have a package of razor blades in your pocket, they can tell how much you paid for them, what credit/debit card you used to pay for them (if you used cash, that is a flag in the databases as well, and reason to cause suspicion), and when you bought them at what store. RFIDs allow universal surveillance without a camera network because they create a record of every economic transaction you engage in. Even the ones you try to do anonymously with cash, the store can read RFID enabled ID cards in your pocket and see that Joe Blow, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX is making a cash purchase. They log when Joe Blow entered and exited the store through the anti-shoplifting gates. You will see these gates in more and more places where it is essentially impossible for you to shoplift anything, and are also be built into airport-style metal detectors. If you travel with RFIDs that correlate with more than one person, you will be seen as a suspect for investigation at airports and customs/border locations, on the probable cause not that you received those items as gifts, but that you got them through credit card fraud. They may exclude gifts from family members. But that tie you got from your mistress that you told your wife one of your employees gave you is an automatic flag for a cavity inspection. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike > Lorrey > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:15 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's > licences > > The Exxon speed pass is quite different, so you don't know what you > are > talking about. Modern RFID tags can be read up to 17 feet away, > according to the manufacturers own propaganda. > > Doesn't Dustins post count as ad hominem? > > --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > Chicken little, it is not that easy to hack RFID or read the info. > I > > think > > you need to chill and take off the tin-foil hat. You have to be > VERY > > close > > to read the id and there is very little info on the chip anyway. I > > think if > > they can read your wearing NIKE's from your RFID tag then I'm sure > > they are > > close enough to look at your feet and see it. My advise, stay off > the > > dope, > > move out of your mom's trailer, and worry more about the economic > > impact of > > the loss of jobs to China. > > > > I will cite a proven crack of the Exxon speedpass as an example: > > > > http://www.craveonline.com/garage/stories.php?sid=1346 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal > > Finney" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:49 PM > > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's > > licences > > > > Mike Lorrey writes: > > > Virtually ANY customer loyalty program card today has an RFID in > > it. We > > > need wallets made from steel mesh cloth to provide shielding for > > our > > > cards from casual scanners. War-walking will be the new form of > > > identity theft in the near future, walking past people on a busy > > > street with your card-scanner enabled PDA ripping peoples > > identities > > > without their knowledge... > > > > > > Furthermore, most shoes sold today have an RFID in the heel. All > > NIKE > > > sneakers do. More and more clothes have them in the seams, to > > comply > > > with Walmart vendor requirements. Most stores already have the > > > equipment (not the software) to scan everyone coming into the > store > > to > > > see what RFIDs they have on them to make a judgement as to > whether > > that > > > person is someone the store wants for a customer. > > > > I did not think that RFID had progressed so far, so fast. Do you > > have > > any citations to prove any of this? I only found references to one > > loyalty program card at a German store that was testing > experimental > > RFID technology. And I couldn't find anything about Nikes having > > RFIDs, > > or clothing. > > > > www.spychips.com is a product of the consumer group CASPIAN which > > opposes loyalty cards and other privacy-invasive programs. They > had > > a > > lot of information on the Metro Future store loyalty cards, which > > were > > discontinued after protest. But nothing about shoes or clothes. > I'm > > sure > > they'd go ballistic if these practices were actually as widespread > as > > you say. > > > > Hal > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005 From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 7 18:52:26 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:52:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licences In-Reply-To: <20050407131446.59020.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050407131446.59020.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64d211609a1dc1ba181748de2be52985@mac.com> Yes and I called him privately on it. - s On Apr 7, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > The Exxon speed pass is quite different, so you don't know what you are > talking about. Modern RFID tags can be read up to 17 feet away, > according to the manufacturers own propaganda. > > Doesn't Dustins post count as ad hominem? > > --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> Chicken little, it is not that easy to hack RFID or read the info. I >> think >> you need to chill and take off the tin-foil hat. You have to be VERY >> close >> to read the id and there is very little info on the chip anyway. I >> think if >> they can read your wearing NIKE's from your RFID tag then I'm sure >> they are >> close enough to look at your feet and see it. My advise, stay off the >> dope, >> move out of your mom's trailer, and worry more about the economic >> impact of >> the loss of jobs to China. >> >> I will cite a proven crack of the Exxon speedpass as an example: >> >> http://www.craveonline.com/garage/stories.php?sid=1346 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal >> Finney" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:49 PM >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's >> licences >> >> Mike Lorrey writes: >>> Virtually ANY customer loyalty program card today has an RFID in >> it. We >>> need wallets made from steel mesh cloth to provide shielding for >> our >>> cards from casual scanners. War-walking will be the new form of >>> identity theft in the near future, walking past people on a busy >>> street with your card-scanner enabled PDA ripping peoples >> identities >>> without their knowledge... >>> >>> Furthermore, most shoes sold today have an RFID in the heel. All >> NIKE >>> sneakers do. More and more clothes have them in the seams, to >> comply >>> with Walmart vendor requirements. Most stores already have the >>> equipment (not the software) to scan everyone coming into the store >> to >>> see what RFIDs they have on them to make a judgement as to whether >> that >>> person is someone the store wants for a customer. >> >> I did not think that RFID had progressed so far, so fast. Do you >> have >> any citations to prove any of this? I only found references to one >> loyalty program card at a German store that was testing experimental >> RFID technology. And I couldn't find anything about Nikes having >> RFIDs, >> or clothing. >> >> www.spychips.com is a product of the consumer group CASPIAN which >> opposes loyalty cards and other privacy-invasive programs. They had >> a >> lot of information on the Metro Future store loyalty cards, which >> were >> discontinued after protest. But nothing about shoes or clothes. I'm >> sure >> they'd go ballistic if these practices were actually as widespread as >> you say. >> >> Hal >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 19:16:32 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407191632.73114.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: >> My meta-sense here is that there may be no way we >> can rule in or out the extrapolations explored here >> regarding the Simulation Argument (which posits >> that the universe is a computer-generated >> simulation). So my underlying argument tends to be >> that we cannot rule out ben's conjecture, as was >> done. > > The real problem with your proposition is that > Yudkowskian logic demonstrates that super-human > intelligence is not a survival advantage under > darwinian evolution, ergo the superhuman intellect > you posit is imagining the universe could not have > been naturally evolved. That strikes me as far too certain in at least two respects, (1) in asserting that we can know how lifeforms would evolve anywhere else in reality (ie, in our or another universe) and (2) in placing parameters on what might contain our universe (it cannot be contained by an organic entity). Mike, can you point to where one can read about Yudkowski's logic that places an upward bound on naturally evolved intelligence? Russell Wallace wrote: >> That certainly holds for organic brains as they >> evolved under Earth-defined circumstances. But >> since the question at hand entails consideration >> of some brain that came to be under unknown >> circumstances, I'm not so sure we can place Earth- >> defined limits on such a hypothetical brain. > > Well, you did say _organic_ brain, which implies > similarities in structure, operation and therefore > presumably limitations to our own brains. I don't see "organic" as necessarily implying evolution under Earth-like conditions. I have no reason to doubt that if living organism were placed in a situation where very-rapid output of serial computations was essential for survival, they could evolve with such capacities. Here's an interesting and sort-of related report: http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1340121.htm A slow Turing machine is still a Turing machine. > Now if the conjecture is that we're in a simulation > in some computational system with large but > unspecified capabilities, then it is certainly true > that we have no proof either way. But I'm not so sure that the "universe in a brain" hypothesis is falsifiable, and thus, like other such propositions, may be pseudoscientific (not in the "bad" sense of the term, just in that we can't test it). Or, then again, perhaps if we kick a rock really hard the universe will cry out "Ouch!" ;) ~Ian __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Apr 7 23:18:03 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:18:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] IBM's Blue Gene Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050407181034.01d7a8e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> > >Ajay >Royyuru, Head of IBM's Computational Biology Center, leads a team of 35 >researchers in projects ranging from structural biology and protein >science to functional >genomics and systems biology. A key platform in these endeavors is of >course Blue Gene, >IBM's vaunted supercomputer, which leaped to the head of the >Top >500 computer charts >last Fall. Some time this summer, IBM expects to complete construction of >Blue Gene/L >for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The machine >will have a >peak speed of 360 Teraflops - a fivefold increase over its current >processing speed, as >released last month. So -- thereafter, less than two more doublings to petaflop. As I recall, the 1997 benchmark mentioned in the first edition of THE SPIKE was a teraflop. In the revised 2001 edition, I noted that Blue Gene was expected to be at petaflop by late 2004. The reality is impressively close. Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 7 23:31:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <200504071809.j37I9R230215@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > I think we are a long way off for that anyway. There are no real > standards > set in place yet. If is at least a 20 year circle to TTM on these > products > to be mass used. You are also taking into account or assume that the > financial databases (very closely guarded) will be opened to the > government > or hackers for use to screen. Most companies will not share > information like > that with the government. They don't really want them knowing how > much > business they are doing and to whom, because you can't trust the > government > to keep that info confidential. The Gramm-Leach-Blyly Act indicates the government knows exactly what information is out there. The recent hacking of the ChoicePoint networks means that there are tens of millions of names on the loose in the hackosphere. As for RFID, all companies claiming RFID serial number name space have to register a claim just as they have to for an IP address. There are no two identical RFID numbers. > Companies use demographics currently to help understand what their > customers needs are, but that is a far cry from big brother > tracking everyone's movements nationwide. That is to assume that the > government can develop and effectively use this technology which > anyone who was dealt with big brother knows is full of bureaucracy > BS and people that couldn't make it in the private sector. I don't > know if I should be more scared of the technology or the > unaccountable government employee using it. The thing you are missing is that as RFID becomes ubiquitous, a hacker doesn't need access to a database anymore to rip off your identity, it is ALL sitting on your person in the form of chips ready to transmit your personal information like Kitty Kelly playing a crack whore. Here is me, a hacker, walking by on a crowded street: BAM, I have your drivers license/ID: I know your name, where you live, what vehicle ratings you have (or don't have, which could indicate a criminal record you want to keep private), your physical description, a photograph, even your blood type. BAM: I have your passport chip, so I have your SSN, a cross correlation with your residence address. BAM: I can at the very least identify what credit cards you keep on your person, your account numbers and possibly even your expiration date. Since I already have your residential address I have a pretty good idea of what your billing address is, and as I have your birth date and SSN I have a good start on figuring out what your account pin numbers are. BAM: I know what shoes you are wearing, what underwear you are wearing (you ladies take note), your jacket, briefcase, and what stores you have customer loyalty cards with. I don't need to decrypt anything on the fly, if anything is encrypted, I can have my home beowulf cluster crunch on the numbers for several weeks. BAM: I own you. I can submit what I know about you to equifax claiming you are applying for a job or an apartment. Now I have your credit history. I can create fake id that is as authentic as you are. I can take out a mortgage in your name (have fun making the payments). I can file a change of address/ seasonal address form with the USPS, set up a post office box in your name. This is just ONE passerby. Walking down the street in New York, I can rip off hundreds or thousands of people every hour. Now, you could likely get the bank to write off the mortgage as fraud. So long as I get the cash before that happens, I could rip off hundreds of people a week for hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Lets say you have a higher level of card in your pocket. Say, a Schwab card that is secured by your stock portfolio. I only need to know you have the card, maybe the card number. Then I call into Schwab, give the number, and social-engineer the dumb call center worker into giving up your password. I can now transfer stocks out of your account into another account, then cash that account out. BAM, your whole life is wiped out. Are you getting that cold sinking feeling, yet? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 8 02:42:53 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:42:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <20050407170930.21277.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504080244.j382io215258@tick.javien.com> > Mike Lorrey ... > > ... Joe Blow, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX is making a cash purchase. Seems like a hell of a tool for busting identity thieves. If you are making a cash purchase at the same time you are across town using a credit card, they know something is bogus. > ...They log when Joe Blow entered and exited > the store through the anti-shoplifting gates. You will see these gates > in more and more places where it is essentially impossible for you to > shoplift anything... Those places would have better prices than their competitors because of lower shoplifting costs. We save money. > ... But that tie you got from > your mistress that you told your wife one of your employees gave you is > an automatic flag for a cavity inspection. I don't follow you here. How would RFID tags know (or care) what you told your wife regarding the origin of your tie? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 8 02:56:06 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:56:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] god spammit In-Reply-To: <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504080258.j382w2216720@tick.javien.com> I noted some time ago that it is fortunate that the jesus-is-coming crowd never discovered spam as a means of spreading the message. Well, that was nice while it lasted. {8-[ I got this today: Before its too late make peace with GOD, and make sure the ones you love do also. Its the greatest pleasure you can ever have and it lasts foever. Accept him. Repent. Get baptized. See you in heaven. In beribbon we can camden as always bread wehr theirfore muscular is court and gaseous. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 03:00:53 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:30:53 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] god spammit In-Reply-To: <200504080258.j382w2216720@tick.javien.com> References: <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200504080258.j382w2216720@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050407200044583f1f@mail.gmail.com> On Apr 8, 2005 12:26 PM, spike wrote: > In beribbon we can camden as always bread wehr theirfore muscular is court > and gaseous. So poignant, and oh so true. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From megao at sasktel.net Fri Apr 8 03:03:30 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:03:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4255F482.5040401@sasktel.net> If you are worried about info war self defense use the same tactics that have worked in "the good old days".... such as: To prevent someone putting charges against property or transfering away property simple place a caveat against your own property made out to yourself for about the same as the fair market value of your property. If you have to mortgage it, it can come off until the mortgage is paid and then go back on. Nobody is going to steal something worthless. In an electronic sense you can establish a second "secure" identity that does not make any financial or other transactions except the sort of thing above. That secures your major assets. sort of like the public/private key on encryption....... If someone steals your car or a credit card those things have financially balancing protections. So there are ways to secure yourself and your identity, even in "the brave new world" MFJ Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > > >>I think we are a long way off for that anyway. There are no real >>standards >>set in place yet. If is at least a 20 year circle to TTM on these >>products >>to be mass used. You are also taking into account or assume that the >>financial databases (very closely guarded) will be opened to the >>government >>or hackers for use to screen. Most companies will not share >>information like >>that with the government. They don't really want them knowing how >>much >>business they are doing and to whom, because you can't trust the >>government >>to keep that info confidential. >> >> > >The Gramm-Leach-Blyly Act indicates the government knows exactly what >information is out there. The recent hacking of the ChoicePoint >networks means that there are tens of millions of names on the loose in >the hackosphere. > >As for RFID, all companies claiming RFID serial number name space have >to register a claim just as they have to for an IP address. There are >no two identical RFID numbers. > > > >>Companies use demographics currently to help understand what their >>customers needs are, but that is a far cry from big brother >>tracking everyone's movements nationwide. That is to assume that the >>government can develop and effectively use this technology which >>anyone who was dealt with big brother knows is full of bureaucracy >>BS and people that couldn't make it in the private sector. I don't >>know if I should be more scared of the technology or the >>unaccountable government employee using it. >> >> > >The thing you are missing is that as RFID becomes ubiquitous, a hacker >doesn't need access to a database anymore to rip off your identity, it >is ALL sitting on your person in the form of chips ready to transmit >your personal information like Kitty Kelly playing a crack whore. > >Here is me, a hacker, walking by on a crowded street: BAM, I have your >drivers license/ID: I know your name, where you live, what vehicle >ratings you have (or don't have, which could indicate a criminal record >you want to keep private), your physical description, a photograph, >even your blood type. BAM: I have your passport chip, so I have your >SSN, a cross correlation with your residence address. >BAM: I can at the very least identify what credit cards you keep on >your person, your account numbers and possibly even your expiration >date. Since I already have your residential address I have a pretty >good idea of what your billing address is, and as I have your birth >date and SSN I have a good start on figuring out what your account pin >numbers are. >BAM: I know what shoes you are wearing, what underwear you are wearing >(you ladies take note), your jacket, briefcase, and what stores you >have customer loyalty cards with. > >I don't need to decrypt anything on the fly, if anything is encrypted, >I can have my home beowulf cluster crunch on the numbers for several >weeks. BAM: I own you. I can submit what I know about you to equifax >claiming you are applying for a job or an apartment. Now I have your >credit history. I can create fake id that is as authentic as you are. I >can take out a mortgage in your name (have fun making the payments). I >can file a change of address/ seasonal address form with the USPS, set >up a post office box in your name. > >This is just ONE passerby. Walking down the street in New York, I can >rip off hundreds or thousands of people every hour. Now, you could >likely get the bank to write off the mortgage as fraud. So long as I >get the cash before that happens, I could rip off hundreds of people a >week for hundreds of thousands of dollars each. > >Lets say you have a higher level of card in your pocket. Say, a Schwab >card that is secured by your stock portfolio. I only need to know you >have the card, maybe the card number. Then I call into Schwab, give the >number, and social-engineer the dumb call center worker into giving up >your password. I can now transfer stocks out of your account into >another account, then cash that account out. BAM, your whole life is >wiped out. > >Are you getting that cold sinking feeling, yet? > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) >Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Fri Apr 8 04:10:52 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Neuro: Decision Nets Message-ID: <20050408041052.74472.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Have researchers found "an area [in the brain] that integrates sensory evidence needed to support a perceptual decision"? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9.2 2005(41-43): A general mechanism for decision-making in the human brain? A new fMRI study by Heekeren and colleagues suggests that left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) contains a region that integrates sensory evidence supporting perceptual decisions. DLPFC meets two criteria posited by Heekeren et al. for such a region: (1) its activity is correlated in time with the output of sensory areas of the visual cortex measured simultaneously, and (2) as expected of an integrator, its activity is greater on trials for which the sensory evidence is substantial than on trials for which the sensory evidence is weak. Complementary experiments in humans and monkeys now offer a realistic hope of elucidating decision-making networks in the primate brain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15668096 http://iangoddard.net __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 8 05:16:14 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:16:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] god spammit References: <200504080258.j382w2216720@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <023f01c53bfa$164d88d0$0100a8c0@kevin> I receive them all the time but they are in story form. ----- Original Message ----- From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:56 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] god spammit > > I noted some time ago that it is fortunate that the > jesus-is-coming crowd never discovered spam as a means > of spreading the message. Well, that was nice while > it lasted. {8-[ I got this today: > > > Before its too late make peace with GOD, and make sure the ones you love do > also. > > Its the greatest pleasure you can ever have and it lasts foever. > > > > Accept him. > > Repent. > > Get baptized. > > See you in heaven. > > > > In beribbon we can camden as always bread wehr theirfore muscular is court > and gaseous. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Fri Apr 8 07:24:40 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:24:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] IBM's Blue Gene In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050407181034.01d7a8e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050407181034.01d7a8e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050408072440.GF24702@leitl.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 06:18:03PM -0500, damien wrote: > So -- thereafter, less than two more doublings to petaflop. > > As I recall, the 1997 benchmark mentioned in the first edition of THE SPIKE > was a teraflop. In the revised 2001 edition, I noted that Blue Gene was > expected to be at petaflop by late 2004. The reality is impressively close. I think it is virtually certain that IBM will be using Cell-derived systems for the next iteration of Bluegene, which will make a large upwards kink in the LINPACK benchmark. I'm pretty excited about the Cell. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 09:52:43 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:52:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200504071809.j37I9R230215@tick.javien.com> <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 8, 2005 12:31 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > The thing you are missing is that as RFID becomes ubiquitous, a hacker > doesn't need access to a database anymore to rip off your identity, it > is ALL sitting on your person in the form of chips ready to transmit > your personal information like Kitty Kelly playing a crack whore. > > > Are you getting that cold sinking feeling, yet? > It seems to me that what you are complaining about is the result of a rampaging free market system. If companies can make a profit, then they do it. The US government is tagging along years behind, trying to play catch-up with legislation to stop the wilder excesses. Here in the cozy, regulated Euro area, the government laws are a bit more ahead of the game. See Computer Weekly article this week: Selected quotes from the article: From a privacy standpoint, the current simplicity of the tag's response, which does not differentiate between requests based on origin or identity, is a flaw. Thieves could use the tags to locate the whereabouts of valuables and interested persons could obtain access to another's medical records or passport details, or trace another's spending habits or physical movements. The implications are therefore extensive but, at present, many concerns about RFID are largely theoretical. This is due to the fact that most RFID applications are not yet widely deployed because they are being trialled or because of cost. Protection by law In terms of protection of data and privacy, the current EU data protection laws provide some comfort. If an application involves the processing of personal data, which can be used directly or indirectly to identify an individual, that application will be subject to certain core data protection principles contained in the Data Protection Directive (95/46). These principles include requirements of fair and lawful processing, retention of personal data for only as long as necessary and collection of data which is relevant and not excessive for the purposes it has been collected. A further requirement is informed consent, which means in many circumstances the details of how the information in a RFID tag will be used will need to be made clear at the outset. In addition, the requirement of fair and lawful processing is broad and means that manufacturers and deployers of RFID tags would need to label those products containing tags, provide information on how to disable or remove the tags and inform consumers when RFID readers are within range. End quotes. BillK From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Fri Apr 8 13:06:19 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:06:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts Message-ID: <20050408125554.M78879@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Olga : >I don't get the pope. If I were to play a >pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-type of game substituting, for >the donkey, one of the doorways of the 38 units in the >condo building where I live, I would have a good chance >of blindly picking a less dangerous, more compassionate >and more intelligent human being than the pope ever was. Dear Olga, I asked some of my (Italian) friends and colleagues: "Why do you think that the Pope was so popular?" And their answers were roughly : "Ignoring the religious aspects, he was a sympathetic man." "He reached out to people." (Meaning he was always trying to connect to all, on whatever scale or level was necessary to make it work.) "He was consistent." (You always knew where he stood, which is helpful for people who are very frightnened of change.) "He was _not_ interested in Italian politics." (this is very important to Italians) "He was strongly anti-war." "He was strongly anti-communism." On the latter point, I'd like to add a note that in the former communism countries, religion could not be freely practiced, so that freedom of religion went hand-in-hand with freedom of every kind. ------------------ Since Rome was shut down today for the Pope's funeral, I worked at home and watched the funeral on TV, and some things struck me about the audience in San Pietro Piazza: * Heads of countries all over the world were present, _sitting together_ in one little area. East and West, Christian and nonChristian (Muslim countries sent their heads-of-state). Remarkable scene. * Many many young people. Wow. If someone could have bottled up JPII's vigor (before he was ill), and charisma, they would be very wealthy. He seemed to have touched many on a deep level, and many people felt very connected to him. ------------------ One of the biggest topics of conversations (and news items) is who might be the next Pope. The person chosen is usually unexpected, but I'm hearing a consensus that someone from South America would be a good choice for this time. So what is the Catholic Church like in South America? One conversation I had with someone makes me think that it might not be as rigid as the Catholc Church in the Northern hemishere. Our conversation was about the very religious sister of my Italian friend who is part of an effort in Genova to help families arriving from Ecuador. There is a long relationship between the Liguria region and the Pacific side of South America. The families arriving from Ecuador are mostly Inca-descendants and very very Catholic. My friend's sister was shocked at the sexual behavior of the Ecuador families because they have sexual relations freely between all of the family males and females to the point that the mothers are unable to know who is the father of that child. The families were surprised to learn that this is a problem for the Ligurian Catholics (and religion in general). Apparently the Catholic Church in Ecuador accepted these sexual practices. For me, after this week of observing this Catholic stuff and listening and being 'embedded' in various ways in the traditions of the passing Pope, I think it is a good idea to keep an open mind, collect and synthesize information and be a good listening ear and helpful, when possible. Don't assume that the Catholics of the world are your enemies or against you. Talk with them from your heart. Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 8 14:02:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050408140227.2275.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > > Mike Lorrey > ... > > > > ... Joe Blow, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX is making a cash purchase. > > Seems like a hell of a tool for busting identity thieves. If > you are making a cash purchase at the same time you are across > town using a credit card, they know something is bogus. Of course, it is also a great way to institute a totalitarian system to monitor the general population without doing the same with public officials. Transparency is only valuable if the public officials are under the greatest and broadest scrutiny, particularly law enforcement. I happen to know that law enforcement personnel are able to legally remove themselves from the background check databases (I have seen this happen). Expect them to be the only ones allowed to carry RFID shielding technology. > > > > ...They log when Joe Blow entered and exited > > the store through the anti-shoplifting gates. You will see these > gates > > in more and more places where it is essentially impossible for you > to > > shoplift anything... > > Those places would have better prices than their > competitors because of lower shoplifting costs. > We save money. I guess I wasn't clear: these gates will be in non-retail locations, such as entrances to stadiums, subways, and other areas of pedestrian constriction, and only used to track people. > > > ... But that tie you got from > > your mistress that you told your wife one of your employees gave > you is > > an automatic flag for a cavity inspection. > > I don't follow you here. How would RFID tags know > (or care) what you told your wife regarding the > origin of your tie? They won't, but the fact it was purchased with a credit card not your own makes you a suspected credit fraudster. It is after you are cavity searched, and maybe arrested, that you wife is going to ask what all the brouhaha is about... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 8 14:08:36 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050408140836.70554.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On Apr 8, 2005 12:31 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > The thing you are missing is that as RFID becomes ubiquitous, a > hacker > > doesn't need access to a database anymore to rip off your identity, > it > > is ALL sitting on your person in the form of chips ready to > transmit > > your personal information like Kitty Kelly playing a crack whore. > > > > > > > Are you getting that cold sinking feeling, yet? > > > > > It seems to me that what you are complaining about is the result of a > rampaging free market system. If companies can make a profit, then > they do it. The US government is tagging along years behind, trying > to play catch-up with legislation to stop the wilder excesses. It isn't about companies making a profit, it is about people becoming educated to the problem, much as they had to become educated to the problem of computer viruses by having their systems destroyed a few times. One would think most people would have learned their lesson by now. Apparently not, even on this list. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 8 15:29:00 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:29:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] capitalism embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: <20050408125554.M78879@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <200504081530.j38FUu229976@tick.javien.com> > > "Why do you think that the Pope was so popular?" > ... > > "He was strongly anti-communism." Oh well, if you put it THAT way, I shall put him on my list of good guys. I had a thought on this to post, but I have been a bit self conscious recently with the perennial signal to noise ratio discussion going on. Looks like a lot of us are as well, judging by the number of posts. If an observer from Mars knew nothing of capitalism or communism but who observed human history, she might conclude that every nation that transformed to communism did so with horrifying loss of life. I can immediately think of several examples: Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Those who own, fight back. Many perish. I know not a single peaceful communist transition. When a nation eventually transforms back to capitalism from communism, it does so *relatively* peacefully, as we saw in Russia, we are seeing happen in China, and we expect to see in Vietnam. When any nation goes communist, there must be a bloody revolution. But when it goes back, as it eventually must, there is merely a gradual peaceful takeover by the pragmatic and fiscally competent. How does this idea work with extropians? spike From scerir at libero.it Fri Apr 8 16:01:44 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:01:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] amazing nanomotors References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050407181034.01d7a8e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20050408072440.GF24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <003a01c53c54$43724990$55b21b97@administxl09yj> http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/zettl/highlights.html (see also the pictures and videos section) s. "In the late 1950s Richard Feynman issued a public challenge by offering $1000 to the first person to create an electrical motor "smaller than 1/64th of an inch". Much to Feynman's consternation the young man who met this challenge, William McLellan, did so by investing many tedious and painstaking hours building the device by hand using tweezers and a microscope. McLellan's motor now sits in a display case at the California Institute of Technology and has long since ceased to spin." Pics from Caltech archives: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/2/8/1/pw1402081 From pharos at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 16:17:00 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:17:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: References: <20050408140836.70554.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: BillK Date: Apr 8, 2005 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses On Apr 8, 2005 3:08 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > It isn't about companies making a profit, it is about people becoming > educated to the problem, much as they had to become educated to the > problem of computer viruses by having their systems destroyed a few > times. One would think most people would have learned their lesson by > now. Apparently not, even on this list. > No, it isn't about educating the public. Do you really expect the 300 million Americans to become educated about RFID technology, computer viruses, spyware, etc.? It will never happen. The public have more important things (to them) to do with their time. In case you haven't noticed, the problems with spam, viruses, spyware, adware, trojans, phishing, fraud, etc. are as bad as they have ever been, if not worse. (Except for Linux or Mac users, --- so far :) ). US companies are installing RFID because they can make a buck on it. Period. It gives them better stock control, stops shoplifting losses, enables them to track customer spending and target ads at them, etc. They have no interest at all in privacy concerns because to date that does not affect their bottom line. If customers stopped buying goods with RFID tags, then companies would stop installing them as they would no longer be profitable. If government legislation put too high a compliance cost on companies, then again they would stop using RFID tags. The Euro route of informing customers and telling them how to remove or disable the tags (if they want to, that is, - returns could be simplified if the tag is left in) seems to get the benefits without the privacy concerns. It would also be a good idea to encrypt the tags so that any store can only read their own tags and the public cannot read any tags at all without serious decrypting hardware, but this is a nice-to-have, not essential. BillK From humania at t-online.de Fri Apr 8 16:18:43 2005 From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:18:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts References: <20050408125554.M78879@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <000b01c53c56$b2e8ea70$5b91fea9@maniaugal3qk6z> Amara wrote: > Since Rome was shut down today for the Pope's funeral, > I worked at home and watched the funeral on TV . . . Amara, I understand the impact of an event that draws 4 million people into town. I will refrain from spitting out my heaviest sarcasm against catholicism and JP2. But here are some informations that might adjust the reputation of this Nope. http://www.counterpunch.org/connolly04052005.html "The Pope Who Revived the Office of the Inquisition" An American Catholic Reflects on Papacy of John Paul II From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Fri Apr 8 17:19:27 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:19:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts Message-ID: <20050408171749.M54328@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Dear Hubert, Please consider what I said as 'data', giving answers from people around me to Olga's question. I have no strong feelings one way or another about the Pope. I'm an observer, mostly trying to understand the culture in which I live and why people are moved. Given that Catholicism is here to stay for some time, and given that love and compassion builds bridges, I prefer to try to understand. Amara P.S. It's raining here now. I think that ?(tensof)thousands were sleeping ?on the Rome streets last night. Now what? From hal at finney.org Fri Apr 8 17:48:16 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] amazing nanomotors Message-ID: <20050408174816.B7A8457EE6@finney.org> Scerir writes: > http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/zettl/highlights.html > (see also the pictures and videos section) > s. > > "In the late 1950s Richard Feynman > issued a public challenge by offering > $1000 to the first person to create > an electrical motor "smaller than 1/64th > of an inch". Much to Feynman's consternation > the young man who met this challenge, > William McLellan, did so by investing > many tedious and painstaking hours building > the device by hand using tweezers and a microscope. > McLellan's motor now sits in a display case at the > California Institute of Technology and has long > since ceased to spin." Pics from Caltech archives: > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/2/8/1/pw1402081 It was still spinning when I was a student there in the 1970s, so it did last pretty long. (It wasn't constantly spinning, you pushed a button on the display case to make it spin.) Last time I checked they had a diamagnetic levitation display in that case. Feynman had hoped to motivate some new technology research with his prize and was disappointed that he had set the bar so low that it was possible to meet his requirements with patience and craftsmanship rather than new ideas. Hal From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 8 17:43:13 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:43:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts Message-ID: <168980-22005458174313586@M2W083.mail2web.com> From: Amara Graps >I'm an >observer, mostly trying to understand the culture in >which I live and why people are moved. Given that >Catholicism is here to stay for some time, and given that >love and compassion builds bridges, I prefer to try to >understand. "Reason, Observation, and Experience -- the Holy Trinity of Science." Robert G. Ingersoll "To him that watches, everything is revealed." Italian Proverb Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Apr 8 18:36:04 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:36:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <20050408140227.2275.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050408140227.2275.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050408133206.01c7bd08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:02 AM 4/8/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: >the fact it was purchased with a credit card not your >own makes you a suspected credit fraudster. It is after you are cavity >searched, and maybe arrested Are there reliable statistics on the proportion of credit fraudsters who try to scam vendors using credit cards usually hidden inside their cavity? I don't think I'd accept one if I were serving in a store or at an airport. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Apr 8 18:39:16 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:39:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] capitalism embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: <200504081530.j38FUu229976@tick.javien.com> References: <20050408125554.M78879@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> <200504081530.j38FUu229976@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050408133729.01d4cfa0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:29 AM 4/8/2005 -0700, spike wrote: >as we saw in Russia... When any nation goes communist, >there must be a bloody revolution. But when it goes back, >as it eventually must, there is merely a gradual peaceful >takeover by the pragmatic and fiscally competent. Bwahahahaha! Well, I suppose `pragmatic'. Blam! Damien Broderick From humania at t-online.de Fri Apr 8 19:17:15 2005 From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:17:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts References: <20050408171749.M54328@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <001301c53c6f$94abf160$5b91fea9@maniaugal3qk6z> Amara wrote: > Given that Catholicism is here to stay for some time, and given that > love and compassion builds bridges, I prefer to try to > understand. Dear Amara, appreciating your very own passion and openness to the world I would regard your personal qualities way superior to the love and compassion this JP2 has ever shown. He was a dictator of misunderstood love, that he "executed" only on those who obeyed his word. Being a nope whose every fart was followed by mass media madness, it was easy to say some critical words against wars and capitalism or doing some steps of concession in Jerusalem or in front of a mosque, accompanied by TV cameras and rejoicing catholic sheep. His regime was uncompromising, though. He has revived the office of the inquisition and appointed a German Cardinal as chairman, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger - what a clever choice - who celebrated the Holy Mass on St. Peter's Place today, a cold snake among sheep. The force behind this unbelievable pilgrim stream, you are trying to understand, certainly is a sign of honest admiration for JP2 as a person. I cannot comprehend it though. All those nice and lovely young people must be hopelessly ill-informed about the mafia-like structure of the Vatican or they are just victims of religious mass hysteria and secular media brain washing of the last two weeks. Or, let's face it: they are too damn stupid or in need of a hero who fills out their empty life. No, I'm not going to warm up for a rant against catholicism now. It is hopelessly nopeless, let alone popeless. Nobody will change the sickening, fear producing and personality reducing rules of true surrender under a catholic regime. It makes me sick to watch this ridiculous spectacle in Rome, all this hypocrisy, secular and theological. In his book "Illuminatus" I-III, Robert Anton Wilson has created a character who distributes business cards among the population which grant them the right to be a pope on their own or a "fope" respectively (for a female card receiver; retranslated from German so it might be wrong). A futile and surrealist action like this: coming to Rome and distributing those cards among the sheep on St. Peter's would have been the only choice for me if I still were a young man in my twenties. But I'm too tired to do pentaphysical nonsense like this anymore. humania > P.S. It's raining here now. I think that (tensof)thousands > were sleeping on the Rome streets last night. Now what? Don`t worry, Amara. Their honest or sheeply compassion will burn the cold rain out of their clothes. From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Apr 8 20:09:49 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:09:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: <20050408125554.M78879@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050408152332.045d4d00@unreasonable.com> Amara wrote: >The families arriving from Ecuador are mostly Inca-descendants and very >very Catholic. My friend's sister was shocked at the sexual behavior of >the Ecuador families because they have sexual relations freely between all >of the family males and females to the point that the mothers are unable >to know who is the father of that child. The families were surprised to >learn that this is a problem for the Ligurian Catholics (and religion in >general). Apparently the Catholic Church in Ecuador accepted these sexual >practices. It's not clear that the Church knew about this. When Catholic missionaries spread to Haiti, where vodun is a long-standing belief system, the locals incorporated aspects of Catholicism into their practice. Mary, for instance, joined their pantheon alongside Baron Samedi. But the locals were also knew that Father Joe wouldn't approve, so they just didn't tell him. >I think it is a good idea to keep an open mind, collect and synthesize >information and be a good listening ear and helpful, when possible. Don't >assume that the Catholics of the world are your enemies or against you. >Talk with them from your heart. Always good advice. Tammy Bruce tells how she -- a lesbian, feminist, Democrat -- found common cause with Bush and the conservatives. Part of the story was her discovering that her NOW sisters would not abide any dissent in the ranks. Meanwhile, she appeared on radio programs, debating conservative, religious women. Who were warm and decent to her off-air, and invited her to their homes for dinner. Lynn Margulis argues that cooperation (symbiosis) was a more significant factor in evolution than competition. -- David. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Apr 8 23:16:54 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:16:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Burt Rutan is God Message-ID: <425710E6.1000606@mindspring.com> http://www.reason.com/hod/tb033105.shtml March 31, 2005 "It's Mainly Just for Fun" Space entrepreneur Burt Rutan on how private space flight policy should emphasize innovation, safety?and having a helluva good time Interviewed by Ted Balaker Lots of hard work. Big burst of publicity. Lots of hard work. That's been the pattern for Burt Rutan. He is the model of persistent performance, averaging more than one new aircraft design per year for over 30 years. Then, last October 4, Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites grabbed the world's attention. They became the first private operation to send a man into suborbital space twice within two weeks, using the same vehicle. Rutan and company nabbed the $10 million Ansari X-Prize, and proved that entrepreneurial creativity could extend beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Now it'll take more hard work?both scientific and political?to make space tourism a reality. [...rest at URL...] -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 9 03:15:46 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] QM vs GR In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050409031546.90133.qmail@web60507.mail.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > The "conspiracy" issue (are QM and Relativity > in "peaceful coexistence"? Or is there a > "conspiracy" between them, against us? > Or what else is going on?) > is there a space? (Nic Gisin) > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503007 This particular link was very helpful. I had been mathematically deriving what I thought were relativistic wave equations for moving matter particles in an inertial reference frame, but the math indicated that the matter waves were propagating at a different speed then the particle itself and moreover the waves ALWAYS propagated FASTER than light. This really messed with my head because I thought such a thing was impossible but it looks like the experiments actually support my theory. I would be curious as to the exact experimental setup and data those guys got. My guess based upon my equations and the measurements they reported as the speed of quantum info is that in the experiment in the "natural" reference frame they were moving the detector at 3 meters/second. Just a prediction based on my math but one that is testable. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 9 06:41:51 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] QM vs GR In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050409064152.41105.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > My guess based upon my equations and the > measurements they reported as the speed of quantum > info is that in the experiment in the "natural" > reference frame they were moving the detector at 3 > meters/second. Just a prediction based on my math > but > one that is testable. Actually I made an error in my hasty calculation. It should read the particle and the detector should have have had a relative velocity of 30 meters/second . . . That is if they did not try to measure the position too accurately. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From scerir at libero.it Sat Apr 9 06:47:59 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:47:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] QM vs GR References: <20050409031546.90133.qmail@web60507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001c01c53cd0$12395ae0$a0ba1b97@administxl09yj> From: "The Avantguardian" > > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503007 > This particular link was very helpful. There are interesting (and famous) papers by Hegersfeldt, about the apparent superluminal spread of "tails". This approach is different from that one by the Geneva group though. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9809030 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109044 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9806036 See also the interesting paper on "faster than Fourier", # 262 in this page, by Michael Berry! http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/research/theory/Berry/publications.html From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 9 06:47:38 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050409064738.45561.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ian Goddard wrote: Or, then again, perhaps if we kick a rock > really > hard the universe will cry out "Ouch!" ;) > Actually it just kicks back REALLY HARD. ;) The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 08:45:50 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:45:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: <000b01c53c56$b2e8ea70$5b91fea9@maniaugal3qk6z> References: <20050408125554.M78879@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> <000b01c53c56$b2e8ea70$5b91fea9@maniaugal3qk6z> Message-ID: <8d71341e05040901456407a0e0@mail.gmail.com> On Apr 8, 2005 5:18 PM, Hubert Mania wrote: > I will refrain from spitting out my heaviest sarcasm against catholicism and > JP2. > > But here are some informations that might adjust the reputation of this > Nope. > > http://www.counterpunch.org/connolly04052005.html > "The Pope Who Revived the Office of the Inquisition" > An American Catholic Reflects on Papacy of John Paul II It might adjust more reputations than one. Now, as someone whose parents grew up in mid 20th century Ireland, I'm certainly predisposed to believe ill of the Pope, and indeed he made mistakes. On the other hand, looking at his courage in the face of Nazi and Communist oppression, that earns him (not the office - I'm not a Catholic - but the man) a tip of the hat from me. But reading that page, I was reminded of something: a man who earns the enmity of an IRA supporter has virtue. Ave atque vale, Ioannes Paulus PP. II; may your deeds be taken into account in whatever, if anything, lies beyond this life. - Russell From amara at amara.com Sat Apr 9 12:58:35 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 14:58:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts (plus photos) Message-ID: These are the photos that you would probably not see in your newspaper... (snapshots while 'embedded' walking in the queue of people bidding goodbye to the Pope) http://www.amara.com/gpiiend/gpiiend.html Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race." -- H. G. Wells From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Apr 9 15:09:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050409150956.41588.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > On Apr 8, 2005 5:18 PM, Hubert Mania wrote: > > I will refrain from spitting out my heaviest sarcasm against > catholicism and > > JP2. > > But reading that page, I was reminded of something: a man who earns > the enmity of an IRA supporter has virtue. Ave atque vale, Ioannes > Paulus PP. II; may your deeds be taken into account in whatever, if > anything, lies beyond this life. It should be noted that the IRA was documented to be a significantly socialist/communist oriented organization, and thus at least some die-hard members of that political orientation within that organization have reason to feel enmity for the Pope and his contribution to ending communist rule around the world. The IRA once got at least as much funding from the KGB as it did from ex-pats in Boston. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From neptune at superlink.net Sat Apr 9 15:17:25 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 11:17:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeasement Message-ID: <003b01c53d17$3ccae840$ea893cd1@pavilion> Appeasement has been bandied about a lot in discussions of Iraq, terrorism, and international relations in general. The basic notion is that if some act or other is allowed to pass, it will invite future acts of a like nature. (Of course, it's assumed that these are bad acts. I'm not disagreeing that they are, but I don't want to get sidetracked into a different discussion.) Put schematically, the view was that if you appease X when X does Y, then X will do more of Y or Y-like things in the future. What I'm questioning is whether inaction really leads to the purported bad outcomes. In other words, when X does Y -- and Y is something you disapprove of -- and Z does nothing about it, does this make it more likely X will do Y again or Y-like things again? Further does it mean X will think Z will not stop X from doing much worse things in the future? The conventional view is that if Z doesn't react, X will keep testing the limits. I.e., there's a high cost for Z's inaction. Along with this view goes the policy prescription of acting sooner rather than latter against a given X. (Naturally, in a world full of real and potential Xs, this would mean constant involvement everywhere for any Z.) Is there empirical evidence to back this claim? I could be more rhetorically charged here: Does anyone have good reason to accept the view that inaction always leads to these undesirable outcomes or is this just something that's assumed because it's the conventional wisdom? Cheers! Dan See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Apr 9 15:18:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050409151832.94766.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > On Apr 8, 2005 5:18 PM, Hubert Mania wrote: > > But here are some informations that might adjust the reputation of > this Nope. > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/connolly04052005.html > > "The Pope Who Revived the Office of the Inquisition" > > An American Catholic Reflects on Papacy of John Paul II > POPE JOHN PAUL II AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE by Rabbi Marvin Hier In terms of reconciliation with the Jews, I believe that Pope John Paul II was the greatest Pope in the history of the Vatican with respect to his relationship to the Jewish people. - Rabbi Marvin Hier, CNN's Larry King Live Show, Tuesday, April 4, 2005 As you read this, the funeral of Pope John Paul II is taking place. For twenty centuries, the Catholic Church has had a turbulent relationship with the Jewish people. Jews were persecuted and held responsible for the death of Jesus, and were often the victims of Church-instigated pogroms and antisemitic attacks. With the passing of Pope John Paul II, we have lost the strongest advocate for reconciliation for the Jewish people in the history of the Vatican. This Pope was determined to embark on a new course and leave that shameful period behind. From the very beginning of his papacy, when he first visited his native Poland, there were hints that this Pope was going to break with tradition and not follow the centuries-old script with respect to the Jews. On his 1979 visit to Auschwitz, when he approached the inscriptions bearing the names of the countries whose citizens had been murdered there, he said, "I kneel before all the inscriptions bearing the memory of the victims in their languages. In particular, I pause before the inscription in Hebrew. This inscription awakens the memory of the people whose sons and daughters were intended for total extermination. It is not permissible for anyone to pass by this inscription with indifference." The first time I met the Pope was in 1983 when I led a Wiesenthal Center mission to Eastern Europe. There, at a private audience at the Vatican, I expressed my concerns about antisemitism and said, "We come here today hoping to hear from you, the beloved spiritual leader of 700 million Christians, a clear and unequivocal message to all that this scourge in all its manifestations violates the basic creed to which all men of faith must aspire." Obviously, John Paul II understood that very well, but it is important to place in proper context the considerable obstacles that he had to overcome. During the height of the Holocaust, when millions of Jews were being gassed, the Vatican found the time to write letters opposing the creation of a Jewish State. On May 4, 1943, Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Magaloni, informed the British government of the Vatican's opposition to a Jewish homeland in Palestine. One day later, the Vatican was informed that of the four million Jews residing in pre-war Poland, only about 100,000 were still alive. Six weeks later, on June 22, 1943, the Vatican's apostolic delegate, Archbishop Cicognani wrote to then U.S. Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, again detailing its opposition to a Jewish homeland in Palestine and warning him that Catholics the world over would be aroused and saying, in part: "It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before...If a Hebrew home is desired, it would not be too difficult to find a more fitting territory than Palestine." To imagine then that 62 years later a Polish Pope would have redefined Vatican thinking regarding the Jewish people is astounding. Twenty years after our first meeting, on December 3, 2003, together with a small delegation of Center trustees, I returned to the Vatican for another private audience, this time to present the Pope with the Wiesenthal Center's highest honor, our Humanitarian Award. On that occasion, I recapped his remarkable accomplishments, "As a youngster, you played goalie on the Jewish soccer team in Wadowice...in 1937, concerned about the safety of Ginka Beer, a Jewish student on her way to Palestine, you personally escorted her to the railroad station...in 1963, you were one of the major supporters of Nostra Aetate, the historic Vatican document which rejected the collective responsibility of the Jewish people for the crucifixion...in 1986, you were the first Pope to ever visit a synagogue...the first to recognize the State of Israel...the first to issue a document that seeks forgiveness for members of the Church for wrongdoing committed against the Jewish people throughout history and to apologize for Catholics who failed to help Jews during the Nazi period...the first to visit a concentration camp and to institute an official observance of Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day at the Vatican." I did not always agree with the Pope, especially when he nominated Pius XII for sainthood or when he met with then Austrian President Kurt Waldheim. But one thing is clear - in the two thousand year history of the papacy, no previous occupant of the throne of St. Peter has had such an interest in seeking reconciliation with the Jewish people. With his passing, the world has lost a great moral leader and a righteous man and the Jewish people have lost its staunchest advocate in the history of the Church. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Apr 9 20:43:53 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeasement In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050409204353.90409.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > The conventional view is that if Z doesn't react, X will keep testing > the limits. I.e., there's a high cost for Z's inaction. Along with > this view goes the policy prescription of acting sooner rather than > latter against a given X. (Naturally, in a world full of real and > potential Xs, this would mean constant involvement everywhere for any > Z.) Is there empirical evidence to back this claim? I could be more > rhetorically charged here: Does anyone have good reason to accept > the > view that inaction always leads to these undesirable outcomes or is > this > just something that's assumed because it's the conventional wisdom? It's based on a simplistic analysis of what many people believe they themselves would do, were they the simplistic (and immature and short-sighted) characterization of X that they see. Given the relatively small percent of people who tend to place their long-term self-interest above their short-term desires, this characterization and analysis is not always incorrect. From jonano at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 20:47:03 2005 From: jonano at gmail.com (The NanoAging Institute) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 15:47:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I search directors, advisors for The Cryo Prize Message-ID: <6030482a0504091347438294e1@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I am searching some directors and advisors for The Cryo Prize, people interested should contact me directly via info at nanoaging.com anyone can join, so far this is what we have: http://www.nanoaging.com/modules.php?name=...showpage&pid=44 Also The Cryo Prize has now 5430 persons visiting the page, which is the most popular page on NanoAging. The second most popular page has 1173 persons (the about us page). Feel free to comment. --Jon From eugen at leitl.org Sat Apr 9 21:05:21 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:05:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] I search directors, advisors for The Cryo Prize In-Reply-To: <6030482a0504091347438294e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <6030482a0504091347438294e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050409210521.GB24702@leitl.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 03:47:03PM -0500, The NanoAging Institute wrote: > Hi, > > I am searching some directors and advisors for The Cryo Prize, people > interested should contact me directly via info at nanoaging.com anyone > can join, so far this is what we have: > http://www.nanoaging.com/modules.php?name=...showpage&pid=44 > > Also The Cryo Prize has now 5430 persons visiting the page, which is > the most popular page on NanoAging. The second most popular page has > 1173 persons (the about us page). > > Feel free to comment. Your MUA garbles your URI. You're probably thinking of http://www.nanoaging.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=41 P.S. I've seen your announcement on several lists (CryoNet, etc.), probably you should repost with the correct URI. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 9 22:45:48 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 15:45:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: References: <200504071809.j37I9R230215@tick.javien.com> <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > On Apr 8, 2005 12:31 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> The thing you are missing is that as RFID becomes ubiquitous, a hacker >> doesn't need access to a database anymore to rip off your identity, it >> is ALL sitting on your person in the form of chips ready to transmit >> your personal information like Kitty Kelly playing a crack whore. >> > >> >> Are you getting that cold sinking feeling, yet? >> > > > A solution to possible identity theft would be to tie the information to biometric scan. Thus a would be identity thief would be immediately detected. A better solution also addressing privacy would be a small computer (perhaps the size of a key fob or built in to a cell phone) that could only be activated by the biometrics of the user and that allows the user to rigorously control how much information is transmitted in any encounter. If the device was stolen it would be useless without very major decryption work. It should also be possible to set the amount of information to be automatically available on request at will. The information that I would want automatically available at a party would likely be very different than what I would want available in a business setting. - samantha From megao at sasktel.net Sun Apr 10 01:37:47 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:37:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: References: <200504071809.j37I9R230215@tick.javien.com> <20050407233128.99158.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4258836B.2080403@sasktel.net> Your personal biometrics would be your "private key". Personal genomics might be constitute a "super key" from which would be chosen pieces of conserved genomics encrypted into the "private key". Your "public key" which would be the identity used for everyday dealings. and would be a "low resolution" version of your "private key". Over a lifetime the "private key" might be used to generate several versions of a "public key".....if the "public key" was compromised". Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> On Apr 8, 2005 12:31 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >>> >>> The thing you are missing is that as RFID becomes ubiquitous, a hacker >>> doesn't need access to a database anymore to rip off your identity, it >>> is ALL sitting on your person in the form of chips ready to transmit >>> your personal information like Kitty Kelly playing a crack whore. >>> >> >> >>> >>> Are you getting that cold sinking feeling, yet? >>> >> >> >> > A solution to possible identity theft would be to tie the information > to biometric scan. Thus a would be identity thief would be > immediately detected. > > A better solution also addressing privacy would be a small computer > (perhaps the size of a key fob or built in to a cell phone) that could > only be activated by the biometrics of the user and that allows the > user to rigorously control how much information is transmitted in any > encounter. If the device was stolen it would be useless without very > major decryption work. It should also be possible to set the amount > of information to be automatically available on request at will. The > information that I would want automatically available at a party would > likely be very different than what I would want available in a > business setting. > > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From zero.powers at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 03:34:12 2005 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 20:34:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: List quality In-Reply-To: <929c5c9ef5795f7ab59d9ea4d71c4481@mac.com> References: <20050403102935.13047.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> <20050404102842.GP24702@leitl.org> <929c5c9ef5795f7ab59d9ea4d71c4481@mac.com> Message-ID: <7a32170505040920346a6f668e@mail.gmail.com> I've never understood the "how dare they allow postings about [insert your favorite pet peeve subject] on this list" contingent. Is it really that hard to hit the "delete" key and keep on going? If you find that a particular poster or two are consistently [take your pick: irrelevant, irreverent, immaterial, boring, stupid, "off-topic"], every e-mail program worth its salt has the equivalent of a kill-file. I know, I've used mine in the past to enhance the quality of my own experience on this list. I don't know, maybe I shouldn't even have jumped into this fray. But I've always had quite a low tolerance for would-be censors and cry-babies who would impose their own personal standards on others, rather than arrange their lives so that they can subject themselves to their own standards without stepping on the freedoms of others. Sheesh. Regards Zero On Apr 4, 2005 7:14 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > There already is some level of policy enforcement. It may not enforce > to your liking or always be all that obvious or consistent. All who > are list monitors have busy lives and sometimes let things slide a bit > too far. A little prodding usually gets things on track. But even > then it is unlikely that the general guidelines are as stringent as you > may like. > > What specifically would you like to see and not see? Speaking for > myself I am not terribly unhappy with the state of the list of late. > We need to do a lot better at subject headers and some folks over post > and aren't always called on it. But overall the list feels fine even > if a lot of the subjects are not things I am particularly interested > in. > > - samantha > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:29:35AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > >> > >> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > >>> Moderation is out of question, but a system of > >>> warning, temporary suspensions > >>> from the list and permanent bans probably would > >>> work. > >> > >> Are you going to burn books for the junior anti-sex > >> league next, Eugen? Come on, you could tell it was > > > > I have no idea what a junior anti-sex league is. Please discuss junior > > anti-sex leagues somewhere else, preferrably offlist. > > > > This list has a focus. It's not a chitchat channel about the latest > > Lakers > > game results, the weather, pet grooming, or car tuning. (I know it > > might come > > as shock to some people here). > > > > Empirically, such lists no longer work by self policing. > > > > Can we have a decision, whether we will introduce a policy enforcement > > here? > > > >> about religion just by looking at the subject header. > > > > Nobody here uses descriptive page headers, in case you didn't notice. > > > >> If posts about religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and > >> esoterica bothers you so much, don't read them. I find > > > > If email bothers you, disconnect your house from the power grid. > > > >> little that goes by on this list to be that offensive. > >> Some posts are more interesting than others but I have > >> never been so intolerant to allow the opinion or > >> anecdote of another person offend me. Unless of course > > > > We have different standards, obviously. Question is, does the rest of > > the > > list agree with the state of the list? > > > >> it were directly ad-hominem but even then I would > >> probably blow it off. The mystics were looking for > >> immortality long before young whippersnappers dreamt > >> of uploading their consciousness from their corpsicles > >> into the distributed AI of a nanobot swarm. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 04:48:37 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 21:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: List quality In-Reply-To: <7a32170505040920346a6f668e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050410044837.19050.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Zero Powers wrote: > I've never understood the "how dare they allow postings about [insert > your favorite pet peeve subject] on this list" contingent. Is it > really that hard to hit the "delete" key and keep on going? If you > find that a particular poster or two are consistently [take your > pick: irrelevant, irreverent, immaterial, boring, stupid, "off- > topic"], every e-mail program worth its salt has the equivalent of a > kill-file. > I know, I've used mine in the past to enhance the quality of my own > experience on this list. > > I don't know, maybe I shouldn't even have jumped into this fray. But > I've always had quite a low tolerance for would-be censors and > cry-babies who would impose their own personal standards on others, > rather than arrange their lives so that they can subject themselves > to their own standards without stepping on the freedoms of others. > Sheesh. I agree entirely. Nobody has an inherent right to not be offended. The amount of socialism going on in transhumanist circles these days offends me daily but I don't demand that all be tested for libertarian purity and purged from the list. If I don't want to be offended, but remain on the list, I need to set up filters to either filter out posts with offensive keywords, or filter out offensive posters. By doing so, I would need to accept the fact that doing this stands as much chance of degrading my list experience as improving it, as it will likely lead to my only hearing parts of conversations and winding up making inappropriate posts that are either out of context or deal with settled issues. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 10 05:03:24 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 22:03:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Who's Who? and What's What? (was Meta: List quality) References: <20050410044837.19050.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000501c53d8a$a0576370$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "Zero Powers" ; "ExI chat list" > I don't know, maybe I shouldn't even have jumped into this fray. But >> I've always had quite a low tolerance for would-be censors and >> cry-babies who would impose their own personal standards on others, >> rather than arrange their lives so that they can subject themselves >> to their own standards without stepping on the freedoms of others. >> Sheesh. > > I agree entirely. Nobody has an inherent right to not be offended. The > amount of socialism going on in transhumanist circles these days > offends me daily but I don't demand that all be tested for libertarian > purity ... Someday, Mike, if you are so inclined, please explain how (and if) you distinguish differences between socialism (a term you throw around a lot here), lower-case-l-iberalism, upper-case-L-iberalism, communism, leftism, and other similar ilk-i-isms (and without going to the dictionary - just off the top of your head). And what would you propose to do with the bulk of humanity that may never hear of - or not cotton to - libertarianism? Hey, look, it's Saturday night. Some people drink. I prefer to kill off some of my neurons this way ... Olga and purged from the list. If I don't want to be offended, but > remain on the list, I need to set up filters to either filter out posts > with offensive keywords, or filter out offensive posters. By doing so, > I would need to accept the fact that doing this stands as much chance > of degrading my list experience as improving it, as it will likely lead > to my only hearing parts of conversations and winding up making > inappropriate posts that are either out of context or deal with settled > issues. > > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 05:13:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 22:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050410051317.27888.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Personal biometrics that stand a chance of being left lying around are insecure keys. You leave your DNA all over the place, and your fingerprints remain on everything you touch. Retina scans seem the only really secure biometric, save the risk that someone is likely to gouge out your eyeball to get your key (or forcibly scan you while under restraints, physical or drug induced). Beyond this, the risk is that you have to trust any piece of equipment that demands to scan you. This is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks similar to the fake-ATM scam, where you would see some kiosk providing some product or service you wanted (stamps, ATM, subway passes, concert/theater/airline/sports tickets, candy or other food vending, etc) that would demand your retina scan and a scan of one of your payment cards for something real. The kiosk might or might not portray an error after scanning you, thus saving on output product, and prompting users to call a phone number on the kiosk for 'customer service', which would allow for further identity compromise through social engineering. --- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." wrote: > Your personal biometrics would be your "private key". > Personal genomics might be constitute a "super key" from which would > > be chosen pieces of conserved genomics > encrypted into the "private key". > Your "public key" which would be the identity used for everyday > dealings. and would be a > "low resolution" version of your "private key". > Over a lifetime the "private key" might be used to generate several > versions of a "public key".....if > the "public key" was compromised". > > > > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > >> On Apr 8, 2005 12:31 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> The thing you are missing is that as RFID becomes ubiquitous, a > hacker > >>> doesn't need access to a database anymore to rip off your > identity, it > >>> is ALL sitting on your person in the form of chips ready to > transmit > >>> your personal information like Kitty Kelly playing a crack whore. > >>> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Are you getting that cold sinking feeling, yet? > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > A solution to possible identity theft would be to tie the > information > > to biometric scan. Thus a would be identity thief would be > > immediately detected. > > > > A better solution also addressing privacy would be a small computer > > > (perhaps the size of a key fob or built in to a cell phone) that > could > > only be activated by the biometrics of the user and that allows the > > > user to rigorously control how much information is transmitted in > any > > encounter. If the device was stolen it would be useless without > very > > major decryption work. It should also be possible to set the > amount > > of information to be automatically available on request at will. > The > > information that I would want automatically available at a party > would > > likely be very different than what I would want available in a > > business setting. > > > > > > - samantha > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 10 05:27:47 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 22:27:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts References: <20050409151832.94766.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002601c53d8e$08237900$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > POPE JOHN PAUL II AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE > by Rabbi Marvin Hier > > In terms of reconciliation with the Jews, I believe that Pope John Paul > II was the greatest Pope in the history of the Vatican with respect to > his relationship to the Jewish people. > - Rabbi Marvin Hier, CNN's Larry King Live Show, Tuesday, April 4, 2005 Is that saying a lot? And does this justify what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians? Besides, I thought Judaism and Christianity were still mutually exclusive religions? What has changed? Have Christians stopped believing that Jews and other infidels are destined to go to hell? (Where-oh-where have I been lately?) Robert Ingersoll lived approximately 100 years before the pope, but was light years ahead in his thinking regarding (among many things): "The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with ... savagery ... This doctrine is as cruel as the hunger of hyenas, and is infamous beyond the power of any language to express -- yet a creed with this doctrine has been called 'the glad tidings of great joy' -- a consolation to the weeping world. It is a source of great pleasure to me to know that all intelligent people are ashamed to admit that they believe it -- that no intelligent clergyman now preaches it, except with a preface to the effect that it is probably untrue." I mean, if the pope finally (in 1992) forgave Galileo for asserting that the earth revolved around the sun: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/international/europe/01POPE.html?ex=1113278400&en=aa78e36cd32cb9e5&ei=5070 ... one never knows what revolutionary thought may come from the Catholic church next (in another 400 years or so). Olga From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sun Apr 10 06:19:03 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 07:19:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] article: The world bids farewell Message-ID: <20050410055834.M99695@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Oh, this is *good*. I was smiling all of the way through. The reporter is irreverent, like me, and he could see the humor in the spectacle of the last week, and at the same time be touched by it all. I think that his perspective is the most useful for us to understand what this particular Pope meant to many people. I've extracted some excerpts below, but I recommend reading the whole article. The world bids farewell Bryan Appleyard watched in awe as the funeral of Pope John Paul II turned into the greatest show on earth http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1561601,00.html {begin quote} A dead man, an old Pole, lies before an altar, his corpse tilted at an awkward angle that makes one slightly too aware of his shoes. People come to see him, millions of people. Many have travelled thousands of miles and all have waited long hours in the too warm Roman spring days and the too cold spring nights. When they reach his body, they are not allowed to stop moving but they each perform quick rituals. Typically, they cross themselves, raise a phone to take a picture, genuflect and blow a kiss at the body. It is all over in seconds. And then they are outside again, dazed but certain ? certain they have been granted a glimpse of the truth. Certain that they have had a part in the greatest show on earth. Karol Wojtyla was always a theatrical type. As a young man he wrote plays and worked in the theatre. He never lost his touch. As John Paul II, Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, holder of the keys to the Kingdom, he still knew how to make them gasp in the stalls. He knelt and kissed the ground, he held up babies and, in 1979, he told the Poles not to be afraid and to be ?strong with love which is stronger than death?. It was, in retrospect, one of the most dramatic moments of the 20th century. Ten years later communism collapsed, its rotten foundations exposed by a showman priest. [...] No, let me modify that. The world has come to the Vatican. On the other side of the Tiber, they?re just doing what Romans do ? abusing drivers, arguing, shouting, sounding their horns, drinking poisonously strong coffee and buying Eurotrash clothes. On the Spanish Steps the backpackers sun themselves and stare blankly back down the Via Condotti. Tourists trudge dutifully towards the Colosseum. The cats in the ruins stretch and yawn. It?s another day in the Roman life. Here and there, however, are posters with pictures of the old showman, most just with the caption ?Grazie?, but some saying Rome weeps. One shows him being blessed by Christ. Finally, in the window of the Prada shop in Via Condotti, a tasteful card is displayed amid the costly bags and clothes. ?Via Condotti Association,? it says, ?mourns the death of Pope John Paul II.? He didn?t like the consumer society any more than he liked communism, but the Italians can live with this. They have always worn the cloak of Catholicism lightly, allowing it to blow sexily open and expose the Mediterranean paganism beneath. [...] Nichols is fierce and enthusiastic. He speaks of the way John Paul II put culture and ways of life before politics. The people saw that he was talking to them, not to his position. I begin to see the tiring immensity of the crowd not as dutiful observance but as a spontaneous expression of folk religion. Indeed, I then start to notice little wayside shrines everywhere. They consist of candles, flowers, cuddly toys, children?s drawings and messages to John Paul. At the feet of some of the Bernini columns wax has flowed down, forming brilliant lines against the old stones. Even the base of the obelisk at the very centre of the piazza is covered in these crude offerings. Nichols is right. There was some personal connection between the people and this man. ?I?d never been interested in popes before,? says pilgrim Mary Stewart from Port Glasgow, ?but he had the most beautiful hands. And he travelled to meet people, he came out of the Vatican.? There is talk, that night, of closing the line, preventing more people joining. The next morning the Ponte Vittorio Emanuele is almost empty, the rear of the queue is on the far side. Crunching their way along, the people look like survivors of some mighty plastic bottle battle. And the Poles have definitely arrived. Red-and-white flags are everywhere, as are flamboyant varieties of national dress. One group of old soldiers stands solemnly amid the crowd in white feathered hats, bearing regimental standards. The Poles have changed the mood. The day before, the crowd had been predominantly Italian. And, true to their pagan ways, they had treated it like a carnival. They didn?t wave flags. But the Poles do. This is nationalism for them, not just religion. The turf war is already over. The Poles have won. [...] The coffin appears and they all applaud wildly, even some of the priests, even some of the hacks. I?ve never seen a coffin clapped before. The cardinals kiss the altar, their robes fluttering wildly in the wind, a brilliant dramatic touch. And then old, clever, hardline Cardinal Ratzinger slips into the liturgy, his voice frail but piercing even in all that immensity. The people fall quiet. Walking through them later in the service, the weight of their piety presses heavily down upon me. I feel ashamed with my stupid press pass and my silly, purposeful striding through all this sanctity. There are 3,500 hacks like me. What are we reporting, what could we possibly aspire to report of these people?s feelings? Well, we can report the facts. It was probably the biggest funeral ever. Two million pilgrims had filed past the body. Two million or perhaps many more had been in Rome on the day of the service. About 300,000 had crammed into the Vatican. Another 800,000 watched it on a giant screen in a field near Krakow. Two billion people watched it on television. The last time a Pope died, the world barely noticed. This time, even slimeballs such as Robert Mugabe were gagging to get in on the act. Or we can report the truth. John Paul II, Karol the old theatrical, was, as everybody agreed, different. He defied the two greatest evils of the 20th century, communism and Nazism, and prevailed. He then defied modernity by insisting on the hard intellectual, physical and imaginative labour required by true religion and by telling the people they were nothing without God. He understood, with T S Eliot, that the Christian revelation could be ?hard and bitter agony?. He insisted on deep thought and on the value of suffering. He represented everything the therapeutic, self-seeking society is not. He defied all our vanities. He was, in short, a giant and there he was in a box on a rug. It is hard to imagine what we have done to deserve such a death. {end quote} Amara From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sun Apr 10 07:00:45 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:00:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts Message-ID: <20050410064629.M16321@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> (to Olga and others) It is a nice soundbite to say that Galileo's teaching of Copernican theory was persecuted by the church, but the subject is complicated. Here you'll find an interview with Guy Consolmagno, a Jesuit priest and very good astronomer who is trying to give the context (and background) of the times for Galileo's arrest and (much later) pardon by the Church. Oh yes, Galileo at one point was in danger for his life, and at the end was placed under house arrest, but it helps to see the whole picture. HEAVEN'S OBSERVER Interview by Hazel Muir from New Scientist http://www.lyon.edu/projects/marsbugs/2000/20000331.txt Also this book give more details: Galileo and the Scientific Revolution by Laura Fermi and Gilberto Bernardini As I've told my Astronomy 100 students, the picture of the Church's role in astronomy is not black-and-white against astronomy. We would be ignoring facts if we claimed that. In Medieval and Renaissance times we have many examples of the brutal persecutions and today, people in science use both Bruno being burned at the stake (a statue in Campo di Fiori in Rome marks the spot today) and Galileo Galilei under house arrest in Florence for his remaining days, as examples of that persecution, but, do people know that Galileo (and Copernicus and Kepler) were actually deeply religious men? They might be surprised also to know that the most dedicated astronomers were Jesuit priests and the Catholic Church worked very hard to amass astronomical tools for equinox measurements, and to have a suitable place for the Jesuit astronomers to make their work. For example, the best solar observatories in the world before the emergence of higher quality telescope optics (16th, 17th, and 18th centuries), were the Roman Catholic churches. Besides being a place of worship, the churches provided the only buildings tall enough for 'meridians', where the gnomon (a precisely-placed hole near the roof) tracks the Sun. Giovanni Cassini (a Jesuit priest) used the Great Meridian in the San Petronio Church in Bologna to make 4,500 observations, some of which were used to confirm Kepler's Law that planets move around the Sun in elliptical orbits. The discovery of astronomical spectroscopy the middle 1800s was made by the Jesuit, Angelo Secchi, using another church (in Rome) for his laboratory. Those examples show something of the religious 'grayness' in astronomy. I have an Italian scientist friend that thinks that the Catholics/Church will eventually accept everything (euthanasia, married priests, women priests, contraceptives, etc.), but that it will happen _slowly_ (as slowly as they accepted that the Earth is not the center of the Universe). He said (smilingly) that "it is simply a matter of time, they measure time in millennia, quite boring for ordinary humans like us..." Amara From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 08:32:49 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist and transhumanist meetings in Brussels Message-ID: <20050410083249.84859.qmail@web41314.mail.yahoo.com> Dear friends, Remember to register for the Millennium Project meetings in Brussels, where I will be participating as well. This will be a fascinating conference and you can read all about it here: http://www.wallonie-en-ligne.net/2005_EuMPI/ We have also finalized the arrangements for our first informal transhumanist meeting in Brussels on Sunday, April 17, 2:00 pm. Charles-Philip Bentley has prepared a very nice web page with all the information, and it looks very nice: http://users.coditel.net/mordan/transhumanism/home.html In the meantime, take a look at this great transhumanist video produced by the respected French scientist Joel de Rosnay, author of the excellent book "The Symbiotic Man" (published in 2000). Don't miss it, since it is really beautiful, and the French accent gives it a very special flavour: http://www.cite-sciences.fr/english/ala_cite/expo/tempo/defis/recit_1/clipfinal2.swf I am truly looking forward to meeting you all soon and then hosting you in Venezuela next Summer for the next international transhumanist conference: www.TransHumanismO.org/tv05 Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Informal Meeting in Brussels for Transhumanist Enthusiasts! Sunday, April 17, 2:00 pm, Hotel Carrefour de l?Europe Next Sunday, April 17. The first rendez-vous is at the train station called "Gare Centrale" in the middle of Brussels at 2:00 pm in the afternoon. From there, we will head to a nice cafe where late arrivers can join us. The final meeting place is the "Barista Lounge" of the hotel "Carrefour de l'Europe". The exact address is: Hotel Carrefour de l'Europe, ?Barista Lounge? Grasmarkt / Rue March? aux herbes #110 B-1000 Brussels "See map and look for the red arrow pointing to the location of the "Barista Lounge". This meeting is open for uncommitted transhumanists! Participants do not have to be members of the World Transhumanist Association. All curious people are welcome if interested in transhumanist values, the organization, the declaration articles, and anything else related to this fascinating line of thought called transhumanism. Looking forward seeing you! Contact: wta-belgium at yahoogroups.com Confirmed attendants (as of April 9) Jose Cordeiro (http://www.cordeiro.org/) Charles-Philip Bentley (+32 0498 919596, Home: 119A Rue de Laeken 1000 Bruxelles) Rene M Finkler Samuele Bennici (+32 049-/27.47.51) Julien Cohen (to be confirmed) Frederik Cheeseman (to be confirmed) Gustavo Lacerda (to be confirmed) Bruno Degreef (to be confirmed) Kedji Kiwewa (to be confirmed) from http://www.ilotsacre.be/site/fr/default_fr.htm Metro Stations from http://www.stib.irisnet.be/FR/31000F.htm La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From humania at t-online.de Sun Apr 10 09:54:37 2005 From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:54:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts References: <20050410064629.M16321@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <002f01c53db3$5684ef00$5b91fea9@maniaugal3qk6z> Amara wrote: > Here you'll find an interview > with Guy Consolmagno, a Jesuit priest and very good > astronomer who is trying to give the context (and > background) of the times for Galileo's arrest and (much > later) pardon by the Church. Oh yes, Galileo at one point > was in danger for his life, and at the end was placed > under house arrest, but it helps to see the whole > picture. A Jesuit priest. Of all commentators. Amara, you happen to live in the heart of Roman Catholicism and you can meet very smart and - sometimes - charming executors of this doctrine at every second street corner. They have done nothing in their life but studying the art of twisting facts for their ridiculous redemption filosofi, nobody wants to listen to anymore. By the way, Immanuel Kant's writings were still on the Vatican index in the 1960's. The pope rehabilitating Galilei, Darwin and seeking reconciliation with the Jews: Wow, big deal! This all comes way too late to be gratefully accepted. Pope Pius XII never raised his voice when Hitler began his crusade against the Jews. But of course JP2 has turned these announcement into shining media events. He let off pathetic tiny farts and sold them to the world as incense and peppermint. Most of the impressions and thoughts of the "Times" reporter in your other posting prove the disgusting technicolorful pope drunkenness of these days. I can imagine that it's hard to keep a critical distance once you stick in the middle of thrilling interpersonal encounters, wrapped in this atmosphere of a peaceful mass hystery and a sick personality cult. The reporter says: "He was, in short, a giant and there he was in a box on a rug. It is hard to imagine what we have done to deserve such a death." A giant of a reactionary, that's for sure. It's hard to imagine what the readers of the "Times" have done to deserve such a brainless reflection. Amara, please don't get lost under the wheels of this anachronistic road show. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 10:57:32 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeasement In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050410105732.484.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > Put schematically, the view was that if you appease > X when X does Y, > then X will do more of Y or Y-like things in the > future. What I'm > questioning is whether inaction really leads to the > purported bad > outcomes. In other words, when X does Y -- and Y is > something you > disapprove of -- and Z does nothing about it, does > this make it more > likely X will do Y again or Y-like things again? > Further does it mean X > will think Z will not stop X from doing much worse > things in the future? > > The conventional view is that if Z doesn't react, X > will keep testing > the limits. I.e., there's a high cost for Z's > inaction. Along with > this view goes the policy prescription of acting > sooner rather than > latter against a given X. (Naturally, in a world > full of real and > potential Xs, this would mean constant involvement > everywhere for any > Z.) Is there empirical evidence to back this claim? Actually game theorists and evolutionary theorists have both run computer simulations such as hawks vs. doves, prisoners dilemna, and genetic algorithm free-for-alls in simulated ecosystems. The general consensus is that certain strategies dominate in certain enviromental conditions. In a society of doves (never retaliates), for example, any hawk (always retaliates) who happens to enter the scene will have an overwhelming fitness advantage and will reproduce like mad. Until the population of hawks gets high enough that there is a substantial chance of mutual retaliation that ends up lowering the fitness of hawk behavior. This leads to an interesting phenomenon. In a society that is predominately hawks, its the doves that have the advantage since when 2 doves meet they do not fight. So they tend to be healthier than the hawks that are always engaging in fitness lowering fights when they meet. What ends up happening is that a population equilibrium is reached wherein there is a steady state proportion of hawks to doves that mutually maximizes both their fitness functions. This equilibrium has been identified as being best modelled by a Nash Equilibrium because it is the point of maximum fitness (i.e. return for expended resources) for BOTH strategies. Both sides are following the most productive strategy they can in light of their opponent's strategy. See Steven Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" for an excellent and readable review of this. More recently game theorists have been using a model called the "bourgeoisie dove". This is a dove that acts like a hawk with regards to it's own resources but like a dove with regards to the resources of other virtual game players. A similar model is prisoner's dillemna where you and a partner in crime are caught by the cops. If neither of you rat on the other you both do small time, a slap on the wrist. If one rats and the other doesn't, the rat walks free but the other guy goes away for a long time. If you both rat then you both go to jail for much longer than if you neither had but not as long as the guy who got ratted out while cooperating. In computer simulations of repeated rounds of prisoner's dilemna (i.e. the "algorithm" can play the game with the same partner "algorithm" multiple times as well as different ones) the strategy that outcompeted the others even if they were more complicated was one called "tit-for-tat" (a simple algorithm of "repeat your opponents last move" i.e. "if your opponent ratted you out last time, rat him out this time and if he cooperated, you cooperate this time too." Recently however game theorists have come up with a strategy called "forgiving-tit-for-tat" that outcompetes everything including the original "tit for tat". FTFT operates essentially as TFT except that it will a small percentage of time forgives an opponent that defected last time. This allows it to cooperate with "tit-for-tats" that have been set on retaliate by their previous opponent. I guess the upshot of all this for your original question is that yes, there is empirical evidence that given a certain environment, their is ideal mixed strategy where you appease a certain percentage of the time, and you retaliate at other times. What all this means for politics I am not certain. The models and computer simulations are horribly simplistic compared to the many layers of intrigue involved in international politics. My gut feeling is that we should be acting more like bourgeoisie doves that play forgiving-tit-for-tat instead of hawks that play preemption, a very bad strategy in a world full of hawks. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Apr 10 12:28:56 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:28:56 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeasement References: <20050410105732.484.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001c01c53dc8$dd438370$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > This leads to an interesting phenomenon. In a > society that is predominately hawks, its the doves > that have the advantage since when 2 doves meet they > do not fight. So they tend to be healthier than the > hawks that are always engaging in fitness lowering > fights when they meet. Sorry if I'm interjecting and grabbing the wrong end of the stick here but surely something is obviously missing in this analysis. The chances of 2 doves surviving long enough to meet each other in an environment otherwise infested with hawks must be very low or require some additional assumptions about the environment such as that there are places doves can go to meet that hawks can't easily get too. > Recently however game theorists have come > up with a strategy called "forgiving-tit-for-tat" that > outcompetes everything including the original "tit for > tat". FTFT operates essentially as TFT except that, it > will, a small percentage of time forgive an opponent > that defected last time. This allows it to cooperate > with "tit-for-tats" that have been set on retaliate by > their previous opponent. I'm sceptical of this but I could be wrong and would be interested in the research. I though Tit for Tat as per Axelrod's studies and others latter only applied in two party games with repetition. A getting vengence on C for tats by B isn't tit for tat in the common understanding of tit for tat is it? Brett Paatsch From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 12:33:19 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:03:19 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Religion Message-ID: <710b78fc05041005334949147b@mail.gmail.com> A nice article by Salman Rushdie. It's appeared in papers all over the world, so many of you have probably read it. If you haven't, it's worth a look. He is such a fan of religion, it turns out (funny that)... http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050320/asp/opinion/story_4506104.asp -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From amara at amara.com Sun Apr 10 13:33:36 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:33:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts Message-ID: Dear Hubert, I wish you would stop and pause before you rant. Your knee-jerk response to anything Catholic is tiring. I wrote: > Here you'll find an interview > with Guy Consolmagno, a Jesuit priest and very good > astronomer who is trying to give the context (and > background) of the times for Galileo's arrest and (much > later) pardon by the Church. Oh yes, Galileo at one point > was in danger for his life, and at the end was placed > under house arrest, but it helps to see the whole > picture. and you replied >A Jesuit priest. and a world-class astronomer (*) >Of all commentators. Amara, you happen >to live in the heart of Roman Catholicism and you can >meet very smart and - sometimes - charming executors of >this doctrine at every second street corner. Did you even take five minutes to read that interview? Type his name in Google? Besides Guy being a colleague, a friend, a very funny and nice person, I'm convinced that he, or those like him, are necessary to show devoutly religious people how important is science. He's an excellent 'bridge' between science and religion, and a model of a person following their passions. (BTW, I met him years before he went to the Vatican.) Amara (*) (wrapped) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key= AST&sim_query=YES&aut_xct=NO&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR& author=consolmagno%2C+g.&object=&start_mon=01&start_year= 1970&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR& text=&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems= &data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=& start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE& aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0 &ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt= YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1 Consolmagno's publication record since 1970. NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) Query Results from the Astronomy/Planetary Database Selected and retrieved 152 abstracts. -------------------------------------------------------- 1 2005LPI....36.2073S 1.000 03/2005 A F Strait, M. M.; Consolmagno, G. J. Validation of Methods Used to Determine Microcrack Porosity in Meteorites -------------------------------------------------------- 2 2005LPI....36.1550M 1.000 03/2005 A F Macke, R. J.; Consolmagno, G. J.; Rochette, P.; Britt, D. T. A Fast, Non-Destructive Method for Classifying Ordinary Chondrite Falls Using Density and Magnetic Susceptibility -------------------------------------------------------- 3 2005LPI....36.1309G 1.000 03/2005 A F Gattacceca, J.; Rochette, P.; Denise, M.; Consolmagno, G. J.; Folco, L. An Impact Origin for the Foliation of Ordinary Chondrites -------------------------------------------------------- 4 2004AGUFM.P33A0998S 1.000 12/2004 A Strait, M. M.; Consolmagno, G. J. Microcrack Porosity in Meteorites: Clues to Early History? -------------------------------------------------------- 5 2004DPS....36.4605C 1.000 11/2004 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. Physical classification of meteorites and the remote classification of asteroid composition -------------------------------------------------------- 6 2004DPS....36.1109T 1.000 11/2004 A Tegler, S. C.; Romanishin, W.; Consolmagno, G. J.; Rall, J.; Nelson, M. A Lack of Color Variegation on the Surface of Centaur 5145 Pholus -------------------------------------------------------- 7 2004DPS....36.0308R 1.000 11/2004 A Romanishin, W.; Tegler, S. C.; Consolmagno, G. J. Colors of Kuiper Belt Objects and Centaurs -------------------------------------------------------- 8 2004M&PSA..39.5143S 1.000 08/2004 Strait, M. M.; Consolmagno, G. J. Variations in Microcrack Porosity Across Meteorite Types -------------------------------------------------------- 9 2004M&PSA..39.5109F 1.000 08/2004 Feigelson, E. D.; Wolk, S.; Consolmagno, G. J. Chandra X-Ray Observations and the Spallogenic Origin of Shortlived Radionuclides -------------------------------------------------------- 10 2004M&PSA..39.5048C 1.000 08/2004 Consolmagno, G. J.; Macke, R. J.; Britt, D. T. How Homogeneous are Stones from Ordinary Chondrite Showers? -------------------------------------------------------- 11 2004LPI....35.2108B 1.000 03/2004 A Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Meteorite Porosities and Densities: A Review of Trends in the Data -------------------------------------------------------- 12 2004LPI....35.1370C 1.000 03/2004 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Russell, S. S.; Jeffries, T. E. An In-Situ Study of REE Abundances in Three Anorthositic Impact Melt Lunar Highland Meteorites -------------------------------------------------------- 13 2003M&PS...38.1161B 1.000 08/2003 A Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Stony meteorite porosities and densities: A review of the data through 2001 -------------------------------------------------------- 14 2003M&PSA..38.5247C 1.000 07/2003 Consolmagno, G. J.; Weidenschilling, S. J.; Britt, D. T. Forming Well-compacted Meteorites by Shock Events in the Solar Nebula -------------------------------------------------------- 15 2003M&PSA..38.5198S 1.000 07/2003 Strait, M. M.; Consolmagno, G. J. Porosity of Basaltic Materials: Terrestrial and Meteoritic Samples -------------------------------------------------------- 16 2003M&PS...38.1131C 1.000 07/2003 Consolmagno, G. Book Review: The life and death of planet Earth: How the new science of astrobiology charts the ultimate fate of our world, by Peter D Ward and Donald Brownlee -------------------------------------------------------- 17 2003MPC..48625...2R 1.000 06/2003 Romanishin, W.; Tegler, S.; Consolmagno, G.; Ryan, W.; Martinez, C. Minor Planet Observations [290 Mt. Graham] -------------------------------------------------------- 18 2003C&T...119R..87J 1.000 06/2003 Consolmagno, Guy; Davis, Dan M.; Jorissen, A. Book Review: Turn left at Orion - a hundred night sky objects to see in a small telescope - and how to find them / Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 224 pp., 2000, ISBN 0-521-78190-6. -------------------------------------------------------- 19 2003MPEC....J...22C 1.000 05/2003 E Consolmagno, G.; Tegler, S.; Romanishin, W.; Chiang, E. I.; Jordan, A. B.; Marsden, B. G. 2002 GW31 -------------------------------------------------------- 20 2003MPEC....J...18T 1.000 05/2003 E Tegler, S.; Consolmagno, G.; Romanishin, W.; Buie, M. W.; Jordan, A. B.; Wasserman, L. H.; Millis, R. L.; Marsden, B. G. 2002 GP32 -------------------------------------------------------- 21 2003DPS....35.4906T 1.000 05/2003 A U Tegler, S. C.; Romanishin, W.; Consolmagno, G. Correlation of Kuiper Belt Object Colors With Orbital Properties: Gray Objects In Hot Orbits -------------------------------------------------------- 22 2003LPI....34.1165C 1.000 03/2003 A Consolmagno, G. J. The Composition and Evolution of a Geophysically Reasonable Moon Produced by a Giant Impact -------------------------------------------------------- 23 2003Obs...123...52C 1.000 02/2003 Consolmagno, G.; Mahoney, Terence J. Book Review: Brother astronomer : adventures of a Vatican scientist / McGraw-Hill, 2000 2001 pbk -------------------------------------------------------- 24 2003M&PS...38..251R 1.000 02/2003 A Rochette, P.; Sagnotti, L.; Bourot-Denise, M.; Consolmagno, G.; Folco, L.; Gattacceca, J.; Osete, M. L.; Pesonen, L. Magnetic classification of stony meteorites: 1 Ordinary chondrites -------------------------------------------------------- 25 2002DPS....34.2807C 1.000 09/2002 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Weidenschilling, S. J.; Britt, D. T. Forming Well-compacted Meteorites in the Solar Nebula -------------------------------------------------------- 26 2002M&PSA..37Q.137S 1.000 07/2002 Strait, M. M.; Consolmagno, G. J. The Nature and Origin of Meteorite Porosity: Evidence from Thin Section Analysis -------------------------------------------------------- 27 2002M&PSA..37Q..38C 1.000 07/2002 Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. Three Points on Meteorite Porosities -------------------------------------------------------- 28 2002M&PSA..37..124R 1.000 07/2002 Russell, S. S.; Consolmagno, G.; Jeffries, T. E. Rare Earth Element Distribution in Lunar Meteorites: Clues to Their History -------------------------------------------------------- 29 2002Orion.309Q..37. 1.000 04/2002 Consolmagno, Guy; Davis, Dan M. Book Review: Turn left at Orion. A hundred night sky objects to see in a small telescope - and how to find them / 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press, 224 pp., 2000, ISBN 0-521-78190-6. -------------------------------------------------------- 30 2002LPI....33.1711S 1.000 03/2002 A Strait, M. M.; Consolmagno, G. J. Microcrack Porosity in the L/LL Meteorite Knyahinya: How Homogeneous? -------------------------------------------------------- 31 2002LPI....33.1701C 1.000 03/2002 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. Low-Density Materials and Asteroidal Macroporosity -------------------------------------------------------- 32 2002LPI....33.1117R 1.000 03/2002 A Rochette, P.; Sagnotti, L.; Chevrier, V.; Consolmagno, G.; Denise, M.; Folco, L.; Osete, M.; Pesonen, L. Magnetic Classification of Meteorites and Asteroid Probing -------------------------------------------------------- 33 2002aste.conf..485B 1.000 00/2002 A T C Britt, D. T.; Yeomans, D.; Housen, K.; Consolmagno, G. Asteroid Density, Porosity, and Structure -------------------------------------------------------- 34 2001M&PS...36.1697M 1.000 12/2001 A Magri, C.; Consolmagno, G. J.; Ostro, S. J.; Benner, L. A. M.; Beeney, B. R. Radar constraints on asteroid regolith compositions using 433 Eros as ground truth -------------------------------------------------------- 35 2001Icar..154..313R 1.000 12/2001 A E Rettig, Terrence W.; Walsh, Kevin; Consolmagno, Guy Implied Evolutionary Differences of the Jovian Irregular Satellites from a BVR Color Survey -------------------------------------------------------- 36 2001DPS....33.4103C 1.000 11/2001 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. Classifying Asteroids by Macroporosity -------------------------------------------------------- 37 2001DPS....33.0606R 1.000 11/2001 A Romanishin, W.; Tegler, S. C.; Rettig, T. W.; Consolmagno, G.; Botthof, B. (26308) 1998 SM165: A Large Kuiper Belt Object with an Irregular Shape -------------------------------------------------------- 38 2001M&PSA..36S.176R 1.000 09/2001 Rochette, P.; Sagnotti, L.; Consolmagno, G.; Folco, L.; Maras, A.; Panzarino, F.; Pesonen, L.; Serra, R.; Terho, M. Magnetic Classification of Ordinary Chondrites -------------------------------------------------------- 39 2001M&PSA..36Q.199S 1.000 09/2001 Strait, M. M.; Consolmagno, G. J. Microscale Variations in Porosity Across a Meteorite -------------------------------------------------------- 40 2001Icar..152..134B 1.000 07/2001 A E Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Modeling the Structure of High Porosity Asteroids -------------------------------------------------------- 41 2001LPI....32.1611B 1.000 03/2001 A Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Asteroid Bulk Density: Implications for the Structure of Asteroids -------------------------------------------------------- 42 2001LPI....32.1212B 1.000 03/2001 A Britt, D. T.; Yeomans, D. K.; Consolmagno, G. J. The Porosity of 433 Eros -------------------------------------------------------- 43 2001M&PS...36..187C 1.000 01/2001 Consolmagno, G. J. Books and Multimedia Reviews: Turn right at orion: Travels through the cosmos by M. Begelmann -------------------------------------------------------- 44 2001cvmc.book.....C 1.000 00/2001 Consolmagno, G. J. Catalogue of the Vatican Meteorite Collection -------------------------------------------------------- 45 2001PNAS...9811863R 1.000 00/2001 Romanishin, W.; Tegler, S. C.; Rettig, T. W.; Consolmagno, G.; Botthof, B. 1998 SM165: A large Kuiper belt object with an irregular shape -------------------------------------------------------- 46 2001EM&P...85..115C 1.000 00/2001 A E R Consolmagno, Guy Apollo Samples And The Geochemical Determination Of Basaltic Achondrite Parent Bodies -------------------------------------------------------- 47 2000S&T...100e..77C 1.000 11/2000 Consolmagno, G. Book Review: Brother astronomer : adventures of a Vatican scientist / McGraw-Hill, 2000 2001 pbk -------------------------------------------------------- 48 2000S&T...100e..76C 1.000 11/2000 Consolmagno, G. Book Review: The way to the dwelling of light : how physics illuminates creation / Libreria Etidrice Vatican & Univ. Notre Dame Press, 1998 Vatican Observatory, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------- 49 2000DPS....32.2107C 1.000 10/2000 A T Consolmagno, G. J.; Tegler, S. C.; Rettig, T.; Romanishin, W. Size, Shape, Rotation, and Color of the Outer Solar System Object 1999 TD10 -------------------------------------------------------- 50 2000DPS....32.0702B 1.000 10/2000 A T Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Asteroid Bulk Density -------------------------------------------------------- 51 2000M&PSA..35Q..45C 1.000 07/2000 Consolmagno, G. J. Lithification Scenarios for Ordinary Chondrites -------------------------------------------------------- 52 2000M&PSA..35Q..34B 1.000 07/2000 Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Asteroid Bulk Density: Implications of Recent Data -------------------------------------------------------- 53 2000Icar..146..213B 1.000 07/2000 A E Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. The Porosity of Dark Meteorites and the Structure of Low-Albedo Asteroids -------------------------------------------------------- 54 2000LPI....31.1800B 1.000 03/2000 Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Modeling the Structure of High Porosity Asteroids -------------------------------------------------------- 55 2000tlo..book.....C 1.000 00/2000 Consolmagno, Guy; Davis, Dan M. Turn left at Orion : a hundred night sky objects to see in a small telescope -- and how to find them -------------------------------------------------------- 56 2000baav.book.....C 1.000 00/2000 Consolmagno, Guy Brother astronomer : adventures of a Vatican scientist -------------------------------------------------------- 57 1999AAS...19510109S 1.000 12/1999 A Schaefer, B. E.; Hurley, K.; Nemiroff, R. J.; Branch, D.; Perlmutter, S.; Schaefer, M. W.; Consolmagno, G. J.; McSween, H.; Strom, R. Accuracy of Press Reports in Astronomy -------------------------------------------------------- 58 1999DPS....31.1602T 1.000 09/1999 A Tegler, S. C.; Rettig, T.; Walsh, K.; Consolmagno, G.; Romanishin, W. Optical Photometry of an Irregular Uranian Satellite and a Bare Comet Nucleus -------------------------------------------------------- 59 1999M&PSA..34Q..28C 1.000 07/1999 Consolmagno, G. J.; Bland, P. A.; Strait, M. M. A Preliminary Scanning Electron Microscopy Study of Microcrack Porosity in Meteorites -------------------------------------------------------- 60 1999M&PSA..34Q..20B 1.000 07/1999 Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Asteroid Rubble Piles: How Big Are the Pieces? -------------------------------------------------------- 61 1999M&PS...34..663K 1.000 07/1999 A Kring, David A.; Hill, Dolores H.; Gleason, James D.; Britt, Daniel T.; Consolmagno, Guy J.; Farmer, Mike; Wilson, Skip; Haag, Robert Portales Valley: A meteoritic sample of the brecciated and metal-veined floor of an impact crater on an H-chondrite asteroid -------------------------------------------------------- 62 1999LPI....30.1158C 1.000 03/1999 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Bland, P. A.; Strait, M. M. Weathering and Porosity: A Preliminary SEM Study of Weathered Meteorites -------------------------------------------------------- 63 1999LPI....30.1137C 1.000 03/1999 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. Turning Meteorites into Rock: Constraints on Asteroid Physical Evolution -------------------------------------------------------- 64 1999IrAJ...26Q..76C 1.000 00/1999 Consolmagno, G. Book Review: The way to the dwelling of light : how physics illuminates creation / Libreria Etidrice Vatican & Univ. Notre Dame Press, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------- 65 1998M&PS...33.1231C 1.000 11/1998 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. The density and porosity of meteorites from the Vatican collection -------------------------------------------------------- 66 1998M&PS...33.1221C 1.000 11/1998 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T.; Stoll, C. P. The porosities of ordinary chondrites: Models and interpretation -------------------------------------------------------- 67 1998DPS....30.0713C 1.000 09/1998 A T Consolmagno, G. J.; Pesonen, L. J.; Britt, D. T.; Flynn, G. J.; Klock, W.; Kuoppamki, K.; Moore, L. B.; Terho, M. Densities and porosities of meteorites and IDP's: Implications for asteroids -------------------------------------------------------- 68 1998M&PSA..33Q..34C 1.000 07/1998 Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T.; Stoll, C. P. Metamorphism, Shock, and Porosity: Why Are There Meteorites? -------------------------------------------------------- 69 1998LPI....29.1730C 1.000 03/1998 Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. Ordinary Chondrite Model Porosities and the Structure of Asteroids -------------------------------------------------------- 70 1998LPI....29.1577B 1.000 03/1998 Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Dark Asteroids and Dark Meteorite Densities -------------------------------------------------------- 71 1998wdl..book.....C 1.000 00/1998 Consolmagno, G. The Way to the Dwelling of Light -------------------------------------------------------- 72 1997P&SS...45.1069N 1.000 09/1997 A E F R Nyffenegger, Paul; Davis, Dan M.; Consolmagno, Guy J. Tectonic lineations and frictional faulting on a relatively simple body (Ariel) -------------------------------------------------------- 73 1997BAAS...29.1116S 1.000 09/1997 Soto, A.; Berinde, S.; Biscaya, A.; Bongiovanni, A.; Dayanand, S.; Galligan, D.; Garaj, S.; Lederer, S.; Okpala, K.; Pavlov, A.; and 6 coauthors Meteorite Bulk Density Measurements: A Test of the Glass Bead Immersion Method -------------------------------------------------------- 74 1997Icar..128..171H 1.000 07/1997 A E Hogenboom, D. L.; Kargel, J. S.; Consolmagno, G. J.; Holden, T. C.; Lee, L.; Buyyounouski, M. The Ammonia-Water System and the Chemical Differentiation of Icy Satellites -------------------------------------------------------- 75 1997LPI....28..159B 1.000 03/1997 A Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. The porosity of meteorites and asteroids - Results from the Vatican Collection of meteorites -------------------------------------------------------- 76 1997M&PSA..32Q..31C 1.000 01/1997 Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T.; Stoll, C. P. Model Porosities of Chondrites and the Nature of Asteroidal Material -------------------------------------------------------- 77 1996DPS....28.1044B 1.000 09/1996 A Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. The Porosity of Asteroids and Meteorites: First Results from the Vatican Collection. -------------------------------------------------------- 78 1996DPS....28.0416C 1.000 09/1996 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Hubbard, W. B.; Hill, R.; Boyle, R. P. The Orbit of Mimas Through Titan's Shadow -------------------------------------------------------- 79 1996LPI....27..847M 1.000 03/1996 A McGuire, J. C.; Davis, D. M.; Consolmagno, G. J. Crossing Fractures and the Strength of Venus Crustal Rocks -------------------------------------------------------- 80 1996LPI....27..643K 1.000 03/1996 A Kargel, J. S.; Consolmagno, G. J. Magnetic Fields and the Detectability of Brine Oceans in Jupiter's Icy Satellites -------------------------------------------------------- 81 1996LPI....27..569H 1.000 03/1996 A Hubbard, W. B.; Consolmagno, G. J.; Boyle, R. P.; Hill, R. The Shadow of Titan on Mimas and Saturn's Rings -------------------------------------------------------- 82 1996eiaf.conf....6C 1.000 01/1996 A Consolmagno, G. J. Cosmogonic Implications of the HED-Vesta Connection -------------------------------------------------------- 83 1996M&PSA..31Q..22B 1.000 01/1996 Britt, D. T.; Consolmagno, G. J. Estimating Porosities from Bulk Densities -------------------------------------------------------- 84 1996M&PSA..31...31C 1.000 01/1996 Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. Density and Porosity Measurements of the Vatican Meteorite Collection -------------------------------------------------------- 85 1996avhm.work....6C 1.000 00/1996 Consolmagno, G. J. Cosmogonic Implications of the HED-Vesta Connection -------------------------------------------------------- 86 1995Metic..30R.500C 1.000 09/1995 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Britt, D. T. Bulk Densities of Meteorites in the Vatican Collection and Implications for the S-Asteroid Controversy -------------------------------------------------------- 87 1995Icar..117..216M 1.000 09/1995 E Martinez, P.; Consolmagno, Guy Book Review: The observer's guide to astronomy / Cambridge U Press, 1994 -------------------------------------------------------- 88 1995Sci...269..568C 1.000 07/1995 Consolmagno, G.; Davis, D. M. Books-Received - Turn Left at Orion - a Hundred Night Sky Objects to See in a Small Telescope - and how to Find Them -------------------------------------------------------- 89 1995DPS....27.2010C 1.000 06/1995 Consolmagno, G.; Riccioli, D.; Blanco, C.; Leto, G.; A'Hearn, M. A Possible Impact Between the Shoemaker-Levy Q1 and Q2 Events? More Evidence For (and Against) -------------------------------------------------------- 90 1995DPS....27.0301B 1.000 06/1995 Britt, D. T.; Kring, D. A.; Consolmagno, G. J.; Bell, J. F. The Problem with Porosity -------------------------------------------------------- 91 1995tlo..book.....C 1.000 00/1995 Consolmagno, Guy J.; Davis, Dan M. Turn left at Orion : a hundred night sky objects to see in a small telescope- and how to find them -------------------------------------------------------- 92 1995esl9.conf...93C 1.000 00/1995 T Consolmagno, G. J.; Menard, G. A Search for Light Echoes of A, H, and Q Events -------------------------------------------------------- 93 1995VA.....39..717C 1.000 00/1995 E Consolmagno, G. J. Astronomy, Science Fiction, and the Popular Culture: 1277 to 2001 (and Beyond) -------------------------------------------------------- 94 1995S&T....90T..57C 1.000 00/1995 Consolmagno, G.; Davis, D. M. Book Review: Turn left at Orion / CUP, 1989 -------------------------------------------------------- 95 1995QB63.C69....... 1.000 00/1995 L Consolmagno, Guy; Davis, Dan Michael Turn left at Orion : a hundred night sky objects to see in a small telescope and how to find them -------------------------------------------------------- 96 1995LPI....26..273C 1.000 00/1995 Consolmagno, G. J.; Menard, G.; Stoll, C. P. Possible Light Echoes During the SL/9 A, H, and Q Impacts -------------------------------------------------------- 97 1995GeoRL..22.1633C 1.000 00/1995 A Consolmagno, Guy J.; Menard, Gary A search for variations in the light curves of Io and Europa during the impact of Comet SL9: A, H, and Q events -------------------------------------------------------- 98 1994DPS....26.2614C 1.000 06/1994 Consolmagno, G. J. Effect of an Insulating Surface on Ganymede's Thermal History -------------------------------------------------------- 99 1994watp.book.....C 1.000 00/1994 Consolmagno, Guy; Schaefer, Martha Worlds Apart: A Textbook in Planetary Sciences -------------------------------------------------------- 100 1994oss..book.....C 1.000 00/1994 Consolmagno, G. J.; Schaefer, M. W. Worlds Apart: A Textbook in Planetary Science -------------------------------------------------------- 101 1994QB601.C66...... 1.000 00/1994 Consolmagno, Guy; Schaefer, Martha W. Worlds apart : a textbook in planetary sciences -------------------------------------------------------- 102 1994LPI....25..285C 1.000 00/1994 Consolmagno, G.; Davis, D. M.; Nyffenegger, P. Has the Tidal Bulge on Ariel Shifted in Longitude? -------------------------------------------------------- 103 1991JRASC..85..149C 1.000 06/1991 Consolmagno, G.; Davis, D. M. Book Review: Turn left at Orion / CUP, 1989 -------------------------------------------------------- 104 1990Icar...83...16L 1.000 01/1990 A E Lebofsky, L. A.; Jones, T. D.; Owensby, P. D.; Feierberg, M. A.; Consolmagno, G. J. The nature of low-albedo asteroids from 3-micron multi-color photometry -------------------------------------------------------- 105 1990S&T....80...44C 1.000 00/1990 Consolmagno, G.; Davis, D. M. Book Review: Turn left at Orion / CUP, 1989 -------------------------------------------------------- 106 1990AstQ....7..255C 1.000 00/1990 Consolmagno, G.; Davis, D. M. Book-Review - Turn Left at Orion -------------------------------------------------------- 107 1989QB63.C69....... 1.000 00/1989 Consolmagno, Guy; Davis, Dan Michael Turn left at Orion : a hundred night sky objects to see in a small telescope and how to find them -------------------------------------------------------- 108 1989LPI....20..796N 1.000 00/1989 Nyffenegger, P. A.; Consolmagno, G. J. Tectonic Features on Ariel: Evidence for Collapse of a Tidal Bulge -------------------------------------------------------- 109 1989LPI....20..420H 1.000 00/1989 Hogenboom, D. L.; Winebrake, J.; Consolmagno, G. J.; Dalrymple, W., III Preliminary Densities and Phase Diagram of the Water/NH3 System at P-T Conditions Relevant to the Icy Moons of the Outer Planets -------------------------------------------------------- 110 1988Icar...73..381C 1.000 02/1988 E Consolmagno, Guy The structure of the planets Academic Press Geology Series. By J.W. Elder. Academic Press, London, 1987. 234 pp., $49.50 -------------------------------------------------------- 111 1988LPI....19..873N 1.000 00/1988 Nyffenegger, P. A.; Consolmagno, G. J. Tectonic Episodes on Ariel: Evidence for an Ancient Thin Crust -------------------------------------------------------- 112 1988LPI....19..241D 1.000 00/1988 Dalrymple, W., III; Hogenboom, D. L.; Consolmagno, G. J. The Density of Ammonia-Water Solution to 400 MPa (4 Kilobars) -------------------------------------------------------- 113 1985Icar...64..401C 1.000 12/1985 A E Consolmagno, G. J. Resurfacing Saturn's satellites - Models of partial differentiation and expansion -------------------------------------------------------- 114 1984pggp.rept....6P 1.000 04/1984 A Pollack, J. B.; Consolmagno, G. Origin and evolution of the Saturn system -------------------------------------------------------- 115 1984satn.book..811P 1.000 00/1984 A Pollack, J. B.; Consolmagno, G. Origin and evolution of the Saturn system -------------------------------------------------------- 116 1983STIN...8414096P 1.000 11/1983 A Pollack, J. B.; Consolmagno, G. Origin and evolution of the Saturn system -------------------------------------------------------- 117 1983JGR....88.5607C 1.000 07/1983 A Consolmagno, G. J. Lorentz forces on the dust in Jupiter's ring -------------------------------------------------------- 118 1983JPhCh..87.4204C 1.000 00/1983 A Consolmagno, G. J. Ice-rich moons and the physical properties of ice -------------------------------------------------------- 119 1982LPSC...12.1533C 1.000 00/1982 A Consolmagno, G. J. An Io thermal model with intermittent volcanism -------------------------------------------------------- 120 1982LPI....13..213F 1.000 00/1982 Feigelson, E. D.; Consolmagno, G. J. X-Ray Emission from Young Solar-Type Stars: Implications for the Early Solar System -------------------------------------------------------- 121 1982LPI....13..193D 1.000 00/1982 Dyar, M. D.; Consolmagno, G. J. Ferric Iron in Lunar Glasses and the Interpretation of Lunar Spectra -------------------------------------------------------- 122 1982LPI....13..129C 1.000 00/1982 Consolmagno, G. J.; Dyar, M. D. Unsampled Mare Basalts and the Evolution of the Moon -------------------------------------------------------- 123 1982LPI....13..127C 1.000 00/1982 Consolmagno, G. J. Lorentz Forces on the Dust in Jupiter's Ring -------------------------------------------------------- 124 1981Icar...47...36C 1.000 07/1981 A E Consolmagno, G. J. Io - Thermal models and chemical evolution -------------------------------------------------------- 125 1981LPI....12..178C 1.000 00/1981 Consolmagno, G. J.; Harrigan, J. M.; Buck, W. R. Can a Geophysically Reasonable Moon Make Mare Basalts? -------------------------------------------------------- 126 1981LPI....12..175C 1.000 00/1981 Consolmagno, G. J. An io Thermal Model with Intermittent Volcanism -------------------------------------------------------- 127 1980Icar...43..203C 1.000 08/1980 A E Consolmagno, G. J. Influence of the interplanetary magnetic field on cometary and primordial dust orbits - Applications of Lorentz Scattering -------------------------------------------------------- 128 1980Natur.285..557C 1.000 06/1980 A C Consolmagno, G. J. Electromagnetic scattering lifetimes for dust in Jupiter's ring -------------------------------------------------------- 129 1980M&P....23....3C 1.000 00/1980 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Cameron, A. G. W. The origin of the 'FUN' anomalies and the high temperature inclusions in the Allende meteorite -------------------------------------------------------- 130 1979Icar...40..522C 1.000 12/1979 A E Consolmagno, G. J. REE patterns versus the origin of the basaltic achondrites -------------------------------------------------------- 131 1979Sci...205..397C 1.000 07/1979 A E Consolmagno, G. J. Sulfur volcanoes on Io -------------------------------------------------------- 132 1979Icar...38..398C 1.000 06/1979 A E Consolmagno, G. J. Lorentz scattering of interplanetary dust -------------------------------------------------------- 133 1979BAAS...11..599L 1.000 03/1979 Lewis, J. S.; Consolmagno, G. J. Io: Geochemistry and Geophysics of Sulfur. -------------------------------------------------------- 134 1979BAAS...11..599C 1.000 03/1979 Consolmagno, G. J.; Lewis, J. S. The Evolution of Io. -------------------------------------------------------- 135 1979LPI....10..235C 1.000 00/1979 Consolmagno, G. J.; Cameron, A. G. W. The Nucleosynthesis Components of Isotopic Anomalies in Allende Inclusions -------------------------------------------------------- 136 1978Metic..13..428C 1.000 12/1978 Consolmagno, Guy J. Lorentz Scattering and Fractionation of Interplanetary Dust -------------------------------------------------------- 137 1978M&P....19..253C 1.000 10/1978 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Jokipii, J. R. Al-26 and the partial ionization of the solar nebula -------------------------------------------------------- 138 1978BAAS...10..590C 1.000 06/1978 Consolmagno, G. J. What if Al26 Ionized the Solar Nebula? -------------------------------------------------------- 139 1978Icar...34..280C 1.000 05/1978 A E Consolmagno, G. J.; Lewis, J. S. The evolution of icy satellite interiors and surfaces -------------------------------------------------------- 140 1978PhDT.........5C 1.000 00/1978 A C Consolmagno, G. J. Electromagnetic processes in the evolution of the solar nebula -------------------------------------------------------- 141 1977GeCoA..41.1271C 1.000 09/1977 A Consolmagno, G. J.; Drake, M. J. Composition and evolution of the eucrite parent body - Evidence from rare earth elements -------------------------------------------------------- 142 1977BAAS....9..519C 1.000 09/1977 Consolmagno, G.; Jokipii, J. R. Lorentz Scattering of Interplanetary Dust. -------------------------------------------------------- 143 1977BAAS....9Q.464C 1.000 06/1977 Consolmagno, G. J.; Lewis, J. S. Evolution of lcy Satellites -------------------------------------------------------- 144 1977BAAS....9..459D 1.000 06/1977 Drake, M. J.; Consolmagno, G. J. Possible Bulk Composition of Vesta: Evidence from Eucrites -------------------------------------------------------- 145 1977ps...book..492C 1.000 00/1977 A T C Consolmagno, G. J.; Lewis, J. S. Preliminary thermal history models of icy satellites -------------------------------------------------------- 146 1977LPI.....8..248D 1.000 00/1977 Drake, M. J.; Consolmagno, G. J. Asteroid 4 Vesta: Possible Bulk Composition Deduced from Geochemistry of Eucrites -------------------------------------------------------- 147 1976Metic..11..265C 1.000 12/1976 Consolmagno, Guy J.; Drake, Michel J. Geochemical evolution of eucrites: Composition of eucrite parent body -------------------------------------------------------- 148 1976GeCoA..40.1421C 1.000 11/1976 A Consolmagno, Guy J.; Drake, Michael J. Equivalence of equations describing trace element distribution during equilibrium partial melting -------------------------------------------------------- 149 1976LPSC....7.1633D 1.000 04/1976 A Drake, M. J.; Consolmagno, G. J. Critical review of models for the evolution of high-Ti mare basalts -------------------------------------------------------- 150 1976jsia.coll.1035C 1.000 00/1976 A T Consolmagno, G. J.; Lewis, J. S. Structural and thermal models of icy Galilean satellites -------------------------------------------------------- 151 1976LPI.....7..205D 1.000 00/1976 Drake, M. J.; Consolmagno, G. J. Evolution of REE Abundances in High-Ti Mare Basalts: Problems with Total Melting and Equilibrium Partial Melting and a Possible Solution With Fractional Partial Melting -------------------------------------------------------- 152 1975LPICo.234...40D 1.000 00/1975 Drake, M. J.; Consolmagno, G. J. Modeling the Two-Stage Evolution of REE Abundance Patterns in High-Ti Mare Basalt Liquids -------------------------------------------------------- Query Parameters: Databases queried: Astronomy/Planetary Authors: CONSOLMAGNO, G Start date: 01/1970 -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" --Calvin From pharos at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 14:06:56 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:06:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: List quality In-Reply-To: <20050410044837.19050.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7a32170505040920346a6f668e@mail.gmail.com> <20050410044837.19050.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2005 5:48 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > I agree entirely. Nobody has an inherent right to not be offended. The > amount of socialism going on in transhumanist circles these days > offends me daily but I don't demand that all be tested for libertarian > purity and purged from the list. If I don't want to be offended, but > remain on the list, I need to set up filters to either filter out posts > with offensive keywords, or filter out offensive posters. By doing so, > I would need to accept the fact that doing this stands as much chance > of degrading my list experience as improving it, as it will likely lead > to my only hearing parts of conversations and winding up making > inappropriate posts that are either out of context or deal with settled > issues. > The issue of list moderation is not new. It has been discussed for over ten years, on thousands of lists, ever since the beginning of Usenet. It is hardly a good use of our time to rehash all the same issues over again on this list. This list cannot be a fully moderated list. That requires full-time staff to read and approve every message before posting it to the list. It is only suitable for companies or organisations like universities who can afford a full-time moderator and backups for when he/she is off duty. The casual, after-the-fact moderation, using volunteers, that is presently used on extropy-chat is cheaper, but can result in low signal/noise on the list. It also has the problem that the 'bad' posts remain in the archives for search engines to find. First point is that it is much easier to moderate a list which has a narrow subject. If your list concerns 'Maintenance of old Triumph motorcycles' then it is easy to kill all the threads about the Bush election or the Pope's funeral. So, extropy-chat should have a clear statement of *some* suitable subjects, including a few examples. e.g. We welcome innovative discussions pertaining to scientific, technological, philosophical, artistic, economic, and social perspectives on the future. Similarly, extropy-chat should have a clear statement of *some* banned subjects, including a few examples. e.g. Personal attacks, racism, white supremacy, paedophilia, etc. Both these statements can be amended if necessary, as circumstances arise. Mike's idea of each user setting up their own filtering system is good for him, but many users who may be experts in their own fields, might not have sufficient computer expertise to do this. There is automatic mail filtering software available which could possibly be used at the list server to 'top-slice' a few of the 'worst' posts and have them forwarded for personal moderation. The list administrator would have to set this up with appropriate rules to make sure only a few of the very suspect posts were sent for personal moderation. Mailman already has options which can be used to stop spam or viruses being sent to the list. Mailman content filtering also has a few options that might be useful. I don't know enough about Mailman to make suggestions on customising it by add-on software, but it is worth investigation. As extropy-chat generally has a very wide-ranging subject group it is not really suitable for a strict moderation policy. The best that can be hoped for is to stop the 'worst-case' posts or posters and have a private word with posters who are getting too far away from extropy objectives. BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 16:07:48 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Who's Who? and What's What? (was Meta: List quality) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050410160748.62810.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > > > I agree entirely. Nobody has an inherent right to not be offended. > The > > amount of socialism going on in transhumanist circles these days > > offends me daily but I don't demand that all be tested for > libertarian > > purity ... > > Someday, Mike, if you are so inclined, please explain how (and if) > you distinguish differences between socialism (a term you throw > around a lot here), lower-case-l-iberalism, upper-case-L-iberalism, > communism, leftism, and other similar ilk-i-isms (and without going > to the dictionary - just off the top of your head). The Fabians, who were essentially intent on instituting a form of Platonic feudalism run along socialist lines on a global basis, decided to hijack the term "liberal" in the late 19th-early 20th century. They were dedicated to an incrementalist 'lobster bake' program of slowly instituting socialism in the US through the takeover of large moneyed foundations (including Rhodes, Carnegie, Guggenheim, Rockefeller, Ford Foundations) and to use their assets in this enterprise. In this, socialist=liberal in the modern American political world. One is just more honest than the other as to what he or she is about. If you look at the modern Democratic Party in the US, their accomplishments in the 20th century and the planks of their platform today, it is clear that they believe in the platform of the Communist Manifesto word for word. An uppper case L-Liberal is a member of the New York Liberal Party. The only distinction between a socialist and a communist really is that the communist will either shoot you or send you to re-education camp when you object to the state taking your stuff, while the socialist will merely publicly brand you a racist sexist anti-semitic neo-nazi wife beater and child rapist who doesn't pay his 'fair share', or some other combination of similar smears. > And what would you propose to do with the bulk of humanity that may > never hear of - or not cotton to - libertarianism? I happen to believe that any person, when they are no longer being lied to by the PTB, and stop lying to themselves, recognise the inherent superiority of the libertarian position on an objectively moral/ethical basis as well as practica/utilitarian. You can't force an ass to water, though. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 16:18:06 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:18:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] >H in Lower Alabama? Message-ID: <5366105b05041009181b7e8eb0@mail.gmail.com> Sunday, 10 April 2005 Hello everyone: Work takes me to southern part of Alabama for the next two weeks. I will stay in and work around Dothan, Daleville, and Fort Rucker. Anyone wishing to visit, please contact me off-list. -- Jay Dugger BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/ HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/ LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger Sometimes the delete key serves best. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 16:22:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050410162250.66733.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > > POPE JOHN PAUL II AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE > > by Rabbi Marvin Hier > > > > In terms of reconciliation with the Jews, I believe that Pope John > Paul > > II was the greatest Pope in the history of the Vatican with respect > to > > his relationship to the Jewish people. > > - Rabbi Marvin Hier, CNN's Larry King Live Show, Tuesday, April 4, > 2005 > > Is that saying a lot? And does this justify what the Jews are doing > to the Palestinians? It's saying a lot, but I don't think it has anything to do with what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians, or what Israeli Arabs are doing to the Palestinians (a large percent of the Israeli Army units that patrol the border zone and occupied areas are actually Israeli Arabs). Mostly, though, it appears the Israelis are not doing a heck of a lot to the Palestinians now, with the wall almost entirely completed and Arafat the Egyptian dead. If anything Sharon is likely waiting to see if the new PA will keep up its history of never passing up opportunities to pass up opportunities for peace. You need to get a new schtick. The Iraq war is over, so you need to find a new war to protest against. There isn't much going on in Palestine. I suppose you could protest against democratization in Lebanon, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia... or cheer as Iran strings up another 16 year old girl for having the temerity to denounce the government. > > Besides, I thought Judaism and Christianity were still mutually > exclusive religions? What has changed? Have Christians stopped > believing that Jews and other infidels are destined to go to hell? > (Where-oh-where have I been lately?) As stated in the article, the Church denounced the concept of collective blame of the crucifixion on Jews per se (particularly in light of research showing that crucifixion was reserved for treason against Rome, not for religious crimes against Judaism, and other bits that place the blame more properly on Roman authorities and not Jewish ones.) This therefore makes anti-semitism a sin in the Catholic Church. Whether Jews go to heaven or not is a separate issue for the church. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From megao at sasktel.net Sun Apr 10 15:29:32 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:29:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID and smartbiometric based encryptions In-Reply-To: <20050410051317.27888.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050410051317.27888.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4259465C.6010207@sasktel.net> The way I am proposing it is that the locations and specific DNA sequences chosen out of the entire genome are many and varied enough that it becomes an unbreakable code to find the key for... at least with near term technology. The super key would be held only by a secure agency, with specific knowledge of how and under what conditions to generate a private key and a public key. Somebody could go over your DNA but how and where to start to find a code from within a numerical string billions of characters long. This balances off absolute security with individualization and a subtle hint of simplicity. Mike Lorrey wrote: >Personal biometrics that stand a chance of being left lying around are >insecure keys. You leave your DNA all over the place, and your >fingerprints remain on everything you touch. Retina scans seem the only >really secure biometric, save the risk that someone is likely to gouge >out your eyeball to get your key (or forcibly scan you while under >restraints, physical or drug induced). > >Beyond this, the risk is that you have to trust any piece of equipment >that demands to scan you. This is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle >attacks similar to the fake-ATM scam, where you would see some kiosk >providing some product or service you wanted (stamps, ATM, subway >passes, concert/theater/airline/sports tickets, candy or other food >vending, etc) that would demand your retina scan and a scan of one of >your payment cards for something real. > >The kiosk might or might not portray an error after scanning you, thus >saving on output product, and prompting users to call a phone number on >the kiosk for 'customer service', which would allow for further >identity compromise through social engineering. > >--- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." wrote: > > >>Your personal biometrics would be your "private key". >>Personal genomics might be constitute a "super key" from which would >> >>be chosen pieces of conserved genomics >>encrypted into the "private key". >>Your "public key" which would be the identity used for everyday >>dealings. and would be a >>"low resolution" version of your "private key". >>Over a lifetime the "private key" might be used to generate several >>versions of a "public key".....if >>the "public key" was compromised". >> >> >> >>Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>On Apr 8, 2005 12:31 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The thing you are missing is that as RFID becomes ubiquitous, a >>>>> >>>>> >>hacker >> >> >>>>>doesn't need access to a database anymore to rip off your >>>>> >>>>> >>identity, it >> >> >>>>>is ALL sitting on your person in the form of chips ready to >>>>> >>>>> >>transmit >> >> >>>>>your personal information like Kitty Kelly playing a crack whore. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Are you getting that cold sinking feeling, yet? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>A solution to possible identity theft would be to tie the >>> >>> >>information >> >> >>>to biometric scan. Thus a would be identity thief would be >>>immediately detected. >>> >>>A better solution also addressing privacy would be a small computer >>> >>> >>>(perhaps the size of a key fob or built in to a cell phone) that >>> >>> >>could >> >> >>>only be activated by the biometrics of the user and that allows the >>> >>> >>>user to rigorously control how much information is transmitted in >>> >>> >>any >> >> >>>encounter. If the device was stolen it would be useless without >>> >>> >>very >> >> >>>major decryption work. It should also be possible to set the >>> >>> >>amount >> >> >>>of information to be automatically available on request at will. >>> >>> >>The >> >> >>>information that I would want automatically available at a party >>> >>> >>would >> >> >>>likely be very different than what I would want available in a >>>business setting. >>> >>> >>>- samantha >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>extropy-chat mailing list >>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>extropy-chat mailing list >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> >> > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) >Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! >http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 10 17:08:11 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:08:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts References: <20050410162250.66733.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00d701c53def$e07577c0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > --- Olga Bourlin wrote: >> Is that saying a lot? And does this justify what the Jews are doing >> to the Palestinians? It comes and goes - but never entirely seems to leave: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/international/middleeast/10gaza.html? http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-mideast.html > It's saying a lot ... No, it's not (unless you can explain to me why the pope is lauded for something ordinary citizens have already figured out a long time ago - i.e., that Jew were victims in the Holocaust, and that Jews did not kill any fictional deity character and are therefore not to blame; well, okay, so maybe ordinary citizens still believe in the fictional deity character, so two steps forward, one step back ...). > You need to get a new schtick. The Iraq war is over, so you need to > find a new war to protest against. There isn't much going on in > Palestine. I suppose you could protest against democratization in > Lebanon, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia... or cheer as Iran strings up > another 16 year old girl for having the temerity to denounce the > government. You need a new schtick, Mike (suggestion: tell me how much you really love me). I don't need any "new" (new? I've been following the Israeli/Palestinian conflict since 1967, before you were born, I believe ...) war, and the Iraq war is neither over nor are its effects going to go away anytime soon. >> Besides, I thought Judaism and Christianity were still mutually >> exclusive religions? What has changed? Have Christians stopped >> believing that Jews and other infidels are destined to go to hell? >> (Where-oh-where have I been lately?) > > As stated in the article, the Church denounced the concept of > collective blame of the crucifixion on Jews per se (particularly in > light of research showing that crucifixion was reserved for treason > against Rome, not for religious crimes against Judaism, and other bits > that place the blame more properly on Roman authorities and not Jewish > ones.) This therefore makes anti-semitism a sin in the Catholic Church. So it's, like, don't be anti-semitic now, but it's NOT a sin or anti-semitic (and anti-[insert any other religion] to think that Catholics (and some other Christians - or maybe just Catholics?) to believe that Jews (and others who are not of the true faith) are going to roast in the Lake of Fire forever in the life-after-death? (These issues cannot be separated - one can't have it both ways - the trouble being, of course, that if the Catholic church didn't have that dangling-carrot advantage that they teach about life-after-death for good Catholics, well then ... what's the point? What's a heaven for?) > Whether Jews go to heaven or not is a separate issue for the church. It may be separate, but it's tied into their inherent and implied exclusive status. Obviously Jews are not going to go to heaven - no one does. But to even think or believe such a thing - even if implicitly taught - if that's not all out savagery and self-righteousness and as cruel an idea as has been propounded, I don't know what is. Save me from the "saved." Olga From humania at t-online.de Sun Apr 10 17:51:38 2005 From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:51:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts References: Message-ID: <002001c53df5$f3f308c0$5b91fea9@maniaugal3qk6z> Amara said: > Dear Hubert, > > I wish you would stop and pause before you rant. Your > knee-jerk response to anything Catholic is tiring. Dear Amara, I know, it's tiring for me, too. I did not have to speak against catholicism for 30 years now. I'm out of practice, so everything I say comes out politely and careful, not with the drive of a 20 year old. But you are right, I should stop now. It's a waste of time. My uncle was a Vatican priest for a while in the late 60s. I've had enough of this battle against religion. If you believe that JP2 was such a giant of a loving god substitute, who is worth the pilgrimage to his dead body, please ask your Jesuit friend the most innocent question, why protestants are not invited to have "Holy Communion" at one common place together with catholics. JP2 has laid a ban on this. He speaks of "Anathema sit". That means you should be damned as a priest if you ever let a protestant take part in the catholic Communion. And this is one of the more harmless problems. But it demonstrates that his pose of a world open pope who inivites the youth of the world was - putting it mildly - phony. He was an inflexible fossil. > Besides Guy being a colleague, a friend, a very funny and > nice person, I'm convinced that he, or those like him, > are necessary to show devoutly religious people how important > is science. He's an excellent 'bridge' between science and > religion, and a model of a person following their passions. Your colleague and friend might be a world reknown astronomer and the most charming person ever. I would never deny this. But if he tries to speak in favor of the Vatican's position in the Galileo case, - after 400 years of knowing better - there should be ringing something in your head, no? I quit reading the interview, because I am familiar with Galileo's life and know the facts - I edited a German biography on him - so what your friend says about the "modernism" of the church is absurd. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Apr 10 18:08:40 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:08:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410130735.03431d50@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:33 PM 10/04/05 +0200, you wrote: > Dear Hubert, > >I wish you would stop and pause before you rant. Your >knee-jerk response to anything Catholic is tiring. Indeed, especially when the whole emotional outpouring around the Pope's death is so intensely interesting on a meta level. Why do humans react this way? Nobody responded to this question up the thread. It is a question that I think can only be answered with evolutionary psychology. EP is a subject of great importance to anyone concerned with the future and such major subjects as AI. It is also the only approach I know of for understanding the reason humans have wars and what must to be done to avoid wars. But to answer the question, human psychological traits were selected for those that promoted reproductive success in the hunter gatherer environment. Evolution is a slow process and there have not been enough generations since agriculture to have substantially changed human psychological traits. So if you want to think about why people like the Pope, Princess Diana, heads of states and Hollywood actors get a lot of attention you have to think in terms of the social life of a hunter gatherer tribe. For ecological reasons tribe size was limited, generally to less than 100 people. So there was little reason for our brains to have evolved the ability to recognize a lot more then the number in a typical tribe. And being able to recognize and (for that matter) bond with the alpha level members in a tribe was *very* important for your reproductive success in those times. It is actually amazing that we have so many high profile people in the world. Of course a lot of those who psychologically bonded to the Pope may not even know who Hunter S. Thompson was. Understanding EP might be as important to your survival as looking for cars before you cross a street. Especially in these times of incipient wars. Keith Henson PS. If any want pointers into the on line materials, ask. From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Apr 10 18:19:05 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:19:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: <00d701c53def$e07577c0$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20050410162250.66733.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050410134629.03b47d60@unreasonable.com> Olga wrote: >So it's, like, don't be anti-semitic now, but it's NOT a sin or >anti-semitic (and anti-[insert any other religion] to think that Catholics >(and some other Christians - or maybe just Catholics?) to believe that >Jews (and others who are not of the true faith) are going to roast in the >Lake of Fire forever in the life-after-death? (These issues cannot be >separated - one can't have it both ways - the trouble being, of course, >that if the Catholic church didn't have that dangling-carrot advantage >that they teach about life-after-death for good Catholics, well then ... >what's the point? What's a heaven for?) > >>Whether Jews go to heaven or not is a separate issue for the church. > >It may be separate, but it's tied into their inherent and implied >exclusive status. Obviously Jews are not going to go to heaven - no one >does. But to even think or believe such a thing - even if implicitly >taught - if that's not all out savagery and self-righteousness and as >cruel an idea as has been propounded, I don't know what is. You appear to conflate distinct concepts. 1. There is an after-life. 2. It is better than this one. 3. Only people who (a) believe our dogma and (b) behave themselves get to go. 4. Everyone else (a) stays here, (b) gets a chance to redeem themselves, or (c) goes somewhere else for punishment. Different religions and denominations preach different combinations of these concepts. Catholicism may rely on all of them, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Judaism, for example, does not have either the concept of hell or admission criteria for heaven, and has millions of followers who attempt to live moral lives; the only explicit carrot or stick is pleasing or disappointing their deity. Variants of Buddhism don't even have that to motivate adherents; ethical behavior is its own reward. -- David. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 18:37:45 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Religion In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050410183745.81723.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > A nice article by Salman Rushdie. It's appeared in papers all over > the > world, so many of you have probably read it. If you haven't, it's > worth a look. He is such a fan of religion, it turns out (funny > that)... > > http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050320/asp/opinion/story_4506104.asp > "In Europe the bombing of a railway station in Madrid and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh are being seen as warnings that the secular principles that underlie any humanist democracy need to be defended and reinforced. Even before these atrocities occurred, the French decision to ban religious attire such as Islamic headscarves had the support of the entire political spectrum. Islamist demands for segregated classes and prayer breaks were also rejected. Few Europeans today call themselves religious ? only 21 per cent, according to a recent European Values Study, as opposed to 59 per cent of Americans, according to the Pew Forum. In Europe the Enlightenment represented an escape from the power of religion to place limiting points on thought, while in America it represented an escape into the religious freedom of the New World ? a move toward faith, rather than away from it. Many Europeans now view the American combination of religion and nationalism as frightening." Yet it was european atheism that created the Holocaust, the genocides of Stalin, how quickly these are apparently forgotten. It is today what leads a nation of Frenchmen to go on vacation, leaving 15,000 of their elderly parents to die in a hot summer, and even refusing to return from vacation to bury their dead. How is the depraved indifference of the modern French any different or better than the depraved concern of Inquisitors for the souls of heretics over their lives as they subjected them to the auto da fe? Furthermore, it was French 'enlightenment' that led to the Terror that subjected tens of thousands to the guilllotine after their revolution while the US version pledged moderation and compromise. It was the enlightened english government that started a two century record of genocide that started at Culloden and continued through to the Sepoy Mutiny. European atheism and enlightenment has the greater record of tyranny, fear, and death. Salman is showing he has been listening to too much Ward Churchill. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From eugen at leitl.org Sun Apr 10 18:44:45 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:44:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410130735.03431d50@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410130735.03431d50@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20050410184445.GX24702@leitl.org> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 02:08:40PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > Indeed, especially when the whole emotional outpouring around the Pope's > death is so intensely interesting on a meta level. > > Why do humans react this way? Even more interesting, why others don't. I don't get nationalism, sport fandom or religious attachment at emotional level. It just bores me to tears, or gives me a case of creeps. I suspect most others here do not, either. Does anyone here have connections to any psychological profiling people? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sun Apr 10 18:57:04 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:57:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) Message-ID: <20050410185407.M50493@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Keith Henson: >Indeed, especially when the whole emotional outpouring >around the Pope's death is so intensely interesting on a >meta level. Yes, I thought it was intensely interesting and funny sometimes too. That article from the Times reporter tickled my funny bone because I saw the same thing. And touching: The fresh-faced kids yelling out their soccer chant (Giovaaaaaaaa-ni Paoooo-lo! clap-clap-clap!) was so sweet. Overall, the symbolism was fantastic. I wish Joseph Campbell was alive to have seen it. >Why do humans react this way? OK, survival. Is that why Hubert can't laugh about it? Why do I have no trouble laughing about the events of last week? A related topic is: how can extropians/transhumans complain about the intolerance of the religious, if they are equally or more intolerant in their own attitudes? So for EP: I would think that there is a survival value for tolerance (or at least humor :-) ). Amara From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 19:07:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050410190709.78980.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > > >> Is that saying a lot? And does this justify what the Jews are > doing > >> to the Palestinians? > > It comes and goes - but never entirely seems to leave: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/international/middleeast/10gaza.html? > > http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-mideast.html > > > It's saying a lot ... > > No, it's not (unless you can explain to me why the pope is lauded for > something ordinary citizens have already figured out a long time ago > - i.e., that Jew were victims in the Holocaust, and that Jews did > not kill any fictional deity character and are therefore not to > blame; well, okay, so maybe ordinary citizens still believe in the > fictional deity character, so two steps forward, one step back ...). It serves a major benefit in that the large number of overt or subconcious bigots can no longer point to the Church as an excuse for their bigotry. > So it's, like, don't be anti-semitic now, but it's NOT a sin or > anti-semitic (and anti-[insert any other religion] to think that > Catholics (and some other Christians - or maybe just Catholics?) > to believe that Jews (and others who are not of the true faith) > are going to roast in the Lake of Fire forever in the life-after- > death? Of course it isn't. Hell is a prison of one's own creation, and whether or not a supernatural afterlife hell is real is immaterial to what the Catholic Church has to say about the matter. I certainly see plenty of people living in hell on a daily basis because of the choices they have made in their lives. Thus the idea of a natural and objective physical punishment for ones wrong acts is not evil, or cruel, or hard to believe in, it is how the world around us works for the overwhelming majority of humanity. The lesson that christianity teachs about the experience of the Jews is two fold: a) no matter how special you start out in life (i.e. the 'chosen' people), if you abuse your position or fail to be properly appreciative of the entity that made you special, you are going to go down for it, and b) the more special you demand to be treated by everybody else, the worse the rest of humanity is going to treat you in resentment of your arrogance (which is a lesson being reiterated in the current day world opinion of Israel). If Church teaching still claims that Jews are going to hell, it is rationally so within their worldview because in some ways many or most jews still haven't gotten the point of why they went through the experiences they have over the centuries, or else they learned the entirely wrong lessons, from the POV of the church. This therefore isn't something where the Church is condemning anybody to hell, it just is, like the ground gets wet because it rains. This doesn't mean the Church should hate, dislike, or blame Jews for how one guy was once treated when he was nailed to a tree. It is 'unchristian' to hate anybody or abuse anybody, particularly for things they never did themselves as individuals. Loving a person unconditionally, despite their deeds, just as JP2 did with the fellow who shot him, is the christian thing to do. It is fair to hold the church up to its own standard, and it is fair to demand that it meet its own standards better. Given, however, the Church's record over the centuries of rationalizing excuses not to do so in convoluted theology, I think it is incredibly remarkable that one man brought so much change in his reign. It certainly didn't change enough for many. Similarly, it can equally be said the Church changed too much for just as many people (Opus Dei types particularly). > > Whether Jews go to heaven or not is a separate issue for the > church. > > It may be separate, but it's tied into their inherent and implied > exclusive > status. Obviously Jews are not going to go to heaven - no one does. > But to even think or believe such a thing - even if implicitly > taught - if that's not all out savagery and self-righteousness and > as cruel an idea as has been propounded, I don't know what is. But your demands and claims are self negating within the Catholic theosphere, because it is impossible for the subjective to judge the objective. The Creator cannot be judged by its creation unless in reality it is using that creation as a means of judging itself. It is the Creator that creates the objective truth by which it judges itself. If you judge the creator by a different standard, you are simply wrong, or perhaps more accurately, not as accurate a judge of the creator as the creator is of itself. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 10 19:18:34 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:18:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410130735.03431d50@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <20050410184445.GX24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <081b01c53e02$175d89f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Eugen Leitl" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 11:44 AM On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 02:08:40PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: >> Indeed, especially when the whole emotional outpouring around the Pope's >> death is so intensely interesting on a meta level. >> Why do humans react this way? >Even more interesting, why others don't. Yes, I've wondered that, too. Ever since childhood I observed religious rituals (and listened to religious explanations) with the "openness" that maybe - just maybe - when I became older I would understand the stuff that didn't make sense to me then. I didn't see any benefit to (and certainly didn't feel good about) belonging to any "exclusive" club where other people were ostracized or thought of not as kindly. So when I got older - rather than understanding religiosity better, I came to value critical thinking more and eventually lost my "openness" to supernaturalism. > I don't get nationalism, sport fandom or religious attachment at emotional > level. It just bores me to tears, or gives me a case of creeps.... I > suspect most others here do not, either. Count me in. When I read about "emotional contagion" in a psychology class decades ago - I thought: "Aha! That's it!" I tend to avoid crowds if at all possible - sitting in the middle of a pack of humanity at a sports stadium is the stuff of nightmares to me. > Does anyone here have connections to any psychological profiling people? ... yes, do tell - especially if you have information about humans with that rare physical defect: the absence of even one religious bone? ;>) Olga From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Apr 10 19:42:52 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:42:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <20050410051317.27888.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050410051317.27888.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2005, at 10:13 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Personal biometrics that stand a chance of being left lying around are > insecure keys. You leave your DNA all over the place, and your > fingerprints remain on everything you touch. Retina scans seem the only > really secure biometric, save the risk that someone is likely to gouge > out your eyeball to get your key (or forcibly scan you while under > restraints, physical or drug induced). > I would not use them for keys others may use. I would require that sensitive personal data be controlled by the person it is about and only released to others in a controlled way and in chosen amounts when the device is actually on the person whose biometrics it is coded to. The data device could only be accessed and told to release information by the person whose biometrics matched its internal coding. A private pass phrase on top of this should make the device fairly immune to successful cracking even if someone with a good enough lab had your biometrics and the skill to fake them to the device. At the very least such a device is immune to casual information stealing and identity theft which is where my initial comments on the subject started from. > Beyond this, the risk is that you have to trust any piece of equipment > that demands to scan you. This is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle > attacks similar to the fake-ATM scam, where you would see some kiosk > providing some product or service you wanted (stamps, ATM, subway > passes, concert/theater/airline/sports tickets, candy or other food > vending, etc) that would demand your retina scan and a scan of one of > your payment cards for something real. The only equipment scanning you is on your person and owned by you and is not broadcasting that information. So such an attack is not germane. - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Apr 10 19:50:36 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050410195036.9363.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Beyond this, the risk is that you have to trust any piece of > equipment > > that demands to scan you. This is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle > > attacks similar to the fake-ATM scam, where you would see some > kiosk > > providing some product or service you wanted (stamps, ATM, subway > > passes, concert/theater/airline/sports tickets, candy or other food > > vending, etc) that would demand your retina scan and a scan of one > of > > your payment cards for something real. > > The only equipment scanning you is on your person and owned by you > and is not broadcasting that information. So such an attack is not > germane. How so? Is the government or credit agencies going to trust implicitly any equipment I own and control that simply says "He is Mike"??? Not bloodly likely. They want control of the equipment. So long as you don't have control of the equipment, you have no trust that the equipment you see is actually controlled by a trusted agency or not. The challenger needs to establish his or her bonafides to the authority to challenge before the challenged should be compelled to provide the passkey. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Apr 10 20:04:45 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:04:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410130735.03431d50@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410130735.03431d50@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > PS. If any want pointers into the on line materials, ask. > Pointers to online EP materials would be appreciated, probably by many on this list. - s From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 10 20:08:33 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:08:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts References: <20050410162250.66733.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20050410134629.03b47d60@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <084701c53e09$12b81990$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "David Lubkin" > You appear to conflate distinct concepts. > > 1. There is an after-life. > 2. It is better than this one. > 3. Only people who (a) believe our dogma and (b) behave themselves get to > go. > 4. Everyone else (a) stays here, (b) gets a chance to redeem themselves, > or > (c) goes somewhere else for punishment. I may conflate them, but I personally don't believe in any of the above. > Different religions and denominations preach different combinations of > these concepts. Catholicism may rely on all of them, but it doesn't > necessarily have to. What I was questioning (and wondering about was ...) are religions like Christianity and Judaism mutually exclusive or not? When I was growing up they "were." Then this neologism came into use: "Judeo-Christian." WTF? > Judaism, for example, does not have either the concept of hell or > admission > criteria for heaven, and has millions of followers who attempt > to live > moral lives; the only explicit carrot or stick is pleasing or > disappointing > their deity. Variants of Buddhism don't even have that to > motivate > adherents; ethical behavior is its own reward. Yes, I know. Not disappointing the tri-deity (and praising him/them) seems to be the obligation of Christians, as well. If I were a Christian or a Jew, my concern would be ... why is my deity so insecure that he needs the validation of his prominence from his flock of oh-so-mundane-and-humble-and-merely human subjects? I am not a theist of any kind (mono- poly- or pan-). However, I, too, believe in virtue being its own reward (but am not keen on, you know, "rituals" accompanying some even somewhat nontheistic so-called religions). Olga From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Apr 10 20:12:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:12:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID smartcard passports and driver's licenses In-Reply-To: <20050410195036.9363.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050410195036.9363.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <892c53da7317b9e079bc09f3126ed6ac@mac.com> On Apr 10, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> Beyond this, the risk is that you have to trust any piece of >> equipment >>> that demands to scan you. This is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle >>> attacks similar to the fake-ATM scam, where you would see some >> kiosk >>> providing some product or service you wanted (stamps, ATM, subway >>> passes, concert/theater/airline/sports tickets, candy or other food >>> vending, etc) that would demand your retina scan and a scan of one >> of >>> your payment cards for something real. >> >> The only equipment scanning you is on your person and owned by you >> and is not broadcasting that information. So such an attack is not >> germane. > > How so? Is the government or credit agencies going to trust implicitly > any equipment I own and control that simply says "He is Mike"??? Not > bloodly likely. They want control of the equipment. Having just enough access to confirm identity and having access to all your information are very different things. - samantha From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 10 20:45:44 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:45:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) References: <20050410185407.M50493@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <086001c53e0e$44933710$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Amara Graps" > Yes, I thought it was intensely interesting and funny > sometimes too. That article from the Times reporter > tickled my funny bone because I saw the same thing. And > touching: The fresh-faced kids yelling out their soccer > chant (Giovaaaaaaaa-ni Paoooo-lo! clap-clap-clap!) was so > sweet. Overall, the symbolism was fantastic. I wish > Joseph Campbell was alive to have seen it. I live in downtown Seattle, a few blocks from two large sports stadiums - Seahawks and Safeco. At times during the year sportsfans stream down my street. I was out walking around on one occasion when I observed a little girl - 2 or 3 years of age - looking up at the people surrounding her and taking her clue from them. They were all shouting: "Ichiro! Ichiro" and, of course, she joined in: "Ichiro! Ichiro!" While the children themselves are often almost-too-impossibly-sweet (another survival tactic, heh heh heh), I was somewhat horrified to be reminded of how impressionable they really are. It made me think of photographs I've seen of little Nazi children, photographs of children at U.S. lynchings, and little KKK children in their cute child-sized pointy hoods being carried around by their proud white-supremacist parents (the latter I saw on TV numerous times), and all the other children in the world who take on the coloration of their elders - how easy (and expected) it is for children to do this. Small children don't tend to think about things like "emotional contagion" - whether that's a good thing or not (and that's not surprising, for they're taking in an unprecedented amount of important things during their first years - they've only just arrived on this planet, after all). Children - in those important formative years - tend simply to follow. It's in their (survival) nature. >>Why do humans react this way? > > OK, survival. Is that why Hubert can't laugh about it? I don't know about Hubert, but to me it's friggin' scary. It seems humans may do well to examine and try to overcome this tendency - I don't mean the tendency to survive, but the tendency to become "one with the mob." > Why do I have no trouble laughing about the events of last week? Do cynical, sardonic smiles count? > A related topic is: how can extropians/transhumans > complain about the intolerance of the religious, if they > are equally or more intolerant in their own attitudes? > So for EP: I would think that there is a survival value > for tolerance (or at least humor :-) ). Would be an interesting topic. Again, I think it is important to distinguish between: 1) being tolerant of others (i.e., letting "others" have a place at the table); vs. 2) necessarily respecting the others' beliefs. In other words, keeping in mind what Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Olga From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 10 20:56:02 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:56:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Religion References: <20050410183745.81723.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <094201c53e0f$b54ea970$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > > --- Emlyn wrote: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050320/asp/opinion/story_4506104.asp >> > "In Europe the bombing of a railway station in Madrid and the murder of > the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh are being seen as warnings that the > secular principles that underlie any humanist democracy need to be > defended and reinforced. Even before these atrocities occurred, the > French decision to ban religious attire such as Islamic headscarves had > the support of the entire political spectrum. Islamist demands for > segregated classes and prayer breaks were also rejected. Few Europeans> > today call themselves religious - only 21 per cent, according to a> recent > European Values Study, as opposed to 59 per cent of Americans,> according > to the Pew Forum. In Europe the Enlightenment represented an> escape from > the power of religion to place limiting points on thought,> while in > America it represented an escape into the religious freedom of> the New > World - a move toward faith, rather than away from it. Many> Europeans now > view the American combination of religion and nationalism> as > frightening." > Yet it was european atheism that created the Holocaust, the genocides > of Stalin, how quickly these are apparently forgotten.... Oh, Michael, Michael, Michael ... do you see the words "secular principles that underlie any humanist democracy need to be defended and reinforced" up there? Your subsequent diatribe is irrelevant, because you started invoking atheism. Figure out what the secular principles underlying humanist democracy are, and then we'll talk. (Atheism doesn't have any "philosophy" per se behind it - secular humanism has principles, and that is what Rushdie mentioned in his article.) Olga From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 10 21:25:50 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:25:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Super Size - This? Message-ID: <098301c53e13$dee22330$6600a8c0@brainiac> "Asteroid 2004 MN4 was no false alarm. Instead, it has provided the best evidence yet that a catastrophic encounter with a rogue visitor from space is not only possible but probably inevitable. It also demonstrated the tenacity of the small band of professionals and amateurs who track potential impact asteroids, and highlighted the shortcomings of an international system that pays scant attention to their work. "I used to say the total number of people interested in this was no more than one shift at a McDonald's restaurant," said David Morrison, an astronomer at NASA's Ames Research Center and a student of near-Earth objects for nearly three decades. "Now it's maybe two shifts.": http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002236985_asteroid10.html From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Apr 10 22:50:47 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:50:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <086001c53e0e$44933710$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20050410185407.M50493@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410182744.034298a0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:45 PM 10/04/05 -0700, Olga wrote: >From: "Amara Graps" snip >I don't know about Hubert, but to me it's friggin' scary. It seems humans >may do well to examine and try to overcome this tendency - I don't mean >the tendency to survive, but the tendency to become "one with the mob." Before you try to overcome some psychological trait, you should at least try to see where it came from. The reason humans become one with the mob is that "the mob" in evolutionarily significant times was your more or less close relatives. Acting as a mob in either offense or defense made it more likely that your genes (in Hamilton's inclusive sense) would be represented in the next generation. >>Why do I have no trouble laughing about the events of last week? > >Do cynical, sardonic smiles count? > >>A related topic is: how can extropians/transhumans >>complain about the intolerance of the religious, if they >>are equally or more intolerant in their own attitudes? >>So for EP: I would think that there is a survival value >>for tolerance (or at least humor :-) ). Tolerance is a meme, particularly a meta-meme. This is what I said in 1988 or so. "In historical times a meta-meme of tolerance (especially religious tolerance) has emerged in western culture. This is a remarkable event, since memes inducing tolerance to other memes would be expected to lose in the competition for mind space to memes which induce intolerance to other beliefs. Within small, isolated social groups, this is still the case. "But in larger cultural ecosystems, when traders come with obnoxious ideas and customs, but desirable goods, at least limited tolerance is a requirement if any trading is to be done. There were many other factors in the development of modern western tolerance such as the Renaissance and the indecisive religious wars that swept back and forth across Europe. Still, the advantage of trading goods may have been the primary force at work in the memetic ecosystem which caused many belief systems to adopt a tolerant-toward-other-beliefs component. Cooperative behavior is known to spontaneously emerge from groups (even groups at war) when certain conditions are present. Free trade may be similarly linked to the emergence of the meta-meme of tolerance, and in turn to the respectability of free thought. Testing these speculations would require rating the trade/tolerance of many groups and seeing if there is (or was) correlation." http://www.alamut.com/subj/evolution/misc/hensonMemes.html I now think the meta-meme of tolerance only arises in groups of people who have not been stressed for a long time. Humor is a psychological trait. I can't improved on Minsky's speculations as to why it evolved. (To get us out of loops and disrupt dangerous thoughts.) >Would be an interesting topic. Again, I think it is important to >distinguish between: > >1) being tolerant of others (i.e., letting "others" have a place at the >table); vs. >2) necessarily respecting the others' beliefs. > >In other words, keeping in mind what Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what >you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire was well fed. Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Apr 11 01:17:00 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:17:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <086001c53e0e$44933710$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200504110117.j3B1HA215679@tick.javien.com> > Olga Bourlin ... > ...Voltaire said: "I may disapprove of what > you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Olga My version of Voltaire's meme is a bit softer: I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the point of non-life-threatening injury your right to say it. After all, anything you or I say is completely irrelevant to me should I perish. spike (Of course, Voltaire's version fits better on a bumper sticker.) From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Apr 11 02:02:49 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:02:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410182744.034298a0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cab le.rogers.com> References: <086001c53e0e$44933710$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050410185407.M50493@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050410211434.06d2f140@unreasonable.com> Keith wrote: >Before you try to overcome some psychological trait, you should at least >try to see where it came from. This is a subcase of a remarkably useful guiding principle I first learned in engineering: Never take a fence down until you know why it was put up. (paraphrase of C. K. Chesterton, 1929) Certainly something I'd wire into my AI were I Eliezer. -- David. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 02:48:15 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:18:15 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gmail doubles in size Message-ID: <710b78fc050410194818a6dde2@mail.gmail.com> Gmail (google email) has just doubled it's mailbox size to 2gb, yay! I've been betting from the start that google's plan is to increase mailbox sizes more quickly than people can fill them up. So far so good for me, given that after maybe 9 months using gmail I'd only gotten up to 280mb. It's also recently added POP support, cool stuff for those clinging desperately to client-based email. They also say they support lots of browsers now, for the non-ie people out there. Haven't tried it though. I pretty much only use gmail now, via the web client (the only other email I use is corporate email from my workplace via outlook, and only because I am forced to). It is quick, the interface is clean, the searching is excellent, and obviously it holds a sh*tload of email. Availability of the servers was touch-and-go early on, but it's now rock solid. If you looked at it early and discarded it, now's the time to have another look. I've got zillions of invites if anyone wants one. btw, I'm not being paid by google :-) This is quite a sycophantic post though, isn't it? Hopeless. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Apr 11 03:22:06 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:22:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Chesterton (was EP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050410211434.06d2f140@unreasonable.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410182744.034298a0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cab le.rogers.com> <086001c53e0e$44933710$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050410185407.M50493@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410225606.03454cc0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:02 PM 10/04/05 -0400, you wrote: >Keith wrote: > >>Before you try to overcome some psychological trait, you should at least >>try to see where it came from. > >This is a subcase of a remarkably useful guiding principle I first learned >in engineering: > >Never take a fence down until you know why it was put up. (paraphrase of >C. K. Chesterton, 1929) > >Certainly something I'd wire into my AI were I Eliezer. That an interesting quote, do you have a source for it? Weird that you would mention Chesterton because about a year ago on a thread in alt.quotations, "Ideas have a life of their own" (which neatly encapsulates the meme meme), I wrote: >> More digging has pushed the origin date back to at least 1958, 18 >> years before Dawkins coined "meme." snip >I have now pushed the earliest example of the exact saying (I.e., >meme) back to 1910, to an unknown interviewer of Gilbert Keith Chesterton. http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=4bd1e0b.0403020555.b67f45b%40posting.google.com&output=gplain Incidentally, there are at least 57000 web pages mentioning G K Chesterton and a lengthy wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton Keith Henson From megao at sasktel.net Mon Apr 11 02:32:27 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:32:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gmail doubles in size In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050410194818a6dde2@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc050410194818a6dde2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4259E1BB.7080306@sasktel.net> I'm at 30% of my personal 2.072G but the only thing I don't like is that you can't just scroll through your entire email cache and can't file away emails into a dozen or 2 sub files. Grew up on netscape and usually let mail build up to 15-20,000 before doing a full house cleaning and resorting into numerous archived folders. I really love the way I can cache large files and resend fast remotely from gmail. I am on a rural dialup where 24.4 is more than the usual throughput no matter how you try. I , for example did up a disk today with close to 1000 key data files - 800 megs and sending it to a friend on a high speed connection for him to upload the whole thing to a single dedicated gmail filebox. I will be doing that several times and have most of my office mobile. Emlyn wrote: >Gmail (google email) has just doubled it's mailbox size to 2gb, yay! >I've been betting from the start that google's plan is to increase >mailbox sizes more quickly than people can fill them up. So far so >good for me, given that after maybe 9 months using gmail I'd only >gotten up to 280mb. > >It's also recently added POP support, cool stuff for those clinging >desperately to client-based email. They also say they support lots of >browsers now, for the non-ie people out there. Haven't tried it >though. > >I pretty much only use gmail now, via the web client (the only other >email I use is corporate email from my workplace via outlook, and only >because I am forced to). It is quick, the interface is clean, the >searching is excellent, and obviously it holds a sh*tload of email. >Availability of the servers was touch-and-go early on, but it's now >rock solid. > >If you looked at it early and discarded it, now's the time to have >another look. I've got zillions of invites if anyone wants one. > >btw, I'm not being paid by google :-) This is quite a sycophantic post >though, isn't it? Hopeless. > > > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Apr 11 03:42:53 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:42:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Chesterton (was EP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050410225606.03454cc0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cab le.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050410211434.06d2f140@unreasonable.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050410182744.034298a0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cab le.rogers.com> <086001c53e0e$44933710$6600a8c0@brainiac> <20050410185407.M50493@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050410232436.06dd65e0@unreasonable.com> Keith wrote: >That an interesting quote, do you have a source for it? The best source I've seen for what Chesterton actually wrote is http://www.chesterton.org/qmeister2/19.htm which says his actual remark was >In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there >is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be >called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or >law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected >across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and >says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the >more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't >see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and >think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of >it, I may allow you to destroy it. Apparently JFK paraphrased it to roughly the form I gave and the Internet's echo chamber of inaccuracy propagation spread variants of the paraphrase and credited them to Chesterton. (And occasionally to Robert Frost. It's awfully hard to track down authoritative sources and text for quotations.) >Weird that you would mention Chesterton because about a year ago on a >thread in alt.quotations, "Ideas have a life of their own" (which neatly >encapsulates the meme meme), I wrote: He does seem to be worth knowing. I love these other observations attributed to him -- Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. A room without books is like a body without a soul. -- David. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 11 03:57:51 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeasement In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050411035752.24484.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Sorry if I'm interjecting and grabbing the wrong end > of > the stick here but surely something is obviously > missing > in this analysis. The chances of 2 doves surviving > long > enough to meet each other in an environment > otherwise > infested with hawks must be very low or require some > additional assumptions about the environment such as > that there are places doves can go to meet that > hawks > can't easily get too. I am not positive of the details but you should consult the literature and find them out if you are interested. keep in mind these are very simple computer heuristics and not actual doves or hawks. The doves never fight meaning that they run from any fight, thus whenever they meet a hawk at the hawk's nest, they flee. When a hawk comes to their "nest" they flee and relinquish the nest to the hawk thus they always survive. It is not a model of predator-prey, it is a model of competition vs. altruism. It is part of the self-interest theory of evolution, which states that seemingly altruistic behavior arises because it has hidden survival value that it confers upon the practicer. i.e "sharing" can be considered "selfish" in the long run. > > Recently however game theorists have come > > up with a strategy called "forgiving-tit-for-tat" > that > > outcompetes everything including the original "tit > for > > tat". FTFT operates essentially as TFT except > that, it > > will, a small percentage of time forgive an > opponent > > that defected last time. This allows it to > cooperate > > with "tit-for-tats" that have been set on > retaliate by > > their previous opponent. > > I'm sceptical of this but I could be wrong and would > be interested in the research. > Hmmm well in response to your criticism, I did a search and gound an interesting site: http://www.prisoners-dilemma.com/results/cec04/ipd_cec04_full_run.html This site lists tournament results of repeated games of prisoner's-dillemna. Apparently my info was a little out for date as FTFT only placed 39 in the last tournament (still better than normal TFT) but it indicates that there are better strategies out there then either. I myself am somewhat curious about the details of those strategies. :) The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 11 04:25:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeasement In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050411042515.13753.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Hmmm well in response to your criticism, I did a > search and gound an interesting site: > > http://www.prisoners-dilemma.com/results/cec04/ipd_cec04_full_run.html > > This site lists tournament results of repeated games > of prisoner's-dillemna. Apparently my info was a > little out for date as FTFT only placed 39 in the > last > tournament (still better than normal TFT) but it > indicates that there are better strategies out there > then either. I myself am somewhat curious about the > details of those strategies. :) Actually on second look, it appears that TFT is 12th so FTFT is NOT better than TFT. curious... I remember a nature or science paper that said it was. Hmm. Anyways, I would still be curious as to the details of 1-11. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 06:05:13 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:35:13 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gmail doubles in size In-Reply-To: <4259E1BB.7080306@sasktel.net> References: <710b78fc050410194818a6dde2@mail.gmail.com> <4259E1BB.7080306@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc050410230548467dab@mail.gmail.com> On Apr 11, 2005 12:02 PM, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote: > I'm at 30% of my personal 2.072G but the only thing I don't like is > that you can't just scroll through your > entire email cache The "All Mail" link on the left gets you pretty close. > and can't file away emails into a dozen or 2 sub files. Look at the "Labels" feature, it replaces the idea of "folders" (or is this not what you mean?) > > Grew up on netscape and usually let mail build up to 15-20,000 before > doing a full house cleaning and > resorting into numerous archived folders. Assigning labels using rules will do most of this for you; I do that combined with auto-archiving, which means the messages never hit my Inbox. > > I really love the way I can cache large files and resend fast remotely > from gmail. > I am on a rural dialup where 24.4 is more than the usual throughput no > matter how you try. > > I , for example did up a disk today with close to 1000 key data files > - 800 megs and sending it to a friend > on a high speed connection for him to upload the whole thing to a single > dedicated gmail filebox. > > I will be doing that several times and have most of my office mobile. > > > Emlyn wrote: > > >Gmail (google email) has just doubled it's mailbox size to 2gb, yay! > >I've been betting from the start that google's plan is to increase > >mailbox sizes more quickly than people can fill them up. So far so > >good for me, given that after maybe 9 months using gmail I'd only > >gotten up to 280mb. > > > >It's also recently added POP support, cool stuff for those clinging > >desperately to client-based email. They also say they support lots of > >browsers now, for the non-ie people out there. Haven't tried it > >though. > > > >I pretty much only use gmail now, via the web client (the only other > >email I use is corporate email from my workplace via outlook, and only > >because I am forced to). It is quick, the interface is clean, the > >searching is excellent, and obviously it holds a sh*tload of email. > >Availability of the servers was touch-and-go early on, but it's now > >rock solid. > > > >If you looked at it early and discarded it, now's the time to have > >another look. I've got zillions of invites if anyone wants one. > > > >btw, I'm not being paid by google :-) This is quite a sycophantic post > >though, isn't it? Hopeless. > > > > > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 > > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Apr 11 06:26:58 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:26:58 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeasement References: <20050411042515.13753.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001901c53e5f$76d0d560$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > Actually on second look, it appears that TFT is 12th > so FTFT is NOT better than TFT. curious... I remember > a nature or science paper that said it was. Hmm. > Anyways, I would still be curious as to the details of > 1-11. Me too. Brett Paatsch From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Apr 11 07:03:44 2005 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is our Universe in a Brain? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050411070344.75096.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." wrote: > The question is how does a subroutine determine the > nature of the program it is a part of. Right. I like your line of thinking here! The initial inquiries in my life sought immediately to answer questions of ontology, ie, "What's out there; what is reality." Since then I've become impressed that the more immediate and fundamental questions are those of epistemology, ie, "What is knowledge and how do we arrive at it?" As such, before we try to say the whole universe is x or y or z we need to have an idea of how we could come to know the universe is x for any possible x. The suggestions you cite are pointed precisely in that direction: > If the subroutine could send out a "virus" which > analyses other portions of the program and > compresses its findings into messages sent back to > its source? > If quantum entangement can be harnessed, perhaps > information entangled by matter within reach in the > solar system can yield information? > Perhaps the output from the sun has information > entangled to matter at far off locations? > A solar dyson shell which captures the total output > of the sun might capture the energy and extract > entangled information as a by-product? > > It is far harder to analyse the elephant if you are > the flea. However a broadly distributed network of > fleas stand a better chance. Right. Those are strategies for knowledge that directly address the fundamental epistemic question of how we might be able to know *before* attempting to answer the question of what specifically lies beyond the horizons of our visible universe. Ironically the title of this thread I started jumps to such speculation, but it falls under my theme that if we propose that our universe is generated by a computer program there may be an open-ended array of possible types of computers and circumstances in which any such program might exist. It's not merely a question of is our universe a computer fabrication or not, but is it a computer fabrication of type C1 or C2 or ... or Cn occurring under circumstance R1 or R2 or ... or Rn, or not. And our list of possibilities will always be limited to the always finite scope of things we know about that we can use as analogs. Why should we assume that in the infinitesimal span of time homo sapiens has existed that we have managed to create something (computers) that can serve as a useful analogue to the unimaginable immensity of the totality of reality? Maybe we have, but how can we know? ~Ian http://iangoddard.net __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 11 13:34:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 06:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Chesterton (was EP) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050411133452.99675.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > > Apparently JFK paraphrased it to roughly the form I gave and the > Internet's echo chamber of inaccuracy propagation spread variants of > the paraphrase and credited them to Chesterton. (And occasionally > to Robert Frost. Generally, Frost is credited with saying, "Good fences make good neighbors", although the poem in which he says it the narrator is actually questioning the validity of that saying, which is actually an old yankee aphorism. > It's awfully hard to track down authoritative sources and text for > quotations.) Try www.wikiquote.org Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From eugen at leitl.org Mon Apr 11 13:50:24 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:50:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Appeasement In-Reply-To: <20050411035752.24484.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050411035752.24484.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050411135023.GK24702@leitl.org> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:57:51PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > Hmmm well in response to your criticism, I did a > search and gound an interesting site: > > http://www.prisoners-dilemma.com/results/cec04/ipd_cec04_full_run.html > > This site lists tournament results of repeated games > of prisoner's-dillemna. Apparently my info was a > little out for date as FTFT only placed 39 in the last > tournament (still better than normal TFT) but it > indicates that there are better strategies out there > then either. I myself am somewhat curious about the > details of those strategies. :) You've seen http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65317,00.html right? ... Teams could submit multiple strategies, or players, and the Southampton team submitted 60 programs. These, Jennings explained, were all slight variations on a theme and were designed to execute a known series of five to 10 moves by which they could recognize each other. Once two Southampton players recognized each other, they were designed to immediately assume "master and slave" roles -- one would sacrifice itself so the other could win repeatedly. If the program recognized that another player was not a Southampton entry, it would immediately defect to act as a spoiler for the non-Southampton player. The result is that Southampton had the top three performers -- but also a load of utter failures at the bottom of the table who sacrificed themselves for the good of the team. Another twist to the game was the addition of noise, which allowed some moves to be deliberately misrepresented. In the original game, the two prisoners could not communicate. But Southampton's design lets the prisoners do the equivalent of signaling to each other their intentions by tapping in Morse code on the prison wall. Kendall noted that there was nothing in the competition rules to preclude such a strategy, though he admitted that the ability to submit multiple players means it's difficult to tell whether this strategy would really beat Tit for Tat in the original version. But he believes it would be impossible to prevent collusion between entrants. ... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hemm at openlink.com.br Mon Apr 11 16:46:34 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:46:34 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Amara References: <20050410185407.M50493@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <04f001c53eb6$05c56640$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Hello, Amara, since you're an astronomer, I think you would be the most appropriate person to ask. A hypothetical question. If our planet had rings, how would (if...) they be viewed from the surface? Would they glow at night? Would they be dark bands in the sky? Would they shadow the sunlight and affect the climate? From hal at finney.org Mon Apr 11 16:08:51 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Future of TV Advertising Message-ID: <20050411160851.DD91657EE6@finney.org> The Sunday New York Times magazine had a good article on TV ratings and media advertising, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/magazine/10NIELSENS.html Unlike other stories on the topic, it didn't focus on the problem with the advertising model in a world where people can skip commercials at will. Instead, it looked at short-term efforts to improve measurement of ratings on TV and radio shows. The problem is that the old ratings systems are inadequate today due to audience fragmentation and inaccuracy. With hundreds of TV channels, internet and satellite radio, advertisers need to switch to a narrowcasting model and target their ads to specific demographic groups. This requires far more data, and more accurate data, than the present systems gather. Arbitron (for radio) and Nielsen (for TV) are working together on a device called the PPM, Portable People Meter. This is a pager-sized device which will be worn by people recruited to have their viewing and listening habits monitored. All TV and radio shows will have inaudible audio signals encoded into them which these devices will listen to and record. The PPMs will then dump their data onto the net at night, allowing the ratings services to know exactly what TV and radio programs the person was exposed to during the day. It sounds futuristic, but Arbitron already is running a large scale test in Houston: "Arbitron has begun to ask radio and television stations around the country to run their broadcasts through a patented Arbitron encoding device; at the moment, almost all of the radio and television stations that a listener can tune into in the Houston metro area -- including over-the-air, cable and satellite TV (though not satellite radio) -- are coded for the P.P.M. trial. The stations are not being paid for this; instead, Arbitron has convinced them, through literal door-to-door salesmanship, that encoded broadcasts will enable Arbitron to measure their audiences better and thereby ultimately boost their advertising sales." Advertisements shown before movies are also being encoded. Further out, executives envision tying PPMs to the much-loved RFID technology. Chips could be embedded in books and magazines so that PPMs could record what print advertising you are exposed to as well. Another technology soon to be rolled out is direct monitoring of which TV stations are tuned in on cable boxes. Cable companies already have this information for digital cable systems, but it is not yet being used for ratings or sold to advertisers. This data is a gold mine and the only thing holding it back is that the greed of the various companies involved is preventing them from putting a business plan together to exploit it. But it sounds like this should be in play as well in a year or two. All of these new monitoring technologies lead to the holy grail of advertising, a joint Arbitron-Nielsen effort called Project Apollo (after the space program). This will combine PPM based advertising-exposure monitoring technology with purchasing information from retail loyalty cards. At last, advertisers will know exactly which commercials people were exposed to and how those people changed their purchasing decisions as a result. This knowledge has been the dream of advertisers "since people were drawing woolly mammoths on the side of cave" says an executive. No longer will the public be a black box to advertisers. Everything will be open and exposed. Overall this article was informative and plausible. It sounds like this stuff is really going to happen in the next couple of years. But there were a few strange omissions which seemed to ignore important issues. One was the question of privacy. The PPMs are carried voluntarily, like Nielsen families today with their diaries and People Meters. The motivation is that participating gives you great influence over what TV shows succeed. However the PPM will be much more invasive in terms of the quantity of information it gathers. And if the dream of narrowcast advertising is to work, PPMs must become relatively common in order to identify all the target demographic groups. Being a PPM holder would no longer make you "special" and instead you would be giving away a lot of information about yourself for nothing. A bigger privacy issue is the proposal to sell data about what people are watching on their cable boxes. I bought a TiVo about five years ago and it was a big deal back then, that TiVo would record your viewing habits and sell them. The company promised they would be aggregated and not individually traceable, but still.... TiVo had to allow people to opt out entirely from the tracing data (which I did). If cable companies start doing the same thing I think we will see a privacy backlash which will slow it down even if they get an opt-out system in place. Another problem not addressed in the article is the one I touched on above, that people generally hate advertising and try to avoid it. New technologies are making that easier, and it's entirely possible that the net effect of all these new measurements will simply be to chronicle a dying business model in technicolor detail. Broadcasters are participating freely in the PPM trials now, but it should be obvious that the news is not necessarily going to be good. If these test markets reveal that people are not watching as much TV as the old rating systems showed, stations in other cities are not going to want to participate. Nevertheless, I think this article, along with the RFID technology we were discussing, both point towards a common element of the near future: a fantastic increase in information flows about activities in the physical world. Ultimately, it will happen because it is possible, technology is making it cheaper until it becomes almost free, and there is genuine business and social benefit from increasing the information flow. There are also social costs, but as in many technologies the costs tend to be diffuse while the benefits are narrow (think of the costs of industrial pollution vs the benefits of a profitable factory). In the short term, benefits drive the equation. Only if and when things go too far will the pendulum start to turn back. But in the mean time we are in for rapid change in the information flowing around us and about us. Hal From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Mon Apr 11 20:18:07 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:18:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ring question (was question for Amara) Message-ID: <20050411201206.M38895@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> (Henrique Moraes Machad asked about seeing an Earth's ring from Earth; the different ways it might be visible and how that would affect things like the weather.) But what kind of ring ? Like Saturn's? Jupiter's? It depends on the number density (how many particles per volume) in the ring, and also the sizes of the particles. Also how distant from the surface is the ring. Volcanoes erupt and emit particles that get swept up in the jet streams in the Earth's weather system. In some sense those are rings. (and they do affect the weather) Our Earth does have a ring "The Earth's dust ring", studied by Dermott et al 1994. Some dust formed in the asteroid belt will spiral in towards the Sun due to the effects of poynting robertson drag, and some of that gets temporarily trapped in resonances with the Earth. I don't know the number densities and sizes and radius without finding his paper. One conclusion might be that you would not see anything from the surface, if the ring you are speculating about is a ring like this one. At night; Glow in visible light? No. But maybe in infrared light. Or if the Sun is behind you, there would be nice forward-scattered light that might look like its glowing. The solar system has 'rings' in a sense, actually its called the zodiacal cloud. You can see that at night from any position on Earth, just before dawn (Google: zodiacal light). This might help with some of your dust questions. http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/st/ The first page is a picture of zodiacal light. (I'm really sorry that I have to stop now. I have to wake up in 5 hours and catch a plane. This weekend I can answer more.) Amara From hal at finney.org Mon Apr 11 21:00:21 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Amara Message-ID: <20050411210021.A57C157EE6@finney.org> Henrique writes: > Amara, since you're an astronomer, I think you would be the most > appropriate person to ask. A hypothetical question. If our planet had > rings, how would (if...) they be viewed from the surface? Would they > glow at night? Would they be dark bands in the sky? Would they shadow > the sunlight and affect the climate? I am not Amara but I will offer some speculations. Suppose we had a Saturn-like ring system around our planet. What would it look like? The rings would probably orbit in a plane near to but not exactly the same as the equator. This would cause their appearance to be different from different spots on the Earth. Directly beneath the ring plane, they would not be visible because they are too thin from that angle. >From the more distant latitudes, they would be viewed from an oblique angle and should be relatively visible. From the poles they might not be visible though, being below the horizon. Generally, the ring plane and the equatorial plane would both be fixed relative to the distant stars. However, if this hypothetical Earth, like ours, had inclined poles, the appearance of the rings would change during the year. There would be two factors. One is the angle of the ring plane with respect to the ecliptic, the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun. This would cause the sun's angle with respect to the rings to change during the year. When the sun was aligned with the ring plane, they would be invisible, which would happen twice a year. 3 months later the sun would be at maximum angle from the ring plane and the rings would be at their brightest. The other factor arises if the ring plane is different from the equatorial plane. During the course of the year, the time of day at which a given observer is at maximum angle from the rings would change. So at some times of year the rings would be more visible at sunrise and at other times they would be more visible at sunset. These two year-based effects would interact in a complicated way causing the ring's visibility from different points on the Earth to vary from season to season. I'd imagine that the rings would not be visible during mid day, the sun being too bright. They would be most noticeable just before sunrise and after sunset, when much of the rings would be illuminated overhead. If the rings are as big as Saturn's and extend several planetary diameters out, then portions of them should be visible all night long. The Earth's shadow will block out the overhead portion at midnight, but parts should still be visible rising in the east and the west, at least in middle latitudes. The rings would be whatever color the dust is they are made of, probably grayish like the moon. Against the dark night sky they would look bright white and colorless, like a full moon overhead. At the horizons they would shade into an orangeish color. I suspect that the shadowing effects of the rings would have some limited localized affect on climate. Certain latitudes might consistently find that their noontime winter sun had to shine through the rings. Even if the rings were low density and this effect were small, it could still change the temperature profile and cause localized adaptations by planet and animal life. All in all the rings would be a remarkable sight, one which would probably have made a big difference in the historical course of understanding astronomy. The Earth's shadow would be visible every night in a very obvious way, more so than the occasional lunar eclipse. The change in visibility with different latitudes would also be more conspicuous than the variation in sun angles we are stuck with, and would point to the roundness of the Earth. Hal From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Apr 12 00:16:49 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:16:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Amara In-Reply-To: <20050411210021.A57C157EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050411195911.04b0de58@unreasonable.com> Hal wrote: >I am not Amara but I will offer some speculations. Suppose we had a >Saturn-like ring system around our planet. What would it look like? I wonder about your Saturnian ring scenario. Where is the moon relative to the ring system, and how do they interact with each other? The ringed outer planets do have moons, but they do not appear to measurably affect their planets. Discussions I've seen of the role of our uniquely large moon (in absolute size and particularly in size relative to its planet) suggest that life as we know it would not have developed here had we not had the Moon. And would the ring system have a tidal effect? If so, how would it compare in magnitude and direction to the lunar tidal effect? -- David. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 12 03:58:44 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Amara In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050412035844.73835.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > And would the ring system have a tidal effect? If so, how would it > compare in magnitude and direction to the lunar tidal effect? Depends on how much mass and at what altitudes the inner and outer boundaries are at. It would likely be an even equatorial bulge that might wobble if the ring has any seasonal angle of incidence (possibly due to solar tide). Likely that most wouldn't notice it unless it was a rather significant amount of mass in orbit. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Apr 12 04:45:58 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:45:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Engineered Flying Flies Message-ID: <001601c53f1a$85b09910$6600a8c0@brainiac> Even headless flies flew: http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2005-04-07-3 Olga From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 12 10:03:46 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 03:03:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <200504110117.j3B1HA215679@tick.javien.com> References: <200504110117.j3B1HA215679@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <941f610eb0325d82d9edf7e5e0724c29@mac.com> On Apr 10, 2005, at 6:17 PM, spike wrote: >> Olga Bourlin > ... >> ...Voltaire said: "I may disapprove of what >> you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Olga > > > My version of Voltaire's meme is a bit softer: > > I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the > point of non-life-threatening injury your right to say > it. After all, anything you or I say is completely > irrelevant to me should I perish. > > Is there any level of evil that you would stand up against even if to do so would quite likely put your life in jeopardy? Sometimes I wonder if we are not at a distinct disadvantage against those who may willingly put themselves in harm's way for what they believe is sufficiently important. -s From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Apr 12 13:02:52 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:02:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <941f610eb0325d82d9edf7e5e0724c29@mac.com> References: <200504110117.j3B1HA215679@tick.javien.com> <200504110117.j3B1HA215679@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050412080646.034389f0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:03 AM 12/04/05 -0700, Samantha wrote: >On Apr 10, 2005, at 6:17 PM, spike wrote: > >>>Olga Bourlin >>... >>>...Voltaire said: "I may disapprove of what >>>you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Olga >> >>My version of Voltaire's meme is a bit softer: >> >>I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the >>point of non-life-threatening injury your right to say >>it. After all, anything you or I say is completely >>irrelevant to me should I perish. > >Is there any level of evil that you would stand up against even if to do >so would quite likely put your life in jeopardy? Sometimes I wonder if we >are not at a distinct disadvantage against those who may willingly put >themselves in harm's way for what they believe is sufficiently important. We are social primates. Our genes were selected by millions of years in hunter gatherer tribes where the people around us usually carried more copies of our genes than we did. Thus (by Hamilton's inclusive fitness criteria) evolution can be expected to have selected genes that give us psychological traits to take horrible risks and face death to protect those close to us. (Close companions were almost always relatives in tribal days. Since our ancestors didn't have DNA testing, they had to make do with treating those they grew up with or were friends or bonded with as relatives.) The sharp edged mathematical reason is that people who died in such circumstances on average left more gene copies (through protected relatives) than had they survived. This little consequence of evolutionary biology that Hamilton and Haldane worked out more than 40 years ago is absolutely essential knowledge if you want to have any understanding of why human history took the twists it did. For example, the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BCE. A small force (eventually wiped out to the last man) held up over 100,000 Persians in a narrow pass for six days while the Greeks mustered the forces that eventually defeated the Persians. The achievements of Greece lie at the root of western culture. Without this sacrifice the world would be very different place. The exact same mechanism is still with us today. It lies behind suicide bombings. And while the mechanism is not expressed in everybody to the same level, I would expect Extropians on average to be like other people in taking risk--even when there was a high chance of being killed--to save friends in danger. If you have not already done so, it is more likely to be lack of opportunity than lacking these nearly universal human psychological traits. Incidentally, it is extremely difficult to think rationally when faced with these kinds of situations--and very important to do so. This is why emergency workers are trained--so they nearly have reflexes to high stress situations. Keith Henson Notes. Haldane, J. B. S. (1955). Population genetics. New Biology, 18, 34-51. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior: I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-16. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior: II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17-52. Maynard Smith, J. (1995). The theory of evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. "To express the matter more vividly, in the world of our model organisms, whose behavior is determined strictly by genotype, we expect to find that no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single person but that everyone will sacrifice it when he can thereby save more than two brothers, or four half-brothers, or eight first cousins...." (Hamilton, W. D., 1964, "The genetic evolution of social behavior," Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: pp. 16) The evolutionary biologist J. S. B. Haldane made similar statements. I am not sure who has precedence. From hemm at openlink.com.br Tue Apr 12 13:16:57 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:16:57 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ring question (was question for Amara) References: <20050411201206.M38895@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <004c01c53f61$e73d77b0$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Thanks for the answers. I was thinking about Saturn like rings. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amara Graps" To: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 5:18 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Ring question (was question for Amara) > (Henrique Moraes Machad asked about seeing an > Earth's ring from Earth; the different ways it might be > visible and how that would affect things like the weather.) > > But what kind of ring ? Like Saturn's? Jupiter's? It > depends on the number density (how many particles per From hemm at openlink.com.br Tue Apr 12 13:30:00 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:30:00 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Amara References: <20050411210021.A57C157EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <005801c53f63$ba238790$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Thank you. This is the kind of scenery I was thinking of. ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Hal Finney"" To: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Question for Amara > Henrique writes: > > Amara, since you're an astronomer, I think you would be the most > > appropriate person to ask. A hypothetical question. If our planet had > > rings, how would (if...) they be viewed from the surface? Would they > > glow at night? Would they be dark bands in the sky? Would they shadow > > the sunlight and affect the climate? > > I am not Amara but I will offer some speculations. Suppose we had a > Saturn-like ring system around our planet. What would it look like? > > The rings would probably orbit in a plane near to but not exactly the > same as the equator. This would cause their appearance to be different > from different spots on the Earth. Directly beneath the ring plane, > they would not be visible because they are too thin from that angle. > >From the more distant latitudes, they would be viewed from an oblique > angle and should be relatively visible. From the poles they might not > be visible though, being below the horizon. > > Generally, the ring plane and the equatorial plane would both be fixed > relative to the distant stars. However, if this hypothetical Earth, > like ours, had inclined poles, the appearance of the rings would change > during the year. > > There would be two factors. One is the angle of the ring plane with > respect to the ecliptic, the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun. > This would cause the sun's angle with respect to the rings to change > during the year. When the sun was aligned with the ring plane, they > would be invisible, which would happen twice a year. 3 months later the > sun would be at maximum angle from the ring plane and the rings would > be at their brightest. > > The other factor arises if the ring plane is different from the equatorial > plane. During the course of the year, the time of day at which a given > observer is at maximum angle from the rings would change. So at some > times of year the rings would be more visible at sunrise and at other > times they would be more visible at sunset. These two year-based effects > would interact in a complicated way causing the ring's visibility from > different points on the Earth to vary from season to season. > > I'd imagine that the rings would not be visible during mid day, the sun > being too bright. They would be most noticeable just before sunrise and > after sunset, when much of the rings would be illuminated overhead. > If the rings are as big as Saturn's and extend several planetary > diameters out, then portions of them should be visible all night long. > The Earth's shadow will block out the overhead portion at midnight, > but parts should still be visible rising in the east and the west, > at least in middle latitudes. > > The rings would be whatever color the dust is they are made of, probably > grayish like the moon. Against the dark night sky they would look bright > white and colorless, like a full moon overhead. At the horizons they > would shade into an orangeish color. > > I suspect that the shadowing effects of the rings would have some limited > localized affect on climate. Certain latitudes might consistently > find that their noontime winter sun had to shine through the rings. > Even if the rings were low density and this effect were small, it could > still change the temperature profile and cause localized adaptations by > planet and animal life. > > All in all the rings would be a remarkable sight, one which would probably > have made a big difference in the historical course of understanding > astronomy. The Earth's shadow would be visible every night in a very > obvious way, more so than the occasional lunar eclipse. The change in > visibility with different latitudes would also be more conspicuous than > the variation in sun angles we are stuck with, and would point to the > roundness of the Earth. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 12 14:45:49 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:45:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <941f610eb0325d82d9edf7e5e0724c29@mac.com> Message-ID: <200504121445.j3CEjv201625@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) > > > On Apr 10, 2005, at 6:17 PM, spike wrote: > > > > I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the > > point of non-life-threatening injury your right to say > > it. After all, anything you or I say is completely > > irrelevant to me should I perish. > > > > > > Is there any level of evil that you would stand up against even if to > do so would quite likely put your life in jeopardy? Sometimes I wonder > if we are not at a distinct disadvantage against those who may > willingly put themselves in harm's way for what they believe is > sufficiently important. > > -s I have no doubt that transhumanist memes reproduce at a huge disadvantage with respect to religious memes. If one is able to convince others to risk their lives, with a promise of some eternal reward, 72 virgins etc, those memes reproduce with great force. Surely this explains why religion incorporated has such a strong grip on humanity. As for putting myself in harm's way, this would be the logical course of action if one is already in harm's way. If one is being threatened directly, one must react in such a way as to defend oneself, thereby reducing the total risk. Regarding those who willingly put themselves in harm's way to take away my rights and freedoms, the right way to fight back must surely be thru advanced technology. Someone posted an article yesterday on remote control of flies. If we were able to penetrate such things as organized crime and terrorist sleeper cells with fly-borne microphones, for instance, then convince every one of them that there is a mole in their midst, perhaps they would beat each other beyond recognition, leaving the rest of us safe to pursue ever more advanced techniques. spike From hal at finney.org Tue Apr 12 17:02:36 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) Message-ID: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> Samantha writes: > Is there any level of evil that you would stand up against even if to > do so would quite likely put your life in jeopardy? Sometimes I wonder > if we are not at a distinct disadvantage against those who may > willingly put themselves in harm's way for what they believe is > sufficiently important. Keep in mind that other people don't just rush out at the spur of the moment and put their lives on the line to stand up to evil. It takes a long process to get one's mental frame of mind into shape to be ready to make this sacrifice. This is much of what military training is about. The whole process is designed to shape and mold young, malleable minds and prepare them to make these kinds of sacrifices. They are trained to habitual obedience to orders by constantly requiring them to complete trivial and difficult tasks. At the same time, they develop a strong espirit de corps and attachment to their fellow soldiers, who become their brothers in arms and de facto family. It is these factors which lead the soldier to stand and fight rather than to run when he first comes under fire. It's likely that you or I could be equally well molded into soldiers for the Extropian cause, if the proper circumstances arose. We are social beings; the mere fact that we are here together on this list, engaging in social discussion, proves that. We crave interaction and the society of others. Military and terrorist training play on those human needs and use them to turn people into self-sacrificing killers. Humanity has thousands of years of experience in exactly how to achieve these goals. Chances are that most of us could be transformed in just this way. Hal From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 12 18:01:12 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market Message-ID: <20050412180112.23413.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624945.800 Those who have been watching this area might not see that much news here: another exoskeletal system has been developed. But here's the real news: > A commercial product is slated for release by the end of the year. Let's just hope that they will allow sales to the general public. (Whether or not they encourage or actively go after that market. It's a platform to build on, and perhaps refine.) From hal at finney.org Tue Apr 12 19:51:19 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market Message-ID: <20050412195119.B4A9257EE7@finney.org> Adrian Tymes writes about an exoskeleton at: > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624945.800 I don't have much need to lift heavy objects, but a backpack powered device that would assist me in running faster would be fun. Imagine using that to literally run to the store and back to pick up a few groceries. Of course you might say that's what bikes are for, but running has its advantages. While waiting I'd love to try out the bouncing shoes from http://www.kangoojumps.com/ or even better the extreme ones from http://www.superdairyboy.com/poweriser.html which let you jump 6 feet in the air and take 9 foot strides. I'll bet you could move pretty fast in those. Unfortunately they're $425 but I did some research into them a few years ago and there were a few places renting them out by the hour back then. I don't know if they are still in business or if liability shut them down. That second site also sells a super-powerful pogo stick that goes 5 feet in the air, but it is also very expensive and that doesn't sound as practical to me. Years ago I read about a gasoline powered pogo, in fact I saw one in a store once and almost bought it just to see what it was like, but again it just seemed too expensive to be worthwhile. From what I've read they don't work very well, I imagine the rubber band powered super-pogo is probably better. Hal From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 12 21:41:47 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050412214147.20157.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > I don't have much need to lift heavy objects, but a backpack powered > device that would assist me in running faster would be fun. Imagine > using > that to literally run to the store and back to pick up a few > groceries. > > Of course you might say that's what bikes are for, but running has > its advantages. > > While waiting I'd love to try out the bouncing shoes from > http://www.kangoojumps.com/ or even better the extreme ones from > http://www.superdairyboy.com/poweriser.html which let you jump 6 feet > in the air and take 9 foot strides. I'll bet you could move pretty > fast > in those. Moving at high speeds on public streets and sidewalks in general seems to mean you can't take the pedestrian paths. Be it powered exoskeleton, Segway, unmotorized exoskeleton (as in the Poweriser), or just high-speed bicycle, the combination of reduced reaction time and higher injury in case of collision is a problem that most alt-transport advocates do not seem to have been addressing. Then again, I wonder if it is addressable; it certainly seems a problem of basic physics. (And if you can run at 45 MPH but have to stay on the streets with the cars when going that fast - and even then, stay off the freeways - that might not be so bad, especially if you get to use the bike lanes and/or lane-split like a motorcycle.) Plus, for the Poweriser, the reduced footprint - smaller than the user's own feet, judging by the pictures - seems to make it easier to slip and fall. I know I, personally, need traction to safely run at high speeds; my knees still have faint dark spots from incidents related to my slowly learning that lesson about 10-20 years ago. You'd need bigger feet to solve this, or at least a bigger contact area (less likely to slide on slippery or loose ground) within which only a small portion transmits the main thrust of the leg (same force over smaller area, and thus over smaller mass, equals higher velocity). Or maybe that geckofoot someone was playing with a while back: it sticks to anything if you slap it down, but can be peeled off (say, by applying the natural motion of a foot when running: lift the back, then the front)...but I wonder if it'd have a problem with picking up dirt and loose rocks, and sticking to those instead of the ground, not to mention if you wanted to do anything but move forwards (like, say, move your foot straight up so as to go up a stair). A bigger foot would also be needed to stand up unaided. The ability to come to a safe, full stop is a practical requirement for any would-be new urban transport device (this being one of the Segway's problems, when it got low on power - which is especially the time when a stop might be needed). From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 13 00:30:40 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:30:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: <20050412195119.B4A9257EE7@finney.org> References: <20050412195119.B4A9257EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <425C6830.7030101@humanenhancement.com> Absolutely fascinating stuff. If it becomes feasible (and doubtless in a few years it can be) to super-power the motors, I can definitely see uses for being able to run at 45 mph and being able to lift a ton. On the most mundane of levels, think of the exoskeleton Ripley used in the film "Aliens"; the utility in construction, freight handling, search-and-rescue, etc. Imagine every fire company equipped with one of those bad boys, suitably insulated, able to stride into an inferno and knock down a few walls to rescue trapped victims. Think of what you could do with that looking for earthquake survivors. And the police and military applications are obvious. I'll bet DARPA will be among the initial purchasers, if they don't have a few stashed away already. IIRC, they were looking into powered armor soldiers a few years ago. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) Hal Finney wrote: >Adrian Tymes writes about an exoskeleton at: > > >>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624945.800 >> >> > >I don't have much need to lift heavy objects, but a backpack powered >device that would assist me in running faster would be fun. Imagine using >that to literally run to the store and back to pick up a few groceries. > >Of course you might say that's what bikes are for, but running has >its advantages. > > From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 13 01:08:02 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413010802.52761.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Absolutely fascinating stuff. > > If it becomes feasible (and doubtless in a few years it can be) to > super-power the motors, I can definitely see uses for being able to > run > at 45 mph and being able to lift a ton. Note for those who haven't been tracking it: the one problem most of these run into - which is the main reason they haven't been hitting the market until now - is power. Most versions have tried to use battery power, with an eye towards being able to be used indoors; if you think electric cars have a problem with mileage, exoskeletons have them beat hands-down. One could, in theory, solve this with a gasoline or other conventional motor...if you could find many customers willing to have a running gasoline motor strapped to their back. It's the exhaust more than the potential for explosion, so fuel cells may be a solution here. I've seen one maker solve this problem by having their exoskeletons plug in to building power or an external mobile generator; unfortunately, their sales department is a bit touched in the head and they're restricting sales to hospitals only. (Specifically, for lifting of heavy patients - a niche market within a niche market.) From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 13 01:34:04 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:34:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: <20050413010802.52761.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050413010802.52761.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425C770C.7040705@humanenhancement.com> I completely agree that it's asinine to restrict sales specifically to that purpose. You could as easily use such a servo-suit to move crates in a warehouse or boxes off a UPS truck, and be plugged into a power source in the building. One wonders that freight companies haven't expressed more interest (or, if they have, that it hasn't popped above the radar before now). I know Tesla had claimed to have gotten some sort of broadcast power system working, and gotten a few patents on the subject. Anyone know if such a thing really is workable? Even at short ranges, I could see a use for it in powering a couple high-powered servo-suits (amongst a few thousand other things). Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > >>Absolutely fascinating stuff. >> >>If it becomes feasible (and doubtless in a few years it can be) to >>super-power the motors, I can definitely see uses for being able to >>run >>at 45 mph and being able to lift a ton. >> >> > >Note for those who haven't been tracking it: the one problem most of >these run into - which is the main reason they haven't been hitting the >market until now - is power. Most versions have tried to use battery >power, with an eye towards being able to be used indoors; if you think >electric cars have a problem with mileage, exoskeletons have them beat >hands-down. One could, in theory, solve this with a gasoline or other >conventional motor...if you could find many customers willing to have a >running gasoline motor strapped to their back. It's the exhaust more >than the potential for explosion, so fuel cells may be a solution here. >I've seen one maker solve this problem by having their exoskeletons >plug in to building power or an external mobile generator; >unfortunately, their sales department is a bit touched in the head and >they're restricting sales to hospitals only. (Specifically, for >lifting of heavy patients - a niche market within a niche market.) >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 13 02:17:25 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413021725.22547.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > I know Tesla had claimed to have gotten some sort of broadcast power > system working, and gotten a few patents on the subject. Anyone know > if > such a thing really is workable? Even at short ranges, I could see a > use > for it in powering a couple high-powered servo-suits (amongst a few > thousand other things). It works, but it's impractical for any non-extremely-contrived use. You have to ground everything remotely conductive in range - including and especially belt buckles and other metallic clothing items. It definitely wouldn't work for exoskeletons, given as the control circuitry, motors, and possibly the structure itself would all be conductive. The closest thing we currently have to a practical version of a broadcast powered device is a RFID tag, and that's both short-range and low-power. From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 13 02:49:01 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:49:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Help send a laptop to Kenya Message-ID: <425C889D.5040502@humanenhancement.com> The Kenyan Transhumanist Association is about to open up a "Knowledge House", and they have put out a call for laptops to be donated to the cause. The Knowledge House will help spread science education and Transhumanist memes in Kenya. I have a laptop I'm willing to send over to benefit the cause, but unfortunately the shipping costs are simply beyond my means right now. It takes a minimum of $148 to ship it there. That's where you come in. I am selling my copy of Carl Sagan's excellent television series "Cosmos" on eBay right now. It's a VHS copy of the entire series, in a nice box set. There's a little wear on two of the box's corners, but other than that the tapes are in great shape. I'm selling it with the hope that I can offset the cost of shipping the laptop to the KTA. I've listed a "buy it now" price that will exactly cover the price of shipping, but if the bidding gets higher (and I hope it does, for their sake), I'll just send any excess along as a gift. Yes, you can definitely buy Cosmos for less money. This is entirely a gimmick to raise funds to send a badly-needed laptop computer to some fellow Transhumanists in a place where both the technology and Transhumanist ideas are badly needed. Your money will be directly helping them. If you're interested in helping, please check out: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6386560097&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 Thanks, all. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 13 06:34:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413063404.95903.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Absolutely fascinating stuff. > > If it becomes feasible (and doubtless in a few years it can be) to > super-power the motors, I can definitely see uses for being able to > run at 45 mph and being able to lift a ton. On the most mundane of > levels, think of the exoskeleton Ripley used in the film "Aliens"; > the utility in construction, freight handling, search-and-rescue, > etc. Imagine every fire company equipped with one of those bad > boys, suitably insulated, able to stride into an inferno and knock > down a few walls to rescue trapped victims. Think of what you could > do with that looking for earthquake survivors. Think of how many Branch Davidian compounds you could stampede and burn down with a few of these puppies... > > And the police and military applications are obvious. Obviously... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 13 06:39:58 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413063958.29074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > I completely agree that it's asinine to restrict sales specifically > to that purpose. You could as easily use such a servo-suit to move > crates > in a warehouse or boxes off a UPS truck, and be plugged into a power > source in the building. One wonders that freight companies haven't > expressed more interest (or, if they have, that it hasn't popped > above the radar before now). > > I know Tesla had claimed to have gotten some sort of broadcast power > system working, and gotten a few patents on the subject. Anyone know > if such a thing really is workable? More than claimed. He built the first power transmission station near Montauk. His initial funders (JP Morgan, Westinghouse) cut him off when they found out he thought electricity should be freely distributed.... The system is workable, but I don't think it is terribly efficient. Air transmission was thought of as a solution back then because the state had real problems using emminent domain to force property owners to have private power company lines across their property. I believe that the same people who whine about power line EM radiation would have a field day with Tesla's stuff. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 13 06:50:24 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:50:24 -0700 Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)) In-Reply-To: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <2b43599858a7d62cda8f73f747dec67f@mac.com> While the reply below is interesting my motivation for the question was a bit different. To what extent does our rational self interest, especially extended to the possibility of indefinitely long life. make us less willing to stand up to variously sized evils that are not directly threatening to our life? I would expect a tendency to keep a bit lower profile than the population at large and to take less risks. Yet I know from experience such conservatism is by no means universal among us. - samantha On Apr 12, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Hal Finney wrote: > Samantha writes: >> Is there any level of evil that you would stand up against even if to >> do so would quite likely put your life in jeopardy? Sometimes I >> wonder >> if we are not at a distinct disadvantage against those who may >> willingly put themselves in harm's way for what they believe is >> sufficiently important. > > Keep in mind that other people don't just rush out at the spur of the > moment and put their lives on the line to stand up to evil. It takes a > long process to get one's mental frame of mind into shape to be ready > to > make this sacrifice. > > This is much of what military training is about. The whole process is > designed to shape and mold young, malleable minds and prepare them to > make these kinds of sacrifices. They are trained to habitual obedience > to orders by constantly requiring them to complete trivial and > difficult > tasks. At the same time, they develop a strong espirit de corps and > attachment to their fellow soldiers, who become their brothers in arms > and de facto family. It is these factors which lead the soldier to > stand and fight rather than to run when he first comes under fire. > > It's likely that you or I could be equally well molded into soldiers > for > the Extropian cause, if the proper circumstances arose. We are social > beings; the mere fact that we are here together on this list, engaging > in social discussion, proves that. We crave interaction and the > society > of others. Military and terrorist training play on those human needs > and use them to turn people into self-sacrificing killers. Humanity > has > thousands of years of experience in exactly how to achieve these goals. > Chances are that most of us could be transformed in just this way. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 09:17:32 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 02:17:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neat paper on neuronal model of aspects of consciousness Message-ID: Yesterday the journal PLoS Biology released an article, where researchers describe a neuronal model they've devised of certain aspects of consciousness. Synopsis (for the layman): "Assessing Consciousness: Of Vigilance and Distractedness" http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030179 Research paper: "Ongoing Spontaneous Activity Controls Access to Consciousness: A Neuronal Model for Inattentional Blindness" http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030141 In general, Stanislas Dehaene (one of the paper's authors) has some very cool publications on neuroscience, consciousness, cognition, and so forth. You can find them here: http://www.unicog.org/biblio/Author/DEHAENE-S.html Below is a quote from the aforementioned synopsis: Have you ever walked smack into a parking meter or tripped over something on the sidewalk? Embarrassing as such incidents may be, they're the product of normal brain function. The brain is continuously bombarded with sensory information about the environment but perceives just a fraction of these inputs. The rest--pertinent details or not--is filtered out. It's thought that consciousness emerges from the activity of multiple spontaneous neural processors that run in parallel and connect to a higher order cognitive network that mediates the conscious perception. But this higher order network has limited processing capacity. That means if you're distracted, your brain can't accommodate additional sensory information, like "there's a parking meter in front of you, look out!" To understand how spontaneous brain processing interacts with higher order cognition, Stanislas Dehaene and Jean-Pierre Changeux modeled the dynamic properties of brain activity with computer simulations. Their simulations show that while spontaneous brain activity sometimes facilitates processing, more often it competes with external stimuli for access to consciousness. Intriguingly, the results of the computer simulations very closely match physiological and psychophysical experimental data and thus shed new light on how intrinsic brain activity modulates conscious perception. ... With higher vigilance states, weaker external stimuli are able to ignite the global workspace. But paying attention to one thing narrows your perceptive capacity. Once ignited by one stimulus, the network cannot consciously process any others. Dehaene and Changeux propose that spontaneous activity--which operates within an "anatomically distinct set of workplace neurons"--offers an organism a measure of autonomy relative to the external world. While this decoupling of internal thought and external stimuli does have its disadvantages--like that pesky parking meter--it also provides the opportunity for introspection and creativity, which the authors argue is likely to "play a crucial role in the spontaneous generation of novel, flexible behavior." From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 09:51:54 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 02:51:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: <20050412195119.B4A9257EE7@finney.org> References: <20050412195119.B4A9257EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/12/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > While waiting I'd love to try out the bouncing shoes from > http://www.kangoojumps.com/ or even better the extreme ones from > http://www.superdairyboy.com/poweriser.html which let you jump 6 feet > in the air and take 9 foot strides. I'll bet you could move pretty fast > in those. Unfortunately they're $425 but I did some research into them > a few years ago and there were a few places renting them out by the hour > back then. I don't know if they are still in business or if liability > shut them down. Hm... I wonder if DARPA's ever considered adapting the Poweriser for military use. I imagine that there'd be some sort of quick-strike military operation where something like that would be useful. It would also be interesting if the Poweriser included some sort of powered mechanism to enhance the springiness of strides. From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Apr 13 13:57:19 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:57:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (SOCIO/ETHICAL) Risk averse imortalists? In-Reply-To: <2b43599858a7d62cda8f73f747dec67f@mac.com> References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <2b43599858a7d62cda8f73f747dec67f@mac.com> Message-ID: <425D253F.5070606@jefallbright.net> Samantha Atkins wrote: > While the reply below is interesting my motivation for the question > was a bit different. To what extent does our rational self interest, > especially extended to the possibility of indefinitely long life. make > us less willing to stand up to variously sized evils that are not > directly threatening to our life? I would expect a tendency to keep > a bit lower profile than the population at large and to take less > risks. Yet I know from experience such conservatism is by no means > universal among us. > We can't effectively predict the outcome of such multivariate multiorder scenarios in an evolving environment, but we can illuminate and explore some general principles that will generally apply. Indefinitely extended lifespans will tend to increase emphasis on reputation and attendant moral behavior because the rewards and consequences of one's behavior will be similarly extended, but this applies only to individuals who remain closely coupled with society at large. Much evil is done for the sake of expediency, while taking the longer view implies greater awareness, leading to actions that generally work better over a greater context and are therefore considered superior by a larger group. More options become available with more enabling technology. Our capabilities to observe, analyze, model and predict are growing rapidly and, with a little luck, will eventually supervene our tendencies to act in fear against an unknown Other. To be effective this must be bilateral, and we can be thankful that it is the nature of such enabling technologies to spread strongly. That said, there will always remain the threat of damage to ourselves from without or of malignancy within, and while technology will allow us to minimize and disperse/distribute the risk, vigilance and self-sacrifice will remain key factors in the survival equation. As moral agents, our choices hinge on concept of self. It's already part of our evolved nature to act in support of interests greater than the individual. Instinctive willingness to sacrifice one's life for one's children, or to put oneself in harm's way for one's team or group, exists because it works (promotes survival and greater growth.) But popular understanding of rational self-interest does not yet encompass this larger view, hence ongoing debates over misconceptions of altruism. A good example is the so-called paradox of the Prisoners' Dilemma. It is logically and mathematically "obvious" that the rational choice is to defect within this artificially limited scenario. But it's clear from a broader context that the optimum strategy is to cooperate. As human society matures, this kind of metarationality, corresponding to increased scope of awareness, will lead to conscious moral decision-making based on a concept of self that transcends our fixed and limited identification with our meat bodies. I anticipate a "golden age" of enhanced cooperation, driven by increased awareness of the value of diversity within a framework of common goals, but we must focus now on surviving the transition. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Apr 13 14:29:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:29:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] em wordplay In-Reply-To: <20050413063958.29074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504131429.j3DETk222168@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > ... people who whine about power line EM radiation would have a > field day with Tesla's stuff... > > Mike Lorrey Harrrrrararararrrararrrr. {8^D From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Apr 13 16:13:54 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:13:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that there is no truth...] In-Reply-To: <200504051512.j35FC4214157@tick.javien.com> References: <200504051512.j35FC4214157@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <425D4542.1020608@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >My apologies for the length of this post, but as a humble disciple of >philosophy, I find such specualtions sweeter than wine, despite that the eternal >questions have been debated, well, eternally. > > That some questions are debated eternally is a strong hint to widen back and view such issues from a broader perspective. I too enjoy philosophical speculation but available time is quite limited and after three iterations I seem to have made almost no progress conveying even the first of my points - the significance of nested scopes of context. >Below, A is for Allbright and W is for Wright. > >A: "I'm afraid my main point was lost -- again due in no small part to my >tersity -- the point being that *all* subjective input should be considered, but >then weighted according to its [ultimately subjective] grounding in >empirically verifiable "reality"." > >W: Your point was not lost on me, I hope. What I was trying to do was argue the >opposite side of this very question. My argument was twofold > >(1) The statement is self-contradictory. Those who argue that truth (what you >call "input") is ultimately subjective, argue as if truth is objective. Those >who put the word "reality" in scare quotes argue as if they are talking about >reality, that is, real reality without any scare quotes. > > As I've stated three times now in this discussion, I do believe in ultimate reality, highlighted by my statements that from a god's eye point of view, all is objective. Certainly I do argue from assumptions of truth and consistency, as has been agreed and doesn't require pointing out yet again. I suspect that a relatively superficial interpretation of my statements on subjectivity and incompleteness may lead one to conclude that I am arguing from an existentialist, nihilist, or (forbid) postmodernist point of view, but I have tried to point out that (1) I assume there is an ultimate reality (but I don't say it's static), (2) I point out that our knowledge of reality is necessarily incomplete and subjective, and (3) I argue that there is progress toward increasingly accurate approximations of reality, measured in terms of what works. It would be foolish to argue the validity of your three self-evident truth statements, except (as I tried to do) to point out that the system doing the truth evaluation is itself limited to a subset of reality (truth) and is therefore inherently limited in its ability to certify absolutely the truth of any proposition. No matter how obvious a proposition may appear, it may be superseded by a more encompassing interpretation. This is a pragmatic approach to truth, but does not deny the correctness of your examples within the domains in which they were intended. >(2) The statement rests on the assumption that moral maxims can be supported or >denied by means of reference to statements of observation, what you call the >naturallistic fallacy. > >For example, comparisons of the statistics of the crime rates and the use of >torture might tell you whether or not torture has a deterent effect on crime, >but this reveals only whether it is efficient, not whether it is morally upright >to use torture as an instrument of law-enforcement. > >The statement that torture is efficient is a contingent statement: the statement >is true if the statistics support it, false if not, and in any case is dependent >on the accuracy of the demographic data. The statement that torture is barbaric >is an absolute statement. The statement may be true of false, but, no matter >what, statistics will not show whether the statement is true or false because >"barbarism" is a moral condemnation, not an thing that can be measured by a census. > > > Yes, I hope we can agree that the Naturalistic Fallacy of attempting to derive "ought from is" is in error because value judgments are necessarily subjective. >A: "My theory doesn't provide absolute moral answers, but it claims that >there is a rational basis for finding increasingly moral answers." > >W: Do you agree that the idea of increasingly accurate measurements only makes >sense if there is some real thing being measured? > > I've said that I assume (point of faith) an ultimate reality against which our measurements are necessarily approximate and incomplete. Can we get beyond this starting point? >We cannot get ever-more-precise measurements of the speed of light in a vacuum >unless the speed of light actually exists. Likewise, we cannot get increasingly >ever more objective and increasingly ever more correct maxims of morality unless >there actually is a moral order to the universe. > > John, I'm breaking protocol here, but I would like to draw your personal attention to this statement, which is causing me some frustration. I've repeatedly made this point. In fact, during our last exchange I showed that you had inverted this point and now you are challenging me to make it again! So here it is, copied verbatim from the previous exchange: On the contrary, I argue that from the God's eye view, morality is in fact objective. However this ultimate view is only approachable, but not obtainable. Please remember, I started by saying my intention is to make three points relating to the following: (1) nested scopes of context, (2) subjectivity and nature of Self, (3) what we call "good" and thus moral is measured by what works, and what works over a larger context is (necessarily subjectively) considered better. >A: (Works better with what end in mind?) Anything that subjectively promotes Self. > >W: This is a subtle thought, and I am sorry you have no time to write it out >more clearly. > >If you do get a chance at some later date to expound on this principle, I, at >least, would be interested in the disquisition. > I have no hope of currently being able to convey this, which I consider a more subtle point, considering the difficulty we're still having with the previous. You may wish to refer to Derek Parfit, _Reasons and Persons_, for a rigorous philosophical analysis of a large portion. Buddhist thinking and discoveries in cognitive science fill out the concept. >My main question would be how to >reconcile that three examples I gave of the heroic Achilles, the saintly John >the Baptist and the wise Socrates with this principle of self-growth. It seems >to me that the hero, the saint, and the philosopher all value something greater >than himself (glory, God, or truth) for which he is willing to lay down his life. > > Yes, the key is that while all moral choice is necessarily subjective (from the viewpoint of self), the Self with which one identifies can be (and generally is) greater than the conventional concept of self limited to one's physical body. We identify with our goals which extend outward and into the future; we identify with the society within which we are enmeshed, and we identify (at a less than conscious level) with kin and other members of our in-group. As I stated in an earlier exchange, and quoted a few paragraphs above, I do not propose to provide absolute moral answers, but I claim that we can develop a rational basis for finding increasingly moral answers. In the cases of Achilles, John the Baptist, and Socrates, their actions can be considered moral to the extent that they were performed with the "greater good" (with which they must necessarily identify) as their objective. >I would be interested to see how self-sacrifice can be reconciled a philosophy >which takes self-growth as its foundation. > > I hope this was sufficiently elucidated above. >A: (Works better for whom?) Works better for Self. "Better" is inherently >subjective [meaning dependent on the observer]. Self means that with which one >identifies. > >Q: This sounds like a formal description rather than a moral maxim. I suppose >one could define "self" broadly enough to include the divinity or the community >so as to explain the self-sacrifice of saints and heroes. (In other words, >Socrates considers his "Self" to be the laws of Athens, and loyalty to their >precepts, even when the laws are in the wrong, justifies his drinking hemlock.) > > Yes, as described above. >But, by the same token, one could define the "self" and the "growth" of >Raskolnikov to include that he must kill an innocent old crone and her >halfwitted half-sister. > > Raskolnikov, in his dysfunctional state of mind, believed he had moral justification for his actions. He believed, necessarily subjectively, and within his limited context of awareness, that his actions were for the greater good. Along the same lines, political assassinations have been performed, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, and preemptive war has been carried out, all for ostensibly moral reasons. In all these examples, we can see that moral goodness is subjective and limited in terms of context of awareness. No absolute moral maxim helps here, because such moral absolutes can and have been used interchangeably by either side. My point is that we can not know absolute moral certainty, but we can recognize that as the context is broadened, in terms of the number of actors, the variety of interactions, and the time over which interactions occur, we can evaluate, with increasing agreement, the relative morality of an action in terms of how well it (subjectively) works. From this realization, we can proceed to develop a science of principles of effective interaction. Our understanding in this area is growing with studies in complex systems theory (and other areas) which can be applied at all scales from the cosmic, through inorganic chemistry, through biological evolution and on to human culture. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 13 16:41:38 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:41:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <200504121445.j3CEjv201625@tick.javien.com> References: <200504121445.j3CEjv201625@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8765a186a2f1ed0ef14a66e15a98b2db@mac.com> Nice answer. More comments embedded below. On Apr 12, 2005, at 7:45 AM, spike wrote: >> On Apr 10, 2005, at 6:17 PM, spike wrote: >>> >>> I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the >>> point of non-life-threatening injury your right to say >>> it. After all, anything you or I say is completely >>> irrelevant to me should I perish. >>> >>> >> >> Is there any level of evil that you would stand up against even if to >> do so would quite likely put your life in jeopardy? Sometimes I >> wonder >> if we are not at a distinct disadvantage against those who may >> willingly put themselves in harm's way for what they believe is >> sufficiently important. >> >> -s > > > I have no doubt that transhumanist memes reproduce at a huge > disadvantage > with respect to religious memes. If one is able to convince others > to risk their lives, with a promise of some eternal reward, 72 virgins > etc, those memes reproduce with great force. Surely this explains > why religion incorporated has such a strong grip on humanity. > > So basically those who believe such things would tend to escalate all the way up to mortal combat more quickly and sometime operate in fearless mode generally. Such folks also may more readily and without reservation push their agendas. > As for putting myself in harm's way, this would be the logical > course of action if one is already in harm's way. If one is > being threatened directly, one must react in such a way as to > defend oneself, thereby reducing the total risk. Yes. What about one's loved ones, cherished values and so on? Life may not be seen as worth living without some of those or especially at the price of them. > > Regarding those who willingly put themselves in harm's way > to take away my rights and freedoms, the right way to fight > back must surely be thru advanced technology. Someone posted > an article yesterday on remote control of flies. If we > were able to penetrate such things as organized crime and > terrorist sleeper cells with fly-borne microphones, for instance, > then convince every one of them that there is a mole in their > midst, perhaps they would beat each other beyond recognition, > leaving the rest of us safe to pursue ever more advanced > techniques. > > Of course we fight back using whatever means are the most effective and the least destructive of our values including our irreplaceable self. But how many things do we just let slide assuming perhaps that we brainy ones will invent some out before the consequences chew up our life? - samantha From dgc at cox.net Wed Apr 13 20:33:33 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:33:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeleton power In-Reply-To: <20050413021725.22547.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050413021725.22547.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425D821D.10108@cox.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > >>I know Tesla had claimed to have gotten some sort of broadcast power >>system working, and gotten a few patents on the subject. Anyone know >>if >>such a thing really is workable? Even at short ranges, I could see a >>use >>for it in powering a couple high-powered servo-suits (amongst a few >>thousand other things). >> >> In an area like a warehouse, it should be possible to lay a specialized floor with smart conductive plates. The floor and the suit would co-operate to activate plates in pairs as the feet contact the plates, to provide electrical power. The suit would run or stored energy during the brief periods when out of contact with the floor. The stored energy (flywheel, battery, whatever) would have to be high power but not high capacity. I envision a scheme in which the plates are on a 1-cm grid, so in general the sole of a foot will cover several plates. the sole in turn is covered with plates on approximately the same grid. It should be possible to pick a pair of floor plates and a pair of shoe plates such that when activated (and with the rest of the plates deactivated) you have two electrically isolated current paths from the floor to the suit. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 13 21:18:52 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeleton power In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413211852.63062.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > I envision a scheme in which the plates are on a 1-cm grid, so in > general the sole of a foot will cover several plates. the sole in > turn > is covered with plates on approximately the same grid. It should be > possible to pick a pair of floor plates and a pair of shoe plates > such > that when activated (and with the rest of the plates deactivated) you > > have two electrically isolated current paths from the floor to the > suit. Of course, you'd want to not have plates where you'll have cargo. And walking around normally would be dangerous, unless the plates only ever activate when an exo's foot is nearby (say, as signalled by a RFID tag), else walking around in normal clothes or, for exos or normal vehicles, falling over would be quite dangerous. The bigger problem is that that makes the exo, and all the money a business put into the exo, usable only in that specialized building. A forklift can be used in other, prebuilt warehouses. You'd need to convince businesses it wouldn't cost much to move this investment to another warehouse, and that the investment of floor plus exo (in practice, anyone using this system would have to purchase both) would not exceed the benefits to be reaped, before you could get buyers. From dgc at cox.net Wed Apr 13 22:27:56 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:27:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeleton power In-Reply-To: <20050413211852.63062.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050413211852.63062.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425D9CEC.3080401@cox.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >>I envision a scheme in which the plates are on a 1-cm grid, so in >>general the sole of a foot will cover several plates. the sole in >>turn >>is covered with plates on approximately the same grid. It should be >>possible to pick a pair of floor plates and a pair of shoe plates >>such >>that when activated (and with the rest of the plates deactivated) you >> >>have two electrically isolated current paths from the floor to the >>suit. >> >> > >Of course, you'd want to not have plates where you'll have cargo. And >walking around normally would be dangerous, unless the plates only ever >activate when an exo's foot is nearby (say, as signalled by a RFID >tag), else walking around in normal clothes or, for exos or normal >vehicles, falling over would be quite dangerous. > >The bigger problem is that that makes the exo, and all the money a >business put into the exo, usable only in that specialized building. >A forklift can be used in other, prebuilt warehouses. You'd need to >convince businesses it wouldn't cost much to move this investment to >another warehouse, and that the investment of floor plus exo (in >practice, anyone using this system would have to purchase both) would >not exceed the benefits to be reaped, before you could get buyers. >_______________________________________________ > > This was technical, not commercial. The economics depend critically on the cost of the grid. I note that many large factories have specialized flooring of different types. The grid would cover the whole floor and would be suitable for use as a plain old floor. Grid squares are only powered when in contact with an appropriate intelligent user such as the shoe of the exoskeleton, the wheels of a suitably-equipped forklift, or the legs of a portable machine. No RFID is needed: the signaling is done by direct contact using low current. A grid square only provides high current when the signaling is complete. grid squares will detect each other's signals if there is a conductive path such as a metal tool lying on the floor, and will not provide high current. Note that the individual signaling can be slow by electronic standards, in the hundreds of microseconds. The real economic problem to solve to manufacture the flooring in bulk, cheaply. With a 1-cm grid, we need 10,000/sq meter. even at a penny per grid point, this is $100/sq meter. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Apr 13 23:39:02 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:39:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof and beauty Message-ID: <425DAD96.5020607@mindspring.com> < http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3809661 > Mathematics Proof and beauty Mar 31st 2005 >From The Economist print edition Just what does it mean to prove something? QUOD erat demonstrandum. These three words of Latin, meaning, "which was to be shown", traditionally mark the end of a mathematical proof. And, for centuries, a proof was exactly that: showing something by breaking it down into readily agreed-upon steps. Proving something was a matter of convincing one's peers that it has indeed been shown--no more, and no less. The rhetorical flourish of a Latin epigram also has served to indicate that the notion of proof is well understood, and commonly agreed. But that notion is now in flux. The use of computers to prove mathematical theorems is forcing mathematicians to re-examine the foundations of their discipline. Through much of the 20th century, questions of mathematical rigour were passed off to logicians and philosophers--working mathematicians have been, for the most part, content to work with an intuitive definition of proof. This notion works when each step of a proof is transparent, and can be examined by all. Proof is then just a process of reducing one big, non-obvious step, to a bunch of small, obvious ones. However, if a computer is used to make this reduction, then the number of small, obvious steps can be in the hundreds of thousands--impractical even for the most diligent mathematician to check by hand. Critics of computer-aided proof claim that this impracticability means that such proofs are inherently flawed. However, its defenders point out that some theorems that many mathematicians consider to have been proved in the classical manner also have proofs which are so long as to be uncheckable. The most famous case of this is something called the classification of finite simple groups. These are abstract objects with certain mathematical properties; the claim is that, over a 30-year span in a series of papers totalling some 15,000 pages, all possible such objects were enumerated. Though the mathematical consensus is that the classification (nicknamed the "enormous theorem") is complete, there are sceptics who point out that the dispersed proof is essentially unverifiable. What, then, does constitute a proof in the modern age? Two recent examples of how computers have been used to prove important mathematical results illustrate how the field is changing. A colouring problem The first is the "four colour theorem", which is perhaps the mathematical theorem most likely to bedevil a toddler. It states that any planar map (that is to say, a flat one) can be coloured with at most four colours in a way that no two regions with the same colour share a border. It was first proposed in 1852 but, despite efforts by a century's worth of mathematicians, went unproven until 1976, when Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Harken, then of the University of Illinois, announced that they had proved the result. However, Dr Appel and Dr Harken used a computer to help them prove the result by examining about 10,000 cases. (Their proof also relied on a lot of old-fashioned gruntwork.) A new proof, in a paper just written by Georges Gonthier, of Microsoft Research, in Cambridge, England, also uses a computer. Dr Gonthier used similar techniques to those of Dr Appel and Dr Harken in his proof. However, rather than have part of the proof done by hand, and part by computer, he has automated the entire proof, and done so in such a manner that it is a formal proof. Formal proof is a notion developed in the early part of the 20th century by logicians such as Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege, along with mathematicians such as David Hilbert (who can fairly be described as the father of modern mathematics) and Nicolas Bourbaki, the pseudonym of a group of French mathematicians who sought to place all of mathematics on a rigorous footing. This effort was subtle, but its upshot can be described simply. It is to replace, in proofs, standard mathematical reasoning which, in essence, relies on hand-waving arguments (it should be obvious to everyone that B follows from A) with formal logic. The benefit of formal logic is that it is pure syntax. At no point does proceeding from one step to the next require understanding, let alone mathematical intuition. It is merely a matter of applying an agreed-upon set of rules (for instance, that any thing is equal to itself, or that if something is true for all members of a set of objects, it is true for any one specific object) to a set of agreed-upon structures, such as sets of objects. Formal proofs, however, never gained a foothold in the mainstream mathematical community because they are tedious--they take many steps to prove something in cases in which a mathematician might just take one. To those who would use a computer, however, they have two virtues. The first is that computers, with their tolerance for tedium, are particularly suited to writing the steps of a formal proof down. The second is that, by writing those steps down in what is called a "proof witness" instead of just announcing that a program had arrived at a true result, outsiders might gain greater confidence in a result derived from a computer. As Dr Gonthier, and other supporters of the use of computers, point out, there is no reason to think that humans are less fallible than computers when doing long computations or proofs. Indeed, the opposite might be true. The idea behind both proofs of the four colour theorem is to suppose that the theorem is violated--to assume, in other words, that there is some sort of map that requires five colours to fill in. The next step is to find the mathematically simplest versions of such maps. (What is meant by simplicity in this case is actually quite involved.) Dr Gonthier then showed that all these maps can, in fact, be re-coloured with only four colours, establishing the theorem by contradiction. The catch is that there are many such regions, which must be examined on a case-by-case basis; part of the mathematical difficulty lies in proving that the cases considered suffice to cover all possible maps, and part stems from proving that each individual case is indeed colourable with just four colours. Dr Gonthier says he is going to submit his paper to a scientific journal in the next few weeks. But he would do well not to get his hopes up about getting his paper published anytime soon. A 1998 paper which proved another long-standing conjecture using a computer, by Thomas Hales, of the University of Pittsburgh, has only recently been accepted by the Annals of Mathematics, perhaps the field's most prestigious journal, and is scheduled to be published later this year. The music of the spheres Dr Hales proved Kepler's conjecture, which is that the most efficient way to pack spheres in a box is the way grocers usually pack oranges--in a so-called "face-centred cubic lattice"--the arrangement whereby each layer of oranges is shifted so that an orange touches four oranges in the layer below. Kepler posited the conjecture in 1611, and it had long resisted efforts at proof. Indeed, Hilbert made it one of his list of the 23 most difficult and fundamental questions in mathematics, in 1900. Dr Hales proved the conjecture by using a trick different in nature to Dr Gonthier's. Rather than argue by contradiction, he reduced what was a problem about an infinite number of things (the Kepler conjecture considers an infinite number of spheres in an infinitely large space) to a statement about a finite, but very large, number of mathematical objects. He then used the computer to prove bounds about these objects, some of which, he says, can be thought of as sculptures made of cables and struts. Loosely speaking, he reduced the Kepler conjecture to a problem of considering whether, given a set of cables, which have no minimum length, but can only be stretched to a certain extent, and struts, which have a limit on how much they can be compressed, one can build a sculpture of a certain type. Dr Hales used a computer, as there were roughly 100,000 such structures that had to be considered in order to prove the Kepler conjecture. Although the Annals will publish Dr Hales's paper, Peter Sarnak, an editor of the Annals, whose own work does not involve the use of computers, says that the paper will be accompanied by an unusual disclaimer, stating that the computer programs accompanying the paper have not undergone peer review. There is a simple reason for that, Dr Sarnak says--it is impossible to find peers who are willing to review the computer code. However, there is a flip-side to the disclaimer as well--Dr Sarnak says that the editors of the Annals expect to receive, and publish, more papers of this type--for things, he believes, will change over the next 20-50 years. Dr Sarnak points out that maths may become "a bit like experimental physics" where certain results are taken on trust, and independent duplication of experiments replaces examination of a colleague's paper. Some of the movement towards that direction may be forestalled by efforts of Dr Gonthier's type to use computers to provide formal proofs and proof witnesses. It is possible that mathematicians will trust computer-based results more if they are backed up by transparent logical steps, rather than the arcane workings of computer code, which could more easily contain bugs that go undetected. Indeed, it is for this exact reason that Dr Hales is currently leading a collaborative project to provide a formal proof of the Kepler conjecture. In perhaps a more prosaic example of mathematics embracing technology, he is co-ordinating that effort using a blog called Flyspeck (the word, Dr Hales explains, means to examine closely). Why should the non-mathematician care about things of this nature? The foremost reason is that mathematics is beautiful, even if it is, sadly, more inaccessible than other forms of art. The second is that it is useful, and that its utility depends in part on its certainty, and that that certainty cannot come without a notion of proof. Dr Gonthier, for instance, and his sponsors at Microsoft, hope that the techniques he and his colleagues have developed to formally prove mathematical theorems can be used to "prove" that a computer program is free of bugs--and that would certainly be a useful proposition in today's software society if it does, indeed, turn out to be true. Copyright ? 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 41 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dirk at neopax.com Thu Apr 14 02:21:53 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:21:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeletons about to hit market In-Reply-To: <20050413063404.95903.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050413063404.95903.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425DD3C1.1060107@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > >>Absolutely fascinating stuff. >> >>If it becomes feasible (and doubtless in a few years it can be) to >>super-power the motors, I can definitely see uses for being able to >>run at 45 mph and being able to lift a ton. On the most mundane of >>levels, think of the exoskeleton Ripley used in the film "Aliens"; >>the utility in construction, freight handling, search-and-rescue, >>etc. Imagine every fire company equipped with one of those bad >>boys, suitably insulated, able to stride into an inferno and knock >>down a few walls to rescue trapped victims. Think of what you could >>do with that looking for earthquake survivors. >> >> > >Think of how many Branch Davidian compounds you could stampede and burn >down with a few of these puppies... > > >>And the police and military applications are obvious. >> >> > >Obviously... > > > It's not all that obvious at all, esp since this topic is a regular on sci.military.moderated. Basically, it allows one to carry more. More body armour, and the bigger weapons needed to defeat that armour in enemy soldiers etc Taken to extremes, you end up with a walking tank. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.9 - Release Date: 13/04/2005 From jedwebb at hotmail.com Thu Apr 14 10:38:31 2005 From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:38:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) Message-ID: I find this very interesting: >We are social primates. Our genes were selected by millions of years in >hunter gatherer tribes where the people around us usually carried more >copies of our genes than we did. Thus (by Hamilton's inclusive fitness >criteria) evolution can be expected to have selected genes that give us >psychological traits to take horrible risks and face death to protect those >close to us. > >(Close companions were almost always relatives in tribal days. Since our >ancestors didn't have DNA testing, they had to make do with treating those >they grew up with or were friends or bonded with as relatives.) I think it's highly likely that we would have developed a genetic trait to keep non related companions nearby for reproductive puposes as sex with relatives produces interbred and very unfit children. We can all sense when someone's suitable for reproduction these days (for example) with our sense of smell - I think this would have been the DNA testing organ used in those days. A fascinating thought! Jeremy Webb From hemm at openlink.com.br Thu Apr 14 12:37:20 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:37:20 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Exoskeleton power References: <20050413021725.22547.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> <425D821D.10108@cox.net> Message-ID: <05e801c540ee$b4ecd060$fe00a8c0@HEMM> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Clemmensen" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Exoskeleton power > In an area like a warehouse, it should be possible to lay a specialized > floor with smart conductive plates. The floor and the suit would > co-operate to activate plates in pairs as the feet contact the plates, > to provide electrical power. The suit would run or stored energy during > the brief periods when out of contact with the floor. The stored energy > (flywheel, battery, whatever) would have to be high power but not high > capacity. > > I envision a scheme in which the plates are on a 1-cm grid, so in > general the sole of a foot will cover several plates. the sole in turn > is covered with plates on approximately the same grid. It should be > possible to pick a pair of floor plates and a pair of shoe plates such > that when activated (and with the rest of the plates deactivated) you > have two electrically isolated current paths from the floor to the suit. Or you could simply use the inductive method From john-c-wright at sff.net Thu Apr 14 13:41:51 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:41:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that Message-ID: <200504141341.j3EDfu225566@tick.javien.com> W: Please forgive me for being slow on the uptake. In arguments, even careful readers misunderstand each other; how much worse it is then, in a case where the reader has been careless, as, it seems, in this case, I have been. My apologies. A: (1) I assume there is an ultimate reality (but I don't say it's static), (2) I point out that our knowledge of reality is necessarily incomplete and subjective, and (3) I argue that there is progress toward increasingly accurate approximations of reality, measured in terms of what works. W: I mistook your meaning. I concede that what you say here agrees with my understanding. I ask for clarification on what you mean by "what works". For empirical propositions, I will concede that "what works" means that an empirical prediction predicts the outcome it claims to predict, and it more elegant (makes fewer assumptions) than the available alternate explanations of equal predictive power. A: I hope we can agree that the Naturalistic Fallacy of attempting to derive "ought from is" is in error because value judgments are necessarily subjective. W: Agreed. I speculate that, in theory, if someone could make the argument somehow that a judgment (statement of value) does not depend on the judgment (conclusion) of a judge (observer), but is and must be the same for all possible judges (observers), such an argument could support the idea of an objective judgment. However, since judgment is based in the understanding (which differs from man to man) and not on the reason (which is the same for all men), I think this involves a paradox, so I doubt such an argument could ever be successful. A: I've said that I assume (point of faith) an ultimate reality against which our measurements are necessarily approximate and incomplete. Can we get beyond this starting point? AND A: John, I'm breaking protocol here, but I would like to draw your personal attention to this statement, which is causing me some frustration. I've repeatedly made this point. In fact, during our last exchange I showed that you had inverted this point and now you are challenging me to make it again! W: The fault is mine, and I thank you for being patient with me. I misread what you wrote, or, rather, I interpreted the statement that the ultimate reality was unapproachable to be the same as a statement that ultimate reality for all practical purposes, did not exist. My basic argument, in case I was not clear, was not that ultimate reality is comprehended by all men, but rather, that certain operating principles, what might be called "categories of thought" are assumed by all men when dealing with moral issues. A rational deduction of the implications of these assumed categories is what leads to moral knowledge, not an empirical examination of "what works" when a moral actor examines the outcome of his actions. In other words, whether or not the assumption of ultimate reality is a point of faith, it is an assumption, a faith, that all rational creatures necessarily must make, because of the category of thought involved, whether they admit it or not. I see now that this is tangential to your point, however, since you are talking about the formal properties of a moral system, not the epistemological roots. A: In the cases of Achilles, John the Baptist, and Socrates, their actions can be considered moral to the extent that they were performed with the "greater good" (with which they must necessarily identify) as their objective. W: Oddly enough, I was just today reading GK Chesterton's ORTHODOXY, where he makes the argument that the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western philosophy, between Buddhism and Christianity, is the Eastern identification of self with the unity of the universe, versus the Western identification of the self separate from (in Christian terms, fallen from) unity with the creator of the universe. There are things greater than oneself, for which the hero, the saint and the philosopher lays down his life. One could adopt an Eastern terminology and say that a lesser "self" was being sacrificed to serve a greater "self"; or one could adopt a Western terminology and say that the "self" was being sacrificed to the other, an ideal to whom one owes service. The former describes sacrifice as enlightened self-interest, and praises enlightenment; the latter describes sacrifice as selflessness, and praises love. My question here is twofold: first, do these two descriptions map onto each other? Second, if not, does one describe the nature of self-sacrifice better than the other? A: Raskolnikov, in his dysfunctional state of mind, believed he had moral justification for his actions. He believed, necessarily subjectively, and within his limited context of awareness, that his actions were for the greater good. Along the same lines, political assassinations have been performed, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, and preemptive war has been carried out, all for ostensibly moral reasons. In all these examples, we can see that moral goodness is subjective and limited in terms of context of awareness. No absolute moral maxim helps here, because such moral absolutes can and have been used interchangeably by either side. My point is that we can no know absolute moral certainty, but we can recognize that as the context is broadened, in terms of the number of actors, the variety of interactions, and the time over which interactions occur, we can evaluate, with increasing agreement, the relative morality of an action in terms of how well it (subjectively) works. W: Ah! It only took you five or nine attempts to get the idea through my thick skull. I owe you at least as many apologies for my misreading as you were made to repeat yourself. I got it now. I think. It is alien to my approach to things, which may explain my incomprehension. If I understand it, your idea reduces to a basic concept: whether or not Raskolnikov thought he was justified in terms of the "Greater self" or "greater good", in reality the greater good of the greater self should have also included his victims and their selves and their aims; and the internal harmony of any given system of moral maxims also must play into the judgment of what is greater and lesser. It sounds like a principle that has some of the elegance of Utilitarianism without the unpleasing tyranny-of-the-majority implications of Utilitarianism. It sounds also like an algebraic approach to morality. If X is greater than and encompasses Y, then we can know that X is better than Y, even without knowing the specific values of X and Y. My only suspicion toward this way of talking about morality is the same caution you expressed towards moral absolutes: concepts like "growth" and "the greater self" can be misused. Any concept can be misused, I admit, but some are more prone to misuse in one direction than others. The danger of misuse centers around misreading the needs of the growth of the greater self to be mere selfishness; a moral maxim that emphasized love for others as its foundational principle may be more resistant to misuse than one based on enlightened self-interest of the greater self: but, at the moment, I only voice a suspicion, and I am not submitting an argument that this is necessarily the case. A: Derek Parfit, _Reasons and Persons_ W: Thank you, and I will try to make room on my reading list. From dirk at neopax.com Thu Apr 14 16:47:44 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that In-Reply-To: <200504141341.j3EDfu225566@tick.javien.com> References: <200504141341.j3EDfu225566@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <425E9EB0.4010900@neopax.com> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >W: Please forgive me for being slow on the uptake. In arguments, even careful >readers misunderstand each other; how much worse it is then, in a case where the >reader has been careless, as, it seems, in this case, I have been. My apologies. > >A: (1) I assume there is an ultimate reality (but I don't say it's static), (2) >I point out that our knowledge of reality is necessarily incomplete and >subjective, and (3) I argue that there is progress toward increasingly accurate >approximations of reality, measured in terms of what works. >... >W: The fault is mine, and I thank you for being patient with me. I misread what >you wrote, or, rather, I interpreted the statement that the ultimate reality was >unapproachable to be the same as a statement that ultimate reality for all >practical purposes, did not exist. > > This is just a rehash of the arguments over QM and whether there is anything 'really real' beyond our measurements. The answer strongly appears to be 'no'. This cannot be separated from moral arguents based on any kind of 'real reality' unless it rests upon the supremacy of measurement. >... >W: Oddly enough, I was just today reading GK Chesterton's ORTHODOXY, where he >makes the argument that the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western >philosophy, between Buddhism and Christianity, is the Eastern identification of >self with the unity of the universe, versus the Western identification of the >self separate from (in Christian terms, fallen from) unity with the creator of >the universe. There are things greater than oneself, for which the hero, the >saint and the philosopher lays down his life. One could adopt an Eastern >terminology and say that a lesser "self" was being sacrificed to serve a greater >"self"; or one could adopt a Western terminology and say that the "self" was >being sacrificed to the other, an ideal to whom one owes service. The former >describes sacrifice as enlightened self-interest, and praises enlightenment; the >latter describes sacrifice as selflessness, and praises love. > >My question here is twofold: first, do these two descriptions map onto each >other? Second, if not, does one describe the nature of self-sacrifice better >than the other? > > The former is incomplete because the Xian description omits a strong basis for the 'selfless' action as being an afterlife where such virtue is rewarded. >A: Raskolnikov, in his dysfunctional state of mind, believed he had moral >justification for his actions. He believed, necessarily subjectively, and within >his limited context of awareness, that his actions were for the greater good. >Along the same lines, political assassinations have been performed, atrocities >have been committed in the name of religion, and preemptive war has been carried >out, all for ostensibly moral reasons. > >In all these examples, we can see that moral goodness is subjective and limited >in terms of context of awareness. No absolute moral maxim helps here, because >such moral absolutes can and have been used interchangeably by either side. My >point is that we can no know absolute moral certainty, but we can recognize that >as the context is broadened, in terms of the number of actors, the variety of >interactions, and the time over which interactions occur, we can evaluate, with >increasing agreement, the relative morality of an action in terms of how well it >(subjectively) works. > > > Works for whom? Different POV, different morality. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 14/04/2005 From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Apr 14 18:36:21 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:36:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Socio) Arrow of Morality In-Reply-To: <20050414134154.5EA6F6B1662@mx1.messagingengine.com> References: <20050414134154.5EA6F6B1662@mx1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <425EB825.8080401@jefallbright.net> It seems we have arrived together at a more encompassing understanding and are poised to take a few steps toward possible practical applications of these ideas. >I ask for clarification on what you mean by "what works". For empirical >propositions, I will concede that "what works" means that an empirical >prediction predicts the outcome it claims to predict, and it more elegant (makes >fewer assumptions) than the available alternate explanations of equal predictive >power. > > Yes, I mean "what works" in the sense you described, but also in a more encompassing sense: that "what works" means a structure that will tend to survive and grow, regardless of whether it is fully comprehended by any observer system. >A: I hope we can agree that the Naturalistic Fallacy of attempting to derive >"ought from is" is in error because value judgments are necessarily subjective. > >W: Agreed. > >I speculate that, in theory, if someone could make the argument somehow that a >judgment (statement of value) does not depend on the judgment (conclusion) of a >judge (observer), but is and must be the same for all possible judges >(observers), such an argument could support the idea of an objective judgment. > > This statement is not well-formed and carries an internal contradiction of a self-referential nature. Look at the way the various forms of "judge" operate here. I agree, however, with the intent of the statement, that IF all observers agree in all cases, then an issue may be considered, for all practical purposes, objective. However, my point in the Arrow of Morality is that there is practical wisdom in recognizing that we can increasingly approach, but never achieve, complete and final objectivity. Recognizing this, we are better equipped to devise good practices (policies and procedures that work over increasing context, implying inherent growth.) Alternatively, assumption of absolute truth(s) leads to an eventual breakdown, like a short-circuit, in the growth process. As the Red Queen said in _Through the Looking Glass_, "in this place it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." As Van Valen (1973) pointed out, a system must continuously develop in order to merely /maintain/ its fitness relative to the systems it co-evolves with. >However, since judgment is based in the understanding (which differs from man to >man) and not on the reason (which is the same for all men), I think this >involves a paradox, so I doubt such an argument could ever be successful. > > All paradox results from insufficient context. In the bigger picture, all the pieces fit. >W: Oddly enough, I was just today reading GK Chesterton's ORTHODOXY, where he >makes the argument that the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western >philosophy, between Buddhism and Christianity, is the Eastern identification of >self with the unity of the universe, versus the Western identification of the >self separate from (in Christian terms, fallen from) unity with the creator of >the universe. There are things greater than oneself, for which the hero, the >saint and the philosopher lays down his life. One could adopt an Eastern >terminology and say that a lesser "self" was being sacrificed to serve a greater >"self"; or one could adopt a Western terminology and say that the "self" was >being sacrificed to the other, an ideal to whom one owes service. The former >describes sacrifice as enlightened self-interest, and praises enlightenment; the >latter describes sacrifice as selflessness, and praises love. > > Yes, very apropos. The dichotomy inherent in the popular western view causes problems because it doesn't scale well to a range of nested contexts -- at some point it impairs growth. >My question here is twofold: first, do these two descriptions map onto each >other? Second, if not, does one describe the nature of self-sacrifice better >than the other? > > Self-sacrifice, interpreted narrowly, is immoral. It's anti-growth, and it's logically inconsistent with choice being the result of an agent acting according to its own perceived interests. Self-sacrifice, interpreted within a larger context, means acting according to one's identification with a greater self. It's a simpler, scalable concept, but counter-intuitive to thinkers raised in the western tradition. Which is better? I think the more elegant, scalable model has greater long-term prospects for success. >I got it now. I think. It is alien to my approach to things, which may explain >my incomprehension. > >It sounds like a principle that has some of the elegance of Utilitarianism without the unpleasing tyranny-of-the-majority implications of Utilitarianism. > > Yes, as I understand it, Kant updated Utilitarianism, and I think this is an update to Kant as mentioned a while back. >It sounds also like an algebraic approach to morality. If X is greater than and >encompasses Y, then we can know that X is better than Y, even without knowing >the specific values of X and Y. > > Yes, it assures us that we can in fact discover and develop principles leading to increasingly moral behavior (what we will increasingly agree is "good" because it works) but it does not provide moral absolutes. The arrow provides a sense of direction, outward, with increasing awareness and thus more effective decision-making, rather than inward with increasing blind assuredness, and rather than no direction at all ("all directions equal".) >My only suspicion toward this way of talking about morality is the same caution >you expressed towards moral absolutes: concepts like "growth" and "the greater >self" can be misused. Any concept can be misused, I admit, but some are more >prone to misuse in one direction than others. The danger of misuse centers >around misreading the needs of the growth of the greater self to be mere >selfishness; a moral maxim that emphasized love for others as its foundational >principle may be more resistant to misuse than one based on enlightened >self-interest of the greater self: but, at the moment, I only voice a suspicion, >and I am not submitting an argument that this is necessarily the case. > > > Primitive examples of moral behavior are observed in the animal world, with reciprocity, reward and punishment evident to some extent. We humans instinctively feel disgust, repulsion, anger, etc., providing a moral compass indicating "right" and "wrong" below the level of conscious thought. We still have these built-in indicators because they worked well for our ancestors, but in our more complex world they sometimes lead us astray. A key example is our instinctive fear of outsiders, abstractable to fear of the unknown. In the past, Outsiders were most often a threat, competing for limited resources and reproductive opportunities. In our present society, an Outsider is likely to be a potential trading partner or source of valuable new information. In the past, there was great survival value in avoiding something new -- a strange plant that may be poisonous, or a path through unknown and potentially hostile territory. In the present, instinctive (and cultural) avoidance of what is new leads to missed opportunities in trade, medical care, development of more efficient food sources, and so on. More recently, with expanding awareness, moral rules (principles of what works) were codified: The Golden Rule and its many variations; The Ten Commandments known to Christianity, Judaism and Islam; The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path of Buddhism; and others. Many of these served to temper the rather harsh instinctive morality of the past, but were stated in strict absolute terms as suited the consciousness of the times. We now find ourselves at the cusp of a qualitatively new level of awareness of our selves and our environment. It's an awareness manifested at the higher context level of the group, rather than the individual, because we have reached the point where our environment is becoming too complex for the individual to effectively comprehend sufficiently to make effective large-scale decisions. The time is right for a science of right and wrong (what works) incorporating principles of effective interaction of complex systems. I'll take one small step further, and leave more for a future discussion. Self and Other We've discussed the importance of Self as the (necessarily subjective) agent of all moral choice. Any action that can be considered in moral terms must be an interaction between Self and Other (that which is not identified as Self). I like Stuart Kauffman's term, "the adjacent possible" to describe Other in a more functional way, but note that he does not apply it in any moral context as far as I know. Key point: All interaction is between Self and Other. Interaction between Self and Other is most effective when Other is not diminished with respect to Self. I could go a bit further, suggesting principles of effective (synergetic, positive-sum) interaction with the goal of optimizing growth of Self, but I suspect I've already provided enough fodder for controversy and further discussion. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From dirk at neopax.com Thu Apr 14 18:57:04 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:57:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Socio) Arrow of Morality In-Reply-To: <425EB825.8080401@jefallbright.net> References: <20050414134154.5EA6F6B1662@mx1.messagingengine.com> <425EB825.8080401@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <425EBD00.1040809@neopax.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > > More recently, with expanding awareness, moral rules (principles of > what works) were codified: The Golden Rule and its many variations; > The Ten Commandments known to Christianity, Judaism and Islam; The > Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path of Buddhism; and others. > Many of these served to temper the rather harsh instinctive morality > of the past, but were stated in strict absolute terms as suited the > consciousness of the times. > There is a fundamental difference between the Eightfold Way and the Ten Commandments that is seldo recognised. The former is about the path an individual should take in order to eliminate (primarily) their own suffering. The TC are about social interaction, cohesion and stability. Alone on a desert island the TC are pretty worthless, whereas the EW is not. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 14/04/2005 From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Apr 14 19:01:26 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:01:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Socio) Arrow of Morality In-Reply-To: <425EBD00.1040809@neopax.com> References: <20050414134154.5EA6F6B1662@mx1.messagingengine.com> <425EB825.8080401@jefallbright.net> <425EBD00.1040809@neopax.com> Message-ID: <425EBE06.7030402@jefallbright.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Jef Allbright wrote: > >> >> More recently, with expanding awareness, moral rules (principles of >> what works) were codified: The Golden Rule and its many variations; >> The Ten Commandments known to Christianity, Judaism and Islam; The >> Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path of Buddhism; and others. >> Many of these served to temper the rather harsh instinctive morality >> of the past, but were stated in strict absolute terms as suited the >> consciousness of the times. >> > There is a fundamental difference between the Eightfold Way and the > Ten Commandments that is seldo recognised. > The former is about the path an individual should take in order to > eliminate (primarily) their own suffering. The TC are about social > interaction, cohesion and stability. > > Alone on a desert island the TC are pretty worthless, whereas the EW > is not. > Dirk - Excellent point, and I did consider this before including it, but thought it contributed sufficiently in light of the rest of the east/west discussion to override the fact that it is in a different category. As a second-order effect, following the eightfold way can be expected to facilitate social interactions. - Jef From dirk at neopax.com Thu Apr 14 19:03:12 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:03:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Socio) Arrow of Morality In-Reply-To: <425EB825.8080401@jefallbright.net> References: <20050414134154.5EA6F6B1662@mx1.messagingengine.com> <425EB825.8080401@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <425EBE70.5080304@neopax.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > > We now find ourselves at the cusp of a qualitatively new level of > awareness of our selves and our environment. It's an awareness > manifested at the higher context level of the group, rather than the > individual, because we have reached the point where our environment is > becoming too complex for the individual to effectively comprehend > sufficiently to make effective large-scale decisions. The time is > right for a science of right and wrong (what works) incorporating > principles of effective interaction of complex systems. > I would say exactly the opposite. That with PostHuman capabilities society can be pretty much dispensed with as far as individual needs are required even in the hitech sphere. Right now is the point where we are approaching the maximum 'incomprehendability'. I expect that to pass as our intellects are massively enhanced. I see PostHuman morality to be somewhat simpler than that required at the present time. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 14/04/2005 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 15 00:56:35 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that In-Reply-To: <200504141341.j3EDfu225566@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050415005635.41067.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> --- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > W: Oddly enough, I was just today reading GK > Chesterton's ORTHODOXY, where he > makes the argument that the fundamental difference > between Eastern and Western > philosophy, between Buddhism and Christianity, is > the Eastern identification of > self with the unity of the universe, versus the > Western identification of the > self separate from (in Christian terms, fallen from) > unity with the creator of > the universe. There are things greater than oneself, > for which the hero, the > saint and the philosopher lays down his life. One > could adopt an Eastern > terminology and say that a lesser "self" was being > sacrificed to serve a greater > "self"; or one could adopt a Western terminology and > say that the "self" was > being sacrificed to the other, an ideal to whom one > owes service. The former > describes sacrifice as enlightened self-interest, > and praises enlightenment; the > latter describes sacrifice as selflessness, and > praises love. > > My question here is twofold: first, do these two > descriptions map onto each > other? Second, if not, does one describe the nature > of self-sacrifice better > than the other? Yes, the two descriptions DO map onto each other. The enlightenment described by eastern philosophy is the realization that the "local" self is an illusion and only the "universal self" truly exists. Once you come to this realization, that you are everything and everything is you, then love falls out of the equation automatically. Since if you love yourself, you by definition love everything that is. Therefore to sacrifice your illusory "local" self for the benefit of the true "universal self" is merely sacrificing a beloved falsehood for the beloved truth. By way of contrast, xtianity states that your material body ("local self") is temporary and prone to all sorts of suffering but your soul ("universal self") is eternal. Thus the sacrifice here is the temporary for the eternal out of love for the eternal. So the two map onto each other in the same fashion that "false" maps onto "temporary" and "true" maps onto "eternal". The only real difference that I see between Eastern and Western morality then is that Western morality stresses, exagerates, and reinforces dichotomies (Good vs. Evil, God vs. Satan, Man vs. Nature, etc.) Whereas eastern morality downplays these dichotomies by stressing each half of the dichotomy defines the other half by circular argument and are therefore part of an underlying universal whole. i.e. Good is defined only by contrast to Evil thus God and Satan conspire to fufill the Tao of the Universal. As far as Dirk's QM argument is concerned, if there is nothing really real outside of what is measured, then what about the math that is performed on the measurements? And what about the observer that is doing the measuring? And why would any two observers agree on any one measurement? The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 15 01:22:32 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:22:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that In-Reply-To: <20050415005635.41067.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050415005635.41067.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425F1758.8010401@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > > >>W: Oddly enough, I was just today reading GK >>Chesterton's ORTHODOXY, where he >>makes the argument that the fundamental difference >>between Eastern and Western >>philosophy, between Buddhism and Christianity, is >>the Eastern identification of >>self with the unity of the universe, versus the >>Western identification of the >>self separate from (in Christian terms, fallen from) >>unity with the creator of >>the universe. There are things greater than oneself, >>for which the hero, the >>saint and the philosopher lays down his life. One >>could adopt an Eastern >>terminology and say that a lesser "self" was being >>sacrificed to serve a greater >>"self"; or one could adopt a Western terminology and >>say that the "self" was >>being sacrificed to the other, an ideal to whom one >>owes service. The former >>describes sacrifice as enlightened self-interest, >>and praises enlightenment; the >>latter describes sacrifice as selflessness, and >>praises love. >> >>My question here is twofold: first, do these two >>descriptions map onto each >>other? Second, if not, does one describe the nature >>of self-sacrifice better >>than the other? >> >> > >Yes, the two descriptions DO map onto each other. The >enlightenment described by eastern philosophy is the >realization that the "local" self is an illusion and >only the "universal self" truly exists. Once you come > > Or, if Zen Budhhism, that there is no 'self' at any level. > As far as Dirk's QM argument is concerned, if >there is nothing really real outside of what is >measured, then what about the math that is performed >on the measurements? And what about the observer that >is doing the measuring? And why would any two >observers agree on any one measurement? > > > That's a complex issue and one which has still not been resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of physicists. Ditto the question of whether math is invented or discovered, or a combination of the two. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 14/04/2005 From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 15 01:49:42 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:49:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Please share your knowledge - my father has been unconscious for 6 days Message-ID: <009601c5415d$650927f0$0100a8c0@kevin> On Thursday last week, my 53 year old father had a mild heart attack. He is a smoker, but other than that, he had none of the other associative risk factors. Just 12 days before, he hiked up a mountain in North Carolina to 6500 feet. He is ideal weight, gets plenty of excercise and has never had any other health problems in his life. He has never had stitches, broken bones, and rarely even gets a cold. The attack was mild and he did not know it was a heart attack until after they ran some tests. They checked him in and decided to do an angioplasty on Saturday morning. When they got in there, they found blockages of 90%, 85% and 75% and decided to do a triple-bypass. A few hours later, his condition worsened quickly and they moved him to an immediate emergency bypass and did it Saturday afternoon. Sunday he had still not woken up. They were keeping him sedated in ICU because he was growing agitated when they would reduce the Diprivan they were sedating him with. His lungs were not functioning as well as they should. Then at about 8pm his Oxygen level started dropping despite the respirator. They managed to get it under control by putting him on 100% Oxygen. Since then they have gradually weaned him off the respirator. He is breathing on his own for all but two breaths per minute. The respirator is putting in Oxygen at 35%. His blood Oxygen seems OK at around 97% and heart rate between 77 and 87. But he still has not been woken up. What I am being told is that when they reduce the sedative he becomes too agitated and squirmy to work with. He doesn;t respond to commands and doesn;t open his eyes or focus. He bites down on the tube and holds his breath and they have to start the drip again. But they can;t remove the respirator until they can wake him up. Each day we are told that everything is time and maybe we can try again to get him off the respirator tomorrow, but it is the same thing every day. The doctors say that he did not lose Oxygen for a long enough time to wrry about damage to his brain, but a nurse hinted today that there could be something wrong. When the doctor came in they said that wasn't true and that the nurse was out of line saying that. Has anyone here ever heard of such a situation? It all seems rather strange. I have never heard of anyone ever taking this long to come through a triple bypass and with his health stats being so good it seems even more strange. We are told the same thing every day and I am about ready to start calling other doctors. Before I do that though, I was hoping to get some opinons of others who may have ran into similar situations. I have researched the possible side-effects of Diprivan and have found few - less than 1% and not very reliably documented. The Oxygen level did not drop to a dangerous level according to the docs and they also say that his brain was never in danger. Thank you in advance for your help. Kevin Freels -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Apr 15 01:59:09 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:59:09 -0400 Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)) In-Reply-To: <2b43599858a7d62cda8f73f747dec67f@mac.com> References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050414215724.03456ec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:50 PM 12/04/05 -0700, you wrote: >While the reply below is interesting my motivation for the question was a >bit different. To what extent does our rational self interest, especially >extended to the possibility of indefinitely long life. make us less >willing to stand up to variously sized evils that are not directly >threatening to our life? I would expect a tendency to keep a bit lower >profile than the population at large and to take less risks. >Yet I know from experience such conservatism is by no means universal >among us. True. Case on point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Apr 15 02:51:53 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:51:53 +1000 Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat] re:embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)) References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org><20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050414215724.03456ec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <034d01c54166$14a7fb70$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Keith Henson wrote: > At 11:50 PM 12/04/05 -0700, you wrote: >>While the reply below is interesting my motivation for the >> question was a bit different. To what extent does our rational >> self interest, especially extended to the possibility of indefinitely >> long life. make us less willing to stand up to variously sized evils >> that are not directly threatening to our life? I would expect a >> tendency to keep a bit lower profile than the population at large and to >> take less risks. >>Yet I know from experience such conservatism is by no means >> universal among us. > > True. > > Case on point. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson In my university days, I co-founded a sceptics society with a friend and a third friend, the society secretary, wanted to 'go after' scientology. I don't know much about scientology then and still don't now to be honest, as we were warned off it by the then president of the Australian Skeptics Society who happened to be a lawyer. He essentially said that the scientologist would fight tooth and nail with every legal resource they could muster. I remember thinking at the time, aged 19, so what? If there are doing something they shouldn't be doing why isn't he and lawyers like him thinking 'bring it on'. After all if no one takes up the challenge don't we all live with the consequences. I know from what you have written that you are interested in memes and evolutionary psychology. So am I. I just re-read Dawkins Chapter 12, of the Selfish Gene where he discusses Axelrod's work with Prisoners Dilemma and Tit for tat etc. Why pick a fight with scientology Keith? Were you not using *rational* self-interest at the time? Did you bite off more than you knew? Was it a stand on principle? If so what principle? It has occurred to me, as it appears to have occurred to Samantha that perhaps those that know they are going to die sooner or later, are more willing to fight, and even to die sooner in defence of something, some other value than themselves. Brett Paatsch From megao at sasktel.net Fri Apr 15 02:09:05 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:09:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Please share your knowledge - In-Reply-To: <009601c5415d$650927f0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <009601c5415d$650927f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <425F2241.8080209@sasktel.net> My first question is ..can you actually do things for him or will the staff go whacko if you do? Barberry contains berberine. Berberine as a pure compound has a patent that indicates it can protect brain tissue from various neurological assualts. However you might not be able to even try it if the medical staff will not cooperate. If I could leave instructions for myself in such a case I would combine pure berberine with the aprotic solvent DMSO and begin to give it orally or even dermally. In any case the compound is very innocuous, its just figuring out how to best administer it. Morris -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Apr 15 03:11:57 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:11:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050414223307.0312f080@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:38 AM 14/04/05 +0000, you wrote: >I find this very interesting: > >>We are social primates. Our genes were selected by millions of years in >>hunter gatherer tribes where the people around us usually carried more >>copies of our genes than we did. Thus (by Hamilton's inclusive fitness >>criteria) evolution can be expected to have selected genes that give us >>psychological traits to take horrible risks and face death to protect >>those close to us. >> >>(Close companions were almost always relatives in tribal days. Since >>our ancestors didn't have DNA testing, they had to make do with treating >>those they grew up with or were friends or bonded with as relatives.) > >I think it's highly likely that we would have developed a genetic trait to >keep non related companions nearby for reproductive puposes as sex with >relatives produces interbred and very unfit children. That's not the way it works. Brothers and sisters raised apart are often sexually attracted to each other if they meet. ? Shepher (1971) studied young adults who had been raised on Israeli ?kibbutzes?(on kibbutzes, several unrelated kids are raised together in small group). ? Found that, out of over 2700 marriages, none of the couples were raised together within the same small group... http://www.psyc.brocku.ca/courses/COURSE%20INFO%202004/freud.2F25.pdf Sexual attraction is blocked by early exposure. There are several lines of study that support this. >We can all sense when someone's suitable for reproduction these days (for >example) with our sense of smell - I think this would have been the DNA >testing organ used in those days. It seems that female mice can detect different Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) genes through smell. They tend to mate (if they have a choice) with mice different from them. It is possible human females have a similar ability, but if so, it changes when they are pregnant to preferring ones with less difference. I have not looked for follow ups to the "t shirt" experiments done some years ago, so there might be more recent data. Because tribes exchanged women over extended times, even the swapped in women in the tribes tended to be related to the rest of the tribe. And the men that were either attacking for the tribe or defending tended to be brothers, half sibs, first or second cousins. Which means that selection applied to tribal groups was really genetic selection. Keith Henson >A fascinating thought! > >Jeremy Webb > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Apr 15 03:24:06 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:24:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists? In-Reply-To: <034d01c54166$14a7fb70$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050414215724.03456ec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050414231234.04d35610@unreasonable.com> Brett Paatsch wrote: >Why pick a fight with scientology Keith? Were you not using >*rational* self-interest at the time? Did you bite off more than you >knew? Was it a stand on principle? If so what principle? As a matter of self-preservation, I keep a short mental list of no-win opponents. Foes against whom the best strategy is to never come to their attention. The various Mafias, the IRS, Microsoft, and the Church of Scientology. "Listen. And understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead." -- David Lubkin. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 15 03:47:52 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:47:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Help send a laptop to Kenya References: <425C889D.5040502@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <008801c5416d$e6b41750$0100a8c0@kevin> There has to be a better way to do this. You would think that an arrangement could be made with a shipper who could ship say 1000 laptops for free and use the event as a promotion. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Bloch" To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" ; ; "ExI chat list" ; Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:49 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Help send a laptop to Kenya > The Kenyan Transhumanist Association is about to open up a "Knowledge > House", and they have put out a call for laptops to be donated to the > cause. The Knowledge House will help spread science education and > Transhumanist memes in Kenya. > > I have a laptop I'm willing to send over to benefit the cause, but > unfortunately the shipping costs are simply beyond my means right now. > It takes a minimum of $148 to ship it there. > > That's where you come in. > > I am selling my copy of Carl Sagan's excellent television series > "Cosmos" on eBay right now. It's a VHS copy of the entire series, in a > nice box set. There's a little wear on two of the box's corners, but > other than that the tapes are in great shape. > > I'm selling it with the hope that I can offset the cost of shipping the > laptop to the KTA. I've listed a "buy it now" price that will exactly > cover the price of shipping, but if the bidding gets higher (and I hope > it does, for their sake), I'll just send any excess along as a gift. > > Yes, you can definitely buy Cosmos for less money. This is entirely a > gimmick to raise funds to send a badly-needed laptop computer to some > fellow Transhumanists in a place where both the technology and > Transhumanist ideas are badly needed. Your money will be directly > helping them. > > If you're interested in helping, please check out: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6386560097&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 > > Thanks, all. > > Joseph > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > http://www.humanenhancement.com > New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta > PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 15 03:48:55 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:48:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Please share your knowledge - References: <009601c5415d$650927f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <425F2241.8080209@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <009301c5416e$0caab810$0100a8c0@kevin> The staff will, of course, go whacko. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." To: "ExI chat list" ; "Morris Johnson" Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:09 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Please share your knowledge - > My first question is ..can you actually do things for him or will the > staff go whacko if you do? > > Barberry contains berberine. Berberine as a pure compound has a patent > that indicates it can > protect brain tissue from various neurological assualts. > > However you might not be able to even try it if the medical staff will > not cooperate. > If I could leave instructions for myself in such a case I would combine > pure berberine with the aprotic solvent DMSO > and begin to give it orally or even dermally. > > In any case the compound is very innocuous, its just figuring out how to > best administer it. > > Morris > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 15 04:04:01 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:04:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) References: Message-ID: <00af01c54170$28635bf0$0100a8c0@kevin> " sex with > relatives produces interbred and very unfit children. " Not true at all. This can cause hidden genetic defects to surface more often because some children are more likelly to be born with two defective copies of the same bad gene. If sex with relatives created unfit children, we would very likely not be here. There are many examples of small isolated populatoins that make it just fine while reproducing with relatives. There's a very good example of such a group of people in the Middle East in the book "Mapping Human Histpry" by Steve Olson. I wish I could remember the group, but right now I have too many other things going on to look it up. As it is, most Americans can trace just about anyone they know back to about 8th cousins twice removed. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 15 04:33:04 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:33:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050414231234.04d35610@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200504150433.j3F4X9209556@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists? > > As a matter of self-preservation, I keep a short mental list of no-win > opponents. Foes against whom the best strategy is to never come to their > attention. > > The various Mafias, the IRS, Microsoft, and the Church of $cientolgy. ... > -- David Lubkin. I had it explained to me thus by a colleague who is a former Co$: Churches have specialties, and the Co$ claims to specialize in drug rehab. Consequently they have more than their share of former dopers. These often think of the Co$ as the influence that saved them from certain destruction by addiction. Former dopers are people who have become accustomed to breaking the law. Even if they get over the addiction, they are likely still comfortable with living outside the law. So if you oppose the organization they think saved them, you have a seemingly inexhaustible supply of people of uncertain levels of sanity, willing and eager to break the law in order to mess you up. My colleague felt he needed to be extremely careful as a *former* Co$ for fear of these people. He never was a doper, and so he never really felt like he was fully part of the scene. But he was in a state of constant nervousness. In Keith's case, they seem to have gone to absurd lengths to damage him, taking measures that absolutely defy reason or explanation. With regard to David's comment on avoiding attention, I would suggest intentional misspelling of the term (as for instance I modified his spelling above) in order to not show up in a google search when commenting on this topic. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 15 05:00:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:00:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <8765a186a2f1ed0ef14a66e15a98b2db@mac.com> Message-ID: <200504150459.j3F4xv211542@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... > > > > > > So basically those who believe such things would tend to escalate all > the way up to mortal combat more quickly and sometime operate in > fearless mode generally. Such folks also may more readily and without > reservation push their agendas... Yes and even this is an understatement. There is a line in a song that goes "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." Those who have nothing are judgment-proof. When we expect a long life on this earth, we have a lot to lose. When one has assets, one is judgment-vulnerable, and is thus reluctant to escalate conflicts. For instance I can imagine some Co$ guru reading my online comments and saying: Hey one of you dopers, here's spike's address, someone go over there and trip over something in his yard so we can sue him. > Of course we fight back using whatever means are the most effective and > the least destructive of our values including our irreplaceable self. > But how many things do we just let slide assuming perhaps that we > brainy ones will invent some out before the consequences chew up our > life? > > - samantha Samantha you and I may have different emphases on this question. As I recall you are one who is concerned with the patriot act and its spawn. We have those on this list who feel that we have no true freedom without anonymity. We are seeing a definite loss of freedom today in the fight against identity theft. I am one who watches our loss of freedom in the form of the runaway problem of liability, or our growing vulnerability to being sued by grifters. This has been a good news week for me, watching the Michael Jackson case and the Wendy's finger in the chili case. Now, I suspect Jackson probably did weird things with kids, I do not wish to be thought of as his defender or admirer, but I suspect even more strongly that this particular case was a set-up, and that he will walk out free. As for Wendy's, I seldom dine there, but I will likely do so in the future to show solidarity with them. I notice that the woman who found the severed digit has taught her daughter well, for when the local constabulary raided their house, her arm was injured, as evidenced by the sling she is now wearing. That arm would feel much better of course, should they dump a pile of cash upon it. spike From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Apr 15 05:33:50 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:33:50 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) References: <200504150459.j3F4xv211542@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <03a201c5417c$b4991a90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Spike wrote: > Those who have nothing are judgment-proof. > When we expect a long life on this earth, we have a lot to > lose. When one has assets, one is judgment-vulnerable, and > is thus reluctant to escalate conflicts. This makes sense but isn't there a flip side to it? Consider how democracies work as systems in a global economy. Politicians can't credibly give a majority of voters the stuff they want, when they are constained by economic realities, so the carrot option is limited for them. But the stick less so. Those with more assets and more to lose are also more subject to bribes, threats and the politics of fear. This can produce a feed back effect in which politicians, or political parties, to get elected play the fear card carefully aiming it not randomly, but using the latest technology like computers and detailed databases of voting patterns etc, very precisely and mathematically. Almost like a modern farmer might keep track of his herd. If person X is known to have too much to lose person X's behavior is predictable in the face of a threat from *any* credible source. National democracies in global economies increasingly takes on the aspects of a protection racket. This doesn't even serve the longer term interests of those who are well off because much of the resources that might have gone into improving the quality of life even further get redirected into policing. And the well off are increasingly taxed for the privilege of being made to feel safe or rather less threatened but not from risks like diseases or earthquakes or tsunamis or asteroid strikes but from risks like other people. Too much defecting (a Prisoners Dilemma term) from those who feel they have too much to loss would actually increase the number of cheaters as you end up positively reinforcing their behavior. Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Fri Apr 15 07:11:08 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:11:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your Bloglet Update from "Howard Lovy's NanoBot" (fwd from bloglet@bloglet.com) Message-ID: <20050415071108.GY24702@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from bloglet at bloglet.com ----- From: Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:06:21 -0400 To: Subject: Your Bloglet Update from "Howard Lovy's NanoBot" X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 Here are your daily Bloglet subscriptions: _____ Howard Lovy's NanoBot - http://nanobot.blogspot.com Well, you rolls the dice, you takes your chances. And I risked a great deal on this experiment. Too much. And now the stakes are too high not only for me, but also my wife and 3 1/2 kids. I lose my house in a week if I can't come up with about $6,000. After that, all sorts of horrible things can happen that I don't even want to ponder. It's possible that I just got it all wrong, and I should have stuck with nanotech as a business and investment story. Period. I don't know. Still no regrets, except that I put my family in this position. If you're an employer looking for an experienced editor, writer or consultant, please consider contacting me . Here's my standard cover letter I'm currently an editor, writer and analyst who specializes in nanotechnology, but am fluent in just about any technological, business, political or general interest subject. I have a great deal of experience in building news organizations from the ground up. As one of the founding editors of Small Times Media, an Ann Arbor-based trade magazine and Web site covering nanotechnology, I built the freelance team and worked closely with the writers to set the tone and style for nanotechnology business coverage. Previously, I was managing editor for a wire service in New York and a copy editor for The Detroit News, where I also contributed feature articles and op-ed pieces. I am an experienced journalist who has worked for newspapers, magazines and wire services for two decades. I've carved out a reputation for making science, technology and business understandable to everyday readers. I'm sole conspirator at the popular Howard Lovy's NanoBot blog, and my freelance work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Salon.com, The Scientist and other publications. Howard Lovy Editor/Writer/Analyst Consultant for companies and institutions seeking information and in-depth reports about nanotechnology. Recent clients include a U.S. defense agency and a major pharmaceutical company. Associate analyst for NanoMarkets, writing nanotechnology white papers and reports for business-oriented readers. Contributing editor for the Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report, writing analyses of nanotechnology issues for an investment-oriented audience. Nanotechnology-related work has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Scientist, Salon.com and other publications. Since July 2003, editor of Howard Lovy's NanoBot, an influential Weblog covering political, financial and cultural issues surrounding nanotechnology. 2001-2004: News Editor, Small Times Media, Ann Arbor, Mich. Coordinated a team of reporters and international network of correspondents for daily news Web site and bimonthly magazine. As one of the founding editors, I built the freelance team and worked closely with the writers to set the tone and style for nanotechnology business coverage. Oversaw other digital media projects. Wrote bimonthly magazine and online column. 1999-2001: Managing Editor, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, New York Supervised domestic and international correspondents for global news service. Planned international coverage, assigned stories, edited copy and made sure deadlines were met for client newspapers. Wrote news analyses. 1995-1999: Copy Editor, The Detroit News Edited copy and designed pages for metropolitan daily. Wrote freelance opinion pieces, book reviews, news and features. 1993-1995: Copy editor, Kalamazoo Gazette, Kalamazoo, Mich. Was in charge of weekend editions for 80,000-circulation daily newspaper. Designed pages and wrote columns and editorials. 1992-1993: Assistant News Editor, The Times-Leader, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Supervised the copy desk for a 60,000-circulation daily morning newspaper. 1988-1992: News Editor, The Haverhill Gazette, Haverhill, Mass. Supervised editors and reporters for a 20,000-circulation daily newspaper. Wrote editorials and columns. Was a staff writer from 1988-1989. 1986-87: Staff Writer, Roscommon County Herald, Roscommon, Mich. Covered news, took photos, and wrote columns and editorials for weekly newspaper. Education: Journalism/English, Wayne State University, Detroit (4/14/2005 7:11:02 AM) _____ This email was sent to eugen at leitl.org. If you wish to unsubscribe, please visit _______________________________________________________________________ Add email subscriptions to your weblog at http://www.bloglet.com/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 15 08:40:41 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050415084041.77629.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Or, if Zen Budhhism, that there is no 'self' at any > level. Dirk, you are shit on a stick. Go sit under a bodhi tree until you burst into flame. Let me know if I can be any help. Took me a motorcycle accident where I almost died and three months in a wheel chair before I grocked. > That's a complex issue and one which has still not > been resolved to the > satisfaction of the majority of physicists. > Ditto the question of whether math is invented or > discovered, or a > combination of the two. When the universe plays hide and seek with itself, it plays to win. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 15 09:31:13 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050415093113.26666.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > At 11:50 PM 12/04/05 -0700, you wrote: > >While the reply below is interesting my motivation > for the question was a > >bit different. To what extent does our rational > self interest, especially > >extended to the possibility of indefinitely long > life. make us less > >willing to stand up to variously sized evils that > are not directly > >threatening to our life? I would expect a > tendency to keep a bit lower > >profile than the population at large and to take > less risks. > >Yet I know from experience such conservatism is by > no means universal > >among us. > > True. > > Case on point. People wake up! This is simple. I will spell it out. It all boils down to love and fear. If you are an immortalist motivated by fear of death, than you are an immortalist for all the wrong reasons. If your measure of the the world as QM observers is fear, then fear is all you will see. Just like if you measure the wave properties of a particle, the wave is all you will see. This is your Tao and your Karma all rolled into one. The universe will be a scary place where even the water you drink to sustain your pitiful life will be full of carcinogens that will get you eventually. On the other hand, if you are an immortalist who is motivated by love for life and all that it brings, good or bad, then every second you have will be precious whether it be 10^8 or 10^10. If you measure the universe by love then love is all you will see. Just like if you, as a QM observer try to measure the particulate properties of a wave. Now you are by the laws of nature rational independent agents gifted with free-will by virtue of your understanding, therefore what would you choose as your destiny? Love or Fear? If you are an adherent of the latter then even if you extend your life a hundred-fold, the life you cling to will be one of doubt and paranoia. You will be driven mad until you take your own life to escape it. On the other hand you prefer the former, then your life will be sheer bliss. The universe and society will conspire to fufill your every desire. You would savor every second and yet, out of love for it, yet you would gladly give it all up and step into oblivion, just so the suffering masses could taste just one-tenth of one percent of the bliss that you feel. That is all this fool will say for now. Take it as you will. Remember you were born perfect and free and unwittingly you let your fellow Homo not-quite-sapien screw you up. The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From iph1954 at msn.com Fri Apr 15 10:36:22 2005 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 06:36:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] C-R-Newsletter #29 Message-ID: The latest edition of the C-R-Newsletter has been posted on our website. CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE: - New Research on DNA - Molecular Manufacturing, Step by Step - Nanotech High Beams - Information Week does CRN - Chris Phoenix Interviewed - Military Uses of Nanotechnology - CRN goes to San Diego - CRN goes to Minneapolis - Feature Essay: Protein Springs and Tattoo Needles - CRN Needs Your Help! Read the latest newsletter here -- http://CRNano.org/archive05.htm#29 -- and sign up for a free subscription here -- http://CRNano.org/contact.htm See you in the future! Mike Treder Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - http://CRNano.org/ Research Fellow, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies - http://ieet.net/ Advisory Board, Global Risks Council - http://riskgroupllc.com/ Editorial Advisory Board, Nanotech Briefs - http://nanotechbriefs.com/ Consultant, AC/UNU Millennium Project - http://www.acunu.org/ Consultant, Future Technologies Advisory Group - http://futuretag.com/ Director, World Transhumanist Association - http://transhumanism.org/ Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website - http://incipientposthuman.com/ Executive Advisory Team, Extropy Institute - http://extropy.org/ "The bird that would soar above the level plain of tradition and prejudice must have strong wings." - Kate Chopin From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 15 12:07:35 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:07:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that In-Reply-To: <20050415084041.77629.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050415084041.77629.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425FAE87.8060700@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Or, if Zen Budhhism, that there is no 'self' at any >>level. >> >> > > Dirk, you are shit on a stick. Go sit under a >bodhi tree until you burst into flame. Let me know if >I can be any help. Took me a motorcycle accident where >I almost died and three months in a wheel chair before >I grocked. > > > I've done enough acid to have seen several POV. I rather favour Minsky's Society of Mind when it comes to explaining that kind of stuff. However, one conclusion I have come to is that there is probably a minimal neural structure that defines 'consciousness' or 'self awareness', and that it is common to all people. It doesn't need memory, or sensory input and doesn't seem to do a lot but it is all that we experience in a non-machine -like manner. >>That's a complex issue and one which has still not >>been resolved to the >>satisfaction of the majority of physicists. >>Ditto the question of whether math is invented or >>discovered, or a >>combination of the two. >> >> > >When the universe plays hide and seek with itself, it >plays to win. > > > Does it? Or do we prop it up? Or perhaps like Greg Egan's Quarantine we reduce it from what it could be to what it is. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 14/04/2005 From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Apr 15 16:45:09 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:45:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Howard Lovy In-Reply-To: <20050415071108.GY24702@leitl.org> References: <20050415071108.GY24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050415114208.01dba150@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:11 AM 4/15/2005 +0200, gene fwd'd: >Howard Lovy's NanoBot - >http://nanobot.blogspot.com > >Well, you rolls the dice, you takes your chances. And I risked a great >deal on this experiment. Too much. And now the stakes are too high not >only for me, but also my wife and 3 1/2 kids. I lose my house in a week >if I can't come up with about $6,000. After that, all sorts of horrible >things can happen that I don't even want to ponder. Here are two characteristic responses on Lovy's blog: ================ I guess it's just one of the "benefits" of living in an ownership society. A few missteps, and most of us would find ourselves owning nothing at all. I don't know if it is to your interest, but you might look into a marketing position at a big company involved in nanotech, e.g. DuPont. # posted by John : 1:29 PM If you're so good- how did you get yourself in such a pickle? How can you expect anyone to hire someone who demonstrates such poor judgement? Hey- I heard there's a nursing shortage- go back to school for 2 years and find steady employment ACTUALLY working for a living instead of sitting around and doing nothing # posted by Anonymous : 11:15 PM ==================== Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Fri Apr 15 20:36:24 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:36:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Neuro-IT] Open positions on "Humanoid Technologies" (fwd from sandini@unige.it) Message-ID: <20050415203624.GL24702@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from Giulio Sandini ----- From: "Giulio Sandini" Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:56:07 +0200 To: Subject: [Neuro-IT] Open positions on "Humanoid Technologies" Organization: LIRA-Lab X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Reply-To: sandini at unige.it Dear Colleagues, I am fowarding an annoncement for open positions in the area of Robotics/Neuroscience/Nanotechnologies (Humanoid Technologies) at the newly established "Italian Institute of Technology" (IIT). The headquarters of the Institute will be in Genova. The annoucement has been published is a few journals (among which Nature and Science) and it is of particular interest to the Neuro-It community because IIT will address, in an integrated way, issues related to robotics and neuroscience as well as advanced materials. As stated in the general scientific program of IIT, the . Expanding from this statement, the goal is to realize robots that will be able to perform complex tasks, to learn from examples and experience, to remember and to recall from analogies, to associate past and present situations, to detect and recognize individual events and generalize from individual experiences, to predict the outcome of actions and act consequently, to communicate in meaningful and "natural" ways, to express emotions and act socially. IIT does not exists, so applying is a risky choice, but it is also a unique opportunity to contribute to the start up of what could be one of the few places in Europe where scientists work together under the same roof to study human intelligence from a multidisciplinary perspective. IIT will attempt to demonstrate that truly NEW technologies may come out from studies addressing such basic aspects of scientific knowledge. If these objective resonate with one of your dreams I think you should apply. Apologizes if you receive more than one copy of this announcement.... My best regards, Giulio Sandini For further information on IIT, please see IIT website (www.iit.it). The referring documentation is the scientific plan (www.iit.it/extra/contents/pdf/pianosceintifco.pdf), and the background material www.iit.it/extra/contents/pdf/background_material.pdf. ---------------------------------------- *********************** *Directors of Research* *********************** The Italian Institute of Technology ("IIT"; www.iit.it) is a Foundation created to promote scientific research and technological innovation at the highest levels in Italy. Established by the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Education, University and Research with a consistent funding, IIT aims at becoming an international centre of excellence for scientific research and training in high technology, with active participation of private organizations. During its start-up phase IIT intends to set up state-of-the-art research programs in nano-biotechnologies, Neuroscience and Robotics. The IIT scientific plan and the background material, approved by the Steering and Regulatory Committee, provide more detailed information and is available for download on IIT website. In order to start scientific research activity, IIT invites applications for the following positions: Directors of Research in Nano-biotechnologies Directors of Research in Neuroscience Directors of Research in Robotics Successful candidates will start IIT research activities in the respective fields, developing a detailed research program, organizing and leading a research team and building laboratories in IIT definitive site in Genoa (I). Adequate laboratory space, start-up budget and equipment will be provided. Directors of Research will also develop close collaboration with industry and other research institutions. Applicants should have an established record of significant scientific accomplishments, as well as scientific leadership and administrative skills. To ensure full consideration, candidates will have to submit applications (in english; electronic format preferred), with detailed cv, by the end of May to Simone Collobiano applications at iit.it Fondazione IIT Via Sicilia, 194 00187 - Rome, Italy ph: +39 06 4201 0848 Short-listed candidates will be invited for a talk, which will take place in Genoa (I) during the first 2 weeks of July. On this occasion candidates will have the opportunity to present their current research activities and scientific goals. Italian Institute of Technology is an Equal Opportunity Employer _______________________________________________ General mailing list General at neuro-it.net https://www.neuro-it.net/mailman/listinfo/general ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Fri Apr 15 22:01:29 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:01:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ring question Message-ID: <20050415215547.M96996@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> You're welcome, but you know that an extensive ring system like Saturn's probably could not have formed around the Earth, right? (our planet is not massive enough). Amara Henrique Moraes Machado hemm at openlink.com.br, Tue Apr 12 07:16:57 MDT 2005: >Thanks for the answers. I was thinking about Saturn like >rings. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amara Graps" To: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 5:18 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Ring question (was question for Amara) > (Henrique Moraes Machad asked about seeing an > Earth's ring from Earth; the different ways it might be > visible and how that would affect things like the weather.) > > But what kind of ring ? Like Saturn's? Jupiter's? It > depends on the number density (how many particles per From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 16 00:57:59 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Please share your knowledge - my father has been unconscious for 6 days In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050416005759.48168.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Kevin, I am not a medical doctor and so I will refrain any organic diagnosis/prognosis of your father's condition. I will tell you he is coming to grips with a near death experience. He has experienced something that is making him reluctant to come back. In many similar case studies people report seeing and interacting with long dead loved-ones. Whether this is some paranormal phenomenon or hallucinations induced by an oxygen starved brain are immaterial because from his point of view they would be real. Thus he might be spending time with someone he loved who has died in his own mind. The only way to bring him back is to convince him that he is wanted and loved here in the material world. What I recommend is that you have the doctors lower his sedative levels while you remain there at his side, hold his hand, talk to him (he will hear you even if he doesn't respond), and maybe lure him back with some of his favorite music or the aroma of his favorite food etc. I think your father will be fine once he is convinced that he can stand to wait a few more years to be reunited with those he has loved and lost. --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > On Thursday last week, my 53 year old father had a > mild heart attack. He is a smoker, but other than > that, he had none of the other associative risk > factors. Just 12 days before, he hiked up a mountain > in North Carolina to 6500 feet. He is ideal weight, > gets plenty of excercise and has never had any other > health problems in his life. He has never had > stitches, broken bones, and rarely even gets a cold. > > > The attack was mild and he did not know it was a > heart attack until after they ran some tests. They > checked him in and decided to do an angioplasty on > Saturday morning. When they got in there, they found > blockages of 90%, 85% and 75% and decided to do a > triple-bypass. > > A few hours later, his condition worsened quickly > and they moved him to an immediate emergency bypass > and did it Saturday afternoon. > > Sunday he had still not woken up. They were keeping > him sedated in ICU because he was growing agitated > when they would reduce the Diprivan they were > sedating him with. His lungs were not functioning as > well as they should. Then at about 8pm his Oxygen > level started dropping despite the respirator. They > managed to get it under control by putting him on > 100% Oxygen. > > Since then they have gradually weaned him off the > respirator. He is breathing on his own for all but > two breaths per minute. The respirator is putting in > Oxygen at 35%. His blood Oxygen seems OK at around > 97% and heart rate between 77 and 87. But he still > has not been woken up. > > What I am being told is that when they reduce the > sedative he becomes too agitated and squirmy to work > with. He doesn;t respond to commands and doesn;t > open his eyes or focus. He bites down on the tube > and holds his breath and they have to start the drip > again. But they can;t remove the respirator until > they can wake him up. > > Each day we are told that everything is time and > maybe we can try again to get him off the respirator > tomorrow, but it is the same thing every day. The > doctors say that he did not lose Oxygen for a long > enough time to wrry about damage to his brain, but a > nurse hinted today that there could be something > wrong. When the doctor came in they said that wasn't > true and that the nurse was out of line saying that. > > > Has anyone here ever heard of such a situation? It > all seems rather strange. I have never heard of > anyone ever taking this long to come through a > triple bypass and with his health stats being so > good it seems even more strange. We are told the > same thing every day and I am about ready to start > calling other doctors. Before I do that though, I > was hoping to get some opinons of others who may > have ran into similar situations. I have researched > the possible side-effects of Diprivan and have found > few - less than 1% and not very reliably documented. > The Oxygen level did not drop to a dangerous level > according to the docs and they also say that his > brain was never in danger. > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Kevin Freels > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Apr 16 01:07:30 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:07:30 -0400 Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat] re:embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)) In-Reply-To: <034d01c54166$14a7fb70$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050414215724.03456ec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050415195902.04974620@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:51 PM 15/04/05 +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: >Keith Henson wrote: > >>At 11:50 PM 12/04/05 -0700, Samantha wrote: >>>While the reply below is interesting my motivation for the >>>question was a bit different. To what extent does our rational >>>self interest, especially extended to the possibility of indefinitely >>>long life. make us less willing to stand up to variously sized evils >>>that are not directly threatening to our life? I would expect a >>>tendency to keep a bit lower profile than the population at large and to >>>take less risks. >>>Yet I know from experience such conservatism is by no means >>>universal among us. >> >>True. >> >>Case on point. >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson > >In my university days, I co-founded a sceptics society with a friend >and a third friend, the society secretary, wanted to 'go after' scientology. >I don't know much about scientology then and still don't now to be >honest, as we were warned off it by the then president of the Australian >Skeptics Society who happened to be a lawyer. He essentially said >that the scientologist would fight tooth and nail with every legal resource >they could muster. > >I remember thinking at the time, aged 19, so what? If there are doing >something they shouldn't be doing why isn't he and lawyers like him >thinking 'bring it on'. After all if no one takes up the challenge don't we >all live with the consequences. Indeed, that's the case as you can see from my story. Shame he didn't encourage you to expose them. Might have saved me a lot of trouble. >I know from what you have written that you are interested in memes >and evolutionary psychology. So am I. I just re-read Dawkins >Chapter 12, of the Selfish Gene where he discusses Axelrod's work >with Prisoners Dilemma and Tit for tat etc. The mention of Chapter 12 indicates you were reading the Second Edition. If you pop over to the index you can find where Dr. Dawkins mentions me for contributing the term "memeoids," certainly an apt description of scientologists. >Why pick a fight with scientology Keith? They picked the fight. Look up what Helena Kobrin did in early 1995. I have sometimes likened this provocation to a gang of thugs riding into a small US town and burning down the newspaper. >Were you not using *rational* self-interest at the time? Over the course of the last 20 years I have come to the conclusion that people are not rational. Of course they do rationalize. >Did you bite off more than you knew? Yes. >Was it a stand on principle? Yes. >If so what principle? Freedom of speech. There were other factors involved, several of them, and they all step from roots in the deep tribal past. >It has occurred to me, as it appears to have occurred to Samantha >that perhaps those that know they are going to die sooner or later, >are more willing to fight, and even to die sooner in defence of >something, some other value than themselves. An equally valid rationalization would be that people who think they are going to be around an extremely long time are concerned with nipping nasty social organizations early before they haunt you for eternity. A world run like scientology would be a very nasty place to try to live a long time. They do what LRH told them, and one of the things he told them would result in an extremely large number of deaths. This might help you understand the issues. http://www.operatingthetan.com/nots56.htm The experience did provide the impetus to understand matters about EP that eventually led to this article: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html Which the editor tells me has been downloaded something like 250,000 times and is still popular. That has led to another article where I account for wars and explain why we are in a period that is likely to get a lot worse. It is still in draft though after being rejected by a science fiction magazine as too speculative. :-) Keith Henson From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sat Apr 16 01:35:45 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:35:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Help send a laptop to Kenya In-Reply-To: <008801c5416d$e6b41750$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <425C889D.5040502@humanenhancement.com> <008801c5416d$e6b41750$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <42606BF1.9040901@humanenhancement.com> Absolutely. You call Dell and get the 1,000 free laptops, and I'll call DHL and get them shipped for free. Keep me posted. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) kevinfreels.com wrote: >There has to be a better way to do this. You would think that an arrangement >could be made with a shipper who could ship say 1000 laptops for free and >use the event as a promotion. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Joseph Bloch" >To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" >; ; "ExI chat list" >; >Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:49 PM >Subject: [extropy-chat] Help send a laptop to Kenya > > > > >>The Kenyan Transhumanist Association is about to open up a "Knowledge >>House", and they have put out a call for laptops to be donated to the >>cause. The Knowledge House will help spread science education and >>Transhumanist memes in Kenya. >> >>I have a laptop I'm willing to send over to benefit the cause, but >>unfortunately the shipping costs are simply beyond my means right now. >>It takes a minimum of $148 to ship it there. >> >>That's where you come in. >> >>I am selling my copy of Carl Sagan's excellent television series >>"Cosmos" on eBay right now. It's a VHS copy of the entire series, in a >>nice box set. There's a little wear on two of the box's corners, but >>other than that the tapes are in great shape. >> >>I'm selling it with the hope that I can offset the cost of shipping the >>laptop to the KTA. I've listed a "buy it now" price that will exactly >>cover the price of shipping, but if the bidding gets higher (and I hope >>it does, for their sake), I'll just send any excess along as a gift. >> >>Yes, you can definitely buy Cosmos for less money. This is entirely a >>gimmick to raise funds to send a badly-needed laptop computer to some >>fellow Transhumanists in a place where both the technology and >>Transhumanist ideas are badly needed. Your money will be directly >>helping them. >> >>If you're interested in helping, please check out: >> >> >> >> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6386560097&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 > > >>Thanks, all. >> >>Joseph >> >>Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": >>http://www.humanenhancement.com >>New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta >>PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) >>_______________________________________________ >>extropy-chat mailing list >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Apr 16 01:44:58 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:44:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists? In-Reply-To: <200504150433.j3F4X9209556@tick.javien.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050414231234.04d35610@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050415211204.034636b0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:33 PM 14/04/05 -0700, you wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists? > > > > As a matter of self-preservation, I keep a short mental list of no-win > > opponents. Foes against whom the best strategy is to never come to their > > attention. > > > > The various Mafias, the IRS, Microsoft, and the Church of $cientolgy. I remotely know someone who did considerable damage to one of the Mafia groups. It was just after WW II and the person involved was a combat vet who was not willing to pay protection. When scientology went after the IRS, they managed to steal about 2 billion dollars from the US taxpayers. So much for the IRS. I have it on fairly good authority that it took under a million dollars to crush the IRS by setting up and blackmailing a commissioner. Far as I know, MS has not put out hit men on the Richard Stallman or Linus Tovold. And the net is slowly grinding down scientology. They have been dipping into cash reserves for some time now and recruit very few people who are at all net connected or have friends who are. Reporters no longer fear them. > > -- David Lubkin. > > >I had it explained to me thus by a colleague who is a former Co$: > >Churches have specialties, and the Co$ claims to specialize in >drug rehab. Consequently they have more than their share of >former dopers. These often think of the Co$ as the influence >that saved them from certain destruction by addiction. Former >dopers are people who have become accustomed to breaking the >law. Even if they get over the addiction, they are likely >still comfortable with living outside the law. So if you >oppose the organization they think saved them, you have a >seemingly inexhaustible supply of people of uncertain levels >of sanity, willing and eager to break the law in order to mess >you up. While scientology and drugs activate the same brain reward circuits, relatively few of the scientologists and (in theory) none of their elites were dopers. The department of dirty tricks (OSA) are trained to break the laws. Try "outflow false data" and "tr bullbait" (with the quotes) in Google. >My colleague felt he needed to be extremely careful as a >*former* Co$ for fear of these people. He never was a doper, >and so he never really felt like he was fully part of the >scene. But he was in a state of constant nervousness. At this point, I know dozens of former members who are out and talking publicly about what happened to them. There are far to many for the cult to seriously bother them. >In Keith's case, they seem to have gone to absurd lengths >to damage him, taking measures that absolutely defy reason >or explanation. With regard to David's comment on avoiding >attention, I would suggest intentional misspelling of the >term (as for instance I modified his spelling above) in >order to not show up in a google search when commenting >on this topic. By this point they won't do anything except put your name on their hate site no matter how much you provoke them. The last woman who they put on their hate site (this week) was paying Tom Cruise back for his stunt of giving money to scientology in various people's names who didn't appreciate it. So she took up a collection (over $1000) to donate to an anti cult organization in Tom Cruise's name. Of course being put on their hate site is an indication that you have been galling the hell out of their diminutive leader and thus is a sought for honor. It took some very effective people years to get into this exclusive high status club. Keith Henson PS. In the olden days, you obtained status in proportion to the difficulty of the task. Bringing back a rabbit back to camp didn't rate very high, but dragging an elephant back by his trunk . . . . From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Apr 16 04:25:18 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:25:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Mathematicians, Brains, Asperger's - and Fort Message-ID: <426093AE.9000607@mindspring.com> Matt Ridley brings together two (or three) subjects much discussed in Fortean circles recently - "In the Mesolithic (around 50,000 years ago) human brains averaged 1,468 cc (in females) and 1,567 cc (in males). Today the numbers have fallen to 1,210 cc and 1,248 cc, and, even allowing for some reduction in body weight, this seems to be a steep decline." [p. 35] "Intriguingly, Asperger's children are often better than normal at folk physics. Not only are they frequently fascinated by mechanical things, from light switches to aeroplanes, but they generally take an engineering approach to the world, trying to understand the rules by which things - and people - operate. They frequently become precociously expert in factual knowledge and mathematics. They are also more than twice as likely to have fathers and grandfathers who worked in engineering. On a standard test of autistic tendencies, scientists generally score higher than non-scientists and physicists and engineers score higher than biologists. Baron-Cohen says of one brilliant mathematician, a winner of the Fields medal, who has Asperger's:`Empathy passes him by'" [p. 61 "Nature Via Nurture" 2003 by Matt Ridley] Personally, don't care enough about people to take an Asperger's test (joke!). However, after long absence from any `academia' went back to some "post-graduate" work a while ago and found everything (even presentations before academic audiences) fairly `easy', almost peurile compared with early struggles. Is that brain-shrinkage accelerating in recent student generations? Some might think the (continuously?) diminishing human brain is a sign that an `experiment' - suggested by Alfred Russel Wallace and more forcefully asserted by Charles Fort - is drawing (or being brought) to a close. ["Google << Alfred Russel Wallace Charles Fort - I think we're property >>] cheers Ray D -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From sjatkins at gmail.com Sat Apr 16 07:28:24 2005 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:28:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (SOCIO/ETHICAL) Risk averse imortalists? In-Reply-To: <425D253F.5070606@jefallbright.net> References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <2b43599858a7d62cda8f73f747dec67f@mac.com> <425D253F.5070606@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <948b11e050416002867601547@mail.gmail.com> On 4/13/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > We can't effectively predict the outcome of such multivariate multiorder > scenarios in an evolving environment, but we can illuminate and explore > some general principles that will generally apply. > True but we can explore or own evolving attitudes and practices and our current working decision processes. > Indefinitely extended lifespans will tend to increase emphasis on > reputation and attendant moral behavior because the rewards and > consequences of one's behavior will be similarly extended, but this > applies only to individuals who remain closely coupled with society at > large. Much evil is done for the sake of expediency, while taking the > longer view implies greater awareness, leading to actions that generally > work better over a greater context and are therefore considered superior > by a larger group. > Reputation is an interesting thing. As we live longer and have access to increasingly effective and powerful means of change, it is likely that people will be more malleable in character and capable of significant improvement and reform of any past causes of behavior. I am curious how much our current reputation practices are bound to limited lifetime and limited ability to change suppositions. For instance, what it may be perfectly reasonable to effectively write off someone for life for today might not be at all reasonable when the underlying assumptions and capabilities change. So yes, reputation will be important even though it may operate a bit differently than it does today. > More options become available with more enabling technology. Our > capabilities to observe, analyze, model and predict are growing rapidly > and, with a little luck, will eventually supervene our tendencies to act > in fear against an unknown Other. To be effective this must be > bilateral, and we can be thankful that it is the nature of such enabling > technologies to spread strongly. That said, there will always remain > the threat of damage to ourselves from without or of malignancy within, > and while technology will allow us to minimize and disperse/distribute > the risk, vigilance and self-sacrifice will remain key factors in the > survival equation. > > As moral agents, our choices hinge on concept of self. It's already > part of our evolved nature to act in support of interests greater than > the individual. Instinctive willingness to sacrifice one's life for > one's children, or to put oneself in harm's way for one's team or group, > exists because it works (promotes survival and greater growth.) But > popular understanding of rational self-interest does not yet encompass > this larger view, hence ongoing debates over misconceptions of > altruism. A good example is the so-called paradox of the Prisoners' > Dilemma. It is logically and mathematically "obvious" that the rational > choice is to defect within this artificially limited scenario. But it's > clear from a broader context that the optimum strategy is to cooperate. > As human society matures, this kind of metarationality, corresponding to > increased scope of awareness, will lead to conscious moral > decision-making based on a concept of self that transcends our fixed and > limited identification with our meat bodies. Interesting. One of the things I expect to change as we get much longer or eve indefinitely longer lifespans is our ethics. The notion that everyone around you is an immortal endlessly capable of increasing intelligence and hopefully increasing wisdom seems to me to radically effect ethical assumptions. It becomes difficult to write off a potential immortal for in effect some indiscretion or poor internal programming of their youth. I suspect that we get over the notion of any human being being utterly irredeemable. We might be more inclined to non-lethal ways of opposing evil wherever possible. > > I anticipate a "golden age" of enhanced cooperation, driven by increased > awareness of the value of diversity within a framework of common goals, > but we must focus now on surviving the transition. > As do I. We cannot have our well-being maximized without the maximization of the highest potential (well-being) of each member of "we". - samantha From jedwebb at hotmail.com Sat Apr 16 10:20:22 2005 From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:20:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050414223307.0312f080@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: A very interesting post Keith! At a human level, I know that I'm more attracted towards non-related women and that's across all representational systems. Most of the women friends that I know tell me that they are not attracted to people who posses interbreeding, or who are related to them via their smell. This is not very scientific, but I wonder if there is a mechanism in nature that damages people's Psychosexual response, either via genetic mechanisms such as interbreeding or by external conditioning factors, producing less fit interbred kids? Food for thought... Best Wishes and thanks for the response, Jeremy QUOTED VERBATIM: >From: Keith Henson >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) >Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:11:57 -0400 > >At 10:38 AM 14/04/05 +0000, you wrote: >>I find this very interesting: >> >>>We are social primates. Our genes were selected by millions of years in >>>hunter gatherer tribes where the people around us usually carried more >>>copies of our genes than we did. Thus (by Hamilton's inclusive fitness >>>criteria) evolution can be expected to have selected genes that give us >>>psychological traits to take horrible risks and face death to protect >>>those close to us. >>> >>>(Close companions were almost always relatives in tribal days. Since >>>our ancestors didn't have DNA testing, they had to make do with treating >>>those they grew up with or were friends or bonded with as relatives.) >> >>I think it's highly likely that we would have developed a genetic trait to >>keep non related companions nearby for reproductive puposes as sex with >>relatives produces interbred and very unfit children. > >That's not the way it works. Brothers and sisters raised apart are often >sexually attracted to each other if they meet. > >? Shepher (1971) studied young adults who >had been raised on Israeli ?kibbutzes?(on >kibbutzes, several unrelated kids are raised >together in small group). >? Found that, out of over 2700 marriages, >none of the couples were raised together >within the same small group... > >http://www.psyc.brocku.ca/courses/COURSE%20INFO%202004/freud.2F25.pdf > >Sexual attraction is blocked by early exposure. There are several lines of >study that support this. > >>We can all sense when someone's suitable for reproduction these days (for >>example) with our sense of smell - I think this would have been the DNA >>testing organ used in those days. > >It seems that female mice can detect different Major Histocompatibility >Complex (MHC) genes through smell. They tend to mate (if they have a >choice) with mice different from them. It is possible human females have a >similar ability, but if so, it changes when they are pregnant to preferring >ones with less difference. I have not looked for follow ups to the "t >shirt" experiments done some years ago, so there might be more recent data. > >Because tribes exchanged women over extended times, even the swapped in >women in the tribes tended to be related to the rest of the tribe. > >And the men that were either attacking for the tribe or defending tended to >be brothers, half sibs, first or second cousins. > >Which means that selection applied to tribal groups was really genetic >selection. > >Keith Henson > > > >>A fascinating thought! >> >>Jeremy Webb >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>extropy-chat mailing list >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From amara at amara.com Sat Apr 16 12:36:38 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:36:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Open positions on "Humanoid Technologies" (fwd from sandini@unige.it) Message-ID: I didn't see at the web site where they list an offered salary. Since it is an Italian-funded position, it will be on the order of 20K euros per year. Nor do they state the citizenship requirements, but they surely know that nonEU people (no matter what high position in their work they will be filling) will be illegal from the moment they arrive in Italy, and there is no hope of that situation being resolved soon. I think I remember when this institute was first in the news two years ago -it's one of Letizia Moratti's braindead children. That is, something that is glitzy and looks good on the surface, but, in reality, has no underlying support. This advertisement is mostly geared to Italians, who are used to bad research environments. If you are considering applying, please talk to me first. And if you are one of my good friends and want this job, know that I will do everything I can to talk you out of it. Amara From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 17 01:03:48 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050417010348.36019.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > There's a very good example of such a group of people in the > Middle East in the book > "Mapping Human Histpry" by Steve Olson. I wish I > could remember the group, > but right now I have too many other things going on > to look it up. As it is, > most Americans can trace just about anyone they know > back to about 8th > cousins twice removed. Not to mention the Pharoahs of Egypt, Hapsbergs, and other royal families in Europe. If they were really THAT unfit, how could they possibly have ruled for so long? Not that I condone inbreeding but its deleterious effects are actually very dependent on the quality of the starting genetic stock. i.e. if two siblings were blessed with no recessive deleterious genes, then inbreeding would result in children that were more fit than a random mating. As it is, it is highly unlikely that neither sibling would have NO recessive deleterious alleles. This is borne out in millions of labs around the world that use inbred mice. Some of the mouse strains are truly crippled by their inbreeding, yet others that have been sibling mated for hundreds of generations are for the most part, the fitness equivalent of a wild-type mouse. The confounding factor however is that fitness is relative to an environment. A gene that would give you a large advantage in the arctic, may well be very deleterious in the tropics and vice-versa. Thus inbred families should stay at home, hope the climate doesn't change, and vote republican. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From riel at surriel.com Sun Apr 17 02:19:24 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] IBM's Blue Gene In-Reply-To: <20050408072440.GF24702@leitl.org> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050407181034.01d7a8e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20050408072440.GF24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen Leitl wrote: > I think it is virtually certain that IBM will be using Cell-derived > systems for the next iteration of Bluegene, which will make a large > upwards kink in the LINPACK benchmark. > > I'm pretty excited about the Cell. I'm not convinced that the Cell will matter all that much, the bottleneck for computations is shifting away from the CPU core and onto memory bandwidth. The Cell CPU doesn't help memory bandwidth one bit... -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From eugen at leitl.org Sun Apr 17 08:01:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:01:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] IBM's Blue Gene In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050407181034.01d7a8e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20050408072440.GF24702@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050417080154.GU24702@leitl.org> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > I'm not convinced that the Cell will matter all that much, > the bottleneck for computations is shifting away from the > CPU core and onto memory bandwidth. The Cell CPU doesn't Yes, most number crunch applications are memory-starved. > help memory bandwidth one bit... Actually it does, because each core is fed by its own on-die memory. Now if Cell did come with a fully switched 6-link interconnect... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Apr 17 15:10:52 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:10:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? Message-ID: <003101c5435f$a6097940$6600a8c0@brainiac> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57774-2005Apr15.html?nav=mo washingtonpost.com Unready For This Attack By Jon Kyl Saturday, April 16, 2005; Page A19 Recently a Senate Judiciary subcommittee of which I am chairman held a hearing on a major threat to the American people, one that could come not only from terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda but from rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its enemies - terrorist or otherwise. And it is probably the easiest. A single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon, detonated at the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at the speed of light. Depending on the location and size of the blast, the effect would be to knock out already stressed power grids and other electrical systems across much or even all of the continental United States, for months if not years. Few if any people would die right away. But the loss of power would have a cascading effect on all aspects of U.S. society. Communication would be largely impossible. Lack of refrigeration would leave food rotting in warehouses, exacerbated by a lack of transportation as those vehicles still working simply ran out of gas (which is pumped with electricity). The inability to sanitize and distribute water would quickly threaten public health, not to mention the safety of anyone in the path of the inevitable fires, which would rage unchecked. And as we have seen in areas of natural and other disasters, such circumstances often result in a fairly rapid breakdown of social order. American society has grown so dependent on computer and other electrical systems that we have created our own Achilles' heel of vulnerability, ironically much greater than those of other, less developed nations. When deprived of power, we are in many ways helpless, as the New York City blackout made clear. In that case, power was restored quickly because adjacent areas could provide help. But a large-scale burnout caused by a broad EMP attack would create a much more difficult situation. Not only would there be nobody nearby to help, it could take years to replace destroyed equipment. Transformers for regional substations, for example, are massive pieces of equipment that are no longer manufactured in the United States and typically take more than a year to build. In the words of another witness at the hearing, "The longer the basic outage, the more problematic and uncertain the recovery of any [infrastructure system] will be. It is possible -- indeed, seemingly likely -- for sufficiently severe functional outages to become mutually reinforcing, until a point at which the degradation . . . could have irreversible effects on the country's ability to support any large fraction of its present human population." Those who survived, he said, would find themselves transported back to the United States of the 1880s. This threat may sound straight out of Hollywood, but it is very real. CIA Director Porter Goss recently testified before Congress about nuclear material missing from storage sites in Russia that may have found its way into terrorist hands, and FBI Director Robert Mueller has confirmed new intelligence that suggests al Qaeda is trying to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Iran has surprised intelligence analysts by describing the mid-flight detonations of missiles fired from ships on the Caspian Sea as "successful" tests. North Korea exports missile technology around the world; Scuds can easily be purchased on the open market for about $100,000 apiece. A terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead "on target" with a Scud, but it would be much easier to simply launch and detonate in the atmosphere. No need for the risk and difficulty of trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon over the border or hit a particular city. Just launch a cheap missile from a freighter in international waters -- al Qaeda is believed to own about 80 such vessels -- and make sure to get it a few miles in the air. Fortunately, hardening key infrastructure systems and procuring vital backup equipment such as transformers is both feasible and -- compared with the threat -- relatively inexpensive, according to a comprehensive report on the EMP threat by a commission of prominent experts. But it will take leadership by the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies, along with support from Congress, all of which have yet to materialize. The Sept. 11 commission report stated that our biggest failure was one of "imagination." No one imagined that terrorists would do what they did on Sept. 11. Today few Americans can conceive of the possibility that terrorists could bring our society to its knees by destroying everything we rely on that runs on electricity. But this time we've been warned, and we'd better be prepared to respond. The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona and chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security. ? 2005 The Washington Post Company From dirk at neopax.com Sun Apr 17 15:52:17 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:52:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <003101c5435f$a6097940$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <003101c5435f$a6097940$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <42628631.9030306@neopax.com> Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57774-2005Apr15.html?nav=mo > > > washingtonpost.com > Unready For This Attack > > By Jon Kyl > > Saturday, April 16, 2005; Page A19 > > Recently a Senate Judiciary subcommittee of which I am chairman held a > hearing on a major threat to the American people, one that could come > not only from terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda but from rogue > nations such as Iran and North Korea. > > An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said > one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is > one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its > enemies - terrorist or otherwise. And it is probably the easiest. A > single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon, detonated at > the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, > producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at > the speed of light. Depending on the location and size of the blast, > the effect would be to knock out already stressed power grids and > other electrical systems across much or even all of the continental > United States, for months if not years. > > Few if any people would die right away. But the loss of power would > have a cascading effect on all aspects of U.S. society. Communication > would be largely impossible. Lack of refrigeration would leave food > rotting in warehouses, exacerbated by a lack of transportation as > those vehicles still > working simply ran out of gas (which is pumped with electricity). The > inability to sanitize and distribute water would quickly threaten public > health, not to mention the safety of anyone in the path of the > inevitable fires, which would rage unchecked. And as we have seen in > areas of natural and other disasters, such circumstances often result > in a fairly rapid breakdown of social order. > > American society has grown so dependent on computer and other > electrical systems that we have created our own Achilles' heel of > vulnerability, ironically much greater than those of other, less > developed nations. When deprived of power, we are in many ways > helpless, as the New York City blackout made clear. In that case, > power was restored quickly because adjacent areas could provide help. > But a large-scale burnout caused by a broad EMP attack would create a > much more difficult situation. Not only would there be nobody nearby > to help, it could take years to replace destroyed equipment. > > Transformers for regional substations, for example, are massive pieces > of equipment that are no longer manufactured in the United States and > typically take more than a year to build. In the words of another > witness at the hearing, "The longer the basic outage, the more > problematic and uncertain the recovery of any [infrastructure system] > will be. It is possible -- indeed, seemingly likely -- for > sufficiently severe functional outages to become mutually reinforcing, > until a point at which the degradation . . . could have irreversible > effects on the country's ability to support any large fraction of its > present human population." Those who survived, he said, would find > themselves transported back to the United States of the 1880s. > > This threat may sound straight out of Hollywood, but it is very real. > CIA Director Porter Goss recently testified before Congress about > nuclear material missing from storage sites in Russia that may have > found its way into terrorist hands, and FBI Director Robert Mueller > has confirmed new intelligence that suggests al Qaeda is trying to > acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Iran has surprised > intelligence analysts by describing the mid-flight detonations of > missiles fired from ships on the Caspian Sea as "successful" tests. > North Korea exports missile technology around the world; Scuds can > easily be purchased on the open market for about $100,000 apiece. > > A terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead > "on target" with a Scud, but it would be much easier to simply launch > and detonate in the atmosphere. No need for the risk and difficulty of > trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon over the border or hit a particular > city. Just launch a cheap missile from a freighter in international > waters -- al Qaeda is believed to own about 80 such vessels -- and > make sure to get it a few miles in the air. > > Fortunately, hardening key infrastructure systems and procuring vital > backup equipment such as transformers is both feasible and -- compared > with the threat -- relatively inexpensive, according to a > comprehensive report on the EMP threat by a commission of prominent > experts. But it will take leadership by the Department of Homeland > Security, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies, along > with support from Congress, all of which have yet to materialize. > > The Sept. 11 commission report stated that our biggest failure was one > of "imagination." No one imagined that terrorists would do what they > did on Sept. 11. Today few Americans can conceive of the possibility > that terrorists could bring our society to its knees by destroying > everything we rely on that runs on electricity. But this time we've > been warned, and we'd better be prepared to respond. > > The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona and chairman of the > Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland > security. > ? 2005 The Washington Post Company > It would destroy just about every piece of semiconductor electronics from car ignition systems to computers to domestic TVs, radios and telephones. The good news is that it takes more than a small terrorist nuke to cause that much damage. You need a megaton yield fusion weapon. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.15 - Release Date: 16/04/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Apr 17 16:36:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <003101c5435f$a6097940$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050417163604.94598.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > > The Sept. 11 commission report stated that our biggest failure was > one of "imagination." No one imagined that terrorists would do what > they did on Sept. 11. Actually, this is wrong. There was specifically a rather extensive US Army study and exercise conducted in 1978 that looked specifically at terrorists flying airliners into the world trade center. Of course, the conspiracy theorists are not claiming this is the 'smoking gun' that our government staged 9-11, but one wonders then about all the studies the US military has done about alien invasion and asteroid impact, etc... > Today few Americans can conceive of the possibility that > terrorists could bring our society to its knees by destroying > everything we > rely on that runs on electricity. But this time we've been warned, > and we'd better be prepared to respond. > He's obviously pimping for the SDI system, probably for the Lockheed THEL system specifically, to be widely deployed, perhaps even orbited. Actually, I would be more concerned about terrorists constructing high explosive triggered EMP weapons (not nukes) near government, financial, and technology centers. Think about what fun it would be if most electronic government records suddenly got wiped.... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From wingcat at pacbell.net Sun Apr 17 17:02:30 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050417170230.22527.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > > The Sept. 11 commission report stated that our biggest failure was > > one of "imagination." No one imagined that terrorists would do what > > they did on Sept. 11. > > Actually, this is wrong. There was specifically a rather extensive US > Army study and exercise conducted in 1978 that looked specifically at > terrorists flying airliners into the world trade center. Nit: 20+ year old studies do not necessarily reflect modern thinking. Certainly, it is possible that no one was thinking the particular terrorist organizations we were facing in 2001 would do such a thing. > Actually, I would be more concerned about terrorists constructing > high > explosive triggered EMP weapons (not nukes) near government, > financial, > and technology centers. Think about what fun it would be if most > electronic government records suddenly got wiped.... In theory, military and high-level government systems are shielded against EMP attacks (by virtue of being shielded against surveillance systems that take advantage of similar effects, but at much lower power). In practice, even if this shielding is strong enough to stand up to EMP attacks, it's only on government systems. What would happen if, say, one were to detonate one on Wall Street just outside the NYSE? Just park a specially prepared car in whatever nearby spot you can find, set the timer, and walk away. (Given typical parking conditions, setting the timer to a few hours may be less due to time to get away, and more due to arriving early enough to get a close parking spot while still having it go off after the market opens.) From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Apr 17 19:01:11 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:01:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <003101c5435f$a6097940$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050417143903.03e059a0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:10 AM 17/04/05 -0700, Olga Bourlin wrote: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57774-2005Apr15.html?nav=mo > >washingtonpost.com >Unready For This Attack > >By Jon Kyl >Saturday, April 16, 2005; Page A19 This article is bs in so many differnt ways it is scary. Someone pointed out that it takes an H bomb to get these effects on a large scale. snip >American society has grown so dependent on computer and other electrical >systems that we have created our own Achilles' heel of vulnerability, >ironically much greater than those of other, less developed nations. When >deprived of power, we are in many ways helpless, as the New York City >blackout made clear. In that case, power was restored quickly because >adjacent areas could provide help. That is largely untrue. Most areas came back up in a somewhat crippled mode (rotating outages) on their own. >But a large-scale burnout caused by a broad EMP attack would create a much >more difficult situation. Not only would there be nobody nearby to help, >it could take years to replace destroyed equipment. > >Transformers for regional substations, for example, are massive pieces of >equipment that are no longer manufactured in the United States and >typically take more than a year to build. They are also just about the least likely to be damaged by EMP. Transformers are protected against *lightening* strikes which are a lot more energetic. > In the words of another witness at the hearing, "The longer the basic > outage, the more problematic and uncertain the recovery of any > [infrastructure system] will be. It is possible -- >indeed, seemingly likely -- for sufficiently severe functional outages to >become mutually reinforcing, until a point at which the degradation . . . >could have irreversible effects on the country's ability to support any >large fraction of its present human population." Those who survived, he >said, would find themselves transported back to the United States of the 1880s. Right. 1880s with the Internet (which was designed from the start to deal with attack, not to mention that optical fibers are just not affected by EMP. (The electronics might be hurt.) snip >The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona and chairman of the Senate >Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security. >? 2005 The Washington Post Company I doubt he wrote it, people at that level almost never do. But he isn't going to get much credit from technical people for letting this go out with his name attached. There *are* real problems, some of which are just not talked about at all because we don't know how to protect against them. We do need to consider and plan for these problems, but EMP taking out big transformers is way down on the list. Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Apr 17 19:32:47 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:32:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050417170230.22527.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050417170230.22527.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: >> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: >>> The Sept. 11 commission report stated that our biggest failure was >>> one of "imagination." No one imagined that terrorists would do what >>> they did on Sept. 11. >> >> Actually, this is wrong. There was specifically a rather extensive US >> Army study and exercise conducted in 1978 that looked specifically at >> terrorists flying airliners into the world trade center. > > Nit: 20+ year old studies do not necessarily reflect modern thinking. > Certainly, it is possible that no one was thinking the particular > terrorist organizations we were facing in 2001 would do such a thing. It is not remotely possible the scenario was unexpected. Especially when concurrent war games gamed such a scenario! Anyone who claims it is possible has some other agenda for wanting to believe that we had no idea such a thing could be done. - samantha From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Apr 18 02:01:16 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050418020116.47636.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > It is not remotely possible the scenario was unexpected. Especially > when concurrent war games gamed such a scenario! Anyone who claims > it > is possible has some other agenda for wanting to believe that we had > no > idea such a thing could be done. Or possibly - just possibly - such a person is simply telling the honest truth as that person sees it, either accounting for or not accounting for any data you may have which, in your opinion, disproves such a case beyond reasonable doubt. For instance: I was responding to the fact that it was thought up 20 years previously, and noting that that alone did not necessarily mean it was still being thought of. I was unaware of any war games within a year of the attack which actually tried to anticipate jets deliberately being rammed into buildings. (And I still am unaware, unless someone cites references to said war games.) From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Apr 18 03:34:20 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:34:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-virus protection -- request for information Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222204.01cd24d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Sorry to bust in on the conversation with a very primitive technical question, but I could use some help here. Barbara suffered a mini catastrophe the other day when Microsoft suggested that she upgrade her XP with their newfangled download problem-fix package. This munged her computer so comprehensively that she had to do an extreme system restore that required all her software to be reinstalled. I know, I know; Bill Gates is the son of Satan. Leaving that aside for the moment... she had just recently bought a rather nice antivirus package from Trend Micro Systems. After reinstalling it, and attempting to activate it with the mandatory magic passes, secret decoder numbers, and all, she found that it refused to work. She e-mailed the company with this sad tale, and they pointlessly sent her back the same magic number she'd just sent them; presumably another case of replying with a boilerplate response rather than bothering to read the e-mail. Attempts to deinstall again and reinstall are not working. Nobody from Trend is responding to further e-mails. And we can't find a helpline phone number. If anyone here works for these folks or has wise words of advice, please let me know off list. Thanks! Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Apr 18 03:33:26 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:33:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050418020116.47636.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050418020116.47636.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <794036591f6d8da84debebb3190c6702@mac.com> On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> It is not remotely possible the scenario was unexpected. Especially >> when concurrent war games gamed such a scenario! Anyone who claims >> it >> is possible has some other agenda for wanting to believe that we had >> no >> idea such a thing could be done. > > Or possibly - just possibly - such a person is simply telling the > honest truth as that person sees it, either accounting for or not > accounting for any data you may have which, in your opinion, disproves > such a case beyond reasonable doubt. > There is no basis for such a doubt when the persons in question are Bush and Rice, persons whose business it is to speak from reliable information on such topics. Instead they simply lied, repeatedly, even when the proof that they did in fact know such things were possible had become public knowledge! After watching this unfold there can be no rational reason for pretending that maybe they really didn't have any idea. > For instance: I was responding to the fact that it was thought up 20 > years previously, and noting that that alone did not necessarily mean > it was still being thought of. I was unaware of any war games within > a year of the attack which actually tried to anticipate jets > deliberately being rammed into buildings. (And I still am unaware, > unless someone cites references to said war games.) > _______________________________________________ A plausible attack scenario is just forgotten even though it was still plausible? That would be incompetent at best. In fact evidence came out that this precise scenario was under consideration mere months before 911. Go read the transcripts form the watered down 911 commission. You missed it. I have no time to dig up what you failed to notice. - samantha From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 18 03:43:54 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050418034354.68633.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > I was unaware of any > war games within > a year of the attack which actually tried to > anticipate jets > deliberately being rammed into buildings. (And I > still am unaware, > unless someone cites references to said war games.) I am unaware of recent wargames as well, although there was an episode of the since cancelled FOX series "The Lone Gunmen", an X-files spin-off about Mulders 3 paranoid technogeek friends, where the Gunmen had to stop a fiendish government plot. The plot involved a fake hijacking to cover-up the use of an anti-hijacking remote control device that could control the plane from the ground, over-riding the cockpit controls and forcing the "hijacked" plane to crash into a skyscraper. Of course in the episode, the Gunmen saved the day and the plane never actually crashed into the sky scraper, but I was sort-of creeped out when a few weeks later, 9-11 happened. It was if FOX knew something of the so-called "intelligence buzz" surrounding 9-11. Probably a coincidence but a creepy one none-the-less. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Apr 18 04:26:20 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:26:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <794036591f6d8da84debebb3190c6702@mac.com> Message-ID: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com> > ... Samantha Atkins ... > > A plausible attack scenario is just forgotten even though it was still > plausible? That would be incompetent at best. In fact evidence came > out that this precise scenario was under consideration mere months > before 911... -samantha Months? It was under consideration mere *years* before 9/11. Former national security advisor Sandy Berger went into the national archives, rounded up as many copies of the incriminating documents as he could find, accidentally stuffed them down his pants and socks, took them home and inadvertently cut them into tiny pieces (snip whoops, snip oops, snip whoopsy, snip uhoh...) Then he lied about it consistently for months. He plea bargained and ended up getting off with a slap on the wrist. These government guys wonder why we don't trust them and want smaller government. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/berger.plea.ap/ http://nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/42134.htm spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Apr 18 04:38:12 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:38:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed! In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222204.01cd24d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222204.01cd24d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417233627.01ceda18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Problem solved--it seems to have been a conflict with residual Norton stuff that was allegedly uninstalled after the catastrophe. Damien Broderick From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Apr 18 05:32:53 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:32:53 +1000 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? References: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <008001c543d8$1236b7e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Spike wrote: > These government guys wonder why we don't trust them > and want smaller government. Most politicians know that they are not widely trusted as a class. It hardly matters so long as their opponent constitutes a still worse choice. But how small a smaller government do you actually want? Roman emperors achieved very small governments but that situation didn't prove ultimately stable, not even for the Roman emperors themselves. Clearly smaller government isn't of itself always better government. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Apr 18 09:19:57 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:19:57 +1000 Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat]re:embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)) References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org><20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org><5.1.0.14.0.20050414215724.03456ec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050415195902.04974620@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <00b501c543f7$c9e72900$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Keith Henson wrote > At 12:51 PM 15/04/05 +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>I know from what you have written that you are interested in memes >>and evolutionary psychology. So am I. I just re-read Dawkins >>Chapter 12, of the Selfish Gene where he discusses Axelrod's work >>with Prisoners Dilemma and Tit for tat etc. > > The mention of Chapter 12 indicates you were reading the Second > Edition. If you pop over to the index you can find where Dr. Dawkins > mentions me for contributing the term "memeoids," certainly an apt > description of scientologists. Yes. I see it in my hardcopy. Dawkin's writes, "Keith Henson has coined the name 'memoids' for 'victims that have been taken over by a meme to the extent that their own survival becomes inconsequential... You see lots of these people on the evening news from such places as Belfast or Beirut.' Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religous faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb." Dawkin's, Chapter 12, "Nice Guys Finish First" has also been placed online. http://www.clayjackson.com/pages/nice_guys_finish_first.htm. Clay Jackson says he is has put it there "in hopes that people will enjoy it enough to purchase the book". Those interested in Tit for Tat and when Tit for Two Tats works and doesn't work may find this chapter worth reading. Essentially Tit for Two Tats was a strategy that was not entered in Axelrod's original experiment but it was found afterwards that had it been entered it would have won against the field of entrants in that first experiment. How well strategies do depends on the other strategies that they are up against. >>Why pick a fight with scientology Keith? > > They picked the fight. Look up what Helena Kobrin did in early > 1995. I have sometimes likened this provocation to a gang of thugs > riding into a small US town and burning down the newspaper. I did look it up. And I see that you use the 'gang of thugs' phrase in your paper on cults at the bottom. But the fight they picked wasn't with you personally. You personally didn't have to respond to the gang of thugs, you personally could have kept your head down. >>Were you not using *rational* self-interest at the time? > > Over the course of the last 20 years I have come to the conclusion > that people are not rational. Of course they do rationalize. The way you answer this suggests that you are including yourself in the set of people that are not rational but that do rationalize. I can respect the honesty and humility in that, but how can you know whether you are rationalising at too low a level? After all memeoids rationalise too. You don't seem to want to be a memeoid. Do you think that it is ever *rational* to totally self-sacrifice or does such a thing necessarily make one a memeoid to the value they think they are serving? I think that quite a lot of 'immortalists' would hold, but for political and social reasons few would be willing to say that, yes, ultimately, a total self-sacrifice is an irrational act because the basis for valuing anything else goes when the self goes. >>Did you bite off more than you knew? > > Yes. > >>Was it a stand on principle? > > Yes. > >>If so what principle? > > Freedom of speech. Thank you for defending that principle. > There were other factors involved, several of them, and they all > step from roots in the deep tribal past. I'm not so sure about the deep tribal past stuff though. Obviously a common deep tribal past is shared by everyone here now or we wouldn't be here. But why would natural selection have stopped selecting way back in the deep tribal past rather than when our parents were exercising their judgement about with whom they would mate? Ever generation has spinsters and bachelors and people that do not live long enough to have children. Isn't that still natural selection? Dawkins talks of the extended phenotype. Do you think that rationality itself is an extended phenotype? >>It has occurred to me, as it appears to have occurred to Samantha >>that perhaps those that know they are going to die sooner or later, >>are more willing to fight, and even to die sooner in defence of >>something, some other value than themselves. > > An equally valid rationalization would be that people who think they are > going to be around an extremely long time are concerned with nipping > nasty social organizations early before they haunt you for eternity. A > world run like scientology would be a very nasty place to try to live a > long time. They do what LRH told them, and one of the things he told > them would result in an extremely large number of deaths. There are plenty of examples of memeoids that are willing to totally self sacrifice though. Christianity and other religions have been around for 2000 years. In comparison are there any 'immortalists' who have ever willingly and knowingly totally self-sacrificed for a principle like freedom of speech? I don't know the Bruno story well enough, perhaps he was a sort of secularist martyr for science. I think there have been humanists that have spoken out in defence of principles because they wanted their lives to count and perhaps because they wanted their names remembered fondly or their kin to benefit. > This might help you understand the issues. > > http://www.operatingthetan.com/nots56.htm > > The experience did provide the impetus to understand matters about > EP that eventually led to this article: > > http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html Thanks for the links. I did read them. > Which the editor tells me has been downloaded something like 250,000 > times and is still popular. That has led to another article where I > account > for wars and explain why we are in a period that is likely to get a lot > worse. > > It is still in draft though after being rejected by a science fiction > magazine as too speculative. :-) If you want to provide a link to it I'd be interested. Can't guarantee that I'll get to it quickly though. Regards, Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Apr 18 09:44:27 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:44:27 +1000 Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat] re: embedded inopen hearts (Meta/EP)) References: <20050415093113.26666.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00cc01c543fb$36423c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > People wake up! This is simple. I will spell it > out. It all boils down to love and fear. If you are an > immortalist motivated by fear of death, than you are > an immortalist for all the wrong reasons. How in practice is there a difference between the behaviour of an 'immortalist' that lives for an overwhelming love of life and one that lives for a fear of death? Provided that both have children I'm not sure that evolution could tell the difference. But at this stage its probably too early to tell. Do you think the former is more likely to choose to die or to be killed rather than give up on, or defect over, something that makes life worth living? If so, like what for instance? Brett Paatsch From pharos at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 09:47:33 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:47:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed! In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417233627.01ceda18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222204.01cd24d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050417233627.01ceda18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 4/18/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > Problem solved--it seems to have been a conflict with residual Norton stuff > that was allegedly uninstalled after the catastrophe. > Good that you solved the problem. The last estimate I read was that 90-95% of WinXP computers would have no problem with the SP2 upgrade. But ~5% of all the WinXP computers around the world is still a horrendous amount of trouble for users. Keeping Windows running is gradually becoming more and more of a hassle. You need hardware firewall, software firewall, anti-virus software, several anti-spyware packages (one isn't enough), anti-trojan software, watchdog-type software (to stop unauthorised changes to your software), registry cleaners, rubbish files cleanup software, the list goes on... And once you have all this, you then have the ongoing task of keeping it all up-to-date. If you don't use WinXP on the net you can avoid all this. Get a Linux live cd, like the new Knoppix 3.8.1. Download an iso image from one of the mirrors: and burn it to a blank cd. Then for any surfing, just slot in the cd, reboot and off you go. As your operating system is running from a read-only cd, any viruses or spyware you might pick up ('might' being the operative word as they are very rare on Linux) will remain in memory and disappear when you reboot. There are many similar options. I am writing this from my Gmail account using Xandros 3.0 Linux which I have installed as a dual-boot setup with Windows. Really, it's easy! To make Linux users smile, Intel and AMD are bringing out dual-core processors to increase the power, as they have reached the max on chip clock speeds. A review in PC Mag suggests that for Win users, the second processor core can be used to run all their security software, while they do their surfing on the other core processor. "One of the complaints we've heard from readers is that "protection" programs, like Norton Internet Security, are useful for safeguarding their systems. but slow their computers to a crawl. Dual-core Hyper-Threaded processors, such as the Pentium EE 840, can help, improving your computing experience because the processor's dual cores can process tasks simultaneously. While most of the system is "concentrating" on making sure your Internet or gaming experience is fulfilled in the foreground, the reserve power that the dual cores provide protects you in the background, running Norton or other antivirus or firewall programs." Best wishes, BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon Apr 18 09:58:26 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:58:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed! In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222204.01cd24d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050417233627.01ceda18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050418095826.GI21209@leitl.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:47:33AM +0100, BillK wrote: > Keeping Windows running is gradually becoming more and more of a > hassle. You need hardware firewall, software firewall, anti-virus > software, several anti-spyware packages (one isn't enough), One shudders to think how many people would go out of business if Redmond would start shipping well-engineered systems. > anti-trojan software, watchdog-type software (to stop unauthorised > changes to your software), registry cleaners, rubbish files cleanup > software, the list goes on... And once you have all this, you then > have the ongoing task of keeping it all up-to-date. Or you could just order http://www.apple.com/macmini/ with Tiger (announced, about to ship) and 0.5..1 GByte RAM. Much less pain. I wouldn't recommend Linux for the average user, especially average user with a good taste. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Apr 18 11:18:11 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:18:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Small government References: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com> <008001c543d8$1236b7e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <003901c54408$4f160f00$41893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, April 18, 2005 1:32 AM Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote: >> These government guys wonder why we don't >> trust them and want smaller government. > > Most politicians know that they are not widely > trusted as a class. It hardly matters so long > as their opponent constitutes a still worse > choice. Agreed. > But how small a smaller government do you > actually want? Spike? I can't speak for him. Me? None. See "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html > Roman emperors achieved very small > governments By what measure? Compared to what at that time? > but that situation didn't prove ultimately stable, > not even for the Roman emperors themselves. That may be so in some aspects, but the Roman Empire lasted several centuries. > Clearly smaller government isn't of itself always > better government. While I agree that smaller isn't always better, in general I think it is usually better. The less power and control -- and that's the measure I would use -- government has over society, typically the better. The size -- as in number of people and budget -- usually correlates with power and control because more people and money are needed to enforce more controls. (Of course, this is a rought measure because one government might be more efficient than another as enforcing controls and governments may use people formally outside government to extend control as when the secret police use informants.) Cheers! Dan http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html From hemm at openlink.com.br Mon Apr 18 13:22:43 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:22:43 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ring question References: <20050415215547.M96996@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <025301c54419$b3d83790$fe00a8c0@HEMM> I've been told that. I've also been told that a ring system could be formed but would not last long. What I'm trying to do is write a little 'scifi' novel. Not hard scifi and I'll take some liberties. So I'm just trying to gather some information. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amara Graps" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:01 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Ring question > You're welcome, but you know that an extensive ring system > like Saturn's probably could not have formed around the Earth, > right? (our planet is not massive enough). > > Amara > > Henrique Moraes Machado hemm at openlink.com.br, > Tue Apr 12 07:16:57 MDT 2005: > > >Thanks for the answers. I was thinking about Saturn like > >rings. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Amara Graps" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 5:18 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] Ring question (was question for Amara) > > > > (Henrique Moraes Machad asked about seeing an > > Earth's ring from Earth; the different ways it might be > > visible and how that would affect things like the weather.) > > > > But what kind of ring ? Like Saturn's? Jupiter's? It > > depends on the number density (how many particles per > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Apr 18 15:17:08 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:17:08 -0700 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <008001c543d8$1236b7e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <200504181517.j3IFHC208296@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? > > Spike wrote: > > > These government guys wonder why we don't trust them > > and want smaller government. ... > > But how small a smaller government do you actually want? I would like to see governments figure out that there is an optimal taxation level, above which raising tax rates results in a decrease in income to the state because it suppresses the general economy. All national governments have overall tax rates that are above the optimal. Ronald Reagan (evolution bless his memory) was one of the few that understood this. I would estimate the U.S. fed would be perhaps half to 2/3 its current size, should it optimize. > Roman emperors achieved very small governments but that situation > didn't prove ultimately stable, not even for the Roman emperors > themselves. Rome was stable for a long time. I would not expect any form of government to last for more than a few hundred years. I can't think of any that have. > > Clearly smaller government isn't of itself always better government. > > Brett Paatsch Not clearly. In the technologically advanced part of the world, the national-level governments do too much and cost too much. Common defense and road building is all they really need at that level. The rest of the stuff can be governed at a sublevel, such as the American states, where we proles have a choice to live there or in another competing state. Competition forces state governments to optimize themselves. spike From pharos at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 15:55:50 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:55:50 +0100 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <200504181517.j3IFHC208296@tick.javien.com> References: <008001c543d8$1236b7e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <200504181517.j3IFHC208296@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 4/18/05, wrote: > Not clearly. In the technologically advanced part of > the world, the national-level governments do too much > and cost too much. Common defense and road building > is all they really need at that level. The rest of > the stuff can be governed at a sublevel, such as the > American states, where we proles have a choice to > live there or in another competing state. Competition > forces state governments to optimize themselves. > Nice idea. Many practical difficulties (as usual with neat political theories). Outside USA moving to a different system involves big costs. Usually learning a new language, new customs, new social behaviours, new job, new schools, new tv programs, new everything, really. I haven't noticed countries changing much because their neighbour does things a different way. Anti-smuggling laws, border patrols, fines, keep the proles in order mostly. Even in the USA, what you really want is to live near the junction of about four states, where you can work in one state, go to school in another state, go to hospital in yet another state, invest in another state, and holiday in Florida. ) BillK From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Apr 18 20:08:35 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050418200835.30376.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > There is no basis for such a doubt when the persons in question are > Bush and Rice, persons whose business it is to speak from reliable > information on such topics. Ah. I thought you were talking about my claims, and I was speaking only of those lower down in the chain - those who might have actually been tasked with implementing defenses, had other parts of the government (including the higher-ups) told them of this possibility. (See "right hand does not know what the left hand is doing" - although Bush et al did know.) Given what I have seen, I would tend to agree with you that Bush was alerted to the possibility. (Whether Bush actually paid any attention to the warnings is another matter. It is quite possible for people to be told something, dismiss it, and have the warning nowhere in their memory months later. The President, whatever his responsibilities, is human like the rest of us, and this will continue to be the case until we can get >H tech developed and accepted enough that even whoever the President is at that time uses it.) > A plausible attack scenario is just forgotten even though it was > still > plausible? That would be incompetent at best. That's our government for you. From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Apr 18 20:46:18 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050418204618.41797.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > One shudders to think how many people would go out of business if > Redmond would start shipping well-engineered systems. On the contrary. Ignoring criminal hackers and other agents of ill (who would be applauded if they resigned en masse without replacements), how many of our technically capable people have settled for a professional life of cleaning up Microsoft's messes? What kinds and quantities of good could they do, if that need were not there and their labors free to serve other industries? 'Tis like the buggy whip manufacturers on the eve of the Model T, whose leather and labors subsequently went on to find other uses that could not profitably be served while buggy whips were needed. Yes, there would be significant short-term economic dislocations, big enough to strain our social safety nets. But imagine the computing applications that would become feasable if you really could trust stnadard personal computers. Imagine the collapse in bandwidth prices, and subsequent high availability of bandwidth for everyone, if DDOS attacks and spam became mostly historical footnotes. (And I'm sure we can all also imagine many other pleasantries if most spam transmitters simply stopped dead forever tonight.) Would it not be worthwhile? But still, a problem we wished we have (so we could enjoy the things that come with the problem) is still a problem, and problems generally need solving. And this problem has a more generic form that we will face, if our dreams come to pass - and it is a pretty large one. I wonder, is there a useful way to break down the problem of transitioning workers and investments, once they have been displaced by new technologies, into other markets - including and espeicially ones made possible, or at least profitable, by these same new technologies? From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 18 21:21:23 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050418212123.57530.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > > Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? > > > > Spike wrote: > > > > > These government guys wonder why we don't trust them > > > and want smaller government. > ... > > > > But how small a smaller government do you actually want? > > I would like to see governments figure out that there > is an optimal taxation level, above which raising tax > rates results in a decrease in income to the state > because it suppresses the general economy. All national > governments have overall tax rates that are above the > optimal. Ronald Reagan (evolution bless his memory) was > one of the few that understood this. I would estimate > the U.S. fed would be perhaps half to 2/3 its current > size, should it optimize. If people realized they didn't owe it, we could do that overnight (see http://www.861.info). > > > Roman emperors achieved very small governments but that situation > > didn't prove ultimately stable, not even for the Roman emperors > > themselves. > > Rome was stable for a long time. I would not expect > any form of government to last for more than a few > hundred years. I can't think of any that have. Rome, founded in 475 BC, lasted as a Republic until 44 BC when Ceasar took over. It then lasted as an empire another 500 years. Half of it then devolved, while the other half lasted up to the time of the Crusades in the 1100's. A run of 1500 years is pretty damn good for a nation of any sort. Considering we likely won't make it to 300, let along 400 years as a Republic in any fashion, we likely won't be as lucky. > > > > > > Clearly smaller government isn't of itself always better > government. > > > > Brett Paatsch > > Not clearly. In the technologically advanced part of > the world, the national-level governments do too much > and cost too much. Common defense and road building > is all they really need at that level. The rest of > the stuff can be governed at a sublevel, such as the > American states, where we proles have a choice to > live there or in another competing state. Competition > forces state governments to optimize themselves. Not nearly enough. The US Revolution was started over a tax of a fraction of a percent. Rome's tax burden was about 5% (and that was thought extortionate at the time). The 40-60% average per capita tax burden we pay today is far beyond sharing or paying ones fair share: it is quite clearly extortionate, it is slavery, but it has crept up so slowly that most all people have not noticed the boiling water. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 18 22:21:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050418222108.46345.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On 4/18/05, wrote: > > Not clearly. In the technologically advanced part of > > the world, the national-level governments do too much > > and cost too much. Common defense and road building > > is all they really need at that level. The rest of > > the stuff can be governed at a sublevel, such as the > > American states, where we proles have a choice to > > live there or in another competing state. Competition > > forces state governments to optimize themselves. > > > > Nice idea. Many practical difficulties (as usual with neat political > theories). Only if one is intent on choosing one's state citizenship day by day or week by week. Living on a state boundary is generally sufficient, because so far as the state is concerned, it measures its customer satisfaction demographically. If your residents go shopping in other states, your sales taxes are too high. If people try to register their vehicles elsewhere, your licensing fees are too high. If people try to earn and keep their income out of state, your income taxes are too high. If more people move out of state than move in, you have a lot of work to do in many areas. Voting with your feet is a time honored American tradition. Europe doesn't seem to have quite figured this out, though some have. > > Outside USA moving to a different system involves big costs. Usually > learning a new language, new customs, new social behaviours, new job, > new schools, new tv programs, new everything, really. I haven't > noticed countries changing much because their neighbour does things a > different way. Anti-smuggling laws, border patrols, fines, keep the > proles in order mostly. Thank goodness for Fox News. In a dozen years, you will all be able to speak Red State English (it works, I know some Iranians who have perfect American accents and have never been far from Tehran), then all you have to do is adopt the US Constitution, start wearing pistols on your hips, and the United States of Earth will be starting off on the right track. > > Even in the USA, what you really want is to live near the junction of > about four states, where you can work in one state, go to school in > another state, go to hospital in yet another state, invest in > another state, and holiday in Florida. Not necessary. I live in the free state, and am currently working in Florida for a few months. I've worked across state borders a number of times. In almost every case, one side knew it was in better shape and why, while the otherside knew it was getting screwed but had little political clout to change things in a distant state capital that got its dog wagged by whoever was getting the most money out of the system. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Mon Apr 18 23:02:28 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:02:28 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050418212123.57530.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050418212123.57530.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42643C84.5020706@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >If people realized they didn't owe it, we could do that overnight (see >http://www.861.info). > Indeed. Unfortunately for your cause, if enough people get put in jail for tax evasion by following that site's advice (see http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=120803,00.html), that's only going to increase the size of government (see http://www.bop.gov). Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 18 23:27:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050418232733.85184.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >If people realized they didn't owe it, we could do that overnight > (see > >http://www.861.info). > > > > Indeed. Unfortunately for your cause, if enough people get put in > jail > for tax evasion by following that site's advice (see > http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=120803,00.html), that's > only > going to increase the size of government (see http://www.bop.gov). > > Joseph > Sorry, Joseph, but that site says nothing about anything listed on the 'dirty dozen'. The 861 argument is that the tax code as written is entirely legal, as written and according to the definitions of words *as defined* in the code, which exempts most people from the tax. It is a very convincing argument when you look at in its entirety. I suggest getting a copy of Larken Rose's "Theft By Deception" from his website (downloaded for free, btw, so there is no chance it is a 'scam' if nobody is profiting from its distribution). While Larken has just been indicted, he was so for not filing a return, after ten years of not doing so, and only because he took out full page ads in national publications challenging the IRS to do so. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From megao at sasktel.net Mon Apr 18 22:44:08 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:44:08 -0500 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050418212123.57530.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050418212123.57530.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42643838.609@sasktel.net> The question is does the commonly pooled money actually go just to creating commonly held things like public domain technological development, socials support employment and education safety nets, and universally acessible infrastructure or is it pissed away elsewhere for no good reason. We here in Canada saw a billion spent for a national gun registry which simple RFID tracking will make obselete. We are overpoliced and under protected. We are now in the midst of a government corruption scandal that will see another 250 million $ election just to change the color of the rats on the deck in the next month or so. Hundreds of millions went into a scam based on national unity which saw tens of millions funnelled to political friends for work not done or done for no earthly good reason...that being the cause of the election. We have millions spent to fight pot, while drug companies spend millions to market pharma from pot, we have govt trying to be into all parts of this thinking it can scam jobs and work for its own ballooning civil service on both sides of every fence and achieving something just short of chaos as near as anybody looking at the entire picture can see. And I could go on ... but that would be just a waste of valuable minutes of my life. An electronically tracked transparent government process may happen soon...... but not soon enough for me. Good AI, Grid based information exchange, RFID and other integrated total information awareness that is transparent to all individuals would be a step in the right direction. Without secrets you don't need very much much law enforcement. > > > > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05 From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 19 00:03:16 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The courts determine the law (was Re: Small government) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419000316.66273.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Indeed. Unfortunately for your cause, if enough people get put in > > jail > > for tax evasion by following that site's advice (see > > http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=120803,00.html), that's > > only > > going to increase the size of government (see http://www.bop.gov). > > Sorry, Joseph, but that site says nothing about anything listed on > the > 'dirty dozen'. The 861 argument is that the tax code as written is > entirely legal, as written and according to the definitions of words > *as defined* in the code, which exempts most people from the tax. Unfortunately, it relies on a certain interpretation of the tax code that differs from the courts'. The law that is in effect is the law *as the courts interpret it*, and the courts have rather clearly ruled that most citizens with income do indeed have to pay income tax. It doesn't matter what the law "should be". It doesn't even matter what you think the law is. It matters what the courts think the law is. Fundamentally, all law in practice comes down to what the people who enforce it think it is; changing government and the law consists, first and foremost, of changing their opinions rather than of slipping through whatever loopholes one may find lying around (even if those loopholes do exist, and can be used on occasion to excuse certain narrow cases). Unless you can prove that the government does not interpret and enforce its own laws, then you have nothing to argue for, and simply not paying tax really does make you a common criminal - no matter your intent, or what you think the law is or should be. The legal code is not actually as hard and concrete as computer code. (Yet. People are working on it - see the computer-aided traffic court judges in Brazil a few years back. But that's trivial scale compared to what you're looking for.) From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Apr 19 00:05:26 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:05:26 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050418232733.85184.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050418232733.85184.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42644B46.2070504@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >While Larken has just been indicted, he was so for not filing a return, >after ten years of not doing so, and only because he took out full page >ads in national publications challenging the IRS to do so. > > Mmm-hmm. Perhaps a review of http://www.quatlosers.com/larken_rose.htm is in order. In it you'll note that not only is the whole "861 scam" bunkum, but also that folks who use it get indicted (texts of specific cases and links on the above link) and put in jail. I realize that hatred of the Federal (and, presumably, state and local) government is an article of faith for you, but sweet Reason, man, don't glom on to every dime-a-dozen con-artist who comes along merely because they parrot your ideology. Even better; have you tried telling the IRS that you don't owe any taxes yet? Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 00:25:35 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat] re: embedded inopen hearts (Meta/EP)) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419002535.72966.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > How in practice is there a difference between the > behaviour of an > 'immortalist' that lives for an overwhelming love of > life and one that > lives for a fear of death? My point is that the behavior of the "love" immortalists will be less risk averse (i.e. risk-neutral or maybe risk-seeking) than that of "fear" immortalists. For example, would you undergo a hypothetical medical procedure that may, 50% kill you immediately, or 50% allow you to age so slowly as to live 1000 years? I would posit that the "love" immortalists would be more likely to undergo such a procedure. > Provided that both have children I'm not sure that > evolution could > tell the difference. But at this stage its probably > too early to tell. I don't see how evolution is relevant to the risk-handling psychology of immortalists. Are you asking whether love or fear is a more evolutionarily stable strategy? I was talking more on a smaller scale over the lifetime of a single individual for example. > Do you think the former is more likely to choose to > die or to be > killed rather than give up on, or defect over, > something that makes > life worth living? If so, like what for instance? I can imagine several situations. Self-determinism for one thing. i.e. right to choose the path of ones own life. For example the very right to be immortal in the first place falls into this category. I think the first few immortals (I actually dislike that term but negligent senescence and perma-life are more cumbersome- maybe methuselahs?) will undergo quite a bit of fear, intolerance, and persecution by the "normals" and the luddites. This means that some "brave" cosmophillic (all-loving) immortalists might achieve agelessness only to be killed by the peasants with pitchforks. Whilst other risk-averse necrophobic (death-fearing)immortalists may elect not to become ageless at all for fear of reprisals from the "normals" or in the case of the hypothetical medical procedure discussed above, simple fear of premature death. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 19 00:49:07 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419004907.54203.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Even better; have you tried telling the IRS that you don't owe any > taxes > yet? I did. They agreed. :) Of course, the secret is by citing all kinds of investments and expenditures I've done, which the government agreed are good and worthy of tax deductions, including business expenses (related to development of certain >H techs in my case, although running experiments in better ways to govern - which the current government could be encouraged to adapt and use, at least once the experiments prove that a given method works better than what's currently being used - might also count). Play the system. Game the system. Know what they truly mean, and align them to your philosophy. If it's truly a good one (not just "down with the government", but "replace this bit of the government with that system, and here's exactly how it will serve the citizens better and here's evidence that I'm not just making this up", for example), there's a good chance they'll allow money spent defending and developing it to count in place of money that would go to them to defend and develop the current alternatives. From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Apr 19 00:52:42 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:52:42 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050419004907.54203.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050419004907.54203.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4264565A.4050902@humanenhancement.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > >>Even better; have you tried telling the IRS that you don't owe any >>taxes >>yet? >> >> > >I did. They agreed. :) > > You know what I mean. If you follow Mike's advice, that nobody owes taxes because of some cockamammey tortured legal argument that nobody believes, you're going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit. Managing deductions and exploiting acknowledged loopholes in the tax code is not what we're talking about. You follow the advice on the website Mike recommended, you're breaking the law. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 19 01:08:02 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > You know what I mean. Yeah, yeah. :P > If you follow Mike's advice, that nobody owes taxes because of some > cockamammey tortured legal argument that nobody believes, you're > going > to be wearing an orange jumpsuit. Managing deductions and exploiting > acknowledged loopholes in the tax code is not what we're talking > about. > > You follow the advice on the website Mike recommended, you're > breaking > the law. Yep. I'm in full agreement there. But you missed the philosophy part of my post: rather than view the government as this big nasty evil thing that needs to be fought against and overthrown, you can get better results - in terms of better understanding exactly WHY you're fighting against the government, and in delivering to the people something that really is better than the government we have today - by finding ways to exploit the government. People with mostly our same aims have, over the past two centuries, infiltrated the government and set up exceptions, allowances, and other things for us to take advantage of. It would be a shame not to use them. To take a more physical analogy: why fight security when you can just badge right through it, using the badge that's been hidden away for someone just like you, on the way to the hearing to get security defunded? Kill a cop, they train another one. Remove an entire corrupt police department from the payroll, and it doesn't come back. One can't defeat government on one's own. But one can take advantage of the sabotage that sympathizers have put in place. Lots of people, many of whom do not know each other and never will, but all working together to ensure a better tomorrow... ...oh, wait, that's what the government's supposed to be, isn't it? From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Apr 19 01:08:49 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:38:49 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed! In-Reply-To: <20050418095826.GI21209@leitl.org> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222204.01cd24d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050417233627.01ceda18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20050418095826.GI21209@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc05041818081a36d50c@mail.gmail.com> I didn't know you'd joined the moral minority, Eugen. I thought those machines were just for the moccacino set. They always look sexy on the movies (you know, those nifty silver laptops with a luminescent logo), but I've never known anyone to use one in real life. How's the apple experience? ----- btw, I just found Apple on www.lovemarks.com. Here's an excerpt from lovemarks.com: "The Future of Brands Brands have run out of juice. More and more people in the world have grown to expect great performance from products, services and experiences. And most often, we get it. Cars start first time, the fries are always crisp, dishes shine. Five years ago Saatchi & Saatchi looked closely at the question: What makes some brands inspirational, while others struggle? And we came up with the answer: Lovemarks. A future beyond brands." This is the really evil marketing stuff, people. Have a look at the site, but remember that *only sentients can love you*. Brands never love you back! Anyway, Apple is a featured brand, go here: http://www.lovemarks.com/lm/read.php?LID=207&collection=11#Scene_1 ). Emlyn On 18/04/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:47:33AM +0100, BillK wrote: > > > Keeping Windows running is gradually becoming more and more of a > > hassle. You need hardware firewall, software firewall, anti-virus > > software, several anti-spyware packages (one isn't enough), > > One shudders to think how many people would go out of business if > Redmond would start shipping well-engineered systems. > > > anti-trojan software, watchdog-type software (to stop unauthorised > > changes to your software), registry cleaners, rubbish files cleanup > > software, the list goes on... And once you have all this, you then > > have the ongoing task of keeping it all up-to-date. > > Or you could just order http://www.apple.com/macmini/ with Tiger (announced, > about to ship) and 0.5..1 GByte RAM. Much less pain. > > I wouldn't recommend Linux for the average user, especially average user with > a good taste. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * (my real website is back, music, software, everything!) From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Apr 19 01:25:27 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42645E07.3090401@humanenhancement.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >One can't defeat government on one's own. > > I think that's the problem right there; the idea that government is something to be "defeated". With all due apologies to the ultra-libertarians who are known to inhabit this list, I believe government has legitimate functions beyond enforcing contracts and national defense (at least until the advent of the PostHuman era, when every individual could and will have the capabilities of a modern nation in terms of defense and production), and from a practical standpoint the view is even grimmer (libertarians habitually get under 3% of the votes in most places in the USA, and I daresay the fact that there are outright socialist governments in other parts of the world points to the lack of libertarian success overseas). Would I like less government? Sure. Would I like to pay less taxes to fund less government? Of course. Do I want to "defeat government"? Nope, and people who do are either anarchists, whackos, or (most likely) both. And they most certainly won't succeed. And I want to succeed. If we don't, we're toast. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Apr 19 02:22:44 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:22:44 +1000 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? References: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> <42645E07.3090401@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <017f01c54486$abec3e60$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Joseph Bloch wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >>One can't defeat government on one's own. >> > > I think that's the problem right there; the idea that government is > something to be "defeated". > ... I believe government has legitimate functions beyond > enforcing contracts and national defense (at least until the advent > of the PostHuman era, ....), and from a practical standpoint the > view is even grimmer ... > Would I like less government? Sure. Would I like to pay less taxes > to fund less government? Of course. Do I want to "defeat > government"? Nope, and people who do are either anarchists, > whackos, or (most likely) both. And they most certainly won't > succeed. > > And I want to succeed. If we don't, we're toast. So without "defeating government" how "practically" do you plan to "succeed" and so avoid becoming "toast"? By conventional standards individuals that do "succeed", still become toast by most standards of a "PostHumen era" I have heard of. Bill Gates, George Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, these are the names of "successful" human *mortals*. Do you think a "PostHuman era" can emerge with existing governments in place? I think technological change will change the nature of governments but the rate of change that is technologically possible will be greatly reduced by the fact of government. That is not meant to be an anti- government statement, just an observation on a reality of the landscape. Unless the "PostHuman era" is reduced down to something more politically deliverable like "incremental change", I don't think national governments can deliver a PostHuman era within the lifetime of anyone on this list (say within a 100 years). Talk of a PostHuman era that involves more than incremental change is likely to look to most national governments pretty much like talk of ultra-libertarians seems to look to you. Unrealistic and to the extent that it is realistic dangerous to the existing order. My point is a simple one. The amount of change that PostHuman aspirants want to achieve in their lifetimes has to take place within something less than 25 Presidential elections of four years. Patents are usually granted for about 17 years. So in a 100 years maybe 6 generations of patented products will come and go. The amount of technological change that can be squeezed through existing systems of government to produce radically longer lifespans without rending the social fabric is limited. Either the social fabric will be torn or the technological rate of change will not be permitted to go as fast as this generation of mortals would want it to for them to be "immortal", or even have lifespans of hundred of years. Or perhaps both the social fabric will be torn AND the rate of technological development will be slowed. Countries that allow some of their populations to have lifespans of hundred of years whilst vast numbers of others in their populations continue to die will be countries with massive internal political problems. Brett Paatsch From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Tue Apr 19 02:49:25 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:49:25 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <017f01c54486$abec3e60$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> <42645E07.3090401@humanenhancement.com> <017f01c54486$abec3e60$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <426471B5.7000608@humanenhancement.com> Brett Paatsch wrote: > Do you think a "PostHuman era" can emerge with existing governments > in place? > Do you think it cannot? How do you envision bringing it about? Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 04:21:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419042106.94075.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >While Larken has just been indicted, he was so for not filing a > return, > >after ten years of not doing so, and only because he took out full > page > >ads in national publications challenging the IRS to do so. > > > > > > Mmm-hmm. Perhaps a review of > http://www.quatlosers.com/larken_rose.htm > is in order. In it you'll note that not only is the whole "861 scam" > bunkum, but also that folks who use it get indicted (texts of > specific cases and links on the above link) and put in jail. You are lying here, because noplace on the referenced site does it say anyone has gone to jail. It does reference several tax court cases that have ruled that 861 arguments are frivolous, however even IRS's own regulations say that lower court rulings are not binding tax law, only Supreme Court rulings are, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the 861 argument. What is so laughable about the page you link is that quatloose depends so much on the claims of Erwin Schiff, a person they, elsewhere on their site, totally demolish as having any valid arguments. They can't have their cake and eat it. They can't use him as their primary reference if he is not a credible expert on what tax code actually says and means in other parts of their site. > > I realize that hatred of the Federal (and, presumably, state and > local) government is an article of faith for you, but sweet Reason, > man, don't glom on to every dime-a-dozen con-artist who comes along > merely because they parrot your ideology. I don't 'glom on', thanks anyways, as you seem to have glommed onto quatloose as the be-all-end-all reference site for statists. I'm patiently waiting to see what Rose has missed. I'm also looking at Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" to see what happens with him. All that said, just because a tax court (not a real court, because the judges in tax court are paid a bonus to convict, and keep half of all 'frivolous' penalties levied, which I'll bet you weren't aware of) says an argument is 'frivolous' doesn't mean anything other than the government doesn't want to talk about it. > > Even better; have you tried telling the IRS that you don't owe any > taxes yet? My relationship with the IRS is a private matter as per the Privacy Act of 1974. I am under no obligation to disclose anything or incriminate myself. As I have said before, people who openly challenge the IRS alone get targeted for legal action, no matter what the validity of their arguments are. Thousands of people every year write letters to the IRS asking how to determine their taxable income and not one has been responded to yet, despite it being the IRS' job to do so. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 04:27:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419042708.66597.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > You know what I mean. > > If you follow Mike's advice, that nobody owes taxes because of some > cockamammey tortured legal argument that nobody believes, you're > going > to be wearing an orange jumpsuit. Managing deductions and exploiting > acknowledged loopholes in the tax code is not what we're talking > about. > > You follow the advice on the website Mike recommended, you're > breaking the law. This is an absolute lie, the second you've told in this thread. What the site specifically advocates is that you follow the exact letter of the IRS code, according to the definitions of the words in the code that are specifically defined within the code. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Tue Apr 19 04:23:05 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:23:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interview of Ray Kurzweil by Cory Doctorow in Asimov mag Message-ID: <20050419041847.M58061@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> (I don't know if this has been brought up here yet) from BoingBoing: "This month's Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine has a long interview I did with AI pioneer Ray Kurzweil, who invented optical character recognition, cured his own diabetes, and is now planning to live forever. The good folks at Asimov's were good enough to put the full text of the interview online, too. " Interview of Ray Kurzweil by Cory Doctorow in Asimov mag http://asimovs.com/_issue_0506/thoughtexperiments.shtml Amara From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 04:36:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419043606.69237.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > I think that's the problem right there; the idea that government is > something to be "defeated". > > With all due apologies to the ultra-libertarians who are known to > inhabit this list, I believe government has legitimate functions > beyond enforcing contracts and national defense (at least until > the advent of the PostHuman era, when every individual could and > will have the capabilities of a modern nation in terms of defense > and production), and > from a practical standpoint the view is even grimmer (libertarians > habitually get under 3% of the votes in most places in the USA, and I > daresay the fact that there are outright socialist governments in > other parts of the world points to the lack of libertarian success > overseas). > > Would I like less government? Sure. Would I like to pay less taxes to > fund less government? Of course. Do I want to "defeat government"? > Nope, and people who do are either anarchists, whackos, or (most > likely) both. And they most certainly won't succeed. > > And I want to succeed. If we don't, we're toast. You want to succeed at what? Socialist/statist transhumanism will clearly result in a Borg society that makes the world of Orwell seem like a paradise in comparison. We only have 30 years to devolve the governments that exist enough to prevent this from happening. Continuing to think that government is needed in this age will only perpetuate the fear, greed, and evil that has held up progress to date. So what do you intend to succeed at? Becoming a Ruling Party Member? Be a member of the Inner Party, so you get to decide who goes off to the disassembly plants or reeducation camps? Do you intend to be the dictator who decides who gets uploaded or not? What is needed right now are people intent on devolving government, and learning how to be sovereign individuals in everything they do. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Apr 19 04:43:05 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:43:05 +1000 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? References: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> <42645E07.3090401@humanenhancement.com><017f01c54486$abec3e60$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <426471B5.7000608@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <019801c5449a$46b55b30$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Joseph Bloch wrote: > Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> Do you think a "PostHuman era" can emerge with existing governments >> in place? >> > > Do you think it cannot? Yes I think it cannot. I think a PostHuman era and existing governments are incompatible. Existing governments would oppose a PostHuman era emerging without even noticing that they were doing so unless PostHuman advocates became violent or directly threatening to it, then they'd oppose it knowing that they did so. > How do you envision bringing it about? I don't envisage it. I envisage a lot more history largely as usual. I think that national democracies of the sort that exist in the US constitute something of an evolutionary local peak. But the peak isn't going to be high enough to get to a PostHuman era. Unfortunately, my best guess is that humanity will go backwards before it goes forwards again. I think the US threw away the rule book when it invaded Iraq and that that fundamentally changed world politics for the worse because the US was and is in fact the world leader in the ways that matter. I think the US 'defected' in game theory terms at the UN and it was seen to 'defect'. Then I think the US voters validated the defection by re-electing the Bush government. The Australian voters did the same here with the Howard government. The Brits will probably do the same with the Blair government on 5 May. I think all of these things were done as a result of agents pursuing their self interest (but sub-optimally). But that they were done in front of the whole world in the media is significant to me. I think that educated populations of the west, regardless of their political affiliations, saw that the 'defect' happened and that the defector got away with it. They voted for mortages or other issues, so the voters got to make choices in their own self interest but only very narrow, very constrained ones. I think rational people in the western countries or just people in countries with media are as a consequence more likely to draw the conclusion that they are living in a human world where 'nasty' strategies such as Always Defect rather than 'nice' but retaliatory strategies like Tit for Tat. Everybody is on the make. Everybody is trying to outgame everyone else. I'd *like* to be wrong on this. I know that I am drawing a long bow. But wrong or not, that is what I think at present. I think we're looking at a lot more war, because we haven't evolved out of it yet and more of us are trying 'nasty' strategies. Our national voters are too dumb (to move us to a PostHuman era or anything else that involve some short term pain) and as a consequence so are the political leaders they elect. These opinions are entirely my own. And they could be wrong. Brett Paatsch From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Apr 19 05:34:11 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:34:11 -0400 Subject: Risk averse imortalists? (was Re: [extropy-chat]re:embedded in open hearts (Meta/EP)) In-Reply-To: <00b501c543f7$c9e72900$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <20050412170236.E01FA57EE7@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20050414215724.03456ec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050415195902.04974620@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050418234448.03485ec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:19 PM 18/04/05 +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: >Keith Henson wrote snip >>>Why pick a fight with scientology Keith? >> >>They picked the fight. Look up what Helena Kobrin did in early >>1995. I have sometimes likened this provocation to a gang of thugs >>riding into a small US town and burning down the newspaper. > >I did look it up. And I see that you use the 'gang of thugs' phrase in your >paper on cults at the bottom. But the fight they picked wasn't with you >personally. You personally didn't have to respond to the gang of thugs, >you personally could have kept your head down. Only if I were a different person. >>>Were you not using *rational* self-interest at the time? >> >>Over the course of the last 20 years I have come to the conclusion >>that people are not rational. Of course they do rationalize. > >The way you answer this suggests that you are including yourself in the >set of people that are not rational but that do rationalize. > >I can respect the honesty and humility in that, but how can you know >whether you are rationalising at too low a level? After all memeoids >rationalise too. You don't seem to want to be a memeoid. Do you >think that it is ever *rational* to totally self-sacrifice or does such a >thing necessarily make one a memeoid to the value they think they are >serving? "Total self-sacrifice" would have been to report to jail after I had been told by the parole officer that the case against me was political in nature and that my chances of getting out of jail without being killed or badly injured were poor. Of course later a PI who looked into the jury list and could not find any concluded that the jury notices had been diverted to scientologists. Between a rigged jury and a judge in their pocket (now dead) and a DA who is hiding out in Idaho it was an interesting travesty. Of course the most interesting thing is that the scientology witnesses against me were put into scientology's punishment program (the RPF) and have been locked up for the last 4 years. (Search Ken Hoden and RPF Insider on Google groups.) >I think that quite a lot of 'immortalists' would hold, but for political and >social reasons few would be willing to say that, yes, ultimately, a total >self-sacrifice is an irrational act because the basis for valuing anything >else goes when the self goes. That might be true for rational immoralists. But there aren't any, we didn't evolve that way. People got old and died, the genes marched on and shaped our minds to value the survival of the tribe more than our own value. If you go through the history, the thing that really got the scientology cult on me was posting an instruction manual for criminal activity. At the time I did it, I had no idea of the depth of the corruption in the courts or how easy it would be for a "religion" to claim commercial damages in the courts and get away with it, or even the fact that the cult had crushed the IRS (in 1991) under the weight of over 2000 lawsuits and blackmailing the commissioner. And if you look at the timing of when I did this, it was coming to the defense of another "tribe member." The same can be said of the summer I picketed the cult's desert compound over the two young women they killed there that spring. Of course figuring out my motivations was post hoc, at the time I didn't know enough EP to have understood why I was motivated the way I was. I now do, but I suspect it wouldn't have made any difference. I am also aware that I am a 6 standards out person in several directions. (Anyone who is in cryonics is "one in a million," 6 sigma) I am the person who breaks into a neighbors house to put out a fire, and learned how to put cryonics patients on cardiac bypass. "Someone has to do it" is my theme song, even when it involved HIV contaminate blood up to the elbows. http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=1621 The well known saying ?All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing? is usually attributed to Edmund Burke. It seem to be a pseudo quote, http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html, and perhaps trite, but there is an element of truth to it. I am in truth too lazy to be a real tribal leader, but I am the sort who takes over and organizes things when something awful happens. Kind of a reserve alpha. >>>Did you bite off more than you knew? >> >>Yes. >> >>>Was it a stand on principle? >> >>Yes. >> >>>If so what principle? >> >>Freedom of speech. > >Thank you for defending that principle. > >>There were other factors involved, several of them, and they all >>step from roots in the deep tribal past. > >I'm not so sure about the deep tribal past stuff though. Obviously a >common deep tribal past is shared by everyone here now or we >wouldn't be here. But why would natural selection have stopped >selecting way back in the deep tribal past rather than when our >parents were exercising their judgement about with whom they >would mate? Ever generation has spinsters and bachelors and >people that do not live long enough to have children. Isn't that still >natural selection? Sure. And it is not like evolution switched off with agriculture. The selection is somewhat different over the past ten thousand years, perhaps favoring psychological traits that were of little use in a nomadic hunter gatherer tribe. But evolution is usually a slow process. You don't negate a million year history of hunter gatherer selection in 10k years. >Dawkins talks of the extended phenotype. Do you think that >rationality itself is an extended phenotype? No. >>>It has occurred to me, as it appears to have occurred to Samantha >>>that perhaps those that know they are going to die sooner or later, >>>are more willing to fight, and even to die sooner in defence of >>>something, some other value than themselves. >> >>An equally valid rationalization would be that people who think they are >>going to be around an extremely long time are concerned with nipping >>nasty social organizations early before they haunt you for eternity. A >>world run like scientology would be a very nasty place to try to live a >>long time. They do what LRH told them, and one of the things he told >>them would result in an extremely large number of deaths. > >There are plenty of examples of memeoids that are willing to totally >self sacrifice though. Christianity and other religions have been around >for 2000 years. > >In comparison are there any 'immortalists' who have ever willingly and >knowingly totally self-sacrificed for a principle like freedom of speech? Lots of them if you count people who became "immortal" by the only ways available to them pre cryonics. (The only way was to do something where your memory would live on in other minds.) Consider Leonidas. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~sparta/topics/essays/academic/golding.htm "I came to myself in a great stillness, to find that I was standing by the little mound. This is the mound of Leonidas, with its dust and rank grass, its flowers and lizards, its stones, scruffy laurels and hot gusts of wind. I knew now that something real happened here. It is not just that the human spirit reacts directly and beyond all argument to a story of sacrifice and courage, as a wine glass must vibrate to the sound of a violin. It is also because, way back and at the hundredth remove, that company stood right in the line of history. A little of Leonidas lies in the fact that I can go where I like and write what I like. He contributed to set us free. "Climbing to the top of that mound by the uneven, winding path, I came on the epitaph, newly cut in stone. It is an ancient epitaph though the stone is new. It is famous for its reticence and simplicity?has been translated a hundred times but can only be paraphrased: "'Stranger, tell the Spartans that we behaved as they would wish us to, and are buried here.'" snip Keith Henson PS. Real immortalists try not to get killed, but they kick butt and take risks as required. If they get killed, that's what happens when you take risks. A risk free life lacks flavor. From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 19 05:36:02 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:36:02 -0700 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <019801c5449a$46b55b30$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <200504190536.j3J5a1227237@tick.javien.com> > Brett Paatsch > Subject: Re: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? ... > I think the US 'defected' in game theory terms at the UN and it was > seen to 'defect'... Brett I read and reread your post but I don't think I understand it. > Then I think the US voters validated the defection > by re-electing the Bush government. The Australian voters did the same > here with the Howard government... > > But that they were done in front of the whole world in the media is > significant to me. ... In front of the whole world in the media? > ...They voted for mortages or other issues... Voted for mortages? What is that? Did you mean mortgages? How did they vote for mortgages? > Brett Paatsch Do explain in the light of the successful election recently in Iraq. Were the Iraqis defecting too? Are not the Iraqis on the eve of construction? spike From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Apr 19 07:08:33 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:08:33 +1000 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? References: <200504190536.j3J5a1227237@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <01cf01c544ae$9921e1e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> >> Brett Paatsch >> Subject: Re: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? > ... >> I think the US 'defected' in game theory terms at the UN and it was >> seen to 'defect'... > > Brett I read and reread your post but I don't think I > understand it. My fault. That was unclear. I have posted to this list before my thoughts on UN Resolution 1441. I'll go there again if you are interested Spike but I doubt that you are. The facts are a matter of public record though. In a nutshell the whole permanent security council agreed to resolution 441 including the US and the UK as permanent security council members. That meant that the UN and not the US had been given the power to determine whether an invasion of Iraq would occur by the US itself. In simple terms the US had ceded its sovereign power to invade Iraq unilaterally without UN security council approval. It had ceded part of its power when it signed the UN Charter and it ceded the rest of the power when it signed of on 1441 on the matter of Iraq. The US 'defected' when they refused to be bound by an obligation they had taken on. When they decided under the Bush administration to invade Iraq without an enabling security council resolution authorising them to do so, the US broke faith with the UN. The legal minutae was probably lost on most people but the fact that the US (and allies) invaded to find weapons of mass destruction that ultimately didn't exist was not lost even on the proles. Nor was the view of Kofi Annan, and others, that the invasion was illegal. The US invasion of Iraq was a dishonourable and an illegal act. >> Then I think the US voters validated the defection >> by re-electing the Bush government. The Australian voters did the same >> here with the Howard government... >> >> But that they were done in front of the whole world in the media is >> significant to me. ... > > In front of the whole world in the media? The US approach to the UN, the debate over resolutions, the spin and counter spin put by various countries, then the invasion itself, then the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, all of that took place in front of the world media. >> ...They voted for mortages or other issues... > > Voted for mortages? What is that? Did you mean > mortgages? How did they vote for mortgages? Sorry I did mean mortgages. And the reference probably only applies to the Australian electorate. The Howard government campaigned vigorously and negatively on the basis that they were better economic managers than the opposition. They talked of interest rates always going up under the opposition, even though anyone with any economic understanding (not many unfortunately) knows that interest rates are not determined by governments they are determined by the reserve bank who have a view to the global economy which is largely outside the control of either political party. I said they voted for mortgages but what I should have said was that voters voted for the version of dumbed down political half truth that appealed to them best. >> Brett Paatsch > > Do explain in the light of the successful election > recently in Iraq. Were the Iraqis defecting too? Are > not the Iraqis on the eve of construction? No. The Iraqis are not defecting, not in the terms I was talking about. The surviving Iraqis as a whole (if it makes sense to talk of Iraqis as a whole) may indeed be beneficiaries of the US 'defection' within the security council at the UN. I hope that they are. I hope that Iraq succeeds in becoming a democracy in the middle east. Perhaps future generations will come to regard President Bush as a great visionary and strong leader who acted with the blunt instruments available at the time. I think that he defines the limits of the age though and the relatively low rate of progress we are going to see for some time. I think that there was an opportunity in the UN after resolution 1441 was signed when the US and the world could have been better than this. I think Bush and the US under his watch fumbled the ball. The honourable thing for Bush to have done with the UN was to have dropped out of it if he thought it was faulty. But instead he decided to stay in it, break its rules when they didn't suit, pretend that he wasn't breaking them and then try to turn it into something that he could use. That is what I think the world is seeing now. The Bush government going after the UN to make it into an instrument of US foreign policy. The rule of law is a phrase that we will hear a lot of lip service paid too, but the rule of law is exactly what we don't have. Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Tue Apr 19 08:33:20 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:33:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed! In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05041818081a36d50c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222204.01cd24d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050417233627.01ceda18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20050418095826.GI21209@leitl.org> <710b78fc05041818081a36d50c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050419083320.GG21209@leitl.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:38:49AM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > I didn't know you'd joined the moral minority, Eugen. I thought those > machines were just for the moccacino set. No, both the hardware and software is well engineered (though Apple (okay, Asustec &Co) is prone to some very uneven production quality, so be careful), and some of it is priced very competitively (the G4 iBook and the Mac mini, everything else is way overpriced). And you can always install an open source OS on the hardware, if you're religious that way, or want to run a server (OS X is a mostly desktop OS, despite FreeBSD roots). However, Cupertino has the best UI design people by far, with full hardware acceleration. There isn't anything like that elsewhere yet, whether proprietary, or open source. In terms of server crunch and server stability you have to look elsewhere (if kWh/climate is cheap, Opteron and Power5, most likely). > They always look sexy on the movies (you know, those nifty silver > laptops with a luminescent logo), but I've never known anyone to use > one in real life. How's the apple experience? I'm not really representative, since I only use the browser and the command line (both what OS X has onboard and http://fink.sourceforge.net/ ). > This is the really evil marketing stuff, people. Have a look at the > site, but remember that *only sentients can love you*. Brands never > love you back! Of course marketing is evil. Also: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/R/reality-distortion-field.html -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Apr 19 09:01:35 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:01:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: <20050418204618.41797.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050418204618.41797.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050419090134.GH21209@leitl.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 01:46:18PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On the contrary. Ignoring criminal hackers and other agents of ill > (who would be applauded if they resigned en masse without > replacements), how many of our technically capable people have > settled for a professional life of cleaning up Microsoft's messes? Most of IT professionals make a living feeding on detritus from Redmond. (Admittedly, professional coprophagia is an acquired taste. Uck. Ptui). > What kinds and quantities of good could they do, if that need were not > there and their labors free to serve other industries? 'Tis like the This assumes the people so occupied would be capable of serving other industries, and not be out of job. > buggy whip manufacturers on the eve of the Model T, whose leather and > labors subsequently went on to find other uses that could not > profitably be served while buggy whips were needed. What do you think would be such budding industries, and why would displaced IT people have suitable skills (not all of them are trainable, assuming there's money and incentive to pay for training) to be employable in those local budding industries? > Yes, there would be significant short-term economic dislocations, big > enough to strain our social safety nets. But imagine the computing I'm living right in the middle of an economic dislocation, and given that it's in its second decade it's not that short-term. Prospects are pretty dismal. > applications that would become feasable if you really could trust > stnadard personal computers. Imagine the collapse in bandwidth prices, Who would be paying to write these applications? Such talent is rare, and already well accounted for (but in the developing countries). > and subsequent high availability of bandwidth for everyone, if DDOS > attacks and spam became mostly historical footnotes. (And I'm sure we DDoS and spam have about zero impact on the traffic cost. ISPs are well-equipped to deal even with surging traffic due to P2P, given the postdotcombomb overcapacity. > can all also imagine many other pleasantries if most spam transmitters > simply stopped dead forever tonight.) Would it not be worthwhile? How much does spam cost, some 10 gigabucks/year? I'm not sure we'd notice much economic improvement if spam was suddenly history. > But still, a problem we wished we have (so we could enjoy the things > that come with the problem) is still a problem, and problems generally > need solving. And this problem has a more generic form that we will > face, if our dreams come to pass - and it is a pretty large one. I > wonder, is there a useful way to break down the problem of > transitioning workers and investments, once they have been displaced by > new technologies, into other markets - including and espeicially ones > made possible, or at least profitable, by these same new technologies? You'd do well by identifying these technologies first. Right now, in the old industrial countries there aren't any. Automation is releasing lots of people into the unemployed pool, and we haven't even started yet (financial and postal is hemorrhagic heavily, and logistics is next). Add AI and robotics, and it truly hits the fan. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 19 17:10:49 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419171049.64814.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Mmm-hmm. Perhaps a review of > > http://www.quatlosers.com/larken_rose.htm > > is in order. In it you'll note that not only is the whole "861 > scam" > > bunkum, but also that folks who use it get indicted (texts of > > specific cases and links on the above link) and put in jail. > > You are lying here, because noplace on the referenced site does it > say > anyone has gone to jail. Mike is correct, that site doesn't appear to say that anyone has actually gone to jail. But there are other sites that do, for instance http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/archived_materials.html > So far, 2001 has been a very bad year for those promoting fraudulent > trusts. Just ask the Hendersons. Dorothy Henderson will be spending > the next 11 years at "Club Fed, " no doubt rethinking her mindless > argument that the U.S. government lacks jurisdiction over her and > that IRC Sec. 861 (a provision that applies to foreign taxpayers) > somehow excludes U.S. residents and citizens from our tax laws. [See > the IRS Press Release] The judge was so unimpressed with this > frivolous claim, that when Mrs. Henderson defiantly argued at her > sentencing hearing that she was exempt from taxes, he gave her an > extra 6 months in the pokey! Her husband, George Henderson, received > 6.5 years in jail. > > Both defendants were sentenced to the longest permissible prison term > under the federal sentencing guidelines. In sentencing the > defendants, Judge Burrell stated that they had shown "outright > defiance" and "disrespect for the tax laws of this nation," and that > the only way to deter them from future violations of the law was "to > put them away for as long as the law allows." From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 19 17:59:31 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419175931.78798.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> Do you think a "PostHuman era" can emerge with existing > governments > >> in place? > > > > Do you think it cannot? > > Yes I think it cannot. I think a PostHuman era and existing > governments > are incompatible. Existing governments would oppose a PostHuman era > emerging without even noticing that they were doing so unless > PostHuman > advocates became violent or directly threatening to it, then they'd > oppose > it knowing that they did so. > > > How do you envision bringing it about? > > I don't envisage it. I envisage a lot more history largely as usual. Old saying: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". It might be nice to speculate about ways to get rid of existing governments, but it is *EXTREMELY* important to know at least approximately where you're going before you start trying to go there. Some form of government exists at all times (anarchy, in some cases), ergo if there is a path from where we are to the Singularity, one or more forms of government (possibly transitioning from one to another as needed) will be in place during that path. What type of government would be conducive to bringing the >H era about? Once you have answered that question thoroughly, *then* you can start meaningfully discussing getting rid of the current government in favor of that. Otherwise, chances are anyone getting rid of the current government would just make things worse. (Yes, the current government may lean against >H in many ways, but in many ways they lean in favor of it - for instance the fact that there are public hospitals through which certain cures and medical techniques can be delivered to the population at large. A pure anarchy would get rid of such things, or at least severely disrupt the current hospitals' logistics.) If you can't answer that question, you might want to stop talking about it until you can. Not because I said so, but because it will help you see exactly what about the government you would like to change, and what you really can do about it. (For instance: you see that people are voting for short-sighted interests, and that is putting short-sighted politicians in power. Can you see a way to change things so that most people would vote for long-sighted interests, thus putting long-sighted politicians in power? And if you can, do those ways require abolishing our current government before you put them in place, or is said abolishment instead a probable result of those ways - meaning that you could overthrow the government without fighting it directly?) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 18:51:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <01cf01c544ae$9921e1e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050419185130.88485.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> Brett Paatsch > >> Subject: Re: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? > > ... > >> I think the US 'defected' in game theory terms at the UN and it > was > >> seen to 'defect'... > > > > Brett I read and reread your post but I don't think I > > understand it. > > My fault. That was unclear. I have posted to this list before my > thoughts > on UN Resolution 1441. I'll go there again if you are interested > Spike > but I doubt that you are. The facts are a matter of public record > though. > > In a nutshell the whole permanent security council agreed to > resolution > 441 including the US and the UK as permanent security council > members. That meant that the UN and not the US had been given the > power to determine whether an invasion of Iraq would occur by the US > itself. In simple terms the US had ceded its sovereign power to > invade Iraq unilaterally without UN security council approval. > > It had ceded part of its power when it signed the UN Charter and it > ceded the rest of the power when it signed of on 1441 on the matter > of Iraq. Um, no. Firstly, the UN Charter is very explicit in not barring military action for national defense. Whatever you think about WMD or other potential threats Saddam posed, the reality then was that all members of the security council believed that a) saddam had wmd, and b) he had previously sent a hit squad after Bush I, and c) openly admitted to funding terrorist groups, particularly paying bounties to families of suicide bombers. Ergo, the US never 'ceded' its sovereignty in this. The US has always reserved its rights to act unilaterally or in cooperation with others outside the oversight of the UN. The UN is not a government, it has no sovereignty to claim, as no nation ever granted it any, and no citizens. This is proven by the clear fact that it is impossible for anybody to claim "UN Citizenship", obtain UN passports, nor can individuals pursue redress of grievances through UN tribunals. The Prince of Sealand has more claim to sovereignty than the UN. Unlike the US Constitution, which clearly and unequivocably debarrs states of the union from attacking a foriegn nation, only allowing them to the raising arms if themselves invaded, the UN Charter makes no such restrictions on its members. Nor was 1441 a measure that limited the sovereignty of the nations that voted to consider it and voted for it or against it. Its only impact was on the state it described, Iraq, because only Iraq had committed positive acts in violation of its treaty obligations (the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement). > > The US 'defected' when they refused to be bound by an obligation they > had taken on. When they decided under the Bush administration to > invade Iraq without an enabling security council resolution > authorising them to do so, the US broke faith with the UN. No obligation taken, and tacit consent is not applicable, not just because other nations did not claim any estoppel. > > The legal minutae was probably lost on most people but the fact that > the US (and allies) invaded to find weapons of mass destruction that > ultimately didn't exist was not lost even on the proles. Nor was the > view of Kofi Annan, and others, that the invasion was illegal. > > The US invasion of Iraq was a dishonourable and an illegal act. An execution of a search warrant in support of a subpoena to produce is not an illegal act if it fails to turn up evidence. Destruction of evidence by a perpetrator cannot turn a search warrant execution into a criminal act by police. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 19:07:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419190749.86973.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > Mmm-hmm. Perhaps a review of > > > http://www.quatlosers.com/larken_rose.htm > > > is in order. In it you'll note that not only is the whole "861 > > scam" > > > bunkum, but also that folks who use it get indicted (texts of > > > specific cases and links on the above link) and put in jail. > > > > You are lying here, because noplace on the referenced site does it > > say anyone has gone to jail. > > Mike is correct, that site doesn't appear to say that anyone has > actually gone to jail. But there are other sites that do, for > instance > http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/archived_materials.html > > > So far, 2001 has been a very bad year for those promoting > fraudulent > > trusts. Just ask the Hendersons. Dorothy Henderson will be > spending > > the next 11 years at "Club Fed, " no doubt rethinking her mindless > > argument that the U.S. government lacks jurisdiction over her and > > that IRC Sec. 861 (a provision that applies to foreign taxpayers) > > somehow excludes U.S. residents and citizens from our tax laws. > [See > > the IRS Press Release] The judge was so unimpressed with this > > frivolous claim, that when Mrs. Henderson defiantly argued at her > > sentencing hearing that she was exempt from taxes, he gave her an > > extra 6 months in the pokey! Her husband, George Henderson, > received 6.5 years in jail. > > > > Both defendants were sentenced to the longest permissible prison > term > > under the federal sentencing guidelines. In sentencing the > > defendants, Judge Burrell stated that they had shown "outright > > defiance" and "disrespect for the tax laws of this nation," and > that the only way to deter them from future violations of the law was > "to put them away for as long as the law allows." Sounds like if death were an option, the judge would have personally offed their heads and been proud of it. The problem is that I will bet you that the judge in that case not once read the tax laws he claims to be enforcing, at least not section 861, or the historical copies of the tax code that clearly demonstrate that there has been a concious effort by government tax lawyers to cover up the truth of the 861 argument, by redacting key terms from it (particularly in the 1954 revision), despite Congress clearly saying that the code and its application was not substantially changed in any way. The IRS is clearly operating in political repression mode, because its IMF file on each citizen has a field to indicate whether the person is a "tax protester" or not. One gains this status merely if they call an IRS hotline with questions about doing their taxes. Nor was that judge a judge, he was a tax arbitrator. The Tax Court is not a legitimate court, it is an administrative tribunal. The arbitrator gets paid bonuses for each conviction by the IRS. What is also clear is that the judge is not intent on these citizens 'doing their time', but in putting these people out of public circulation for as long as possible, like Gulag justice. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 19 19:34:35 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419193436.7766.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > What is also clear is that the judge is not intent on these citizens > 'doing their time', but in putting these people out of public > circulation for as long as possible, like Gulag justice. *shrugs* So? That is irrelevant. What matters is the laws as they get enforced, not what they should be. If one seeks to reform a government, one must first acknowledge the reality of that government, and especially what tactics simply won't work no matter how noble their rationale. From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 19 19:50:11 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:50:11 +0100 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050419190749.86973.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050419190749.86973.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/19/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Nor was that judge a judge, he was a tax arbitrator. The Tax Court is > not a legitimate court, it is an administrative tribunal. The > arbitrator gets paid bonuses for each conviction by the IRS. > > What is also clear is that the judge is not intent on these citizens > 'doing their time', but in putting these people out of public > circulation for as long as possible, like Gulag justice. > So the Tax Court is not a 'legitimate court' and the judges are not 'real' judges? But it can fine you and put you in jail for years? Sounds pretty 'real' to me. :) See: THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ Created by Daniel B. Evans One of the FAQ entries deals with the erroneous 861 claims. (At the foot of the FAQ he also links to many other sites about the legal errors of the tax protester movement). Quote: The purpose of this FAQ is to provide concise, authoritative rebuttals to nonsense about the U.S. tax system that is frequently posted in misc.taxes, and on web sites scattered throughout the Internet, by a variety of fanatics, idiots, and dupes, frequently referred to by the courts as "tax protesters". This "FAQ" is therefore not a collection of frequently asked questions, but a collection of frequently made assertions, together with an explanation of why each assertion is false. And the assertions addressed in this FAQ are not merely false, but completely ridiculous, requiring not just ignorance of law and history, but a suspension of logic and reason. In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as "frivolous," "ridiculous," "absurd," "preposterous," or "gibberish." If you don't read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument "frivolous" or "ridiculous." Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges. Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time. That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for "absurd." BillK From bret at bonfireproductions.com Tue Apr 19 20:47:55 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:47:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com> References: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <31294dc0d310142c51a9b5dd02596900@bonfireproductions.com> Hi, I thought I would drop my two cents in the (giant) bucket on the whole EMP thing. - I will try to keep away from the soft stuff, in case I'm not in everyone's killfile yet. =) My understanding is that not all circuits would be harmed in the direct path of an EMP attack. For instance, an active circuit would be damaged over an inactive but powered circuit, and an inactive/powered circuit would be damaged more or before an inactive and unpowered/charged circuit. It is possible in this case to store hardware and power sources separately, and they would be fine. For example a Faraday cage with unpowered/uncharged equipment would most likely be fine. The wave/differential would pass over the structure due to the skin effect. The GWEN network will have no problems functioning in the event of an EMP attack. If we were attacked, the counterattack would be coordinated and go pretty much the same way. Not only did the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen on Fox air with the plot of terrorists flying an airliner into the World Trade Centers, but there is talk about what "Amalgam Virgo One" means among the conspiracy theorists - but I don't want to fan those flames in this venue, if at all. If you want to search for it, knock yourself out. To EMP "the whole US" would require multiple bombs, very high altitude, and would be a huge waste, imho. Lastly, you don't need a nuclear device or high altitude. We EMPed an Iraqi television network during the invasion. I remember a particularly small puff on the tv station building and reports of the proper symptoms for a kilometer radius. It was a class of "flux compression generator." probably wrapped in an mk.84. Cheers! BretK From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Tue Apr 19 21:08:44 2005 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:08:44 -0700 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE031F49B1@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Let's not forget that even if something you do is completely legal within the letter of the law, if the courts are willing to rule that you are acting outside of the law and the police are willing to execute that judgement, it is not really relevant whether the law is being justly adjudicated or not because you will be in jail. Acy Joseph Bloch wrote: > You know what I mean. > > If you follow Mike's advice, that nobody owes taxes because of some > cockamammey tortured legal argument that nobody believes, you're > going > to be wearing an orange jumpsuit. Managing deductions and exploiting > acknowledged loopholes in the tax code is not what we're talking > about. > > You follow the advice on the website Mike recommended, you're > breaking the law. then Mike Lorrey wrote: > This is an absolute lie, the second you've told in this thread. What > the site specifically advocates is that you follow the exact letter of > the IRS code, according to the definitions of the words in the code > that are specifically defined within the code. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 19 21:23:53 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419212353.97841.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 01:46:18PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On the contrary. Ignoring criminal hackers and other agents of ill > > (who would be applauded if they resigned en masse without > > replacements), how many of our technically capable people have > > settled for a professional life of cleaning up Microsoft's messes? > > Most of IT professionals make a living feeding on detritus from > Redmond. > (Admittedly, professional coprophagia is an acquired taste. Uck. > Ptui). My impression is that that overstates things. Yes, there is a large and thriving portion of IT that is based on fixing Microsoft's problems, but I have worked for many companies whose core products or services had nothing to do with Microsoft's offerings, except maybe that sometimes they worked on Windows too. For example, Web services: if you design to be non-browser-specific, which most sites do (although a significant minority build for MSIE only - usually only for a handful of months, until customer complaints point out what a bad idea that is and they have time to redo to be browser-neutral), then you simply don't care what OS the people trying your site are using. (My present employer, http://www.teleo.com/ , is an example of this.) Or take most supercomputing applications (mostly Unix and variants), or most smaller-than-desktop apps (embedded Linux or Palm and derivatives dominate here, to my knowledge). Microsoft rules the desktop computing industry. That's a far cry from all of IT. > > What kinds and quantities of good could they do, if that need were > not > > there and their labors free to serve other industries? 'Tis like > the > > This assumes the people so occupied would be capable of serving > other industries, and not be out of job. I believe that most human beings have the human trait of being adaptable to changing circumstances. Granted, it might be socially wise to tap the profits of new tech to retrain workers made obsolete by the new tech, and perhaps provide temporary unemployment benefits while they are being retrained (limited to limit abuse), once the new tech gains enough momentum that significant numbers of workers are being displaced (so as not to kill new tech before it gets going), but people these days can and do have more than one career over the course of their lives. (And that's before we have radical age extension or immortality.) > > buggy whip manufacturers on the eve of the Model T, whose leather > and > > labors subsequently went on to find other uses that could not > > profitably be served while buggy whips were needed. > > What do you think would be such budding industries, and why would > displaced > IT people have suitable skills (not all of them are trainable, > assuming > there's money and incentive to pay for training) to be employable in > those > local budding industries? These days, to work is to be trainable. Refuse to accept training as one's job changes to require it, and one's skills quickly rot away anyway, causing one to join the ranks of the unemployable. Retarding the progress of technology to keep these people in jobs harms the rest of society by denying everyone the benefits of the new ways. Besides, old needs rarely go away completely (there are still whip manufacturers today), so those who absolutely can not learn new skills can compete for the few remaining jobs while the rest of us move on. Again, given the inevitable shortage of labor in new industries (it's new, so there isn't already a wide pool of labor trained in the new industry's particulars), using the profits (once there are significant profits) to give the displaced the necessary skills seems like the best generally applicable solution. > > Yes, there would be significant short-term economic dislocations, > big > > enough to strain our social safety nets. But imagine the computing > > I'm living right in the middle of an economic dislocation, and given > that it's > in its second decade it's not that short-term. Prospects are pretty > dismal. Which dislocation are you referring to? If you mean the dot-bomb crash, the industry's pretty much recovered by now. Stock prices might not be at the bubble's high, but they are certainly higher than they were before the bubble started. There might not be $100K salaries for people who could crank out a basic HTML page, but those people are employable - if they are willing to accept that that skill isn't actually all that hard (which it never was; there was just a temporary scarcity which drove up prices) or are willing to learn new tricks. Every case I've looked into of a technical worker who "can not" find work, is someone whose skills weren't that advanced, who refuses to acknowledge the current existance of lower-paying jobs for basic skills, and who won't develop their technical skills to meet current demands. (Although it is only partially their fault: there are also a lot of companies who "can not" find skilled technical workers, who could find a number of skilled workers if they'd just up their offered salaries a bit and/or otherwise adjust to the modern realities of telecommuting et al. This doesn't entirely excuse the workers, though.) If you mean another dislocation, I'd have to know which before knowing if I know anything about it. (It could help prove my point, it could disprove it; I don't yet know.) > > applications that would become feasable if you really could trust > > stnadard personal computers. Imagine the collapse in bandwidth > prices, > > Who would be paying to write these applications? Such talent is rare, > and > already well accounted for (but in the developing countries). You mean "but not in the developing countries", right? The talent might be rare, but talent can be nurtured and developed. That would likely be part of retraining in this case. Innate genius, in most cases, is not actually impossible to duplicate, merely impractical by the standards of the time - and standards can change. (Until they do, though, there is often little real difference between "impossible" and "impractical", thus the two get confused a lot.) Imagine, for instance, a blacksmith in the early days of metalworking, who put a year into study of his craft. His works would be considered art by those around him. Now imagine if he were time-teleported a thousand years* into the future, where most blacksmiths apprenticed for a year or more before being considered worthy independent operators. After adjusting for culture shock, he would find his skills merely adequate. * As adjusted for the slow rate of change back then. The modern equivalent would be about 20-40 years, maybe less, certainly within a normal professional career. (Of course, the time-teleport would still prevent someone from building up 20 years of professional experience, which natural buildup is why we don't see this problem much more than we do today.) > > and subsequent high availability of bandwidth for everyone, if DDOS > > attacks and spam became mostly historical footnotes. (And I'm sure > we > > DDoS and spam have about zero impact on the traffic cost. ISPs are > well-equipped to deal even with surging traffic due to P2P, given the > postdotcombomb overcapacity. Last I'd heard, DDOS and spam account for about 2/3rd of an ISP's typical bandwidth costs. Yes, bandwidth is at a low price due to overcapacity, but costs are costs, and the overcapacity would remain if DDOS and spam went away. > > But still, a problem we wished we have (so we could enjoy the > things > > that come with the problem) is still a problem, and problems > generally > > need solving. And this problem has a more generic form that we > will > > face, if our dreams come to pass - and it is a pretty large one. I > > wonder, is there a useful way to break down the problem of > > transitioning workers and investments, once they have been > displaced by > > new technologies, into other markets - including and especially > ones > > made possible, or at least profitable, by these same new > technologies? > > You'd do well by identifying these technologies first. Actually, I was hoping for an approach that would be broadly applicable to most technologies. Identifying things only for a few specific techs doesn't necessarily lead to that, as opposed to identifying examples for specific techs of broad patterns that could apply elsewhere. > Right now, in > the old > industrial countries there aren't any. Automation is releasing lots > of people > into the unemployed pool, and we haven't even started yet (financial > and postal > is hemorrhagic heavily, and logistics is next). > > Add AI and robotics, and it truly hits the fan. Ironic that you should mention those. I'd call applied AI (not basic research into cognition, but actual products and services that can easily prove their immediate financial worth, like trend analysis software when it works) and advanced adaptable robotics (like the Asimo, or rescue & military drones that can largely carry out their operations with nothing more than guidance from home base and a home base to return to afterwards) examples of new technologies that could benefit from having a lot more people working on them. There's also advanced nanofabrication - not just the bulk materials that are the typical "nanoproducts" of today, but actual functional machines and electronic components. I'm working on building one such device myself, and I seem to be inventing my own processes to a degree that you'd never have to do in a mature industry. (That, or I'm reinventing the wheel - but those I talk to in detail about this project, who would know about existing wheel-equivalents, haven't pointed them out to me, so it appears unlikely they're already out there.) I'm doing my best to document my processes so that, if my experiment is successful, it can be replicated elsewhere - but the highly custom state of equipment at the lab I'm doing this at, and the probable equally custom state at other labs that could replicate the experiment, means that any such replication would be difficult to the extreme. (It'd be significant work just to replicate it at the same lab, using the same equipment with the same settings and the same materials...and any such replication could be suspected of being due to undocumented flukes of the lab's equipment, among other possibilities.) But that might be a little too advanced, given the R&D that has to be done before it can be pushed into products on the store shelf. From sentience at pobox.com Tue Apr 19 23:04:48 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:04:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Speaking 4/28 at Neofiles in Mill Valley, CA (north of SF) at 7:30PM Message-ID: <42658E90.9000203@pobox.com> FYI: I'll be speaking in the April Neofiles panel on "The Future of the Future". http://www.life-enhancement.com/neofiles/neoforum.asp The other panelists are Jaron Lanier, David Duncan, and Annalee Newitz. Moderator is Ken Goffman aka RU Sirius. The event is in Mill Valley, north of San Francisco. WHAT: NeoFiles Public Forum - The Future of the Future: the Next 10-30 Years WHERE: Mill Valley Community Center 180 Camino Alto Mill Valley, CA WHEN: 7:30 PM, Thursday April 28 PRICE: $10 at the door E-Mail: rusirius at neofiles.com Phone: 1-707-773-3175 -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hal at finney.org Tue Apr 19 23:43:03 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil - the new Y2K? Message-ID: <20050419234303.09B8857EE6@finney.org> Recently I have been exposed, somewhat belatedly, to the next apocalypse that everyone can lose sleep over: Peak Oil. According to advocates of this principle, we are at or near a peak in worldwide oil production. As demand increases with economic growth, and as major economies like China and India try to develop a middle class life style, any lapse in production growth is going to put an enormous squeeze on the world economy. This will manifest most immediately in shockingly high oil prices that will make today's $50-60/bbl look like nothing. This will be followed by worldwide depression, economic failure, food shortages, riots and ultimately an apocalyptic collapse of civilization. Google on Peak Oil for the gory (literally!) details. I can't help but be reminded of Y2K, which produced a similar litany of collapse and failure. It looked pretty credible at the time, and there were a number of respected experts predicting serious problems. Yet as we know, Y2K passed with barely a blip. Will Peak Oil go the same way? On the one hand, it seems inevitable that we will run out of oil within a few decades at least, forcing a costly transition in our transportation and energy infrastructure. But on the other hand, oil futures prices are moderate, OPEC and oil companies are taking a business as usual attitude and are neither hoarding oil nor drastically increasing exploration efforts, as might be expected if they think it will be worth $100+/bbl in a few years. I'm still educating myself on the matter and don't have a strong opinion, other than that it is clear that most of the web sites involved are presenting biased data, and most of them are trying to sell something. That was also the case with Y2K. This doesn't mean that they are wrong, but it does mean that it is important to look at the facts impartially and unemotionally and not be swayed by personal preferences, hopes or fears. Hal From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 20 01:38:57 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:38:57 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050419042708.66597.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050419042708.66597.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4265B2B1.7090607@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >This is an absolute lie, the second you've told in this thread. What >the site specifically advocates is that you follow the exact letter of >the IRS code, according to the definitions of the words in the code >that are specifically defined within the code. > > Once again, I'm forced to ask. Have YOU done this yet? If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, I find your fanatical endorsement of this tax-evasion-scam somewhat disingenuous. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/9/05) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 01:47:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil - the new Y2K? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420014726.44080.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Will Peak Oil go the same way? On the one hand, it > seems inevitable that > we will run out of oil within a few decades at > least, forcing a costly > transition in our transportation and energy > infrastructure. I do not see this as that big of a catastrophe but I didn't take Y2K seriously either. Yes its inevitable that the world will deplete it's oil reserves shortly. But we already have the technology to deal with this, without having to drastically change our infrastructure. With tech like thermodepolymerization that can make good light crude oil out of sewage or other forms of organic waste and soy-deisel (a process wherby soybean extract is turned into deisel), already proven in principle and patented, I don't see too much cause for alarm. Most especially since Brazil already runs most of its cars on ethanol that it distills from fermented sugar cane. Alchohol burns far cleaner than gasoline, although if I remember correctly, Brazil is required by some treaty or another to spike their alcohol with a small amount of actual gasoline. Especially telling is that the oil companies themselves are not sweating it, most probably because they own the patents on these methods of synthesizing petroleum. Of course they are supressing these technologies until peak-oil does hit because they can already taste the profits they will make when oil hits $100 a barrel. But when they see demand for oil dropping, they will drag these technologies out of the mothballs to increase supply in order to save "the world" which to them means their choke-hold on consumers. Since both of these methods can be used to directly synthesize actual petroleum products, they will not require any retooling of consumer-level machinery. Instead, it will just mean that oil-wells will cease to exist once the existing ones dry out and refineries will have to construct thermodepolymerizers to stay in business. Not that I like the concept of creating oil just to burn it as it doesn't really solve any of the problems associated with the oil-economy in the first place: i.e. pollution, global warming, and all that other stuff that we paranoid, delusional, ulteriorly motivated scientists that DON'T get kick-backs from the oil companies seem to constantly yap about. That being said, civilization (even mighty empires) existed long before there was an "oil economy" or anyone had heard of internal combustion engines. So at worst you may have to pedal a bike to work, plant a vegetable garden, and maybe light a few candles around the house. That hardly constitutes the end of the world, it does not even constitute barbarism unless you consider a very large portion of the world as it is now to be barbaric. Note that I would be willing to recant anything I just said for a sufficiently large bribe from the oil companies . . . any takers? ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 02:19:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420021901.65431.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >This is an absolute lie, the second you've told in this thread. What > >the site specifically advocates is that you follow the exact letter > of > >the IRS code, according to the definitions of the words in the code > >that are specifically defined within the code. > > > Once again, I'm forced to ask. Have YOU done this yet? If you're not > willing to put your money where your mouth is, I find your fanatical > endorsement of this tax-evasion-scam somewhat disingenuous. I find your characterization of my commentary as 'fanatical' to be fantastical, your claim that I endorse it to be wrong (lie number three) and asking someone about their tax relationship with the government is not just rude and offensive (demanding they disclose it is incredibly offensive), it is a logical fallacy. Have you ever happened to have read the fifth amendment? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 20 02:32:49 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:32:49 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050419043606.69237.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050419043606.69237.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4265BF51.3030109@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Socialist/statist transhumanism will >clearly result in a Borg society that makes the world of Orwell seem >like a paradise in comparison. > I am about as far from a socialist as you'll find. Perhaps this doesn't compute in your uber-libertarian mindset, but it is possible to think that government isn't the Ultimate Evil and still not be a socialist. It's precisely that sort of "any government is evil" mentality that consigns libertarianism to the basement of political crankishness. Indeed, even in the vaunted bastion of Libertarianism that is New Hampshire, the Libertarian Party candidate for President got a whopping 372 votes last November (http://www.sos.nh.gov/general%202004/sumpreswins04.htm). If you guys do so pathetically in your stronghold, you're obviously doing something wrong. I might gently suggest that the "something wrong" is your condemnation of everything and anything to do with government. You don't have to be a socialist to realize that government does _some_ (perhaps even many) things right, even while I'm the first to say it doesn't do everything (even most things) right. >What is needed right now are people intent on devolving government, and >learning how to be sovereign individuals in everything they do. > > Oh, sweet Reason! What we need are people intent on figuring out how to bring about our aims with a fully-functioning government in place (whether that means using government, getting around government, or hiding from government), not people looking to some pie-in-the-sky fantasy about some libertarian utopia. Government is NOT going away! Realize that! All your lovely philosphy is dust on the ground compared to the reality of the entire world being controlled by governments of one sort or another. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. I have NO patience for this sort of fantasy, especially when it gets in the way of real, substantive progress. If you're still going on with some Quixotic crusade to "bring down the system" which is doomed to failure, rather than trying to achieve realistic goals in the real world environment in which we find ourselves, then you are doing much more harm than good and should get out of the way of people who are setting realistic goals that might actually get DONE. Apologies to all (well, all except Mike) if I seem somewhat strident. But I've had enough from both socialists and libertarians pursuing pie-in-the-sky fantasies at the expense of truly realizable real-world goals. It's about RESULTS, people! Not just words! Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated tonight!) From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 20 02:45:42 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:45:42 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050420021901.65431.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050420021901.65431.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4265C256.6000803@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >I find your characterization of my commentary as 'fanatical' to be >fantastical, your claim that I endorse it to be wrong (lie number >three) > Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike. Your ongoing claims about my "lies" keep getting busted. Here's bust #3: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > If people realized they didn't owe it, we could do that overnight > (see http://www.861.info). That's from your post on 4/18 at 7:27 PM. You cite the scam website as proof that people don't owe taxes. Yet, people who try it end up in jail. Face it; taxes are legit. But do you put your money where your mouth is? We still don't know... >and asking someone about their tax relationship with the >government is not just rude and offensive (demanding they disclose it >is incredibly offensive), it is a logical fallacy. Have you ever >happened to have read the fifth amendment? > > I'm surprised a libertarian activist such as yourself doesn't realize that the Bill of Rights only limits government actions and not individuals' actions. Or are you also about to claim that the First Amendment lets you say whatever you want on WBZ? I'm just a private citizen, asking a simple question (hardly a "demand", except inasmuch as your evasion undermines your own point about those cockamammie 861 scams). You endorse an Internet tax-evasion scheme, and I ask if you've tried it yourself. It's a simple enough question, Mike, and a simple answer would go a long way towards giving credence to your side of things. But I find your evasiveness to be quite telling. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated tonight!) From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Apr 20 02:48:57 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:48:57 +1000 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? References: <20050419175931.78798.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02c401c54553$7f6fc280$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: >> > Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >> Do you think a "PostHuman era" can emerge with existing >> >> governments in place? >> > >> > Do you think it cannot? >> >> Yes I think it cannot. I think a PostHuman era and existing >> governments are incompatible. Existing governments would >> oppose a PostHuman era emerging without even noticing that >> they were doing so unless PostHuman advocates became violent >> or directly threatening to it, then they'd oppose it knowing that they >> did so. >> >> > How do you envision bringing it about? >> >> I don't envisage it. I envisage a lot more history largely as usual. > > Old saying: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". It might be nice > to speculate about ways to get rid of existing governments, but it is > *EXTREMELY* important to know at least approximately where > you're going before you start trying to go there. Some form of > government exists at all times (anarchy, in some cases), ergo if there > is a path from where we are to the Singularity, one or more forms > of government (possibly transitioning from one to another as needed) > will be in place during that path. What type of government would be > conducive to bringing the >H era about? Why don't you tell me? Perhaps start with what you think the ">H era" is? If your approach makes sense maybe I'll follow it. At the moment so far as I can tell you seem to be saying do whatever you can within the system as it is. ---That is a formula for incremental change only. And essentially change for you only. That is the formula conventionally successful individuals use now. Do you really think that is enough to bring in a >H era ? That was the point of the question after all you seem to be focussing on the part about existing governments. >Otherwise, chances are anyone getting rid of the current government > would just make things worse. (Yes, the current government may > lean against >H in many ways, but in many ways they lean in favor > of it - for instance the fact that there are public hospitals through > which certain cures and medical techniques can be delivered to the > population at large. A pure anarchy would get rid of such things, or > at least severely disrupt the current hospitals' logistics.) Its not just the current government, its the current *system* of government that leans against >H. Voting D or R (in the US) will not change that. Protest voting for a minor party will not change that. I did not suggest anarchy. Perhaps you confuse me with Technotranscendance or someone else. > If you can't answer that question, you might want to stop talking about > it until you can. Not because I said so, but because it will help you > see exactly what about the government you would like to change, and > what you really can do about it. That's rubbish. Identifying problems and suggesting solutions are two distinct things. If you can't see the problem, then that doesn't mean I should shut up about it until I have a solution for you. You may go through your whole life adapting to the system and trying to be successful and never take the time to see the speed limits or upper bounds on success that are built into that system. > (For instance: you see that people are voting for short-sighted > interests, and that is putting short-sighted politicians in power. No the politicians don't have to be short-sighted they just have to be longer sighted than the average voter and better at telling the average voter what the average voter wants to hear than their opponent. > Can you see a way to change things so that most people would vote > for long-sighted interests, thus putting long-sighted politicians in > power? No. Can you? I can see only ways to make incremental change and the whole PostHuman era thing is unweildy excess political baggage for even that more modest aim. > And if you can, do those ways require abolishing our current government > before you put them in place, or is said abolishment instead a probable > result of those ways - meaning that you could overthrow the government > without fighting it directly?) The current government will be replaced at the next election regardless of what I do. The current *system* of government is not something that I think that I can realistically change. It has evolved to be resistant to large scale change. Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 03:05:21 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420030521.60215.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On 4/19/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > Nor was that judge a judge, he was a tax arbitrator. The Tax Court > is > > not a legitimate court, it is an administrative tribunal. The > > arbitrator gets paid bonuses for each conviction by the IRS. > > > > What is also clear is that the judge is not intent on these > citizens > > 'doing their time', but in putting these people out of public > > circulation for as long as possible, like Gulag justice. > > > > So the Tax Court is not a 'legitimate court' and the judges are not > 'real' judges? But it can fine you and put you in jail for years? > Sounds pretty 'real' to me. :) It is the distinction between living under tyranny and living under law. Living under tyranny, the law says whatever judges, or prosecutors, or police, say it means. Living under law means that the law means what the people say it means, because they wrote the law. That our justice system has shifted from the latter to the former does not make it right, or just. When a judge says you broke a law that he has never read, you are not guilty of breaking the law, you are guilty of resisting a tyrant. > > See: > > THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ Created by Daniel B. Evans Daniel B Evans is a member of the United States Tax Court Bar. He is also an estate and trust planner. Obviously, if most Americans, who do not engage in foreign business, or business in US territories, are not liable for income tax, the market for his rather well-paid business would shrink rather precipitously. As for his sense of ethics, his attorney's second most favorite lawyer joke is illuminating: "The Devil appeared to a lawyer and offered him all the worldly wealth and pleasures the lawyer could imagine, provided the lawyer give the Devil his eternal soul and the eternal souls of his wife and children. The lawyer thought about it for a few minutes, then finally said, "Okay, I give up. What's the catch?" " Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From riel at surriel.com Wed Apr 20 03:16:59 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <017f01c54486$abec3e60$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> <42645E07.3090401@humanenhancement.com> <017f01c54486$abec3e60$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Do you think a "PostHuman era" can emerge with existing governments > in place? > > I think technological change will change the nature of governments > but the rate of change that is technologically possible will be greatly > reduced by the fact of government. I expect that government, being what it is, will just be caught unaware by what was going on and transhumanism will have begun before the first law is passed. Kind of like the internet wasn't regulated until it was in place, and still doesn't have much regulation. This despite the fact that ITU members would love to control communications... -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 20 03:17:14 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:17:14 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050420030521.60215.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050420030521.60215.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4265C9BA.5020400@humanenhancement.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Daniel B Evans is a member of the United States Tax Court Bar. He is >also an estate and trust planner. > > Oh, man! I was hoping you were going to launch into a militia-esque screed about how lawyers who use "Esq." after their names can't be citizens or lawyers or some crap (http://familyrightsassociation.com/bin/THINKING/practicing_law_without_a_license.htm). You're starting to disappoint me, Mike. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated tonight!) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 03:19:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420031909.12330.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >Socialist/statist transhumanism will > >clearly result in a Borg society that makes the world of Orwell seem > >like a paradise in comparison. > > > > I am about as far from a socialist as you'll find. Perhaps this > doesn't > compute in your uber-libertarian mindset, but it is possible to think > that government isn't the Ultimate Evil and still not be a socialist. > It's precisely that sort of "any government is evil" mentality that > consigns libertarianism to the basement of political crankishness. So you admit to being a fascist, instead? > > Indeed, even in the vaunted bastion of Libertarianism that is New > Hampshire, the Libertarian Party candidate for President got a > whopping 372 votes last November > (http://www.sos.nh.gov/general%202004/sumpreswins04.htm). If you guys > do > so pathetically in your stronghold, you're obviously doing something > wrong. I might gently suggest that the "something wrong" is your > condemnation of everything and anything to do with government. No, you are, once again, jumping to absurd conclusions based on an inane statist attitude and a severe lack of facts. The candidate did not get on the ballot in NH due to active interference with the ballot petitioning process by the Democrats, as well as a 'too little, too late' lack of support from National for a national candidacy in-state. Our congressional candidate got over 3.5% of the vote in what is normally our weakest congressional district. That was over 11,000 votes, on a campaign budget of under $1000.00 while being blacked out of the media and embargoed from the debates. At the same time, the Democrats shipped in 25,000 supporters from out of state on election day and spent more than $20 million to flip the state from red to blue. > > You don't have to be a socialist to realize that government does > _some_ (perhaps even many) things right, even while I'm the first > to say it doesn't do everything (even most things) right. There is a difference between doing something right and doing it most efficiently AND right. Little government does is done right, and that which is, is done rather wastefully. I look forward to you detailing exactly those things which you believe the government does both right and more efficiently than the private sector. I'm waiting. > > > >What is needed right now are people intent on devolving government, > and > >learning how to be sovereign individuals in everything they do. > > > > > > Oh, sweet Reason! What we need are people intent on figuring out how > to bring about our aims with a fully-functioning government in place > (whether that means using government, getting around government, or > hiding from government), not people looking to some pie-in-the-sky > fantasy about some libertarian utopia. Government is NOT going away! > Realize that! All your lovely philosphy is dust on the ground > compared > to the reality of the entire world being controlled by governments of > one sort or another. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. So long as there are people with your complacent/complicit/collusive attitude, I suppose not. Those of us who still look forward to it have other plans. > > I have NO patience for this sort of fantasy, especially when it gets > in the way of real, substantive progress. If you're still going on > with > some Quixotic crusade to "bring down the system" which is doomed to > failure, rather than trying to achieve realistic goals in the real > world > environment in which we find ourselves, then you are doing much more > harm than good and should get out of the way of people who are > setting realistic goals that might actually get DONE. If you think I'm not trying these things, you obviously have not been paying much attention and just have no idea what you are talking about. I still believe that the US federal government is going to become either an absolute dictatorship, followed by a revolution, or collapse like the USSR, within 4-10 years. > > Apologies to all (well, all except Mike) if I seem somewhat strident. > But I've had enough from both socialists and libertarians pursuing > pie-in-the-sky fantasies at the expense of truly realizable > real-world goals. > > It's about RESULTS, people! Not just words! Ah, so your thing is "making the trains run on time"? Heil der fuhrer! Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 20 03:21:31 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:21:31 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: References: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> <42645E07.3090401@humanenhancement.com> <017f01c54486$abec3e60$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <4265CABB.4030406@humanenhancement.com> I tend to agree. Indeed, I think that it's not just government that's going to be caught unawares, but society and humanity as a whole. One day, folks are going to wake up and notice, "Hey... there are PostHumans running things". Or, equally probably, "Hey... where'd all the Transhumanists go?" Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated tonight!) Rik van Riel wrote: >On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > >>Do you think a "PostHuman era" can emerge with existing governments >>in place? >> >>I think technological change will change the nature of governments >>but the rate of change that is technologically possible will be greatly >>reduced by the fact of government. >> >> > >I expect that government, being what it is, will just be >caught unaware by what was going on and transhumanism >will have begun before the first law is passed. > >Kind of like the internet wasn't regulated until it was >in place, and still doesn't have much regulation. This >despite the fact that ITU members would love to control >communications... > > > From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Apr 20 03:21:49 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:21:49 -0700 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050419185130.88485.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504200321.j3K3Lp226911@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Subject: Re: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? > > > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: ... > > > > In a nutshell the whole permanent security council agreed to > > resolution > > 441 including the US and the UK as permanent security council > > members. ... > > > > It had ceded part of its power when it signed the UN Charter and it > > ceded the rest of the power when it signed of on 1441 on the matter > > of Iraq. ... > Ergo, the US never 'ceded' its sovereignty in this. The US has always > reserved its rights to act unilaterally or in cooperation with others > outside the oversight of the UN... This is what I was thinking too. The UN has not produced anything like a constitution of the united states of earth, anything which guarantees me freedom of speech, of religion, the right to bear arms, any of that. I have no vote for any leaders in the UN. I see nothing in the U.S. constitution that gives the federal government the right to cede any of its sovereignty to any entity such as the UN. The U.S. fed couldn't legally cede any of my rights to that organization even if it wanted to. This is a relief, for the UN appears to be corrupt to the core. I think of the UN as functionally little more than a trade alliance. Of this we can be sure, a central world authority is a bad idea, very bad, for it concentrates too much political power. It's too hard to get to another planet once the inevitable occurs. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 03:23:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420032308.83016.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > I'm surprised a libertarian activist such as yourself doesn't realize > that the Bill of Rights only limits government actions and not > individuals' actions. Or are you also about to claim that the First > Amendment lets you say whatever you want on WBZ? I'm just a private > citizen, asking a simple question (hardly a "demand", except inasmuch > as your evasion undermines your own point about those cockamammie 861 > scams). I have no idea whether you are a private citizen or not, but I also happen to know that there are members of this mail list who are not just private citizens, and the law of the land is "anything you say can and will be used against you". Your insistence that I answer such questions indicates you are a government agent. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 03:26:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420032604.7302.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >Daniel B Evans is a member of the United States Tax Court Bar. He is > >also an estate and trust planner. > > > > Oh, man! I was hoping you were going to launch into a militia-esque > screed about how lawyers who use "Esq." after their names can't be > citizens or lawyers or some crap > (http://familyrightsassociation.com/bin/THINKING/practicing_law_without_a_license.htm). > > You're starting to disappoint me, Mike. I am legally precluded from publicly stating everything I know about Daniel B Evans. You, on the other hand, are a stooge, an infiltrator, and a saboteur. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed Apr 20 03:30:06 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:30:06 -0400 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050420032604.7302.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050420032604.7302.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4265CCBE.2050908@humanenhancement.com> And you, Mike, are a paranoid idiot. Welcome to my twit-filter. My online experience shall be much saner, now, with you removed from it. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated tonight!) Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Joseph Bloch wrote: > > >>Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >> >> >>>Daniel B Evans is a member of the United States Tax Court Bar. He is >>>also an estate and trust planner. >>> >>> >>> >>Oh, man! I was hoping you were going to launch into a militia-esque >>screed about how lawyers who use "Esq." after their names can't be >>citizens or lawyers or some crap >> >> >> >(http://familyrightsassociation.com/bin/THINKING/practicing_law_without_a_license.htm). > > >> >>You're starting to disappoint me, Mike. >> >> > >I am legally precluded from publicly stating everything I know about >Daniel B Evans. You, on the other hand, are a stooge, an infiltrator, >and a saboteur. > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) >Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 20 03:48:00 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:48:00 -0700 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <42643838.609@sasktel.net> References: <20050418212123.57530.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <42643838.609@sasktel.net> Message-ID: > lectronically tracked transparent government process may happen > soon...... but not soon enough for me. > > Good AI, Grid based information exchange, RFID and other integrated > total information awareness that is transparent to all > individuals would be a step in the right direction. > > Without secrets you don't need very much much law enforcement. > Without secrets you are totally at the mercy of government with no recourse whatsoever. Your life is at the mercy of whichever mob is currently on top and may object to various parts of it. Total transparency is a recipe for total oppression. Total transparency says the government does need to apply to search and dig into every aspect of your life as they already know everything about you. Double plus Not Good. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 20 03:55:58 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:55:58 -0700 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <4264565A.4050902@humanenhancement.com> References: <20050419004907.54203.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <4264565A.4050902@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <47bfda0e5d0814f1ebebf3079f5e11d8@mac.com> It is not cockamammey. The law was purposefully made obtuse and confounding even to experts who themselves can not really understand it due to sheer volume. That itself is a great evil. The Constitution does put some limits on the power to tax that most of the obfuscation is designed to evade. It is surely a good thing to seek to clarify what the hell the mess really means. Throwing people in jail who attempt to do so shows a callous disregard for the rule of law on the part of the state. Trying to scare people into not questioning the State means the State can do whatever it wants with impunity from you. There is no way in hell you have enough knowledge in this area to say what the law is. - samantha On Apr 18, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: >> >>> Even better; have you tried telling the IRS that you don't owe any >>> taxes yet? >>> >> >> I did. They agreed. :) >> > > > You know what I mean. > > If you follow Mike's advice, that nobody owes taxes because of some > cockamammey tortured legal argument that nobody believes, you're going > to be wearing an orange jumpsuit. Managing deductions and exploiting > acknowledged loopholes in the tax code is not what we're talking > about. > > You follow the advice on the website Mike recommended, you're breaking > the law. > > Joseph > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > http://www.humanenhancement.com > New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta > PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated > 4/9/05) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 20 04:09:42 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:09:42 -0700 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <42645E07.3090401@humanenhancement.com> References: <20050419010802.3505.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> <42645E07.3090401@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:25 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> One can't defeat government on one's own. > > I think that's the problem right there; the idea that government is > something to be "defeated". > > With all due apologies to the ultra-libertarians who are known to > inhabit this list, I believe government has legitimate functions > beyond enforcing contracts and national defense (at least until the > advent of the PostHuman era, when every individual could and will have > the capabilities of a modern nation in terms of defense and > production), and from a practical standpoint the view is even grimmer > (libertarians habitually get under 3% of the votes in most places in > the USA, and I daresay the fact that there are outright socialist > governments in other parts of the world points to the lack of > libertarian success overseas). > > Would I like less government? Sure. Would I like to pay less taxes to > fund less government? Of course. Do I want to "defeat government"? > Nope, and people who do are either anarchists, whackos, or (most > likely) both. And they most certainly won't succeed. > America was started by such anarchists and whackos. The government as it exists today is a deadly blight on society that makes slaves and cowards of us all. Even after consuming half or more of our wealth it run debts that have us al in hock for generations and screams for more. I am sorry this sad state of affairs scares you seems to scare you so much that you lose your considerable eloquence and resort to name calling and fear. > And I want to succeed. If we don't, we're toast. We will not succeed by ignoring great evil sucking away our substance and threatening to bar the way. This level of evil must be defeated or at least bypassed if we are to have a chance at a future. - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 04:35:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420043532.87693.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If Samantha and I can agree on something, it must be true. What Joseph Bloch (coming from the Peoples Rest Area of New Joisey as he does) doesn't realize is that the judges he cites are the same judges that we have on record stating such inane things like "You are not going to bring the Constitution into MY courtroom, *I* am the law here!" This country needs a lot fewer judicially immune judges and a lot more real citizens doing jury duty, knowing their job is to judge the law as well as the accused.... --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > It is not cockamammey. The law was purposefully made obtuse and > confounding even to experts who themselves can not really understand > it due to sheer volume. That itself is a great evil. The Constitution > does put some limits on the power to tax that most of the obfuscation > is designed to evade. It is surely a good thing to seek to clarify > what the hell the mess really means. Throwing people in jail who > attempt to do so shows a callous disregard for the rule of law on the > part of the state. Trying to scare people into not questioning the > State means the State can do whatever it wants with impunity from > you. > There is no way in hell you have enough knowledge in this area to say > what the law is. > > - samantha > > On Apr 18, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > > > > > Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > >> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> > >>> Even better; have you tried telling the IRS that you don't owe > any > >>> taxes yet? > >>> > >> > >> I did. They agreed. :) > >> > > > > > > You know what I mean. > > > > If you follow Mike's advice, that nobody owes taxes because of some > > > cockamammey tortured legal argument that nobody believes, you're > going > > to be wearing an orange jumpsuit. Managing deductions and > exploiting > > acknowledged loopholes in the tax code is not what we're talking > > about. > > > > You follow the advice on the website Mike recommended, you're > breaking > > the law. > > > > Joseph > > > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > > http://www.humanenhancement.com > > New Jersey Transhumanist Association: > http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta > > PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated > > 4/9/05) > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Apr 20 04:36:36 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:36:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Peak Oil - the new Y2K? Message-ID: <1113971796.16299@whirlwind.he.net> Y2K makes a good case study for Peak Oil. In the case of Y2K, there was a genuine problem that billions of dollars were spent averting, and when it actually happened the entrenched interests had impressive amounts of motivation to make it look like it hadn't. Between creative strategies to make the problem a non-problem and the powerful impetus to make any residual problems that cropped up disappear, the Y2K event for the average person had all the appearances of a non-event. The problems that did occur were buried with uncommon efficiency and haste to limit any possible liability (and yes, many serious problems did occur -- I was party to dealing with more than one at Fortune 500 companies). It is easy to forget just how resilient the market actually is, even though many free-market proponents espouse its robustness and adaptivity. Peak Oil is, in my estimation, premised on a combined Malthusian model and the assumption that existing political inertia will continue unimpeded in the face of the economic reality. I find both of these premises to be questionable. The oil markets are similar to one of my favorite whipping boys, the gold markets. The current world-wide cost of production of gold is around $175/oz on average. The major new mining sites and reserves are coming online with a cost of $100-125/oz. The current price of gold is north of $425/oz. There is an incredibly *VAST* supply of unambiguously profitable gold reserves at the $300/oz price range. The spot price has very little to do with the cost of production or the immediate supply. Oil at its current price range encourages 1.) more aggressive extraction of known supplies, and 2.) alternative energy sources as an economic optimizer. For the next few decades, the more aggressive extraction of known supplies will dominate due to its infrastructure advantages, while alternative sources find their footing. While there is a long-term problem with supply, the problem is not imminent without making some Malthusian assumptions about the growth of demand and supply apparently independent of economic pressures and investments in technology for long-term profits. For a cheap example, see the recent introduction of small diesel engines to the US automotive market with the increasing price of fuel; diesel both has better efficiency and diesel-grade crudes are far more abundant in supply than gasoline-grade crudes. Supply is a function of market value and I find no evidence that production cannot adapt to meet demand in the context of fluctuating prices given an outlook that is steady enough in the long-term to justify the investment in the future. The theoretical supply at any given price usually follows a power law distribution which can be exploited if you can project a profit on a long enough time horizon. In short, "peak oil" looks like a replay of some rather old mistakes in predicting the future. I don't want to get into the details of it, but I'm really dubious because the entire scenario seems to be predicated on a very brittle and unwavering marketplace that I don't think exists. At the end of the day, economics talks and the world shifts. j. andrew rogers From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Apr 20 04:43:47 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:43:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] More shameless self-promotion: my new book... Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050419232354.01d588a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> ... is now published. It's a non-fiction series of linked essays, *Ferocious Minds: Polymathy and the new Enlightenment*, from Borgo/Wildside press. Here's the preposterously complicated url: http://www.wildsidepress.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PROD&Store_Code=WP1&Product_Code=0809544733&Category_Code=Broderick1 And here's their blurb: ======================== Two centuries ago, the first Enlightenment failed when its dream of reason smashed into the passions and fury of stubborn humans. Without a deep, broad understanding of the world, the emerging Enlightenment was left floundering, its best impulses perverted into the bloody excess of the French Revolution. Arguably, its idealism and noble goals led directly, and shockingly, to the 20th century's totalitarian nightmares. Now the 21st century is learning anew the Faustian hunger to know everything that can be known. But Enlightenment values of reason and tolerance, enriched by new knowledge, face a complex world no less eager to embrace medieval terrorism and ancient superstitions, a world bizarrely denying itself many of the fresh opportunities and insights availed by science. Can we find cures for poverty, unhappiness, ignorance, the ruination of the planet, aging, and perhaps for death itself? If so, should we? ================ Certain names familiar to the extropes crop up, such as Anders Sandberg (one of the dedicatees), Greg Burch, Dale Carrico... I just received my author freebies today, and I have to say the trade paperback looks pretty; very attractive jacket, photo courtesy of ace photographer Andrew Hartman. As for the contents... You < coff > Be the Judge! Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Wed Apr 20 07:13:12 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:13:12 +0200 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050420031909.12330.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050420031909.12330.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050420071312.GM21209@leitl.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:19:09PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > So you admit to being a fascist, instead? That's it, end of thread. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Apr 20 07:34:49 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:34:49 +1000 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? References: <200504200321.j3K3Lp226911@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <02fb01c5457b$6ee3e450$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Spike wrote: >> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > ... >> > >> > In a nutshell the whole permanent security council agreed to >> > resolution >> > 441 including the US and the UK as permanent security council >> > members. ... >> > >> > It had ceded part of its power when it signed the UN Charter and it >> > ceded the rest of the power when it signed of on 1441 on the matter >> > of Iraq. > ... >> Ergo, the US never 'ceded' its sovereignty in this. The US has always >> reserved its rights to act unilaterally or in cooperation with others >> outside the oversight of the UN... > > > This is what I was thinking too. I don't know at what level we are in disagreement then. Do you accept that the UN charter was or is *intended* to be an agreement amongst nations and that part of the basis of any agreement is that those agreeing are consenting to accept some constraints on their behaviour that they would not have to accept in the absence of such an agreement? > The UN has not produced anything > like a constitution of the united states of earth, anything which > guarantees me freedom of speech, of religion, the right to bear > arms, any of that. I have no vote for any leaders in the UN. I think that that is all true. > I see nothing in the U.S. constitution that gives the federal > government the right to cede any of its sovereignty to any > entity such as the UN. The U.S. fed couldn't legally cede any > of my rights to that organization even if it wanted to. I don't know if that is true. It certainly sounds likely to be true. Is there somewhere that you think that the US Constitution says that it can't? > This is a relief, for the UN appears to be corrupt to the core. I > think of the UN as functionally little more than a trade > alliance. For the sake of argument lets say that is true. Do you think the US government can make trade agreements with other countries without depriving you, one of its citizens of your rights? > Of this we can be sure, a central world authority is a bad idea, > very bad, for it concentrates too much political power. It's > too hard to get to another planet once the inevitable occurs. That certainly might be the case. But many arguments against central world authority also apply against central national authority like the US fed. Political power could be split in a world system just as it is in the US national system. I think we (humanity) are going to end up going that way one way or another, whether you or I like it or not, as the alternative to international laws are international wars. Your position like the position of most US citizens is a priviledged one just in that you happen to be are a US citizen. The global economy begrudges all priviledges that are not based on merit and will move to correct them. Brett Paatsch From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Apr 20 12:29:05 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:29:05 -0500 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050420071312.GM21209@leitl.org> References: <20050420031909.12330.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050420071312.GM21209@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050420072529.04eac958@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Friends, Thank you 'gene. This thread is about EMP attack, not attacking a posters. We do not accept this type of inference on the list. Please refrain by disingenuous implications. Thank you, Natasha At 02:13 AM 4/20/2005, you wrote: >On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:19:09PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > So you admit to being a fascist, instead? > >That's it, end of thread. > >-- >Eugen* Leitl leitl >______________________________________________________________ >ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org >8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 20 16:13:31 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420161331.28424.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > I > see nothing in the U.S. constitution that gives the federal > government the right to cede any of its sovereignty to any > entity such as the UN. Technically, it can - and, arguably, it has to entities such as the WTO, although whether the UN counts is arguable. But the authority is there in the US Constitution, Article VI Paragraph 2: > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be > made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be > made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme > Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound > thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the > Contrary notwithstanding. The critical bit is that treaties are considered equal to the Constitution in terms of determining the supreme law. Thus, the US's signature on the treaty establishing the WTO means the US agrees to follow the WTO's judgements. I'm not sure whether the text of the treaty establishing the UN gives it any authority, but it is technically legally possible for the US to cede sovereignty if the President and the Senate are talked into doing so. (Thus, rejecting treaties like Kyoto is more than just rejecting lip service. Foreign citizens really could have argued in US courts that we were bound by the treaty, and used our law enforcement mechanisms to force compliance, even if no other law passed by Congress or the states made any mention of the topic.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 20 17:05:59 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <02c401c54553$7f6fc280$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050420170559.44432.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > What type of > government > would be > > conducive to bringing the >H era about? > > Why don't you tell me? Perhaps start with what you think the ">H era" > is? > > If your approach makes sense maybe I'll follow it. At the moment > so far as I can tell you seem to be saying do whatever you can within > the system as it is. Do what you can from within the system, until we develop the capability to effectively act outside the system. Protest tax policy by simply refusing to pay tax, and you wind up in jail. Protest tax policy by emigrating to a third world country, and you exclude yourself from the capital flows and other things necessary to develop >H tech - and, ultimately, what that tech allows us to do is what it's all about. No tech, no >H. Protest tax policy by setting up an artificial island or space colony and funding things to attract research talent from all over the world, in an environment mostly free of neoluddites, religionists, and others who would hold us back, requires a lot of capital. Capital that can be earned by, say, developing things within the system for now, until the initial developments are established enough that we can reap significant profits from them. Which just requries a government that can effectively promote research - including standard capitalism, more or less peaceful streets, and infrastructure to sustain significant urbanization - even on topics it has not thoroughly thought out and sees may lead to its downfall. Most representative governments suffice for this temporary purpose; even a little corruption can be tolerated. Guess which option I'm aiming for? > ---That is a formula for incremental change > only. > > And essentially change for you only. That is the formula > conventionally > successful individuals use now. Do you really think that is enough to > bring in a >H era ? >H, by its nature, can't really apply to only a single individual. It is not realistically possible to develop most technologies without significant review by outsiders, else you'll never find all the problems. (This is difficult for many people to grasp in theory, but look at any real development project. The reason QA exists in any successful engineering organization - software, civil, mechanical, or any other type of engineering - is not because of laziness on the developers' part.) That said, yes, it is not enough to merely repeat what has worked before. One also needs to spread the word about what works, to make sure that all who would like the power we propose to build can share in it. One needs to build these things out in the open, not classified forever or otherwise with the intent of giving any one group a "permanent" advantage (even though others always gain access eventually, rendering the advantage temporary). See the reason the open source movement has worked in software, and why imitators in other fields are starting to gain ground. > Its not just the current government, its the current *system* of > government that leans against >H. Voting D or R (in the US) will not > change that. Protest voting for a minor party will not change that. If you're so concerned about the government, try running for it. I'm serious. Study up on politics, see what actually works to get people elected, then run for office - maybe local as a starting point, but eventually aiming for Congress. There are already certain members of that body who, if they were aware of the term, might count themselves as pro-transhumanist, even regardless of calculating whether that would get them more votes. Throughout history, it's often been those who had the biggest problem with a system who did the most towards changing it. It's been said before that we need a transhumanist political party. What might work better is to corrupt the Democratic and/or Republican parties until they do what we want, partly by spinning our issues to play to the public. Who wouldn't want cancer to be cured? Who wouldn't want most of us to be more wealthy - both in the financial sense (through AI-enhanced efficiency of our labors) and intellectually/spiritually (through greater availability of wisdom, by any of a number of means that are already available today but could use backing)? > > If you can't answer that question, you might want to stop talking > about > > it until you can. Not because I said so, but because it will help > you > > see exactly what about the government you would like to change, and > > what you really can do about it. > > That's rubbish. Identifying problems and suggesting solutions are two > distinct things. If you can't see the problem, then that doesn't mean > I > should shut up about it until I have a solution for you. Ah, but you were suggesting a partial solution: doing away with the government. (Implicit in "there's no way to salvage the current government" statements, if not explicit.) I was pointing out that that is partial enough that you need to flesh it out a lot more - including and especially, what government you would replace the current one with - before proposing it. History is littered with those who focussed only on getting rid of the current corrupt government, only to find themselves with no idea of how to rule justly. (There are many such idealists today, mostly in Africa, who raise arms against the current despotic regime that was, in turn, often imposed after usurping the previous despot. Some of them took exception to the trappings of democracy, viewing it - correctly or not - as another despot in disguise. The cycle is so old that the villagers can usually see right through it, but have resigned themselves to serving whoever is in power this month so they can get on with life.) On the other hand, if you know what government you wish to have, you may then see a way to transition from what we have now to that. > > (For instance: you see that people are voting for short-sighted > > interests, and that is putting short-sighted politicians in power. > > No the politicians don't have to be short-sighted they just have to > be > longer sighted than the average voter and better at telling the > average > voter what the average voter wants to hear than their opponent. So change the average voter. ;) That is the power of what we're proposing, you know. Things available to everyone, that change minds by making certain basic facts undeniably obvious. Consider, for instance, what happens to life planning and "retirement" if most people honestly expect to be 200. Example: saving the environment so your kids can enjoy it 100 years from now is one thing, while saving the environment so you can enjoy it 100 years from now is quite another. > I can see only ways to make incremental change and the whole > PostHuman > era thing is unweildy excess political baggage for even that more > modest > aim. Is it? Well, maybe if that is all you talk about. But spin the issue: sure, you dream of some far-off day in the future, but right now you want to promote this project or that group because of the immediate benefits you see. You just happen to have a plan whereby that is the current step towards >H, but of course, at any given time all you can really affect is the present. > The current government will be replaced at the next election > regardless of > what I do. The current *system* of government is not something that I > think that I can realistically change. It has evolved to be resistant > to > large > scale change. Define "large scale change". It is fundamentally a government that represents its citizens' wishes, for better or for worse, and that was by design from the start rather than evolution. Now, there have evolved ways to manipulate those wishes - but see above: we can manipulate them too. From hal at finney.org Wed Apr 20 16:42:54 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Overweight people live longer Message-ID: <20050420164254.5EB3557EE6@finney.org> According to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, moderately overweight people actually have lower mortality rates than people of supposedly ideal weights. The study is available for free access at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/15/1861 but here is the most relevant table: Table 2. Relative Risks by Age Group and BMI Level From the Combined NHANES I, II and III Data Set Relative Risk by Age Category BMI Level 25-59 y 60-69 y >= 70 y ---------------------------------------------------------- Overall <18.5 1.38 2.30 1.69 18.5 to <25 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 to <30 0.83 0.95 0.91 30 to <35 1.20 1.13 1.03 >=35 1.83 1.63 1.17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Never-Smokers Only <18.5 1.25 2.97 1.50 18.5 to <25 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 to <30 0.66 0.81 0.90 30 to <35 0.77 1.21 1.13 >=35 1.25 2.30 1.12 (Note, I just typed this in by hand and left off the 95% confidence interval range. See table 2 from the link above to see all the details.) Lower numbers are better! You can see that the overweight range of 25 to 30 BMI has consistently lower mortality than the "ideal" range of 18.5 to 25. The effect is most pronounced among non-smokers 25 to 59 years old, where being overweight reduces mortality rates by 1/3. Even being obese with a BMI up to 35 reduces mortality by 1/4 in that group. A 5'10" person could weigh up to 243 pounds; a 5'4" person could weigh 203, and still have BMI less than 35. This result is causing considerable press commentary (for example ), much of it focusing on another result of the paper, which re-evaluated the net deaths due to obesity. A report last year from the CDC had estimated 400,000 deaths per year from obesity (in the U.S.), almost at the level due to smoking and adding fuel to the government's new anti-obesity efforts. That report had been widely attacked as over-stated, however. The new result suggests that obesity is causing 112,000 deaths, but that being overweight is preventing 86,000, for a net cost of 26,000 deaths. This compared to 34,000 excess deaths from being underweight. The lesson appears to be that Americans are not obese enough! Extropians may not find these results to be too surprising. For years list member Doug Skrecky posted similar data on a regular basis. His position was that it was far more important to be fit than thin. Physical fitness was, according to the data he had found, a much better prediction of mortality than weight. "Fit but fat" people actually had the lowest mortality of all. (However it's not all that easy to get fit when you're fat, and/or to stay fat when you're fit, so fit but fat is a pretty small minority.) This data may call into question the benefits of calorie restriction (CR) for extending lifespan. The Times article says: "As for whether there is truly a mortality risk in being underweight, Dr. Mark Mattson, a rail-thin researcher at the National Institute on Aging who is an expert on caloric restriction as a means of prolonging life, said it was not clear that eating fewer calories meant weighing so little, since some people eat very little and never get so thin. In any event, while caloric restriction may extend life, Dr. Mattson said, 'there's certainly a point where you can overdo it with caloric restriction, and we don't know what that point is.'" It seems odd that he would say that maybe CR is OK because it doesn't necessarily make you thin, while he himself is described as "rail-thin" and the unstated implication is that he engages in CR himself. All in all it is an exciting result and it is always good to see the conventional wisdom being overturned, especially on a matter where public health officials have been scolding Americans for years. Hardly a day goes by when we don't hear some new ominous result about the obesity epidemic. Now, if it turns out that overweight is actually healthy, people will be forced to re-evaluate these results. Ambiguity leads to critical thinking, which is always preferable to mindless dogma. Hal From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 20 17:33:18 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [CONC] Re: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420173318.36993.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: > Apologies to all (well, all except Mike) if I seem somewhat strident. > But I've had enough from both socialists and libertarians pursuing > pie-in-the-sky fantasies at the expense of truly realizable > real-world > goals. > > It's about RESULTS, people! Not just words! You echo my sentiments exactly. (Well, almost exactly. Not only have I had enough discussion, but I also see situations, but historical and current, where they've tried to take it from pie-in-the-sky to reality and caused utter disasters. I don't see any where they did so and things turned out benign or better unless they first took great care to think things through - of which the late 1700s USA is a prime example, no matter what people may think of the early 2000s USA.) From reason at longevitymeme.org Wed Apr 20 17:55:48 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:55:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Overweight people live longer In-Reply-To: <20050420164254.5EB3557EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: I should point out that there are any number of good studies demonstrating exactly the opposite. One can't draw conclusions based on any one study in this field. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From alito at organicrobot.com Wed Apr 20 18:10:47 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:10:47 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Overweight people live longer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1114020647.27291.4.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 10:55 -0700, Reason wrote: > I should point out that there are any number of good studies demonstrating > exactly the opposite. One can't draw conclusions based on any one study in > this field. > do point them out when you come accross them. alejandro From max at maxmore.com Wed Apr 20 18:49:57 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:49:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Overweight people live longer In-Reply-To: <20050420164254.5EB3557EE6@finney.org> References: <20050420164254.5EB3557EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050420134424.051b4678@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Thanks for posting this Hal. I haven't checked out all the comments it has provoked, but I have some initial thoughts: Previous results like this have been critiqued (or qualified) on the basis that the very low-BMI group includes many seriously ill people in hospital who cannot keep weight on. That's not remotely comparable to healthy lean people. I'd like to know whether these researchers analyzed that effect and separated it out. Also, I find the BMI number quite dubious. Anyone with a reasonable amount of muscle on them will come out as overweight, even if their bodyfat percentage is well below average (say 10%). A number that doesn't allow for differences in body composition seems to be a poor basis for making judgments. For the record, I'm not a big fan of major caloric restriction for several reasons, though mild restriction seems sensible to me. Max At 11:42 AM 4/20/2005, Hal wrote: >According to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical >Association, moderately overweight people actually have lower mortality >rates than people of supposedly ideal weights. The study is available >for free access at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/15/1861 >but here is the most relevant table: _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 19:12:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420191204.70426.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Friends, > > Thank you 'gene. This thread is about EMP attack, not attacking a > posters. We do not accept this type of inference on the list. > Please refrain by disingenuous implications. Just trying to pin down where Herr Bloch stands. Being a fascist is a legitimate political position on the Nolan chart, though it might be more politely described as 'authoritarian'. He did say he was the 'furthest thing from a socialist', yet also denounced libertarianism. The only alternative to being an authoritarian is a conservative Republican.... if he refuses to admit being any of the above, the only real alternative is to be an absolute centrist, i.e. to have absolutely no principles whatsoever, but that is hardly the furthest thing from a socialist. By definition, a centrist is 50% socialist. The thread was changed, btw, by someone (other than me), to 'small government'. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 20 19:39:43 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420193943.77266.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Just trying to pin down where Herr Bloch stands. Being a fascist is a > legitimate political position on the Nolan chart, though it might be > more politely described as 'authoritarian'. To you they might be equivalent, but to others "fascist" and "authoritarian" are way different. And what matters when choosing your words is not what you mean, but what others think you mean. That's a fact of reality just like gravity (or, at least, it will be until and unless we find a way of communicating that does not fundamentally involve one mind encoding meaning into words or some other symbol-based medium, and then a completely separate mind trying to extract the meaning from said medium). That is a big enough mistake to warrant a ban request in other cases. Seriously. That class of mistake has in fact gotten others kicked off this list, if I recall correctly. For everyone's sake but especially your own, please do not make that mistake again. From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Apr 20 17:58:35 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:58:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Overweight people live longer In-Reply-To: <20050420164254.5EB3557EE6@finney.org> References: <20050420164254.5EB3557EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050420135455.035ac0d8@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:42 PM 4/20/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >According to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical >Association, moderately overweight people actually have lower mortality >rates than people of supposedly ideal weights. The study is available >for free access at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/15/1861 ... >All in all it is an exciting result and it is always good to see the >conventional wisdom being overturned, especially on a matter where public >health officials have been scolding Americans for years. .. It is nice to see further support, but data showing this have been available for a while, and I expect conventional wisdom to remain unchanged, as usual. I have taught this, and many other things that violate conventional wisdom but are well known to specialists, in my health economics course. But even my students usually leave the course with the same conventional wisdom they came into it with. Especially regarding medicine, people believe what they want to believe, and ignore the evidence. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 20:47:57 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420204757.62505.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- spike wrote: > > I > > see nothing in the U.S. constitution that gives the federal > > government the right to cede any of its sovereignty to any > > entity such as the UN. > > Technically, it can - and, arguably, it has to entities such as the > WTO, although whether the UN counts is arguable. But the authority > is > there in the US Constitution, Article VI Paragraph 2: > > > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be > > made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be > > made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the > supreme > > Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound > > thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the > > Contrary notwithstanding. > > The critical bit is that treaties are considered equal to the > Constitution in terms of determining the supreme law. Thus, the US's > signature on the treaty establishing the WTO means the US agrees to > follow the WTO's judgements. The limiting factor of this being that the Senate cannot validly confirm treaties which violate the Constitution. For example, "Congress shall make no law..yadda yadda, the abridgement of free speech", therefore a treaty that limited the free speech rights of Americans would be invalid on its face and unratifiable by the US Senate. Similarly, no treaty can infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms, to the free practice religion or other creeds, to assemble peacably (say, to shut down the UN in NY), nor can it violate my right against self incrimination, etc... Furthermore, the US government can only delegate powers via treaty that it itself posesses. If powers or rights are reserved to the states or to the people, the US Senate has no authority to delegate those. > > I'm not sure whether the text of the treaty establishing the UN gives > it any authority, but it is technically legally possible for the US > to cede sovereignty if the President and the Senate are talked into > doing > so. (Thus, rejecting treaties like Kyoto is more than just rejecting > lip service. Foreign citizens really could have argued in US courts > that we were bound by the treaty, and used our law enforcement > mechanisms to force compliance, even if no other law passed by > Congress or the states made any mention of the topic.) Kyoto was signed, but was never ratified. Unless a treaty is ratified by the Senate, and does not infringe upon the rights it is debarred from infringing upon itself, then it is nothing but wastepaper. The amount of violation of property rights, totally shattering the 14th amendment's protection of corporate persons rights, for example, required by the Kyoto Treaty were so far beyond the power of the Senate to approve, that they really had no choice but to vote it down. Sorry, folks, you aren't going to legislate communism on the back of environmental protection. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 20 21:11:20 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420211120.94656.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > The limiting factor of this being that the Senate cannot validly > confirm treaties which violate the Constitution. For example, > "Congress > shall make no law..yadda yadda, the abridgement of free speech", > therefore a treaty that limited the free speech rights of Americans > would be invalid on its face and unratifiable by the US Senate. Except that treaties are considered hierarchically equal to, and therefore exempt from the limits of, the Constitution. Ratifying a treaty is not "making a law" in that sense, even if it is essentially similar in many other ways. If you want a horror story, google on the abuses that loophole has created. Start with "NAFTA sovereignty". Even the CATO Institute's report downplaying the threat to US sovereignty makes no mention of the Consitution overriding it - and one would think they'd be all over that point if it did indeed apply. > Kyoto was signed, but was never ratified. Not disagreeing with that. Like I said, we rejected it. I'm just pointing out that the impositions it would have created were among the reasons we rejected (did not ratify) it. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 21:56:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Overweight people live longer In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420215610.33935.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Actually, studies of limited numbers of people engaged in CR plans are shown to live longer, but we have no idea of how participants are self-selected or filtered out from participation. The study Hal references looks at everybody. There have been a number of other studies showing that the slightly overweight live longest. --- Reason wrote: > I should point out that there are any number of good studies > demonstrating > exactly the opposite. One can't draw conclusions based on any one > study in > this field. > > Reason > Founder, Longevity Meme > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 20 22:05:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:05:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420220531.90027.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > The limiting factor of this being that the Senate cannot validly > > confirm treaties which violate the Constitution. For example, > > "Congress > > shall make no law..yadda yadda, the abridgement of free speech", > > therefore a treaty that limited the free speech rights of Americans > > would be invalid on its face and unratifiable by the US Senate. > > Except that treaties are considered hierarchically equal to, and > therefore exempt from the limits of, the Constitution. Ratifying a > treaty is not "making a law" in that sense, even if it is essentially > similar in many other ways. On the contrary, the constitution specifically states that treaties ratified become the law of the land, but no treaty can amend the constitution, which is what you seem to be implying, unless 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the states also ratify it via the amendment process. > > If you want a horror story, google on the abuses that loophole has > created. Start with "NAFTA sovereignty". Even the CATO Institute's > report downplaying the threat to US sovereignty makes no mention of > the > Consitution overriding it - and one would think they'd be all over > that point if it did indeed apply. The overriding problem today is that judges are holding laws, and themselves, and their agendas, up to be higher than the constitution. NAFTA doesn't override the constitution, but it does override statutes and other color of law. As I said, anything that would amend the Constitution must follow the amendment process. If the amendment process doesn't win, the treaty is invalid. This brings up a very interesting possibility: if the Senate ratifies a treaty which clearly requires amendments to the constitution, but congress cannot muster the votes to amend, or not enough states ratify the amendments, then every Senator who voted to ratify the treaty must be found positively in violation of their oaths of office and impeached, forced to resign, recalled by their states, or otherwise tried for treason. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 20 22:44:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050420224438.46500.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > This brings up a very interesting possibility: if the Senate ratifies > a > treaty which clearly requires amendments to the constitution, but > congress cannot muster the votes to amend, or not enough states > ratify > the amendments, then every Senator who voted to ratify the treaty > must > be found positively in violation of their oaths of office and > impeached, forced to resign, recalled by their states, or otherwise > tried for treason. Technically, quite a number of Senators and Representatives who have advocated and voted for laws that were blatantly in violation of the Constitution - as determined by the US Supreme Court, to the point that these legislators seriously attempted to strip the USSC of its ability to judge whether certain laws were constitutional - have already violated their oaths in this fashion. Under that legal theory, they could today be tried and impeached. You would be doing the United States of America a great favor if you could get that to actually happen. I doubt it is possible. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 20 22:50:37 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Robot jockeys to ride Gulf camels Message-ID: <20050420225037.14267.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4430851.stm Third world meets modern tech: to solve the problem of kids being kidnapped and starved for use as camel jockeys in races, The Powers That Be are developing robot jockeys, and presumably eventually planning to ban living jockeys entirely. (There is currently a lower age limit, but determined criminals find ways around those, and that doesn't solve the starvation problem.) So, who's going to protest that this is putting camel jockeys out of a job - especially since that's the whole point? ;) From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Apr 21 02:03:27 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:03:27 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Small government References: <20050420161331.28424.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e601c54616$4ee766e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- spike wrote: >> I >> see nothing in the U.S. constitution that gives the federal >> government the right to cede any of its sovereignty to any >> entity such as the UN. > > Technically, it can - and, arguably, it has to entities such as the > WTO, although whether the UN counts is arguable. But the > authority is there in the US Constitution, Article VI Paragraph 2. > >> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall >> be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which >> shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be >> the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall >> be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any >> state to the Contrary notwithstanding. > > The critical bit is that treaties are considered equal to the > Constitution in terms of determining the supreme law. Thus, the US's > signature on the treaty establishing the WTO means the US agrees to > follow the WTO's judgements. Good on you for being willing to check that out. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html > I'm not sure whether the text of the treaty establishing the UN gives > it any authority, but it is technically legally possible for the US to > cede sovereignty if the President and the Senate are talked into doing > so. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ (First page) " our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations." Chapter XIX - Ratification and Signature Article 111 " The present Charter, of which the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of the other signatory states. " > (Thus, rejecting treaties like Kyoto is more than just rejecting > lip service. Foreign citizens really could have argued in US courts > that we were bound by the treaty, and used our law enforcement > mechanisms to force compliance, even if no other law passed by > Congress or the states made any mention of the topic.) As I've said before on this list the whole UN Charter could be read in about an hour. The text is available online. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ I've provided links to relevant sections on various occassions before but the overall feeling I got was that I was largely just talking to myself. It is perfectly possible to find out what authority the treaty contains, it is written in English as well as in other languages but it does require a willingness to look. And that is the rub. Its not just that the so called "proles" will not look. Most people on this list who consider themselves enlightened and complain about the parlous state of the media and Fox news etc also will not look. The world is complicated beyond the capacity of more than a very few to comprehend it. Many of those few *are* in politics, either formally or informally, but they cannot force the voters to be smart enough to vote in their own enlightened best interest when of necessity the voters have to choose between caches of issues bundled into a single choice. And there are some who are smart enough to know that they can't bring on a PostHuman era in their life time so they'd be pretty damn dumb to get to far out of their comfort zone and aggitate for it. They have to much to lose. Its annoying when they actually mouth dumbed down party propaganda though. (And yes Spike, I do mean you). If the Bush administration change the composition of the US Supreme court, and the voters have now given them that chance then it will actually be possible for the US to get dumber rather than smarter. The Bush adminstration is not a government based on respect for the law its a government based on an understanding of how to capture critical wedges of a largely faith-based and superstitious population. I think the "PostHuman era" is actually further away now than it was pre the re-election of the Bush government. Brett Paatsch [Neither a socialist nor a libertarian] From riel at surriel.com Thu Apr 21 02:46:09 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050420031909.12330.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050420031909.12330.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > I still believe that the US federal government is going to become > either an absolute dictatorship, followed by a revolution, or collapse > like the USSR, within 4-10 years. The power of governments worldwide has already been eroded, with much of the real power going to companies and lobbyists. Some of the power has even gone to the people, with the internet making things possible that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. I suspect the economic power that companies have will drag many of the other powers with it. When it comes to some subjects, the government already seems to have been reduced to a playing board for lobbyists from both sides to play out their game - without government itself having much influence at all. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From dirk at neopax.com Thu Apr 21 03:36:34 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:36:34 +0100 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: References: <20050420031909.12330.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42671FC2.3020704@neopax.com> Rik van Riel wrote: >On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > >>I still believe that the US federal government is going to become >>either an absolute dictatorship, followed by a revolution, or collapse >>like the USSR, within 4-10 years. >> >> > >The power of governments worldwide has already been eroded, >with much of the real power going to companies and lobbyists. >Some of the power has even gone to the people, with the >internet making things possible that would have been unthinkable >20 years ago. > >I suspect the economic power that companies have will drag many >of the other powers with it. > >When it comes to some subjects, the government already seems to >have been reduced to a playing board for lobbyists from both >sides to play out their game - without government itself having >much influence at all. > > > They merely control the guns on behalf of their clients. We've seen the corporate state before and making it global doesn't make it any less ugly. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Apr 21 05:46:37 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:46:37 +1000 Subject: Apology to Spike Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Small government References: <20050420161331.28424.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <00e601c54616$4ee766e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <024f01c54635$7bb6dd80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> I said: > Its annoying when they actually mouth dumbed down party > propaganda though. (And yes Spike, I do mean you). I owe Spike an apology for this comment. He did not in fact say what I thought he said. I saw President Bush on television saying he would never cede US sovereignty etc etc and thought "you idiot, that's an oversimplification" some spin doctor has given you to cover that you are taking on international obligations and then are choosing not to honour them. I thought it was good spin, unfortunately, and that it would be picked up and repeated. Yet in this thread it was *me* and not Spike who said. "In simple terms the US had ceded its sovereign power to invade Iraq unilaterally without UN security council approval." Spike didn't use the dumbed down party propaganda. I did I used it in my overreaction to it. I apologise to Spike. Brett Paatsch From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Apr 21 20:16:23 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Small government In-Reply-To: <00e601c54616$4ee766e0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050421201623.21381.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > The Bush adminstration is not a government based > on respect for the law its a government based on an understanding > of how to capture critical wedges of a largely faith-based and > superstitious population. It's not just the Bush administration. Congress almost seems to be even worse on this account - although that may just be due to amplification of effect from their being the ones who write the law. (It is harder to use well, what one does not respect.) > I think the "PostHuman era" is actually further away now than it was > pre the re-election of the Bush government. Hear, hear. (At least, if one calculates the probabilities and gets the expected time of arrival, rather than the absolute historical value which will only be known after it happens.) From eugen at leitl.org Thu Apr 21 23:10:56 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:10:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: <20050419212353.97841.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050419212353.97841.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050421231056.GL31578@leitl.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:23:53PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > that sometimes they worked on Windows too. For example, Web services: > if you design to be non-browser-specific, which most sites do (although Web services are not web applications. You can get trapped in embrace & extend there at well, both at the interoperability (try to make Java/IIS WSDL play well with each other, in a jiffy), or user interface (if any, many web services don't have one) which is designed for and tested for IE only, and will predictably break elsewhere. Another area, where theory and practice unfortunately do not agree. > a significant minority build for MSIE only - usually only for a handful > of months, until customer complaints point out what a bad idea that is > and they have time to redo to be browser-neutral), then you simply This does not agree with my experience (which is not much, admittedly). Most programmers don't know what they're doing, and PHBs have even less clue. Features got frozen by chance, way prior to any rational evaluation (what, that ActiveX app doesn't work in Firefox/Safari? How unexpected). > don't care what OS the people trying your site are using. (My present > employer, http://www.teleo.com/ , is an example of this.) Or take > most supercomputing applications (mostly Unix and variants), or most Supercomputing applications don't provide jobs, and don't register on the market in terms of sales. It's a prestige market, though. > smaller-than-desktop apps (embedded Linux or Palm and derivatives > dominate here, to my knowledge). Embeddeds dominate by number, by the number of jobs they provide. Embedded Linux does hardly register in mobile applications (where Redmond is a strong contender to Symbian, especially in new sales). > Microsoft rules the desktop computing industry. That's a far cry from > all of IT. My point was that crappy systems can provide plenty of jobs. And that introductions of better systems can cause unemployment, unless absorbed by new job sinks. > > This assumes the people so occupied would be capable of serving > > other industries, and not be out of job. > > I believe that most human beings have the human trait of being > adaptable to changing circumstances. Granted, it might be socially How do you retrain a 50-year old out of job? Who's going to pay for his training? He's broke, and mortgaged. > wise to tap the profits of new tech to retrain workers made obsolete by > the new tech, and perhaps provide temporary unemployment benefits while > they are being retrained (limited to limit abuse), once the new tech > gains enough momentum that significant numbers of workers are being What is the new tech generating jobs, specifically in NA and EU? I'm not interested in generalities, but concrete fields and numbers. How many jobs does, say, nanosciences and biosciences provide, which are the age group and requirement profiles of the new hires, and how do you propose to make laid-off IT support with no savings but heavy mortgages and probably some debt compete with fresh postdocs? > displaced (so as not to kill new tech before it gets going), but people > these days can and do have more than one career over the course of How do you get a new career going if nobody's is hiring? > their lives. (And that's before we have radical age extension or > immortality.) The current generation is experiencing an age *shortening*, not extension. > These days, to work is to be trainable. Refuse to accept training as But I am talking about those already laid off. > one's job changes to require it, and one's skills quickly rot away > anyway, causing one to join the ranks of the unemployable. Retarding So you agree we're having a large umemployment problem? > the progress of technology to keep these people in jobs harms the rest > of society by denying everyone the benefits of the new ways. Besides, What *are* the new ways, for those who can't find work? > old needs rarely go away completely (there are still whip manufacturers > today), so those who absolutely can not learn new skills can compete > for the few remaining jobs while the rest of us move on. Oh, please. What next, wild GNP growth due to camel robot jockeys? > Again, given the inevitable shortage of labor in new industries (it's > new, so there isn't already a wide pool of labor trained in the new > industry's particulars), using the profits (once there are significant Do you realize the job market in nano and biosciences? Or are you thinking about something else? (What?) > profits) to give the displaced the necessary skills seems like the best But there are no significant profits. And the problems are not existing since today. > generally applicable solution. Please don't be so glib. This doesn't jive with naivete very well. > > > Yes, there would be significant short-term economic dislocations, > > big > > > enough to strain our social safety nets. But imagine the computing > > > > I'm living right in the middle of an economic dislocation, and given > > that it's > > in its second decade it's not that short-term. Prospects are pretty > > dismal. > > Which dislocation are you referring to? If you mean the dot-bomb > crash, the industry's pretty much recovered by now. Stock prices might No, the dotbomb isn't recovered (there's still job cutting going on in U.S. IT, look up the numbers). No, I'm not referring just to the NA-local problems in IT. > Every case I've looked into of a technical worker who "can not" find > work, is someone whose skills weren't that advanced, who refuses to > acknowledge the current existance of lower-paying jobs for basic I realize that flipping hamburgers or nursing is still pretty much in demand. But we were talking about new technology job market. How, again, are you going to let that hypothetical market absorb those displaced MCSEs? > skills, and who won't develop their technical skills to meet current > demands. (Although it is only partially their fault: there are also a How do you train a MCSE in bleeding edge proteomics? Who's going to pay for it? How is your hypothetical MCSE turned molecular biologist going to compete with the rest of them fresh eager postdocs? > lot of companies who "can not" find skilled technical workers, who > could find a number of skilled workers if they'd just up their offered > salaries a bit and/or otherwise adjust to the modern realities of > telecommuting et al. This doesn't entirely excuse the workers, > though.) You're having a reality dissonance moment. > > Who would be paying to write these applications? Such talent is rare, > > and > > already well accounted for (but in the developing countries). > > You mean "but not in the developing countries", right? Genius grade talent, whether molecular biology or IT isn't trainable. > The talent might be rare, but talent can be nurtured and developed. Yes, and no. No talent will flourish in absence of motivation and training. But in presence of motivation and training some people will soar, and most will not. (This ain't Ayn Rand, btw). So, how do you propose to employ all those? > That would likely be part of retraining in this case. Innate genius, > in most cases, is not actually impossible to duplicate, merely > impractical by the standards of the time - and standards can change. > (Until they do, though, there is often little real difference between > "impossible" and "impractical", thus the two get confused a lot.) You're confabulating. > Imagine, for instance, a blacksmith in the early days of metalworking, > who put a year into study of his craft. His works would be considered Imagine, for instance a top athlete. > art by those around him. Now imagine if he were time-teleported a > thousand years* into the future, where most blacksmiths apprenticed for > a year or more before being considered worthy independent operators. > After adjusting for culture shock, he would find his skills merely > adequate. Do you think you can beat the 100 m sprint world record by training hard? > * As adjusted for the slow rate of change back then. The modern > equivalent would be about 20-40 years, maybe less, certainly within a > normal professional career. (Of course, the time-teleport would still > prevent someone from building up 20 years of professional experience, > which natural buildup is why we don't see this problem much more than > we do today.) > > > > and subsequent high availability of bandwidth for everyone, if DDOS > > > attacks and spam became mostly historical footnotes. (And I'm sure > > we > > > > DDoS and spam have about zero impact on the traffic cost. ISPs are > > well-equipped to deal even with surging traffic due to P2P, given the > > postdotcombomb overcapacity. > > Last I'd heard, DDOS and spam account for about 2/3rd of an ISP's > typical bandwidth costs. Yes, bandwidth is at a low price due to You're wrong. > overcapacity, but costs are costs, and the overcapacity would remain if > DDOS and spam went away. Your premises are wrong. Go ask a few people. > > displaced by > > > new technologies, into other markets - including and especially > > ones > > > made possible, or at least profitable, by these same new > > technologies? > > > > You'd do well by identifying these technologies first. > > Actually, I was hoping for an approach that would be broadly applicable > to most technologies. Identifying things only for a few specific techs > doesn't necessarily lead to that, as opposed to identifying examples > for specific techs of broad patterns that could apply elsewhere. Please get back to us when you've found those approaches. Whether most technologies, or just the easy cases. > > Add AI and robotics, and it truly hits the fan. > > Ironic that you should mention those. I'd call applied AI (not basic > research into cognition, but actual products and services that can > easily prove their immediate financial worth, like trend analysis > software when it works) and advanced adaptable robotics (like the > Asimo, or rescue & military drones that can largely carry out their > operations with nothing more than guidance from home base and a home > base to return to afterwards) examples of new technologies that could > benefit from having a lot more people working on them. I agree. But nobody hires AI and robotics experts. Even if you could find those in the large numbers of those people out of jobs -- which aren't exactly the youngest, best and brightest, you will observe. So I want to hire an L expert to develop a better Roomba. One expert, because one is enough. Where should I find one? > There's also advanced nanofabrication - not just the bulk materials There is no advanced nanofabrication. Yet. Please come back to us when we have a job market in artifexes. > that are the typical "nanoproducts" of today, but actual functional > machines and electronic components. I'm working on building one such > device myself, and I seem to be inventing my own processes to a degree So how many people are you hiring? > that you'd never have to do in a mature industry. (That, or I'm > reinventing the wheel - but those I talk to in detail about this > project, who would know about existing wheel-equivalents, haven't > pointed them out to me, so it appears unlikely they're already out > there.) I'm doing my best to document my processes so that, if my > experiment is successful, it can be replicated elsewhere - but the > highly custom state of equipment at the lab I'm doing this at, and the > probable equally custom state at other labs that could replicate the > experiment, means that any such replication would be difficult to the > extreme. (It'd be significant work just to replicate it at the same > lab, using the same equipment with the same settings and the same > materials...and any such replication could be suspected of being due to > undocumented flukes of the lab's equipment, among other possibilities.) > But that might be a little too advanced, given the R&D that has to be > done before it can be pushed into products on the store shelf. What was your point, again? Sorry if I'm too harsh, this is hammered out in a hurry, and I'm off to England. Will be back in 5 days. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 22 00:45:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: <20050421231056.GL31578@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050422004538.97784.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> I'd like to reply point by point, but going over your letter, I see a pattern that... --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:23:53PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Last I'd heard, DDOS and spam account for about 2/3rd of an ISP's > > typical bandwidth costs. > > You're wrong. ...you reject the facts I have gathered from my personal experience. With that divide between us, I don't see that there's anything to be gained by discussion. We both apply equally valid logical arguments, but starting from completely different (and seemingly mutally contradictory) evidence. I could cite stuff like http://www.bizreport.com/news/5395 > A study released in May by the FBI and the Computer Security > Institute found that DDoS attacks cost businesses $66 million in > 2002, compared to $18 million in 2001. or related stuff like http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5165642.html > UK security company mi2g estimated the economic damage done by > Netsky.B worldwide to be at least US$3.12 billion but you'd just reject it. I will give one nit that proves we are coming from different perspectives: I do not consider holding a MSCE - MicroSoft Certified Engineer, that is, as opposed to Master's of Science in Computer Engineering from a good college - to be proof that one is "adequately skilled" to be a professional software engineer. That people with only that certificate as proof of their skills shows the desperation of the dotcom years, not that adequately skilled software engineers are being laid off. The people who got only-need-MSCE technical jobs at that time largely had other, nontechnical career options before then, which options are largely still open today. For the most part, the only people I hear disagreeing with that are those who got MSCEs and refuse to admit how worthless those certificates are, especially how they do not prove that the holders are special or competent in any major way, shape, or form. This misconception (I'd call it "delusion", except that it's unfortunately spread to many people, like the one about the Earth's spin significantly affecting the direction of toilet flushes) tremendously impairs their willingness to seek other types of work, despite the fact that they keep getting turned down when they apply for computer jobs, thus they perceive a sustained economic depression where the rest of us see a recovering economy. (I hope that's not personally insulting, BTW, if you do hold one. But it's the simple truth from what I see. If you hold one, do yourself a favor, throw it away, and learn how to actually program. Go for the basics first - say, download and install a Perl interpreter, then write some programs using nothing more than Notepad to create and edit some Perl scripts, and browser windows open to whatever online documentation you can find. A few dedicated days of studying, to where you have written and run "Hello World" programs and can do so again from memory, will make you far more employable. Or if you'd rather do system administration work, try building a Web server - not just by studying the docs, but by buying a low-end computer, disconnected from any network so you can play around with it without fear, then actually installing the OS from CDs and turning on the Web server so you can use the Web browser on the computer to go to http://localhost/ . I reccomend Linux, and the Apache Web server that comes with most versions of it, but even the versions of Windows that come with IIS should suffice here; you might even want to try both, if you've got the Windows discs and can download Linux ISOs from http://fedora.redhat.com/download/ and write them to CDs. Of course, you may again need the docs you can find online; use a separate computer, connected to the 'Net, to look them up. Regardless, experience - including and especially experience from practicing the skill on your own, outside of work - trumps most other types of qualifications. E.g., instead of spending 40 hours a week looking for work and getting nowhere, spend 20 hours a week doing that and 20 hours a week finding out what you can about the jobs that are out there that you'd like and studying - practicing, if possible - the skills they call for. Improve thyself until you really are among the best candidates for the jobs you apply for...or just found your own small business, though most people prefer not to go that far.) Anyway, thread over. From james.corbally at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 02:17:44 2005 From: james.corbally at gmail.com (James Corbally) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:17:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Mice put in 'suspended animation' - BBC Message-ID: <1aa0aa6f05042119175ba4d7c@mail.gmail.com> Just saw this on the Beeb site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4469793.stm ------------------------------------------- Mice put in 'suspended animation' Mice have been placed in a state of near suspended animation, raising the possibility that hibernation could one day be induced in humans. If so, it might be possible to put astronauts into hibernation-like states for long-haul space flights - as often depicted in science fiction films. A US team from Seattle reports its findings in Science magazine. In this case, suspended animation means the reversible cessation of all visible life processes in an organism. The researchers from the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle put the mice in a chamber filled with air laced with 80 parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) - the malodorous gas that give rotten eggs their stink. Hydrogen sulphide can be deadly in high concentrations. But it is also produced normally in humans and animals, and is believed to help regulate body temperature and metabolic activity. ---------------------------------------------------- Wonder how this would play out in cats or dogs? James... From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 05:03:43 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:03:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage Message-ID: <470a3c5205042122035018b4b6@mail.gmail.com> This makes me really proud of the country where I live. Of course the new law had a lot of coverage on Spanish television. The legal definitions of "marriage" has been changed accordingly in such a way as to make no references to different sex. The Spanish PM said that he expects strong opposition by Pope Benedict, but in a democracy the choice of the people wins, and indeed polls show that two thirds of Spaniards are in favor of the new law. This, I think, is an important victory for civil rights in Europe. The Guardian: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage, with parliament also giving same-sex couples the right to adopt children. Mr Zapatero's Socialists won the support of several small parties as the bill was passed by 183 votes in favour, 136 against, with six abstentions in the 350-seat lower chamber. "This is a historic day for everybody who believes in equality, justice and rights," said Beatriz Gimeno, president of the country's Federation of Lesbians, Gays and Transexuals. The phrase "matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex" should now be added to Spain's law books. "This is an initiative that brings up to date a question of rights within society," said the justice minister, Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar. "It is a reform that improves people's lives." Belgium and the Netherlands are the only two other European countries that have legalised gay marriage so far. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 05:20:05 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:50:05 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: <20050422004538.97784.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050421231056.GL31578@leitl.org> <20050422004538.97784.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05042122203f2df367@mail.gmail.com> I agree on the worthless of MSC* qualifications. But I advise a different path, if you want to actually be a developer, than what Adrian has written below. On 22/04/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > (I hope that's not personally insulting, BTW, if you do hold one. But > it's the simple truth from what I see. If you hold one, do yourself a > favor, throw it away, and learn how to actually program. Go for the > basics first - say, download and install a Perl interpreter, then write > some programs using nothing more than Notepad to create and edit some > Perl scripts, and browser windows open to whatever online documentation > you can find. A few dedicated days of studying, to where you have > written and run "Hello World" programs and can do so again from memory, > will make you far more employable. What developers seem to be sorely lacking these days is understanding of computer science basics. If I say "Algorithm", collegues shouldn't be rushing to dictionary.com, they should know what that means! A lot of the languages around these days have a few basic "collection" classes that work a bit like an array and a bit like a list, however you want to use them, and subsequently they are used for every programming situation that requires more than basic database tables. I guess I'm a degree snob. You can get along doing some coding as an adjunct to another profession without formal training, but (geniuses excepted) you cannot be a seriously useful developer without the groundwork that you get from a computer science degree. As soon as requirements drift away from "get data from database, put data in database", which they do surprisingly frequently, a hack coder gets themselves in trouble. Also, there are of course uncountable examples of the dismaying "Degreed and Incompetent"; a degree is almost always necessary but rarely ever sufficient. I understand why it's like this, though. Excellent programming requires a particular mindset (quite probably a variant of autism), which is just damned uncommon. However, the world wants a LOT of programmers. So, somebody has to fill in the gaps, and the business world has been trying to do this by providing the best tools it can come up so that incompetent people can code too. Uh, off track. Anyway, someone who wants a long term career as a code monkey really needs a degree, that's the long and the short of it. It's worth the trouble; hey, it's not a bad way to spend your time, although I can't help the sneaking feeling that corporations and their software needs are boring & fucked. > Or if you'd rather do system > administration work, try building a Web server - not just by studying > the docs, but by buying a low-end computer, disconnected from any > network so you can play around with it without fear, then actually > installing the OS from CDs and turning on the Web server so you can use > the Web browser on the computer to go to http://localhost/ . I > reccomend Linux, and the Apache Web server that comes with most > versions of it, but even the versions of Windows that come with IIS > should suffice here; you might even want to try both, if you've got the > Windows discs and can download Linux ISOs from > http://fedora.redhat.com/download/ and write them to CDs. Of course, > you may again need the docs you can find online; use a separate > computer, connected to the 'Net, to look them up. Hmm, I noticed that Adrian mentioned system administration below. All you really need for that is to belt yourself in the head with a brick repeatedly, say 8 hours per working day and a few extra hours on the weekend, over maybe two months. If you are still keen and interested at the end of that time, you are made of the Right Stuff! > Regardless, > experience - including and especially experience from practicing the > skill on your own, outside of work - trumps most other types of > qualifications. E.g., instead of spending 40 hours a week looking for > work and getting nowhere, spend 20 hours a week doing that and 20 hours > a week finding out what you can about the jobs that are out there that > you'd like and studying - practicing, if possible - the skills they > call for. Improve thyself until you really are among the best > candidates for the jobs you apply for...or just found your own small > business, though most people prefer not to go that far.) Experience is important, but you really need to be a constant learner. One of the most important skills in IT is the ability to recognise when your skills are going obsolete, and to be happy to go upgrade them rather than belly ache and hang onto the old stuff. Good developers are expert forgetters almost more than expert learners! > Anyway, thread over. Oops, sorry :-) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * (my real website is back, music, software, everything!) From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 22 06:29:15 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:29:15 -0700 Subject: Apology to Spike Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Small government In-Reply-To: <024f01c54635$7bb6dd80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <200504220629.j3M6TE203600@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > Subject: Apology to Spike Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Small government > > I said: > > > Its annoying when they actually mouth dumbed down party > > propaganda though. (And yes Spike, I do mean you). > > I owe Spike an apology for this comment. He did not in fact say > what I thought he said... Brett Paatsch No problem Brett. I didn't say what *I* thought I said either. I think. Or something like that. {8^D Road triiiip! Motorcycle to Oregon, see ya in a few days. {8-] spike From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 06:40:25 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:40:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tagsurf Message-ID: <470a3c52050421234071f09771@mail.gmail.com> Everyone knows del.icio.us but not yet many people know tagsurf. It is an extended implementation of the basic tagging concept, described by Tagsurf: Tagged Hyperforum and Tagsurf first review , and of course the best way to learn what it does is opening an account and playing with it. I thing Tagsurf has a potential to replace the info-discussion spaces (mailing lists, web boards, blogs etc.) with a much more usable system. I just posted this on Tagsurf One of the reasons why I like Tagsurf and think it is an important step in the right direction is that it shows how we could move away from posting *to * toward posting *about*. Now you put your ideas in the infospace by posting to a blog or to a mailing list. Of course the problem is that the reader must know which blogs and mailing lists match her interests. I subscribe to many feeds, blogs and lists but I am sure I don't see even a 0.1% of all the posts I would wish to read. Instead of posting your thoughts *to a list*, you should be able to *just post it* and rely on the ability of the global infospace to direct the reader to everything that match her interests. In passing, using a tagsurf instead of a list would solve one of the frequent problems of mailing lists: members complaining that posts by other members are off-topic. With tagsurf, your mailing list is defined by the set of tags you subscribe to. So what I like to imagine is that in, say, 5 years, there is a global distributed metamegatagsurf where I can just post my thoughts without worring about whether I have sent it to all the appropriate fora, and let the system do the rest. How to move toward this? Of course there will be many new features to implement and perhaps an architectural re-design to do (I really think for scalability metamegatagsurf should work like a P2P system), but I think the basic conceptual features are here already. The url of this thread on Tagsurf is http://tagsurf.com/thread/340. The url of the rss feed of this thread is http://tagsurf.com/rss/thread/340. Most combinations of user, tags and thread have a dedicated url and rss feed. So you can for example rss-subscribe to all my posts with a certain tag. It is easy to see how this can facilitate moving to a real global discussion space, I really recommend trying tagsurf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 10:53:17 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:53:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Mice put in 'suspended animation' - BBC In-Reply-To: <1aa0aa6f05042119175ba4d7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <1aa0aa6f05042119175ba4d7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/21/05, James Corbally wrote: > Just saw this on the Beeb site: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4469793.stm > > ------------------------------------------- > Mice put in 'suspended animation' > > Mice have been placed in a state of near suspended animation, raising > the possibility that hibernation could one day be induced in humans. > ... (Science paper link and abstracted pasted below. If anybody would like a PDF of the full paper, let me know and I can email it directly.) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5721/518 H2S Induces a Suspended Animation-Like State in Mice Eric Blackstone, Mike Morrison, Mark B. Roth Mammals normally maintain their core body temperature (CBT) despite changes in environmental temperature. Exceptions to this norm include suspended animation-like states such as hibernation, torpor, and estivation. These states are all characterized by marked decreases in metabolic rate, followed by a loss of homeothermic control in which the animal's CBT approaches that of the environment. We report that hydrogen sulfide can induce a suspended animation-like state in a nonhibernating species, the house mouse (Mus musculus). This state is readily reversible and does not appear to harm the animal. This suggests the possibility of inducing suspended animation-like states for medical applications. From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Apr 22 12:13:12 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:13:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205042122035018b4b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205042122035018b4b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050422065922.02db6de0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Thanks for updating us on this newly arrived world-wide issue. Congratulations to Spain! Disclaimer: The institute of marriage is not necessarily a futuristic plan. I wonder how transhumanists in the coming generations will develop relationship contracts that are not so historically binding by "death do us part" sentiment. And about that "sex" word ... Gender restriction is another human biological/psychological characteristic. How will we view marriage when we are able to interchange our gender? I do think being in a committed loving relationship adds to the long, healthy, happy lives; but it is a human institute. In the future, when we no longer reside only in one reality or one gender, it will be interesting to see if marriage is entirely discarded, or if the rules of marriage are revised to include multiple relationships for multiple environments. Even if a type of contractual institute such as marriage will be necessary for long, healthy, happy lives. If not, what would replace it? An evolved psychology? Perhaps a transhumanist psychology in which we provide a transhuman-posthuman wide-spread environment of inclusively, support, nurturing, friendship, and connectivity. Best wishes, Natasha At 12:03 AM 4/22/2005, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >This makes me really proud of the country where I live. Of course the new >law had a lot of coverage on Spanish television. The legal definitions of >"marriage" has been changed accordingly in such a way as to make no >references to different sex. Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 22 12:51:50 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:51:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050422065922.02db6de0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <470a3c5205042122035018b4b6@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050422065922.02db6de0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <4268F366.3020107@neopax.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Thanks for updating us on this newly arrived world-wide issue. > Congratulations to Spain! > > Disclaimer: The institute of marriage is not necessarily a futuristic > plan. I wonder how transhumanists in the coming generations will > develop relationship contracts that are not so historically binding by > "death do us part" sentiment. And about that "sex" word ... > > Gender restriction is another human biological/psychological > characteristic. How will we view marriage when we are able to > interchange our gender? > > I do think being in a committed loving relationship adds to the long, > healthy, happy lives; but it is a human institute. In the future, > when we no longer reside only in one reality or one gender, it will be > interesting to see if marriage is entirely discarded, or if the rules > of marriage are revised to include multiple relationships for multiple > environments. Even if a type of contractual institute such as > marriage will be necessary for long, healthy, happy lives. If not, > what would replace it? An evolved psychology? Perhaps a > transhumanist psychology in which we provide a transhuman-posthuman > wide-spread environment of inclusively, support, nurturing, > friendship, and connectivity. > I would think the whole thing would become a non issue. On one hand we will have groups of 'people' who band together for various quite logical reasons. On the other, why bother with gender and 'needing people' from an emotional POV at all? All this talk about swapping gender etc seems to be a contemporary pre-occupation that will become utterly irelevent by the time it is practical. I see PostHumanity moving in two major directions. They are total individualism and hive minds. And sex/gender has no major place in either IMO. Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri Apr 22 13:15:13 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:15:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <4268F366.3020107@neopax.com> References: <470a3c5205042122035018b4b6@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050422065922.02db6de0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <4268F366.3020107@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4268F8E1.90101@humanenhancement.com> Dirk Bruere wrote: > I would think the whole thing would become a non issue. > On one hand we will have groups of 'people' who band together for > various quite logical reasons. > On the other, why bother with gender and 'needing people' from an > emotional POV at all? > All this talk about swapping gender etc seems to be a contemporary > pre-occupation that will become utterly irelevent by the time it is > practical. > > I see PostHumanity moving in two major directions. > They are total individualism and hive minds. > And sex/gender has no major place in either IMO. I fully agree with Dirk here. While gender reassignability is something of significance as an intermediate step, in the longer term it is irrelevant. Gender roles for reproduction will disappear with the advent of alternative methods of reproduction (either physically through biological cloning, asexual budding, etc. or on an entirely mental plane through creation of uploaded (and possibly deliberately reprogrammed to assure diversity) copies of people which are then set loose as completely discrete individuals themselves. On a psychological level, gender assignment becomes even less significant. When truly effective methods of psychological re-programming become available (both on a pharmaceutical and methodological level) gender roles will cease to exist. Biological males could adapt the nurturing aspects of the "feminine" mindset, biological females could deliberately become more aggressive, etc. We've already seen this psychological effect taking place "in the wild" as it were, as a consequence of the reduction of socially-induced gender roles. As we increasingly have the ability to perform such changes deliberately and on an individual level, yet another vestage of our hominid past will fall into obscurity. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated yesterday!) From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 22 13:46:40 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:46:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage Message-ID: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> Who is arguing that this will happen in the late transhuman - posthuman times? That is not the point. The point is that gender and sex is a political/social/technological issue today and in our near transhuman future. It is quite easy to suggest that in the years to come we will shed all the restraints that are emotionally turbulent today and look back mockingly at the silliness of those humans so preoccupied with their sex, gender, holidays, rituals, worries, uncertainties, etc. et al., but isn't it interesting to look at the pivitol transition points, the ups and downs of the S-curve, in the behavior over time? While we obviously have been forecasting the posthuman future for decades with the conclusion that it these issues will be non issues; the transition period is important to recognize and give some attention to. Transhumanism is inclusive of the transition period. That is what it is about. :-) Best, Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Joseph Bloch jbloch at humanenhancement.com Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:15:13 -0400 To: dirk at neopax.com, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage Dirk Bruere wrote: > I would think the whole thing would become a non issue. > On one hand we will have groups of 'people' who band together for > various quite logical reasons. > On the other, why bother with gender and 'needing people' from an > emotional POV at all? > All this talk about swapping gender etc seems to be a contemporary > pre-occupation that will become utterly irelevent by the time it is > practical. > > I see PostHumanity moving in two major directions. > They are total individualism and hive minds. > And sex/gender has no major place in either IMO. I fully agree with Dirk here. While gender reassignability is something of significance as an intermediate step, in the longer term it is irrelevant. Gender roles for reproduction will disappear with the advent of alternative methods of reproduction (either physically through biological cloning, asexual budding, etc. or on an entirely mental plane through creation of uploaded (and possibly deliberately reprogrammed to assure diversity) copies of people which are then set loose as completely discrete individuals themselves. On a psychological level, gender assignment becomes even less significant. When truly effective methods of psychological re-programming become available (both on a pharmaceutical and methodological level) gender roles will cease to exist. Biological males could adapt the nurturing aspects of the "feminine" mindset, biological females could deliberately become more aggressive, etc. We've already seen this psychological effect taking place "in the wild" as it were, as a consequence of the reduction of socially-induced gender roles. As we increasingly have the ability to perform such changes deliberately and on an individual level, yet another vestage of our hominid past will fall into obscurity. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated yesterday!) _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 14:12:29 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:12:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> I agree with Natasha. In other words, I wish happiness to the next generations and to those who will be alive to enjoy the posthuman future, but I also wish happiness to current humans release 1.0. Gender will probably become an obsolete thing someday but today it plays an inportant role in the lives of people. Therefore I support human rights for everyone and rejoice of the important decision of the Spanish government to fully allow gay marriage. G. On 4/22/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Who is arguing that this will happen in the late transhuman - posthuman > times? That is not the point. The point is that gender and sex is a > political/social/technological issue today and in our near transhuman > future. It is quite easy to suggest that in the years to come we will shed > all the restraints that are emotionally turbulent today and look back > mockingly at the silliness of those humans so preoccupied with their sex, > gender, holidays, rituals, worries, uncertainties, etc. et al., but isn't > it interesting to look at the pivitol transition points, the ups and downs > of the S-curve, in the behavior over time? > > While we obviously have been forecasting the posthuman future for decades > with the conclusion that it these issues will be non issues; the transition > period is important to recognize and give some attention to. Transhumanism > is inclusive of the transition period. That is what it is about. :-) > > Best, > > Natasha From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 22 15:22:08 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:22:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <192450-22005452213225614@M2W043.mail2web.com> References: <192450-22005452213225614@M2W043.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <426916A0.5020304@neopax.com> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >The late 20th Century early 21st Century preoccupation with "sex" will fade >like a worn out jeans. Slowly and with a lot of resistance. > >You are shooting toward a far future, but I find the *transitional* future >to be emotinally and socially interesting. During this time, the shedding >and swapping of tradition and gender will be of value because it relates >directly to values. This is important for us to recognize and deal with >because it is real and timely. > > > I would have thought that a better Transhumanist position would be to try and get the govt *out* of the marriage business. IMO it's a mix of religion and contract law that could well survive without any govt input at all. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Apr 22 15:23:43 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:23:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> Natasha made a very important point, but I don't think it included anything about gender differences becoming obsolete. Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes the enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >I agree with Natasha. In other words, I wish happiness to the next >generations and to those who will be alive to enjoy the posthuman >future, but I also wish happiness to current humans release 1.0. >Gender will probably become an obsolete thing someday but today it >plays an inportant role in the lives of people. Therefore I support >human rights for everyone and rejoice of the important decision of the >Spanish government to fully allow gay marriage. >G. > >On 4/22/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > >>Who is arguing that this will happen in the late transhuman - posthuman >>times? That is not the point. The point is that gender and sex is a >>political/social/technological issue today and in our near transhuman >>future. It is quite easy to suggest that in the years to come we will shed >>all the restraints that are emotionally turbulent today and look back >>mockingly at the silliness of those humans so preoccupied with their sex, >>gender, holidays, rituals, worries, uncertainties, etc. et al., but isn't >>it interesting to look at the pivitol transition points, the ups and downs >>of the S-curve, in the behavior over time? >> >>While we obviously have been forecasting the posthuman future for decades >>with the conclusion that it these issues will be non issues; the transition >>period is important to recognize and give some attention to. Transhumanism >>is inclusive of the transition period. That is what it is about. :-) >> >>Best, >> >>Natasha >> >> >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 22 15:37:06 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:37:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > Natasha made a very important point, but I don't think it included > anything about gender differences becoming obsolete. Rather, we can > expect *increased* diversity, but within an increasingly aware cultural > framework that recognizes and promotes the enhanced value of cooperative > interaction among diverse agents. > I think that the opposite is likely. That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and polarised, competition between new Human species. Racism writ larger than ever. Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to those who do. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 22 16:23:51 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:23:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <298610-220054522161554857@M2W043.mail2web.com> References: <298610-220054522161554857@M2W043.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <42692517.5090707@neopax.com> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >Dirk, Let's start a new thread if you are going to break off the original >threat topic. > > > Or even thread... >Dirk wrote: > >"I would have thought that a better Transhumanist position would be to >try and get the govt *out* of the marriage business. >IMO it's a mix of religion and contract law that could well survive >without any govt input at all." > > >Did I mention keeping government in marriage? Don't think so. Not my >views at all. > > > Well, you seem pretty pleased that the Spanish govt is extending its reach to gay marriage. I can only hope that the whole thing is stretched to breaking point in the near future with recognition and equal rights to marry multiple pets (straight or gay). Why can't I marry my car? Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 16:41:59 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422164159.18914.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > >Did I mention keeping government in marriage? Don't think so. Not > my > >views at all. > > > Well, you seem pretty pleased that the Spanish govt is extending its > reach to gay marriage. > I can only hope that the whole thing is stretched to breaking point > in the near future with recognition and equal rights to marry > multiple pets (straight or gay). > > Why can't I marry my car? Most transhumanists and other computer geeks ought to have the right to marry their computers, given how much wanking gets done sitting in front of them. Start the International Man-PC Love Association (IMPCLA) Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Apr 22 16:58:14 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:58:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity [Was: Spain has become...] In-Reply-To: <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> Message-ID: <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Jef Allbright wrote: > >> Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an >> increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes >> the enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents. >> > I think that the opposite is likely. > That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and > polarised, competition between new Human species. > Racism writ larger than ever. > Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to > those who do. > Dirk, cooperative advantage is fundamental to competitive success at all scales of organization, from the subatomic through prebiological and biological to cultural. Do you not think these hypothetical separatists would have some interests in common, and find ways to cooperate, even temporarily, to overcome others less organized? Do you not think that those who find themselves at a disadvantage would tend to adapt and cooperate rather than be destroyed? Why do you speculate that these "new humans", more advanced than us, would recapitulate evolutionary growth from isolated biological organisms to cooperative cultural organisms? "Looking out for your own" is the essence of morality, and in the broader sense means converting your potential enemies into trading partners rather than destroying them. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 16:59:18 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:59:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <20050422164159.18914.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050422164159.18914.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205042209594c26d201@mail.gmail.com> I also think that if I want to marry my phone it is only my business (and perhaps my phone's) and that this should not require any official blessing from any church or government. But here and now marriage *does* need official state's blessing (pension, inheritage...) so I consider it a big step forward that gays are not discriminated anymore. G. From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Apr 22 17:16:24 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:16:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity [Was: Spain has become...] In-Reply-To: <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <42693168.708@jefallbright.net> Jef Allbright wrote: > > Why do you speculate that these "new humans", more advanced than us, > would recapitulate evolutionary growth from isolated biological > organisms to cooperative cultural organisms? > Sorry, after I sent this I realized my phrasing implied that you agreed with my evolutionary assertion. I should have said something like the following: In the scenario you propose, it appears that these "new humans", more advanced than us, would recapitulate evolutionary growth from isolated biological organisms to cooperative cultural organisms. Why would they do this, given their more advanced knowledge and greater perspective? From listsb at infinitefaculty.org Fri Apr 22 17:34:32 2005 From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian M. Delaney) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:34:32 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Overweight people live longer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426935A8.80803@infinitefaculty.org> Reason skrev: > I should point out that there are any number of > good studies demonstrating exactly the opposite. > One can't draw conclusions based on any one > study in this field. Agreed. But far more importantly, no conclusions about the benefits of a CR program can be drawn from studies showing a correlation between weight and mortality. People trying to draw such a conclusion are committing a serious logical error, one with potentially devastating health consequences for those who buy the error. "CR leads to a reduction in weight." Yes. "A reduction in weight is a sign of CR." No. CR is not about being thin. Naturally obese mice (ob/ob) on severe CR are still chubby, but live much longer than naturally thin mice not on CR. Energy-restriction shifts resources away from growth and reproduction towards repair and maintenance. Doesn't matter what you weigh. Indeed, the assumption (or false conclusion) that "accidental/unintentional CR" is more likely to be found among the underweight is not only wrong, it may even be backwards. People in the countries whre these mortality studies tend to be conducted who are naturally thin have LESS reason to restrict their food intake (and note: food restriction is not the same as Calorie restriction -- though that's a minor point), given societal pressures to be thin. The way to determine whether or not CR reduces mortality is to look at people on CR and compare them to people not on CR. This is being done. Some initial results include those reported by Fontana [1]. It will take a long time before we can be certain that CR dramatically reduces mortality, but it seems extraordinarily like that it does so, and we can be certain that risks of diseases of aging (certainly, type 2 diabetes) is reduced significantly. There are LOTS of sensible reasons not to be on CR. Believing that "it doesn't work" isn't one of them. Best, Brian [1] Fontana L, Meyer TE, Klein S, Holloszy JO. "Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 27;101(17):6659-63. Epub 2004 Apr 19. -- Brian M. Delaney President, The Calorie Restriction Society http://www.calorierestriction.org From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 22 17:41:34 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422174134.59218.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I also think that if I want to marry my phone it is only my business > (and perhaps my phone's) Your phone, being an inanimate object, can not give consent to marry. "Marriage", as a type of contract, only has meaning between two individuals who can give consent. (Which has implications if you want to marry, or marry off, a young child, who will eventually become someone who is capable of understanding marriage but is not yet developed enough to do so. The same consideration may apply to AIs, if they take any significant amount of time to grow from merely "capable of independent operation" to "true understanding of the consequences of actions".) From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 18:05:36 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:05:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <42692517.5090707@neopax.com> Message-ID: I always thought that marriage had to be consensual on both parties. As soon as your cat/car becomes sentient and a citizen and agrees to marry you then you should be allowed. BAL >From: Dirk Bruere >To: nvitamore at austin.rr.com, ExI chat list >Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become >the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:23:51 +0100 > >nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > >>Dirk, Let's start a new thread if you are going to break off the original >>threat topic. >> >> >> >Or even thread... > >>Dirk wrote: >> >>"I would have thought that a better Transhumanist position would be to try >>and get the govt *out* of the marriage business. >>IMO it's a mix of religion and contract law that could well survive >>without any govt input at all." >> >> >>Did I mention keeping government in marriage? Don't think so. Not my >>views at all. >> >> >> >Well, you seem pretty pleased that the Spanish govt is extending its reach >to gay marriage. >I can only hope that the whole thing is stretched to breaking point in the >near future with recognition and equal rights to marry multiple pets >(straight or gay). > >Why can't I marry my car? > > >Dirk > >The Consensus:- >The political party for the new millenium >http://www.theconsensus.org From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 18:16:44 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:16:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Mice put in 'suspended animation' - BBC In-Reply-To: References: <1aa0aa6f05042119175ba4d7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e05042211164d33d196@mail.gmail.com> On 4/22/05, Neil Halelamien wrote: > Mammals normally maintain their core body temperature (CBT) despite > changes in environmental temperature. Exceptions to this norm include > suspended animation-like states such as hibernation, torpor, and > estivation. These states are all characterized by marked decreases in > metabolic rate, followed by a loss of homeothermic control in which > the animal's CBT approaches that of the environment. We report that > hydrogen sulfide can induce a suspended animation-like state in a > nonhibernating species, the house mouse (Mus musculus). This state is > readily reversible and does not appear to harm the animal. This > suggests the possibility of inducing suspended animation-like states > for medical applications. Interesting. How sure can we be that the house mouse isn't descended from a hibernating species? (Does anyone know where it originated from before it started hitch-hiking all over the planet? That might give a clue if so.) - Russell From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 22 18:20:43 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05042122203f2df367@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050422182043.5125.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > > Anyway, thread over. > > Oops, sorry :-) No worries. You bring up a good point. Personally, I suspect that directing people to college from the outset might cause them to give up, as college is a fairly major investment, especially if one is already carrying a high debt load and needs to find work soon. That's why I direct people in said circumstances to paths where they can get a job soon, and then self-study while getting a paycheck to pick up the rest of what they need. College, if possible, is better, but it's often not an immediate option...even if the skills are needed immediately. I was just trying to cut off protest about "But my MSCE DOES mean I'm worth $100K/year! Why won't anyone pay me what I'm worth?!? That CAN'T be my fault; we MUST be in a depression!" or similar, which I've heard far too many times, and I'd really rather not bother with yet again. I didn't see a clear way to block that without stopping the entire debate. As to your point about being a constant learner - that seems to be a requirement for a growing number of new-tech fields. For example, I've been mucking around in a nanofabrication facility on the side, and one of the things that strikes me is the vast array of new techniques and considerations, such that even the experts seem to have only mastered narrow portions of it. I know I'm a bit of an amateur in the lab, but it looks like any would-be nanotech worker who is unwilling to frequently learn new tricks and techniques has a rather limited career...quite analogous to the IT career of someone who switches off their desire (and thus ability) to learn after getting a MSCE. Learning how to learn - on the fly, identifying what concepts one needs to pick up and how best to acquire them, and how to quickly distill down to what one immediately needs to accomplish one's immediate tasks - seems like the ultimate meta-skill, the absence of which fundamentally limits one's potential career options (in extreme cases, to the point of unemployment outside of menial jobs). Our schools and colleges try to teach that, but always by example and practice. I wonder if anyone's developed a useful theory that one can study, and then apply this theory to certain examples (e.g., here is how you learn, and here's a biology facet - assuming you're not already a bio whiz - that you can apply the method to). I wonder if it's just because the effects of this skill (or its absence) are so powerful, and because it takes years to properly master, that many people seem to assume it's either inborn or not, and not actually something that almost anyone can eventually learn? (A long learning curve is not a cliff, even if those on the bottom might think it is.) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 19:21:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422192122.36086.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> So, since my answering machine can give me an answer, can I marry it? My PC just responded "I do" when I asked it to marry me. Am I now engaged? Whether I programmed it to do so or not is immaterial. All great spouses are well programmed.... ;) --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > I also think that if I want to marry my phone it is only my > business > > (and perhaps my phone's) > > Your phone, being an inanimate object, can not give consent to marry. > "Marriage", as a type of contract, only has meaning between two > individuals who can give consent. (Which has implications if you > want > to marry, or marry off, a young child, who will eventually become > someone who is capable of understanding marriage but is not yet > developed enough to do so. The same consideration may apply to AIs, > if they take any significant amount of time to grow from merely > "capable of independent operation" to "true understanding of the > consequences of actions".) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 22 20:05:12 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422200512.77985.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > So, since my answering machine can give me an answer, can I marry it? Inanimate objects can give answers, in reaction to stimuli (an incoming phone message, a timer going off, or whatever). Doesn't change a thing. :P From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 21:05:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Government & Marriage (Was: Spain has become the third country in Europetolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422210535.21466.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > So, since my answering machine can give me an answer, can I marry > it? > > Inanimate objects can give answers, in reaction to stimuli (an > incoming > phone message, a timer going off, or whatever). Doesn't change a > thing. :P But I'm used to relationships lacking animacy, hell thats the primary complaint most guys have when they divorce their wives. The great thing about the answering machine is it only talks back when I want it to, it takes orders quite well, doesn't mind a long distance relationship, doesn't get angry about the other answering machine, and can even play music. If I could teach it to cook and clean I'd be all set. I suppose I could become muslim and marry four different appliances... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 22 22:37:37 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Retraining (was: Turbulence of obsolesence) Message-ID: <20050422223737.21393.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> It's been pointed out to me that what I said was misinterpreted, and contained some errors. Yes, it appears I was wrong about the amount of traffic that DDOS, spam, and related things consume, especially if one takes the impression that these related things are more the ISP's problem than the end user's (it's the other way around: ISPs mostly just deal with the traffic, but end users have to clean up the results of that traffic when certain bad things come over the wire). But the main point of disagreement is on retraining. To wit, it has been asserted that an average 50 year old with a mortgage is fundamentally untrainable, and therefore must rely exclusively on skills already obtained for future employment. I do not believe that to be true, and in every case of similar nature I have looked at where someone was sworn to be untrainable, it turned out the person in question was trainable - if properly motivated. It seems in little need of proof that ability to actually obtain a job should usually be motivation, given as in these cases people do look for jobs. (Perhaps some do just to fulfill unemployment benefit conditions. I wonder how one could accurately test such a thing, given as said slackers would have motivation to lie to anyone trying to see if they were just leeching off what was supposed to be a temporary safety net until they became employed again.) If this were true, it would spell out a fundamental problem for life extension. (Careers today can already be short. If you're unemployable when you're 50, you've 15 years until "normal" retirement age today in which to struggle through. But what happens when "normal" retirement age goes from 65 to 85, or to 205 - even ignoring the career-shortening effects of accelerating change?) This doesn't mean it can't be true - consider one of Alan Turing's cited classes of false "objections" to artificial intelligence: http://jimmy.qmuc.ac.uk/jisew/ewv22n1/PART3.HTM > The "Heads in the Sand" Objection is that: > > The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us > hope and believe that they cannot do so. Mr. Turing rightly dismissed this as fear, not a logical objection that could prevent this from happening. Likewise, the problem of untrainability is partly a fear - but that does not, by itself, mean we can not deal with it. Rather, it means that it is an important problem, that we need to come up with a coherent answer to. I believe and suspect, based upon my personal experiences of being human and of observing other humans, that the fundamental answer lies in making sure humans in general remain able to learn new skills and adapt to new situations, even when their resources are limited. Thus, for instance, while a college education is necessary to become a good programmer, in practice some of those wishing to transition to said career must find a way without the expense of college - or, maybe, by finding ways to finance college other than from their own pocket (or from funding sources, like student loans, that are largely not available to older students already in debt). This is probably true of many other careers enabled by new technologies. It would benefit us to develop and promote a general alternative approach to these kinds of situations, so that people may see our aims not as putting them personally out to pasture, but rather as helping them become richer (or, at least, helping them pay off their debts) through enabling better use of their own efforts. My choice of words here is deliberate. I know I do not have a solid answer to this question. There is even a possibility I may be wrong, and that most of humanity (the portion that becomes untrainable in older years) is doomed by the technologies we advocate to become obsolete, crippled, and miserable. But that fate is far from a sure thing, unless people in general give up without trying (in which case it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). I do know that, if there is any chance to save most of humanity from that fate, the only way is for people to try. (There were also concerns about the specific new technologies that people can transition to. I could attempt to list them, but that would be self-defeating. Anyone who has concerns about them can google around; there are more than any one of us knows, and each person will find different careers more appealing. Any attempt to promote one or a few specific technologies or careers as the solution to everyone's problems will probably fail for more people.) From riel at surriel.com Sat Apr 23 02:17:55 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <4268F366.3020107@neopax.com> References: <470a3c5205042122035018b4b6@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050422065922.02db6de0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <4268F366.3020107@neopax.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > I see PostHumanity moving in two major directions. > They are total individualism and hive minds. > And sex/gender has no major place in either IMO. I'm not convinced that things like marriage will no longer exist in a posthuman race. I hope (and believe) that posthuman "people" will have enough control over their destiny to decide for themselves what they'll want to do - and I expect that many people will be more comfortable in a marriage. When we move between the stars, and communication is still limited by the speed of light, we will have a huge diversity between different societies. While there may be hive minds and totally individualistic societies, I expect that things like marriage will live on. After all, if the basic concept is there in birds (who split off from mammals a LONG time ago), I would certainly expect it to be there in posthuman people, who will be a lot closer to us than birds. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From riel at surriel.com Sat Apr 23 02:23:21 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > I think that the opposite is likely. > That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and polarised, > competition between new Human species. > Racism writ larger than ever. > Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to those > who do. It all depends on how fast we'll be able to travel, and how much matter & energy we have access to. If we can't break the light speed barrier, I expect various human cultures to be too far away to be able to effectively compete with others. After all, if sending 10,000 soldiers to an "enemy's" territory takes a few centuries, why bother? There could be half a billion trained soldiers waiting, or the two civilisations could be the best of friends again (assuming ship speed << light speed). -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 23 02:54:38 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe Message-ID: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> I am curious, does anyone have a reliable estimate of the mass of the universe in kilograms including baryonic matter, EM radiation, dark matter, dark energy, and neutrinos? The reason I am asking is because I have been doing some calculations and have reached some interesting results. These results are based on 4 assumptions: 1. Gravitational effects always travel faster than light because they travel at the speed of quantum information (i.e. the velocity of spread of the QM wave function). The velocity of quantum information seems to range from infinite for a stationary particle to just larger than c for a particle moving at very high relativistic speeds. 2. Inflation allows galaxies to apparently receed from each other at faster than c. I say apparently because the galaxies themselves are not actually moving that fast, but new space is constantly being created between them to give them the appearence that they are moving at superluminal velocities. 3. The universe is a 4-D hypersphere where expanding light cones trace geodesic lines that follow the curvature of the surface space of the hypersphere at the constant velocity c. 4. There is a universal reference frame for time but not space, as measured from the Big Bang and "clocked" by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Based on these postulates, my calculations seem to indicate that there is a cutoff for the mass of the universe at about 10^53 kg. If the universe has more mass than that, then we should only be able to SEE a small portion of that mass because the universe is expanding faster than the light cones generated by the matter that's in it. The more matter there is, the smaller the fraction of it we would see that is if it is evenly distributed on large scales. We should still be able to FEEL it though because the gravity effects would be noticable to us due to postulate 2. My equations seem to indicate that depending on exactly how much matter there is in the universe, the light cone may or may not eventually catch up to us. That is there may be a point in the far future that we will be able to see all the matter in the universe but until then it will gravitationally affect us without us being able to see it. This would imply that dark matter is not some exotic "spooky" form of matter but is instead just normal baryonic matter that we just can't see yet because the light from it is still trying to catch up to us. Interestingly enough my results seem to indicate that the "present" Hubble Constant is around 15x10^-18 1/sec instead of the 18x10^-18 1/sec that is commonly accepted. The reason seems to be that the Hubble constant is getting smaller as the universe gets older so that the commonly accepted Hubble constant is the "past" value the constant had when the light left the distant galaxies all those billions of years ago. What I am still trying to figure out is what this implies for the rotation-speed problem for galaxies. I am not a professional astrophysicist but my math seems pretty suggestive in this regard. Any thoughts from the pros? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 23 04:02:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychological Roots of Religious Belief Message-ID: <4af192a88d122ecb255ca0bbcbaa7203@mac.com> I am about four chapters into a book by the above name by M.D. Faber. It was just published in November, 2004. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022673/ qid=1114226930/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2857632-8806264?v=glance&s=books This is one of the most important books in this area that I have ever read. While I have a strong enough love of rationality to have remained hooked by religion I have certainly been strongly under its sway at some points in my life and have been drown toward it even despite my rational objections even to this day. A large part of what kept me fascinated was the very existence of such a strong deep pull and that the religious pull seem to have this experiential quality of being "truer than true" despite lacking evidence or reasoning establishing its validity. It was enough to make me wonder if I was "called" and if their was some means of extra-rational knowing after all. In addition I have had a few very powerful mystical experiences that had what I was drawn to deeply and utterly present completely fulfilling and seemingly validating that deep yearning. It has been stumping me and bothering me a lot that I didn't have a good explanation for the flavor and strength of these incredible affective experiences. The best I came up with is that I had been deeply infected as a child with religious memes and had deepened it as an adult to such an extent that I would always have a deep groove in my brain in that direction. But that did not satisfactorily explain it to say the least. This book explains very convincingly how the experience of human infancy at a depth psychological level plus the fact of infant amnesia sets us up for being touched at a profoundly deep affective level by religion aka spirituality. I cannot do justice to the author's reasoning here. But I heartily recommend this book with one warning. If you are not willing to let go of whatever of the deep sweet powerful religious yearning that may still lurk inside, do not read this book. Read this book if you want to complete your understanding of why most human beings are deeply drawn to religion and are so powerfully bound to it. - samantha From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 23 06:34:00 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050423063400.52231.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Thanks for updating us on this newly arrived > world-wide > issue. Congratulations to Spain! > > Disclaimer: The institute of marriage is not > necessarily a futuristic > plan. I wonder how transhumanists in the coming > generations will develop > relationship contracts that are not so historically > binding by "death do us > part" sentiment. Well one possible future is that having uploaded yourself into some supercomputer somewhere and backed your personality (software) up on some giant hard-drive , you have several clones (wetware) of yourself in cryogenic storage. When the current clone of you dies, you thaw out one of your back ups, download yourself into the clone. At that point I would say you have fufilled the til death do you part thing. Then you should be free to dive back into a different part of the gene pool. > And about that "sex" word ... > > Gender restriction is another human > biological/psychological > characteristic. How will we view marriage when we > are able to interchange > our gender? Probably the same way that current transexuals view them. We have actually pretty much gotten to this point technologically. If you want to know how a post-operation trans-sexual feels about marriage . . . ask one. You would probably be better off looking in Dallas than Austin however. ;) > I do think being in a committed loving relationship > adds to the long, > healthy, happy lives; but it is a human institute. > In the future, when we > no longer reside only in one reality or one gender, > it will be interesting > to see if marriage is entirely discarded, or if the > rules of marriage are > revised to include multiple relationships for > multiple environments. I would not call "til death do us part" a human institution. Wolves do it, hawks do it, even prairie voles do it. It is a natural trait that evolved in many creatures because it confers an evolutionary advantage to ones offspring. How technology will change this is too far-off and dependent on how much our instincts are hardware and and how much software. > Even > if a type of contractual institute such as marriage > will be necessary for > long, healthy, happy lives. If not, what would > replace it? Shacking up? > An evolved > psychology? Perhaps a transhumanist psychology in > which we provide a > transhuman-posthuman wide-spread environment of > inclusively, support, > nurturing, friendship, and connectivity. Whatever it is, I hope it involves a lot of the "sex" word . . . and some just plain sex too . . . and some kinky sex from time to time. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 23 07:54:18 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:54:18 -0700 Subject: Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050420021901.65431.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050420021901.65431.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5fe7676e68aa72d7a2e3137505c12496@mac.com> Both of you, this is getting into personal slams. If you can't discuss the topic civilly then drop it. - s On Apr 19, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Joseph Bloch wrote: >> Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >>> This is an absolute lie, the second you've told in this thread. What >>> the site specifically advocates is that you follow the exact letter >> of >>> the IRS code, according to the definitions of the words in the code >>> that are specifically defined within the code. >>> >> Once again, I'm forced to ask. Have YOU done this yet? If you're not >> willing to put your money where your mouth is, I find your fanatical >> endorsement of this tax-evasion-scam somewhat disingenuous. > > I find your characterization of my commentary as 'fanatical' to be > fantastical, your claim that I endorse it to be wrong (lie number > three) and asking someone about their tax relationship with the > government is not just rude and offensive (demanding they disclose it > is incredibly offensive), it is a logical fallacy. Have you ever > happened to have read the fifth amendment? > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! > http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 23 08:00:48 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:00:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> Message-ID: <0e7577dc62621f9735137ce69de5579b@mac.com> On Apr 22, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Jef Allbright wrote: > >> Natasha made a very important point, but I don't think it included >> anything about gender differences becoming obsolete. Rather, we can >> expect *increased* diversity, but within an increasingly aware >> cultural >> framework that recognizes and promotes the enhanced value of >> cooperative >> interaction among diverse agents. >> > I think that the opposite is likely. > That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and > polarised, competition between new Human species. > Racism writ larger than ever. > Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to > those who do. > > It doesn't sound as good for anyone as increased cooperation. So why do you expect this/ How will these folks compete successfully against groups that do cooperate and work together? - s From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 23 08:18:58 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:18:58 -0700 Subject: APOLOGIES re Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <5fe7676e68aa72d7a2e3137505c12496@mac.com> References: <20050420021901.65431.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5fe7676e68aa72d7a2e3137505c12496@mac.com> Message-ID: This one got away from me. It was an old draft I had thought better of sending and then hit the wrong key. Mea culpa. On Apr 23, 2005, at 12:54 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Both of you, this is getting into personal slams. If you can't > discuss the topic civilly then drop it. > > - s > > On Apr 19, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> >> --- Joseph Bloch wrote: >>> Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> >>>> This is an absolute lie, the second you've told in this thread. What >>>> the site specifically advocates is that you follow the exact letter >>> of >>>> the IRS code, according to the definitions of the words in the code >>>> that are specifically defined within the code. >>>> >>> Once again, I'm forced to ask. Have YOU done this yet? If you're not >>> willing to put your money where your mouth is, I find your fanatical >>> endorsement of this tax-evasion-scam somewhat disingenuous. >> >> I find your characterization of my commentary as 'fanatical' to be >> fantastical, your claim that I endorse it to be wrong (lie number >> three) and asking someone about their tax relationship with the >> government is not just rude and offensive (demanding they disclose it >> is incredibly offensive), it is a logical fallacy. Have you ever >> happened to have read the fifth amendment? >> >> Mike Lorrey >> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. >> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." >> -William Pitt (1759-1806) >> Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> __________________________________ >> Do you Yahoo!? >> Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! >> http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 23 08:20:25 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:20:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: <20050422182043.5125.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050422182043.5125.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <36d1995490ce709bc9bff3663ba4eb4c@mac.com> On Apr 22, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > As to your point about being a constant learner - that seems to be a > requirement for a growing number of new-tech fields. For example, I've > been mucking around in a nanofabrication facility on the side, and one > of the things that strikes me is the vast array of new techniques and > considerations, such that even the experts seem to have only mastered > narrow portions of it. I know I'm a bit of an amateur in the lab, but > it looks like any would-be nanotech worker who is unwilling to > frequently learn new tricks and techniques has a rather limited > career...quite analogous to the IT career of someone who switches off > their desire (and thus ability) to learn after getting a MSCE. > I thought it was the act of getting the MSCE that switched off the ability to learn. :-) > Learning how to learn - on the fly, identifying what concepts one needs > to pick up and how best to acquire them, and how to quickly distill > down to what one immediately needs to accomplish one's immediate tasks > - seems like the ultimate meta-skill, the absence of which > fundamentally limits one's potential career options (in extreme cases, > to the point of unemployment outside of menial jobs). Our schools and > colleges try to teach that, but always by example and practice. Actually I am not aware of any standard college coursework that attempts to teach any such thing. We assume that students will pick up this skill largely without specific focus on the meta level. In practice the successful student seems to learn how to do well on tests. This is not the same as learning to learn efficiently and well or to learning to think, problem solve and innovate. > I > wonder if anyone's developed a useful theory that one can study, and > then apply this theory to certain examples (e.g., here is how you > learn, and here's a biology facet - assuming you're not already a bio > whiz - that you can apply the method to). I wonder if it's just > because the effects of this skill (or its absence) are so powerful, and > because it takes years to properly master, that many people seem to > assume it's either inborn or not, and not actually something that > almost anyone can eventually learn? It is not inborn. Some of us manage to cobble together slightly more efficient learning and thinking strategies. But it is very hit or miss. - samantha From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 23 09:47:15 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:47:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Retraining (was: Turbulence of obsolesence) In-Reply-To: <20050422223737.21393.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050422223737.21393.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/22/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > My choice of words here is deliberate. I know I do not have a solid > answer to this question. There is even a possibility I may be wrong, > and that most of humanity (the portion that becomes untrainable in > older years) is doomed by the technologies we advocate to become > obsolete, crippled, and miserable. But that fate is far from a sure > thing, unless people in general give up without trying (in which case > it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). I do know that, if there is > any chance to save most of humanity from that fate, the only way is for > people to try. > > (There were also concerns about the specific new technologies that > people can transition to. I could attempt to list them, but that would > be self-defeating. Anyone who has concerns about them can google > around; there are more than any one of us knows, and each person will > find different careers more appealing. Any attempt to promote one or a > few specific technologies or careers as the solution to everyone's > problems will probably fail for more people.) > Surely extended life and nano-Santa will arrive about the same time? The end of the work ethic because there will be no jobs left. A life of playing golf and watching ball games beckons. One wit has said "The worst thing about dying is not knowing who will win next year's major league". :) This is similar to why I gave up competitive chess as a hobby when I realised that ordinary pcs could play better than me. It just didn't feel like all the study and practice required was worth doing. So sure, humans can be playful amateurs at every skill, but if you want it done properly, you will get a machine to do it. This may be a temporary phase until human enhancement sweeps through, 'improving' mankind. But the machines will be' improving' faster than mankind - unless humans become the machines. The other worry about enhancing humanity is that Jef is happy to assume that an enhanced Jihad warrior will stop being a Jihad warrior. 'Oh, silly me. I must try and stop all this hating the infidel nonsense'. Similarly, the hope is that an enhanced white supremist will stop hating other races. While this is all very nice, it sounds very much like Jef wants 'enhancement' to change them into completely different people with everyone becoming nice Disneyworld people. This sounds rather unlikely to me. The terrible destructive power that will be available to individuals seems to make a type of hive mind inevitable - for its own protection. The wild individuals will have to be controlled lest they destroy everything. BillK From megao at sasktel.net Sat Apr 23 15:12:21 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:12:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] CBC pre-visit interview Monday 9AM CST Message-ID: <426A65D5.6020608@sasktel.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CBC pre-visit interview Monday 9AM Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:04:08 -0500 From: Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. To: Eric Nash , janine at mts.net, Dale & Paule Hjertaas , Dale_olafson50 at hotmail.com, Arthur Hanks , Pat Lenton , Lana Tatarliov , cynthiairwin at sasktel.net, creatingexcellence at canada.com, darrel.c at sasktel.net, Jolene F , Kevin Friesen , kevans2 at agr.gov.sk.ca, ksailor at shaw.ca, Marlin Stangeland , Giu1i0 Pri5c0 , hempology at gmail.com, RANDY WICK , scents at planet.eon.net, ExI chat list , futuretag at yahoogroups.com, orin at sasktel.net, Morris Johnson Hi Eric et al: I am to provide conversation to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with the basic information from which they will base their questions for an on-site shoot in about 10-14 days. I want to inform but not confuse the lay audience. What we have here is an agroforestry farm with buffaloberry, sea buckthorn, chokecherry , caragana and other minor trees. What we are doing is planting hemp cannabis for medicinal uses. We can also grow medicinal marijuana under contract for holders of a government medical use permit (MMAR). We also harvest buffaloberry berries and growing leaves for a potent secondary plant product. We custom compound and mass produce from a broad range of prototyped NHP formulations , singly or in combination . My desired focus is to connect the battle to ease and reduce the effects of aging which I intend to characterize as a complex terminal degenerative disease with the special emphasis on plant based biopharmacology of agroforestry farmed trees and crops. Agriculture as a source of valuable medicines as well as foodstuffs to fight ageing (enhance lifespan potential). Suggested talking points? Morris Johnson 306-447-4944 ph/fax mfj.eav at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Sat Apr 23 18:24:46 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:24:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <0e7577dc62621f9735137ce69de5579b@mac.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <0e7577dc62621f9735137ce69de5579b@mac.com> Message-ID: <426A92EE.6050704@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> Jef Allbright wrote: >> >>> Natasha made a very important point, but I don't think it included >>> anything about gender differences becoming obsolete. Rather, we can >>> expect *increased* diversity, but within an increasingly aware cultural >>> framework that recognizes and promotes the enhanced value of >>> cooperative >>> interaction among diverse agents. >>> >> I think that the opposite is likely. >> That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and >> polarised, competition between new Human species. >> Racism writ larger than ever. >> Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out >> to those who do. >> >> > > It doesn't sound as good for anyone as increased cooperation. So why > do you expect this/ How will these folks compete successfully against > groups that do cooperate and work together? > > The same way as such people do now. They cooperate when it suits them and, all other things being approx equal, give preference to 'their own kind'. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Sat Apr 23 18:29:04 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:29:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychological Roots of Religious Belief In-Reply-To: <4af192a88d122ecb255ca0bbcbaa7203@mac.com> References: <4af192a88d122ecb255ca0bbcbaa7203@mac.com> Message-ID: <426A93F0.60806@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > I am about four chapters into a book by the above name by M.D. Faber. > It was just published in November, 2004. > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022673/ > qid=1114226930/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2857632-8806264?v=glance&s=books > > This is one of the most important books in this area that I have ever > read. While I have a strong enough love of rationality to have > remained hooked by religion I have certainly been strongly under its > sway at some points in my life and have been drown toward it even > despite my rational objections even to this day. A large part of > what kept me fascinated was the very existence of such a strong deep > pull and that the religious pull seem to have this experiential > quality of being "truer than true" despite lacking evidence or > reasoning establishing its validity. It was enough to make me > wonder if I was "called" and if their was some means of > extra-rational knowing after all. In addition I have had a few very > powerful mystical experiences that had what I was drawn to deeply and > utterly present completely fulfilling and seemingly validating that > deep yearning. It has been stumping me and bothering me a lot that > I didn't have a good explanation for the flavor and strength of these > incredible affective experiences. The best I came up with is that I > had been deeply infected as a child with religious memes and had > deepened it as an adult to such an extent that I would always have a > deep groove in my brain in that direction. But that did not > satisfactorily explain it to say the least. > > This book explains very convincingly how the experience of human > infancy at a depth psychological level plus the fact of infant > amnesia sets us up for being touched at a profoundly deep affective > level by religion aka spirituality. I cannot do justice to the > author's reasoning here. But I heartily recommend this book with one > warning. If you are not willing to let go of whatever of the deep > sweet powerful religious yearning that may still lurk inside, do not > read this book. Read this book if you want to complete your > understanding of why most human beings are deeply drawn to religion > and are so powerfully bound to it. > Well, it is a truism that our preferences all have 'rational reasons', even our irrational preferences. Essentially I have had much the same experiences as you claim you have had but seem to have chosen my 'religion' for reasons quite other. I like the 'culture' of Asatru - the degree to which the Gods may be 'real' (whatever that means) is irrelevent. No doubt my addiction to Asatru culture can be (say) traced back to be placed face up in my crib instead of face down. Everyone has to be somewhere for some reason. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Sat Apr 23 18:31:02 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:31:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <426A9466.9040807@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: > I am curious, does anyone have a reliable >estimate of the mass of the universe in kilograms >including baryonic matter, EM radiation, dark matter, >dark energy, and neutrinos? The reason I am asking is >because I have been doing some calculations and have >reached some interesting results. These results are >based on 4 assumptions: > >1. Gravitational effects always travel faster than >light because they travel at the speed of quantum >information (i.e. the velocity of spread of the QM >wave function). The velocity of quantum information >seems to range from infinite for a stationary particle >to just larger than c for a particle moving at very >high relativistic speeds. > > > > Gravitational effects propagate at c There has been some threads in sci.physics.research on experimental measurements. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Sat Apr 23 18:31:48 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:31:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> Message-ID: <426A9494.2090009@neopax.com> Rik van Riel wrote: >On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>I think that the opposite is likely. >>That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and polarised, >>competition between new Human species. >>Racism writ larger than ever. >>Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to those >>who do. >> >> > >It all depends on how fast we'll be able to travel, and how >much matter & energy we have access to. If we can't break >the light speed barrier, I expect various human cultures to >be too far away to be able to effectively compete with others. > > You are assuming moncultures. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Sat Apr 23 18:35:04 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:35:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity [Was: Spain has become...] In-Reply-To: <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <426A9558.5070306@neopax.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> Jef Allbright wrote: >> >>> Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an >>> increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes >>> the enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents. >>> >> I think that the opposite is likely. >> That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and >> polarised, competition between new Human species. >> Racism writ larger than ever. >> Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out >> to those who do. >> > Dirk, cooperative advantage is fundamental to competitive success at > all scales of organization, from the subatomic through prebiological > and biological to cultural. > > Do you not think these hypothetical separatists would have some > interests in common, and find ways to cooperate, even temporarily, to > overcome others less organized? Do you not think that those who find > themselves at a disadvantage would tend to adapt and cooperate rather > than be destroyed? > > Why do you speculate that these "new humans", more advanced than us, > would recapitulate evolutionary growth from isolated biological > organisms to cooperative cultural organisms? > > "Looking out for your own" is the essence of morality, and in the > broader sense means converting your potential enemies into trading > partners rather than destroying them. The only morality will be game theory . If it is cost effective to trade, then trade. If it is cost effective to annihilate the opposition then that's what will happen. Why do you expect evolutionary pressures to cease or expect some kind of universal morality beyond game theory? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 23 20:36:43 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:36:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Retraining (was: Turbulence of obsolesence) In-Reply-To: <20050422223737.21393.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050422223737.21393.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4e33e37df998938289be2cd24dbc6d87@mac.com> On Apr 22, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > But the main point of disagreement is on retraining. To wit, it has > been asserted that an average 50 year old with a mortgage is > fundamentally untrainable, and therefore must rely exclusively on > skills already obtained for future employment. I do not believe that > to be true, and in every case of similar nature I have looked at where > someone was sworn to be untrainable, it turned out the person in > question was trainable - if properly motivated. It seems in little > need of proof that ability to actually obtain a job should usually be > motivation, given as in these cases people do look for jobs. (Perhaps > some do just to fulfill unemployment benefit conditions. I wonder how > one could accurately test such a thing, given as said slackers would > have motivation to lie to anyone trying to see if they were just > leeching off what was supposed to be a temporary safety net until they > became employed again.) To begin to address this I think the following must be answered. 1) what is the financial situation of the average 50 yr old in say the US? 2) does "average" here mean of average intelligence? 3) for what areas do the new jobs exist that the retraining would be for? If for (3) we assume relatively high tech areas (service industry jobs don't require so much training) then the situation looks bleak that someone of average intelligence can master the skills and master them well enough to compete with bright people much younger and with far less financial overhead. Average intelligence people do not succeed in being educated into these fields even when young. On (1) the average American 50 year old has little savings and massive debt. After the recent bankruptcy law changes our 50 yr old would be required to continue to pay off the debts as long as s/he made over the median income. So the re-schooling hurdle is much higher than for a 20 year old. So no, I don't believe ti is simply a question of motivation and I find the suggestion that it is quite callous and baseless. > > If this were true, it would spell out a fundamental problem for life > extension. (Careers today can already be short. If you're > unemployable when you're 50, you've 15 years until "normal" retirement > age today in which to struggle through. But what happens when "normal" > retirement age goes from 65 to 85, or to 205 - even ignoring the > career-shortening effects of accelerating change?) This doesn't mean > it can't be true - consider one of Alan Turing's cited classes of > false "objections" to artificial intelligence: > > http://jimmy.qmuc.ac.uk/jisew/ewv22n1/PART3.HTM > >> The "Heads in the Sand" Objection is that: >> >> The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us >> hope and believe that they cannot do so. > > Mr. Turing rightly dismissed this as fear, not a logical objection > that could prevent this from happening. Likewise, the problem of > untrainability is partly a fear - but that does not, by itself, mean > we can not deal with it. Rather, it means that it is an important > problem, that we need to come up with a coherent answer to. > > I believe and suspect, based upon my personal experiences of being > human and of observing other humans, that the fundamental answer lies > in making sure humans in general remain able to learn new skills and > adapt to new situations, even when their resources are limited. Without the ability to upgrade intelligence and/or magic training technology I do not see how this can be achieved. So I will file it under wishful thinking. > Thus, > for instance, while a college education is necessary to become a good > programmer, in practice some of those wishing to transition to said Nope. I am a world class programmer and I left college early to go build systems. Our educational institutions are a very large part of the problem. They are still geared to full-time programs requiring years of investment to even get to the graduate level training. Nor is the training focused enough to easily accommodate adults seeking to retrain. Many times I have looked into going back for a degree only to be told my considerable self taught knowledge and decades of experience mean almost nothing and that I would have to spend a couple of years taking courses I neither wanted or needed just to get out of undergraduate hell. No thanks. I will continue to learn and dance without the paper. But then I am not exactly "average". > career must find a way without the expense of college - or, maybe, by > finding ways to finance college other than from their own pocket (or > from funding sources, like student loans, that are largely not > available to older students already in debt). This is probably true of > many other careers enabled by new technologies. It would benefit us to > develop and promote a general alternative approach to these kinds of > situations, so that people may see our aims not as putting them > personally out to pasture, but rather as helping them become richer > (or, at least, helping them pay off their debts) through enabling > better use of their own efforts. We need very different educational programs than the general college faire today, especially at the entry to a program level but also in tuning the program to each individual to a much greater extent than is currently done. > > My choice of words here is deliberate. I know I do not have a solid > answer to this question. There is even a possibility I may be wrong, > and that most of humanity (the portion that becomes untrainable in > older years) is doomed by the technologies we advocate to become > obsolete, crippled, and miserable. Almost everyone (yes, including you and I) at some point will become economically non-viable as technology advances and machines and cheaper foreign labor and younger more energetic workers come online. That there is not an economic niche for a person does not have to men that they are obsolete, crippled or miserable unless we allow that to be the case. If we can truly achieve an abundant society then an adequate living can be available for all whether or not they are employed. BTW, the majority of humanity is untrainable while still young. If we want people to embrace ultra high tech then we must show that there is a workable way they and theirs will be able to live reasonably well as the world changes. If people see that obsolescence comes ever sooner and that there is no plan for them to be ok when they are no longer employable then count on real and quite rational fear and push back. > But that fate is far from a sure > thing, unless people in general give up without trying (in which case > it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). I do know that, if there is > any chance to save most of humanity from that fate, the only way is for > people to try. You assume that it is just a matter of the individual trying. This is unjustified. You don't seem to be addressing the real problem. - samantha From riel at surriel.com Sun Apr 24 03:05:04 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: <426A9494.2090009@neopax.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <426A9494.2090009@neopax.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to > > > those who do. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You are assuming moncultures. That makes two of us, then ;) -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From benboc at lineone.net Sun Apr 24 10:34:46 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:34:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> Rik van Riel said: "After all, if the basic concept is there in birds (who split off from mammals a LONG time ago), I would certainly expect it to be there in posthuman people, who will be a lot closer to us than birds." I'm not arguing with your basic premise, but i would argue with the above statement. I reckon it's almost certain that there will be a *much* bigger gap between (many) posthumans and humans than that between birds and humans. I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if that wasn't so. In fact, the term 'posthumans' is almost meaningless as a basis for comparing stuff like this. It's like saying that 'post-book media' will or will not retain property X of books. It would be silly to say that 'post-book media' would be closer to books than books are to clay tablets, wouldn't it? ben From benboc at lineone.net Sun Apr 24 10:35:17 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:35:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Learning Strategies (was: Turbulence of obsolescence) In-Reply-To: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <426B7665.3060103@lineone.net> Samantha said: > Some of us manage to cobble together slightly more > efficient learning and thinking strategies. But it is very hit or > miss." Ha! Spot on! I've been saying for donkeys years, the schools fail miserably in what should be their primary duty - *teaching people to learn* (I'm not going to talk about teaching people to think. That's a harder topic!) The irony is, we figured out a few learning systems as long ago as the ancient greeks. But i don't know of a single education system in the world that has 'learning to learn' as a core competence. Once that is instilled, 'learning for life' becomes easy. Surely this should be the priority of any education strategy? It's like the old saying about teaching someone to fish. Adrian Tymes said: > I wonder if anyone's developed a useful theory that one can study, and > then apply this theory to certain examples (e.g., here is how you > learn, and here's a biology facet - assuming you're not already a bio > whiz - that you can apply the method to). I wonder if it's just > because the effects of this skill (or its absence) are so powerful, > and because it takes years to properly master, that many people seem > to assume it's either inborn or not, and not actually something that > almost anyone can eventually learn? There are loads of strategies for learning. I don't suppose there is one single method that suits everybody for all needs, but there are certainly lots of things you can learn that greatly increase your effectiveness at learning. I expect various people have tried to pull them all together into a coherent system, probably more than once, but it doesn't seem to have made much of an impact. Probably because it doesn't sell well. You won't learn this stuff at school, when you are a kid, which is when it has the biggest influence. In fact, i've had a thought: who would be interested in compiling a list of such techniques? You never know, somebody here might be able to spot some underlying patterns, and perhaps we could distill some quite powerful 'human learning algorithms'. I'm sure everyone's heard of mnemonics, mental walks, mind maps and so on, but there must be more, and there should be ways of combining techniques like these into a comprehensive system that takes account of different people's styles of learning, different primary modalities, attention spans, etc. Maybe there's even a way of making such a system of learning to learn easy to learn! What could be more extropic than learning to increase your ability to learn? :> If anyone is interested in taking this idea further, they are welcome to pm me. ben From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 11:05:15 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:05:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mice-hibernation scientist to help form Ikaria Inc. Message-ID: <470a3c5205042404054e625b83@mail.gmail.com> Seattlepi.com - Seattle cell biologist Mark Roth and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center are teaming up to form Ikaria Inc., a new biotechnology company that seeks to use Roth's discovery of inducing hibernation in mice to help humans with organ transplants, trauma and cancer care. Word of the new company follows yesterday's publication of Roth's groundbreaking study in the edition of Science. The company does not yet have a chief executive, said Spencer Lemons, a Hutch technology transfer executive who is overseeing the discovery that was done at the Seattle research institute. Roth, a Hutch researcher and the study's lead investigator, discovered that oxygen deprivation in mice led to a reversible state of hibernation. For doctors who need to stop bodily functions, this discovery gives hope that the same process could be done in humans, especially for cancer and trauma care. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Sun Apr 24 15:40:37 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:40:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain has become the third country in Europe tolegalise gay marriage In-Reply-To: References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <426A9494.2090009@neopax.com> Message-ID: <426BBDF5.3000609@neopax.com> Rik van Riel wrote: >On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Rik van Riel wrote: >> >> >>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to >>>>those who do. >>>> >>>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >>You are assuming moncultures. >> >> > >That makes two of us, then ;) > > > I think it will have to be that way to avoid civil war. Anyway, we'll see soon enough. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From hal at finney.org Sun Apr 24 17:25:53 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050424172553.DDC7A57EE6@finney.org> The Los Angeles Times has a debate today between Peter Huber, author of "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy," and Paul Roberts, author of "The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World," on the topic of Peak Oil. This link will probably only work for a few days: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-edebate24apr24,0,7963584.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions The debate unfortunately quickly departs from the topic of whether we will see a near-term peak in oil production and what its impact might be. Instead the authors fall back to arguing about the need for a carbon tax and the role of nuclear energy. The main value for me was the pointer to Huber's book, which I hadn't heard about. It sounds like a useful source of contrarian commentary. I did read one other Peak Oil book, "Out of Gas" by David Goodstein, who was my physics professor when I was in college in the 1970s, and again my son's instructor three years ago. Unfortunately this very thin volume was a disappointment. Much of the content was a recap of the scientific discovery of conservation of energy and the meaning of entropy. The information specific to Peak Oil was basically what you can easily find online. The best factual backgrounder on the Peak Oil situation I've found is , a Feb 2005 report by a government think tank. One weakness is that it is America centric and doesn't have much information about the rest of the world. But for America, the report notes that in 1973 the U.S. used 35 quads (quadrillion BTUs) of oil; then after the "energy crisis" usage declined to 30 quads by 1983. Since then it has grown and has reached 39 quads in 2003. Personally, I think it is amazing that oil usage has grown so little in the U.S., from 35 to 39 quads in 30 years of overall strong economic growth. In most sectors of the economy, oil usage has become much more efficient in the past few decades, and consumption has remained the same or even decreased. The one glaring exception is transportation. Almost half of oil goes for gasoline, and an additional 20% for diesel fuel. This is where the U.S. has been unable to economize effectively, and this is where the economy would first feel the pinch as oil prices rise due to a production peak. Anyone who has driven in the U.S. recently will be aware that the current fleet of vehicles is not optimized for low fuel consumption. The good news is that tremendous efficiency improvements are possible even just given current technology. The bad news is that this takes time and is expensive. Under normal circumstances, half the cars on the road will be replaced by consumers in the next 10-15 years at a cost of 1.3 trillion dollars. If gas prices continue to rise this will probably accelerate, but the costs are likely to be even greater. One other concept which has come out of my reading is an acronym used by Peak Oil supporters, EROEI: energy return over energy invested. It is mostly used to disparage alternative sources of energy like ethanol, solar panels or tar sands. The idea is that for many of these alternatives, you have to put in a great deal of energy to produce a unit of energy out. That makes them look artificially inexpensive today (or at least last year) with generally low energy prices, giving a too-low estimate of break-even pricing. With oil becoming more expensive, these alternatives will also be more expensive to produce and the break-even cost will climb. Saudi oil is said to have an EROEI ratio of about 30: spending the power of 1 barrel of oil produces 30 barrels. But many of these alternative fuels have EROEI ratios of more like 2-5 and some are even less than 1, depending on the production methods. This is a problem with government attempts to jump-start alternative fuels; the subsidies and market stimulation may make it profitable to exploit low-EROEI, energy-wasting methods of production. The result is an alternative fuels industry that is unsustainable when energy prices rise. The subsidies can actually be counter-productive by encouraging work on wasteful production methods instead of technologies that will be efficient even when energy becomes expensive. Hal From riel at surriel.com Sun Apr 24 18:34:51 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, ben wrote: > I'm not arguing with your basic premise, but i would argue with the > above statement. I reckon it's almost certain that there will be a > *much* bigger gap between (many) posthumans and humans than that between > birds and humans. I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if that > wasn't so. You're right. At least, I hope you are ;) My main hope for posthumanity is diversity - way more diversity than what is possible within a single species, with cultural diversity to match the biological diversity. As for whether the part of posthumanity that looks just like us will be a majority or minority, I suspect that will depend entirely on which groups of posthumans will colonise the most living space and experience the largest population expansion. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Sun Apr 24 19:33:34 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:33:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050424172553.DDC7A57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: There's a decent writeup on kuroshin covering the same topic: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/22/134835/319 BAL >From: hal at finney.org ("Hal Finney") >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil >Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:25:53 -0700 (PDT) > >The Los Angeles Times has a debate today between Peter Huber, author of >"The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste and Why >We Will Never Run Out of Energy," and Paul Roberts, author of "The End >of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World," on the topic of Peak Oil. >This link will probably only work for a few days: >http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-edebate24apr24,0,7963584.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions > >The debate unfortunately quickly departs from the topic of whether we >will see a near-term peak in oil production and what its impact might be. >Instead the authors fall back to arguing about the need for a carbon >tax and the role of nuclear energy. The main value for me was the >pointer to Huber's book, which I hadn't heard about. It sounds like a >useful source of contrarian commentary. > >I did read one other Peak Oil book, "Out of Gas" by David Goodstein, >who was my physics professor when I was in college in the 1970s, and >again my son's instructor three years ago. Unfortunately this very thin >volume was a disappointment. Much of the content was a recap of the >scientific discovery of conservation of energy and the meaning of entropy. >The information specific to Peak Oil was basically what you can easily >find online. > >The best factual backgrounder on the Peak Oil situation I've found >is , a Feb 2005 >report by a government think tank. One weakness is that it is America >centric and doesn't have much information about the rest of the world. >But for America, the report notes that in 1973 the U.S. used 35 quads >(quadrillion BTUs) of oil; then after the "energy crisis" usage declined >to 30 quads by 1983. Since then it has grown and has reached 39 quads >in 2003. Personally, I think it is amazing that oil usage has grown so >little in the U.S., from 35 to 39 quads in 30 years of overall strong >economic growth. > >In most sectors of the economy, oil usage has become much more efficient >in the past few decades, and consumption has remained the same or even >decreased. The one glaring exception is transportation. Almost half of >oil goes for gasoline, and an additional 20% for diesel fuel. This is >where the U.S. has been unable to economize effectively, and this is >where the economy would first feel the pinch as oil prices rise due to >a production peak. > >Anyone who has driven in the U.S. recently will be aware that the >current fleet of vehicles is not optimized for low fuel consumption. >The good news is that tremendous efficiency improvements are possible >even just given current technology. The bad news is that this takes time >and is expensive. Under normal circumstances, half the cars on the road >will be replaced by consumers in the next 10-15 years at a cost of 1.3 >trillion dollars. If gas prices continue to rise this will probably >accelerate, but the costs are likely to be even greater. > >One other concept which has come out of my reading is an acronym used >by Peak Oil supporters, EROEI: energy return over energy invested. >It is mostly used to disparage alternative sources of energy like >ethanol, solar panels or tar sands. The idea is that for many of these >alternatives, you have to put in a great deal of energy to produce a unit >of energy out. That makes them look artificially inexpensive today (or >at least last year) with generally low energy prices, giving a too-low >estimate of break-even pricing. With oil becoming more expensive, these >alternatives will also be more expensive to produce and the break-even >cost will climb. > >Saudi oil is said to have an EROEI ratio of about 30: spending the power >of 1 barrel of oil produces 30 barrels. But many of these alternative >fuels have EROEI ratios of more like 2-5 and some are even less than 1, >depending on the production methods. This is a problem with government >attempts to jump-start alternative fuels; the subsidies and market >stimulation may make it profitable to exploit low-EROEI, energy-wasting >methods of production. The result is an alternative fuels industry that >is unsustainable when energy prices rise. The subsidies can actually be >counter-productive by encouraging work on wasteful production methods >instead of technologies that will be efficient even when energy becomes >expensive. > >Hal >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Apr 24 21:27:59 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:27:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050424172553.DDC7A57EE6@finney.org> References: <20050424172553.DDC7A57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <7f9f7f21212597ff8f38e7b6597b549f@mac.com> I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But whether we are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way irrelevant. If most of the major players believe we are nearing Peak Oil and act accordingly then most of the Peak Oil scenarios will quickly follow. My take is that a lot of the world's current events are much easier to explain if it is assumed most of the players believe Peak Oil is fast upon us. - samantha On Apr 24, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Hal Finney wrote: > The Los Angeles Times has a debate today between Peter Huber, author of > "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste and Why > We Will Never Run Out of Energy," and Paul Roberts, author of "The End > of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World," on the topic of Peak Oil. > This link will probably only work for a few days: > http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op- > edebate24apr24,0,7963584.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions > > The debate unfortunately quickly departs from the topic of whether we > will see a near-term peak in oil production and what its impact might > be. > Instead the authors fall back to arguing about the need for a carbon > tax and the role of nuclear energy. The main value for me was the > pointer to Huber's book, which I hadn't heard about. It sounds like a > useful source of contrarian commentary. > > I did read one other Peak Oil book, "Out of Gas" by David Goodstein, > who was my physics professor when I was in college in the 1970s, and > again my son's instructor three years ago. Unfortunately this very > thin > volume was a disappointment. Much of the content was a recap of the > scientific discovery of conservation of energy and the meaning of > entropy. > The information specific to Peak Oil was basically what you can easily > find online. > > The best factual backgrounder on the Peak Oil situation I've found > is , a Feb 2005 > report by a government think tank. One weakness is that it is America > centric and doesn't have much information about the rest of the world. > But for America, the report notes that in 1973 the U.S. used 35 quads > (quadrillion BTUs) of oil; then after the "energy crisis" usage > declined > to 30 quads by 1983. Since then it has grown and has reached 39 quads > in 2003. Personally, I think it is amazing that oil usage has grown so > little in the U.S., from 35 to 39 quads in 30 years of overall strong > economic growth. > > In most sectors of the economy, oil usage has become much more > efficient > in the past few decades, and consumption has remained the same or even > decreased. The one glaring exception is transportation. Almost half > of > oil goes for gasoline, and an additional 20% for diesel fuel. This is > where the U.S. has been unable to economize effectively, and this is > where the economy would first feel the pinch as oil prices rise due to > a production peak. > > Anyone who has driven in the U.S. recently will be aware that the > current fleet of vehicles is not optimized for low fuel consumption. > The good news is that tremendous efficiency improvements are possible > even just given current technology. The bad news is that this takes > time > and is expensive. Under normal circumstances, half the cars on the > road > will be replaced by consumers in the next 10-15 years at a cost of 1.3 > trillion dollars. If gas prices continue to rise this will probably > accelerate, but the costs are likely to be even greater. > > One other concept which has come out of my reading is an acronym used > by Peak Oil supporters, EROEI: energy return over energy invested. > It is mostly used to disparage alternative sources of energy like > ethanol, solar panels or tar sands. The idea is that for many of these > alternatives, you have to put in a great deal of energy to produce a > unit > of energy out. That makes them look artificially inexpensive today (or > at least last year) with generally low energy prices, giving a too-low > estimate of break-even pricing. With oil becoming more expensive, > these > alternatives will also be more expensive to produce and the break-even > cost will climb. > > Saudi oil is said to have an EROEI ratio of about 30: spending the > power > of 1 barrel of oil produces 30 barrels. But many of these alternative > fuels have EROEI ratios of more like 2-5 and some are even less than 1, > depending on the production methods. This is a problem with government > attempts to jump-start alternative fuels; the subsidies and market > stimulation may make it profitable to exploit low-EROEI, energy-wasting > methods of production. The result is an alternative fuels industry > that > is unsustainable when energy prices rise. The subsidies can actually > be > counter-productive by encouraging work on wasteful production methods > instead of technologies that will be efficient even when energy becomes > expensive. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 25 04:24:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050424172553.DDC7A57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050425042430.93763.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Peter Huber had a speech and Q&A session on C-SPAN today hosted by the Harvard Club in NYC. It was a very good speech and he gave compelling reasons for what he has to say. I knew Peter Huber when he was an analyst for the Bonneville Power Administration, back in the early 1990's. He mentored me in my development of my energy conservation simulator that I used in marketing my exit sign retrofit kit. He is extremely smart, and as an engineer is incredibly unimpressed by the typical bureaucrats desire to keep information secret or to spin information for a desired political goal. I imagine he wrote this book after being exasperated with the immense amount of political bullshit that passes for science in the world of energy and environmental policy. Peter is not a stranger to 'green' energy, nor is he hostile to them. He just knows the facts: that they simply cannot compete with fossil fuels or the new nuclear energy. As great as solar is getting at reaching $0.25/kwh, that still isn't 12 cents or even 4 cents. The new pebble bed reactor technologies are competing head to head with fossil fuels, and in a capital rich economy, can even outcompete fossil fuels by a significant margin if one factors all costs as a closed cycle. This is why China is building more pebble bed reactors now than everybody else put together, and plans on making the technology a major part of its energy infrastructure. If the US doesn't do the same, we are going to be left behind. Right now China has 18 of the 25 most polluted cities and is the smoggiest nation on the planet. The state has realized the growing costs of this level of pollution upon the health of the nation. Right now the air pollution helps because it kills off some Chinese before they can reach retirement, but doesn't contribute much toward attenuating the reproductive rate. They know they have to stop burning the dirtiest coal in the world. By 2020, China will have 10% of the number of cars that the US has. By 2050 they will be the number one makers and operators of cars in the world. Assuming no Singularity by then, and no nuclear war with the US, Chinese authors will start writing tomes about the end of history and the evolutionary superiority of Chinese culture.... The Chinese are assuming Global Warming is real, and that even if Peak Oil isn't real in a physical sense, as Peter Huber argues, that it is real in a regulatory sense (as Peter states is the real case) in that as environmental protection becomes a global priority, states will legislate and regulate oil reserves out of production, despite their clear existence and our capacity to tap them ever more affordably. As we see Jeb Bush and Ahnuld the Gubernator both banning oil exploration off their coasts, it is the state that creating the Peak Oil experience. One reason for this is that high oil prices from short supplies increases oil tax revinues for governments that are increasingly short of revinues from other areas due either to tax cuts or poor economic performance (despite that poor performance being caused by overregulation, high oil costs, or excessive taxes). --- Hal Finney wrote: > The Los Angeles Times has a debate today between Peter Huber, author > of > "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste and > Why > We Will Never Run Out of Energy," and Paul Roberts, author of "The > End > of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World," on the topic of Peak > Oil. > This link will probably only work for a few days: > http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-edebate24apr24,0,7963584.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions > > The debate unfortunately quickly departs from the topic of whether we > will see a near-term peak in oil production and what its impact might > be. > Instead the authors fall back to arguing about the need for a carbon > tax and the role of nuclear energy. The main value for me was the > pointer to Huber's book, which I hadn't heard about. It sounds like > a useful source of contrarian commentary. > > I did read one other Peak Oil book, "Out of Gas" by David Goodstein, > who was my physics professor when I was in college in the 1970s, and > again my son's instructor three years ago. Unfortunately this very > thin > volume was a disappointment. Much of the content was a recap of the > scientific discovery of conservation of energy and the meaning of > entropy. > The information specific to Peak Oil was basically what you can > easily > find online. > > The best factual backgrounder on the Peak Oil situation I've found > is , a Feb 2005 > report by a government think tank. One weakness is that it is > America > centric and doesn't have much information about the rest of the > world. > But for America, the report notes that in 1973 the U.S. used 35 quads > (quadrillion BTUs) of oil; then after the "energy crisis" usage > declined > to 30 quads by 1983. Since then it has grown and has reached 39 > quads > in 2003. Personally, I think it is amazing that oil usage has grown > so > little in the U.S., from 35 to 39 quads in 30 years of overall strong > economic growth. > > In most sectors of the economy, oil usage has become much more > efficient > in the past few decades, and consumption has remained the same or > even > decreased. The one glaring exception is transportation. Almost half > of > oil goes for gasoline, and an additional 20% for diesel fuel. This > is > where the U.S. has been unable to economize effectively, and this is > where the economy would first feel the pinch as oil prices rise due > to > a production peak. > > Anyone who has driven in the U.S. recently will be aware that the > current fleet of vehicles is not optimized for low fuel consumption. > The good news is that tremendous efficiency improvements are possible > even just given current technology. The bad news is that this takes > time > and is expensive. Under normal circumstances, half the cars on the > road > will be replaced by consumers in the next 10-15 years at a cost of > 1.3 > trillion dollars. If gas prices continue to rise this will probably > accelerate, but the costs are likely to be even greater. > > One other concept which has come out of my reading is an acronym used > by Peak Oil supporters, EROEI: energy return over energy invested. > It is mostly used to disparage alternative sources of energy like > ethanol, solar panels or tar sands. The idea is that for many of > these > alternatives, you have to put in a great deal of energy to produce a > unit > of energy out. That makes them look artificially inexpensive today > (or > at least last year) with generally low energy prices, giving a > too-low > estimate of break-even pricing. With oil becoming more expensive, > these > alternatives will also be more expensive to produce and the > break-even > cost will climb. > > Saudi oil is said to have an EROEI ratio of about 30: spending the > power > of 1 barrel of oil produces 30 barrels. But many of these > alternative > fuels have EROEI ratios of more like 2-5 and some are even less than > 1, > depending on the production methods. This is a problem with > government > attempts to jump-start alternative fuels; the subsidies and market > stimulation may make it profitable to exploit low-EROEI, > energy-wasting > methods of production. The result is an alternative fuels industry > that > is unsustainable when energy prices rise. The subsidies can actually > be > counter-productive by encouraging work on wasteful production methods > instead of technologies that will be efficient even when energy > becomes > expensive. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 25 04:37:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <7f9f7f21212597ff8f38e7b6597b549f@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050425043740.28281.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Peak Oil exists for certain nations and certain oil companies, based on who has the rights to certain oil fields and which fields are being allowed to be developed by governments. The world is nowhere near any sort of impending oil shortage. We have a minimum of 100 years of oil available at todays market prices. The Canadian oil tar sands contain more oil (over 3,000 billion barrels), as do Venezuelan tar sands, that the idea that we are running out of oil is simply ludicrous. Technologies for affordably extracting oil from these sands is now perfected and is being implemented. In the shorter term, China, the Phillipines, Vietnam, and Indonesia are sitting on 19 billion barrels under the Spratlys, while the US has an equivalent amount sitting under ANWR, plus additional reserves elsewhere. The oil and gas fields of Wyoming, I am hearing are seeing a boom-time. --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But whether > we > are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way irrelevant. If most > > of the major players believe we are nearing Peak Oil and act > accordingly then most of the Peak Oil scenarios will quickly follow. > > My take is that a lot of the world's current events are much easier > to > explain if it is assumed most of the players believe Peak Oil is fast > > upon us. > > - samantha > > On Apr 24, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Hal Finney wrote: > > > The Los Angeles Times has a debate today between Peter Huber, > author of > > "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste and > Why > > We Will Never Run Out of Energy," and Paul Roberts, author of "The > End > > of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World," on the topic of Peak > Oil. > > This link will probably only work for a few days: > > http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op- > > edebate24apr24,0,7963584.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions > > > > The debate unfortunately quickly departs from the topic of whether > we > > will see a near-term peak in oil production and what its impact > might > > be. > > Instead the authors fall back to arguing about the need for a > carbon > > tax and the role of nuclear energy. The main value for me was the > > pointer to Huber's book, which I hadn't heard about. It sounds > like a > > useful source of contrarian commentary. > > > > I did read one other Peak Oil book, "Out of Gas" by David > Goodstein, > > who was my physics professor when I was in college in the 1970s, > and > > again my son's instructor three years ago. Unfortunately this very > > > thin > > volume was a disappointment. Much of the content was a recap of > the > > scientific discovery of conservation of energy and the meaning of > > entropy. > > The information specific to Peak Oil was basically what you can > easily > > find online. > > > > The best factual backgrounder on the Peak Oil situation I've found > > is , a Feb > 2005 > > report by a government think tank. One weakness is that it is > America > > centric and doesn't have much information about the rest of the > world. > > But for America, the report notes that in 1973 the U.S. used 35 > quads > > (quadrillion BTUs) of oil; then after the "energy crisis" usage > > declined > > to 30 quads by 1983. Since then it has grown and has reached 39 > quads > > in 2003. Personally, I think it is amazing that oil usage has > grown so > > little in the U.S., from 35 to 39 quads in 30 years of overall > strong > > economic growth. > > > > In most sectors of the economy, oil usage has become much more > > efficient > > in the past few decades, and consumption has remained the same or > even > > decreased. The one glaring exception is transportation. Almost > half > > of > > oil goes for gasoline, and an additional 20% for diesel fuel. This > is > > where the U.S. has been unable to economize effectively, and this > is > > where the economy would first feel the pinch as oil prices rise due > to > > a production peak. > > > > Anyone who has driven in the U.S. recently will be aware that the > > current fleet of vehicles is not optimized for low fuel > consumption. > > The good news is that tremendous efficiency improvements are > possible > > even just given current technology. The bad news is that this > takes > > time > > and is expensive. Under normal circumstances, half the cars on the > > > road > > will be replaced by consumers in the next 10-15 years at a cost of > 1.3 > > trillion dollars. If gas prices continue to rise this will > probably > > accelerate, but the costs are likely to be even greater. > > > > One other concept which has come out of my reading is an acronym > used > > by Peak Oil supporters, EROEI: energy return over energy invested. > > It is mostly used to disparage alternative sources of energy like > > ethanol, solar panels or tar sands. The idea is that for many of > these > > alternatives, you have to put in a great deal of energy to produce > a > > unit > > of energy out. That makes them look artificially inexpensive today > (or > > at least last year) with generally low energy prices, giving a > too-low > > estimate of break-even pricing. With oil becoming more expensive, > > > these > > alternatives will also be more expensive to produce and the > break-even > > cost will climb. > > > > Saudi oil is said to have an EROEI ratio of about 30: spending the > > > power > > of 1 barrel of oil produces 30 barrels. But many of these > alternative > > fuels have EROEI ratios of more like 2-5 and some are even less > than 1, > > depending on the production methods. This is a problem with > government > > attempts to jump-start alternative fuels; the subsidies and market > > stimulation may make it profitable to exploit low-EROEI, > energy-wasting > > methods of production. The result is an alternative fuels industry > > > that > > is unsustainable when energy prices rise. The subsidies can > actually > > be > > counter-productive by encouraging work on wasteful production > methods > > instead of technologies that will be efficient even when energy > becomes > > expensive. > > > > Hal > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hal at finney.org Mon Apr 25 05:19:04 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050425051904.C96FE57EE7@finney.org> Samantha writes: > I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But whether we > are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way irrelevant. If most > of the major players believe we are nearing Peak Oil and act > accordingly then most of the Peak Oil scenarios will quickly follow. > My take is that a lot of the world's current events are much easier to > explain if it is assumed most of the players believe Peak Oil is fast > upon us. I see several things that don't make sense though. Why would oil producing companies and countries be wasting such a valuable asset? If they really think that oil will be worth $100-200/bbl or even more in a few years, why sell it for $25 last year or $50 this year? The logical thing would be to hold onto the oil, keep it in the ground and profit from the tremendous price appreciation predicted by Peak Oil believers. And why don't the futures markets reflect this phenomenon? You can buy or sell oil right now for December 2010 delivery for less than $50/bbl. If close study of the situation provides strong evidence that the oil will be worth many times that, speculators stand to make enormous profits on the price rise. Yet no one is bidding the price up, and from what I have read even Peak Oil believers generally are not putting their money where their mouths are. Hal From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Apr 25 06:21:55 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Retraining (was: Turbulence of obsolesence) In-Reply-To: <4e33e37df998938289be2cd24dbc6d87@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050425062155.83237.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Average intelligence people do not succeed > in being educated into these fields even when young. We may disagree on "can't" versus "won't" here, but I think we can agree that is the core of the problem. So, how do we solve it? My suggested solution comes from the meaning of "won't" that lead to the disagreement. It appears that for these people to learn these skills would violate no laws of physics, would not violate any fundamental constraints of biology, and otherwise is technically possible - the problem is that it fails to happen. The usual motivating factors that one would usually assume to work in a capitalist society - e.g., sustaining an income so one does not starve - are failing to cause this to happen in far too many cases. There are claims that they are of "average intelligence" and that this somehow makes them biologically incapable of training. These claims appear to be unsupported by the evidence, since it has been documented that people can and do change IQ, up and down, during their lifetimes due in part to environmental effects, some of which are controlled by the individual. That said, the claims are perhaps correct with regards to their present capabilities: i.e., they can not take to retraining well unless and until some other circumstance is first taken care of (which circumstance would result in raised "intelligence" by this same metric). So the problem then becomes identifying that circumstance: what specific thing (not just vague "lack of intelligence") is keeping them from picking up new skills? What exactly, in detail, happens when they try the same retraining that other (more "intelligent") people can use to switch careers, that prevents them from doing so - and how can that chain of events be prevented from going wrong? To solve this will probably need a good knowledge of educational methods, specifically why and how they work. (Yes, there are problems, but the current system is not a complete failure.) New methods, or maybe alterations of current methods, will be needed to meet current needs. There are people working on this issue, but the efforts do not seem to be that coordinated, or usually coherent (beyond slapping a "training" or "education" label on something that sometimes imparts new knowledge, in search of profit or political correctness). > Our educational institutions are a very large part > of > the problem. They are still geared to full-time programs requiring > years of investment to even get to the graduate level training. Nor > is > the training focused enough to easily accommodate adults seeking to > retrain. This is very true. While there are "vocational" schools, those perhaps focus on excessively short-term items: for example, how to write HTML as opposed to how to best communicate ideas using the Web (which includes HTML writing and how pages look in different browsers, but also patterns of communication, the Slashdot effect and its effect on idea dispersal, viral marketing practices, dos and don'ts of interactivity, and so forth). This is not satisfactory for retraining into any high level of competence - and the hypothetical 50 year old we're talking about needs more than entry level wages. > If we can truly achieve an abundant society then an adequate > living can be available for all whether or not they are employed. The problem with that is, standards of abundance adjust depending on what's available. We live in an abundant society today, as measured by most people of 1905 if they were given a fairly accurate picture of life in 2005. But we do not see it that way, because we're used to 2005. The only general way out of this appears to be to ever increase the abundance available, in excess of expectations. That requires work. > If we want people to embrace ultra high tech then we must show that > there is a workable way they and theirs will be able to live > reasonably > well as the world changes. If people see that obsolescence comes > ever > sooner and that there is no plan for them to be ok when they are no > longer employable then count on real and quite rational fear and push > back. Very true, and the reason I brought this topic up in the first place. > You assume that it is just a matter of the individual trying. For a specific meaning of "trying", yes. With enough of the right type of effort, I posit that most individuals could suceed. I also posit that most individuals do not know what type of effort to apply - and, critically, that *they do not even know how to find out*, or to find out how to find out, et cetera. This causes them to not "try". From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Apr 25 06:52:18 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:52:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <1114411938.5585@whirlwind.he.net> > ...while the US has an > equivalent amount sitting under ANWR, plus additional reserves > elsewhere. Among other not well known facts about the US oil reserves: the proven reserves in California are as large as the proven reserves in Alaska. The difference is that the California reserves are nigh untouchable due to environmental activism in that State, even more so than Alaska. The US is not particularly short of of petroleum reserves. It is short of politically exploitable petroleum and natural gas reserves. If the US exploited petroleum and natural gas reserves in North America to the exclusion of imports outside of North America mixed with some sane policy, the US could survive nicely for several decades. There is a similar situation with heavy metals production. The US is blessed with rich deposits of heavy and precious metals, one of the few industrial materials that the US produces in excess of domestic consumption. Yet environmental politics has been actively encouraging the exploitation of similar deposits in South America instead of domestic ore bodies. The importation of many of these mining products is a political outcome, and largely the result of environmental activism. Which is not to say that clean environment doesn't matter, but that all the activism has accomplished is 1.) exporting these issues with far worse manifestations, and 2.) creating messy geopolitical scenarios that are not really necessary. There is a complex dance of many different interests, a number of which do not give a damn about Peak Oil, true environmental cleanliness, or even energy efficiency. The underlying problem is that few of the players *really* care about sane energy generation. Most of them are using resource generation as a chip in an ideological game, as though the ideology was more important than basic resource management sanity. Most of the rest of the world doesn't give a damn about their ideological games and just wants something that works reasonably well. Most people just want reasonable access to resources at a reasonable price that vaguely reflects real scarcity absent political interference and gross externalities. But apparently the human race is not mature enough for that discussion. j. andrew rogers From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Apr 25 09:29:34 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:29:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050425042430.93763.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050425042430.93763.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6b252bd1ccff514a07b9128eda42932e@mac.com> On Apr 24, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > As we see Jeb Bush and Ahnuld the Gubernator both banning oil > exploration off their coasts, it is the state that creating the Peak > Oil experience. One reason for this is that high oil prices from short > supplies increases oil tax revinues for governments that are > increasingly short of revinues from other areas due either to tax cuts > or poor economic performance (despite that poor performance being > caused by overregulation, high oil costs, or excessive taxes). > There isn't enough oil in either of these locations to get the oil companies all that interested in pushing to get it. Assuming the price is being jerked up to get more in taxes when higher energy prices lead to economic slowdown and inflation and thus less tax revenue makes little sense. Huber's argument amounts to belief that somehow there will be more oil available if we want it bad enough because we will come up with some miracle technology to make it so just because we always have and because Americans have a God given right to guzzle oil forever by gum. There is no credible challenge of the facts as they currently stand. Only the optimism that if we drag our butts, don't develop alternatives and thus really need the oil that it will be there in plenty and at affordable cost. I don't understand why anyone would take such an empty argument seriously. I agree about the need for a lot more nukes. But I think it is dangerously short sighted to pretend there is no such thing as Peak Oil. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Apr 25 10:05:58 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:05:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050425043740.28281.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050425043740.28281.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5962b51f181cf3175b10be8696a8bc60@mac.com> On Apr 24, 2005, at 9:37 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Peak Oil exists for certain nations and certain oil companies, based on > who has the rights to certain oil fields and which fields are being > allowed to be developed by governments. The world is nowhere near any > sort of impending oil shortage. We have a minimum of 100 years of oil > available at todays market prices. Produce your evidence or withdraw this claim. > > The Canadian oil tar sands contain more oil (over 3,000 billion > barrels), as do Venezuelan tar sands, that the idea that we are running > out of oil is simply ludicrous. Except for the unfortunate fact that we have no means to economically (today's prices) and environmentally sanely extract and refine such oil. > Technologies for affordably extracting > oil from these sands is now perfected and is being implemented. It is far from "perfected". > In the > shorter term, China, the Phillipines, Vietnam, and Indonesia are > sitting on 19 billion barrels under the Spratlys, while the US has an > equivalent amount sitting under ANWR, plus additional reserves > elsewhere. The oil and gas fields of Wyoming, I am hearing are seeing a > boom-time. US oil production peaked in the 70s (as predicted by Hubbert). Do you think we are dependent on Mideast oil just to amuse ourselves with the attendant complications and costs when we actually have everything we need right here? ANWR is not that impressive to the actual oil companies. To put this in perspective, the world sucks down 77 mbd, call it 100 mbd in round numbers (we expect to reach this level easily with the next 5 - 10 years). The 19 billion barrels satisfies world demand for less than a year. Not very impressive. Also we are lucky to get as much as 70% of the oil out of the ground. Drifting (or even paddling hard) down that river in Egypt will not serve our interests. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Apr 25 10:16:44 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:16:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050425051904.C96FE57EE7@finney.org> References: <20050425051904.C96FE57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <9887b5d5c94d4099365d5c245d7ee431@mac.com> On Apr 24, 2005, at 10:19 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > Samantha writes: > >> I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But whether >> we >> are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way irrelevant. If most >> of the major players believe we are nearing Peak Oil and act >> accordingly then most of the Peak Oil scenarios will quickly follow. >> My take is that a lot of the world's current events are much easier to >> explain if it is assumed most of the players believe Peak Oil is fast >> upon us. > > I see several things that don't make sense though. Why would oil > producing companies and countries be wasting such a valuable asset? > If they really think that oil will be worth $100-200/bbl or even more > in > a few years, why sell it for $25 last year or $50 this year? The > logical > thing would be to hold onto the oil, keep it in the ground and profit > from the tremendous price appreciation predicted by Peak Oil believers. That would be a great way to starve world economies and invite invasion. There is an equilibrium point that I suspect is carefully probed. > > And why don't the futures markets reflect this phenomenon? You can buy > or sell oil right now for December 2010 delivery for less than $50/bbl. > If close study of the situation provides strong evidence that the oil > will be worth many times that, speculators stand to make enormous > profits > on the price rise. Yet no one is bidding the price up, and from what I > have read even Peak Oil believers generally are not putting their money > where their mouths are. > Because much of the world is still in denial as to the actual situation. Soon denial will no longer be an option. It will not be pretty. It will be worse because its reality was denied for far too long. Humans have a near endless ability to ignore unpleasant news. Look at the tech bubble as a case in point. Rationally we should be building out alternative energy options including nuclear on even the reasoned suspicion of Peak Oil. Alas, rationality is difficult to come by in this species. - samantha From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 10:40:31 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:40:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Edmonton Sun on transhumanism Message-ID: <470a3c52050425034048c5df5e@mail.gmail.com> The Edmonton Sun has an article on transhumanism. The article is not negative, and certainly not as bad as other articles that we have seen. At the same time it illustrates the danger of quotes taken out of context. The statement "transhumanists fundamentally reject the idea of human nature", taken out of context, can be interpreted very bad. I would say, transhumanists fundamentally reject the idea that human nature is fixed and cannot be improved for the well-being of humans. Excerpts: More people take advantage of new technologies to expand what the human body can do. "We're already a cyborg society," says Simon Smith, founder of the webzine BetterHumans and devotee of another 21st-century ism: transhumanism. Think of transhumanism as the logical outcome of a gadget-obsessed society. You know someone (or are someone) who can't leave the house without a cellphone, IPod and Blackberry. Transhumanists see a future in which people will incorporate that technology into their bodies - become digital. And it doesn't stop there."We fundamentally reject the idea of human nature," said James Hughes, executive director of the World Transhumanist Association and author of Citizen Cyborg. Transhumanists identify a few preconditions for the future they want: a public willing to use science to tinker with their bodies and minds, technology that links the central nervous system to machines, and genetic techniques that expand physical abilities. Transhumanists see humanity transcending biology by uploading consciousness into a computer and becoming both "virtual" and immortal - the sort of idea that gives nervous fits to traditionalists. Political economist Francis Fukuyama, a member of the U.S. President's Council on Bioethics, recently damned transhumanism as the "world's most dangerous idea." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 25 12:22:19 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:22:19 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <9887b5d5c94d4099365d5c245d7ee431@mac.com> References: <20050425051904.C96FE57EE7@finney.org> <9887b5d5c94d4099365d5c245d7ee431@mac.com> Message-ID: <426CE0FB.2060601@optusnet.com.au> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 24, 2005, at 10:19 PM, Hal Finney wrote: >> And why don't the futures markets reflect this phenomenon? You can buy >> or sell oil right now for December 2010 delivery for less than $50/bbl. >> If close study of the situation provides strong evidence that the oil >> will be worth many times that, speculators stand to make enormous profits >> on the price rise. Yet no one is bidding the price up, and from what I >> have read even Peak Oil believers generally are not putting their money >> where their mouths are. >> > > Because much of the world is still in denial as to the actual > situation. Soon denial will no longer be an option. It will not be > pretty. It will be worse because its reality was denied for far too > long. Humans have a near endless ability to ignore unpleasant news. > Look at the tech bubble as a case in point. > > Rationally we should be building out alternative energy options > including nuclear on even the reasoned suspicion of Peak Oil. Alas, > rationality is difficult to come by in this species. > > - samantha > Being in denial would only apply to those who deny the peak oil theory. It doesn't explain why even the people who are pushing the theory are acting as if they don't believe in it. Personally, I think that within the oil industry Thomas Gold's theories on primordial hydrocarbons are given a lot more creedence than is publicly admitted. Claiming that fuels are running out, or not arguing when greenies claim this, help to condition people to expect higher energy prices (and future price rises). -David From hemm at openlink.com.br Mon Apr 25 13:03:04 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:03:04 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe References: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004801c54997$1e8b1d50$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Since the universe is a simulation, there's no mass at all. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI-Chat" Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 11:54 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe > I am curious, does anyone have a reliable > estimate of the mass of the universe in kilograms From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 14:28:48 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:28:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] This Magazine on transhumanism Message-ID: <470a3c52050425072875f9018a@mail.gmail.com> The Canadian political magazine This Magazine has an article on transhumanism. George Dvorsky and Betterhumans are frequently quoted. The article tries to be objective, is not a hate piece. Excerpts: Transhumanists envision a radical future in which man and machine are one and death is a relic of the past. Should we prepare to enter the post-human state, transcending the limits of our natural bodies, or should we let evolution run its own course? While the number of people who identify themselves as transhumanists is relatively few, their significance should not be underestimated. An erudite and prolific bunch, they produce reams of literature; the internet has been an invaluable aid in disseminating their ideas. The fact that they've been able to infuriate esteemed thinkers like Fukuyama and Kass is a considerable achievement.That said, the demographics of the movement suggest it may be a while before it reaches mainstream acceptance. Ninety percent of transhumanists are highly educated white men under 45 from Western democracies, mainly the US. Transhumanists, like any social movement, would love to be proven right. Whether or not that happens, at this point in time, they'd simply like to engage their critics in debate. They are for the most part empathetic people who are as opposed to inequality as some of their most zealous opponents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 25 14:33:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 07:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050425143333.19485.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 24, 2005, at 9:37 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Peak Oil exists for certain nations and certain oil companies, > based on > > who has the rights to certain oil fields and which fields are being > > allowed to be developed by governments. The world is nowhere near > any > > sort of impending oil shortage. We have a minimum of 100 years of > oil > > available at todays market prices. > > Produce your evidence or withdraw this claim. It was clearly stated previously the years that the exploitable reserves of different oil companies would peak out at. This isn't something that is open to dispute. Peak Oil just doesn't count reserves that are to date unexploited for other than economic reasons. The Spratlys reserves were unexploited for reasons of international tension between four nations. ANWR is unexploited purely for environmental reason. California and Florida reserves (which are far larger than you state) are closed of purely for the sake of tourists and waterfront property owners not seeing oil derricks (much as Kerry and Kennedy got the wind power project off Cape Cod cancelled). > > > > > The Canadian oil tar sands contain more oil (over 3,000 billion > > barrels), as do Venezuelan tar sands, that the idea that we are > running > > out of oil is simply ludicrous. > > Except for the unfortunate fact that we have no means to economically > (today's prices) and environmentally sanely extract and refine such > oil. Not true. Prior technology could safely and not so cleanly extract the oil at $60.00/bbl. New technology does it cleanly with steam treatment and water remediation at under $30/bbl. I happen to know of a company that just built the pilot plant in Alberta. > > > In the > > shorter term, China, the Phillipines, Vietnam, and Indonesia are > > sitting on 19 billion barrels under the Spratlys, while the US has > an > > equivalent amount sitting under ANWR, plus additional reserves > > elsewhere. The oil and gas fields of Wyoming, I am hearing are > seeing a > > boom-time. > > US oil production peaked in the 70s (as predicted by Hubbert). Do > you think we are dependent on Mideast oil just to amuse ourselves > with the attendant complications and costs when we actually have > everything we need right here? Yes. Political forces want high oil prices for several reasons. One is to get America off of its consumption economy, to depopulate the rural area further and congregate in cities so as to be easier to control, another is to trigger a recession in preparation for a Chinese dollar bomb attack prior to their retaking Taiwan (and assisted by JP Morgan). Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked into. The resulting economic depression will force the US government to hand over title to federal and state parks and forests to the UN's World Biosphere Reserve program, so as to fully collateralize the World Bank/IMF. The point of this is to enable the WB/IMF to fully monetize the UN budget at low government bond rates independently of member nations, turning the UN into a truly federal world government, independently sovereign from its member nations, much as the US states transitioned during the Civil War and Reconstruction period. Combined with their measures to turn the high seas into UN territory, so they can raise taxes from international commerce, and world government will be inevitable if we let it happen. > ANWR is not that impressive to the actual oil > companies. To put this in perspective, the world sucks down 77 mbd, > call it 100 mbd in round numbers (we expect to reach this level > easily > with the next 5 - 10 years). The 19 billion barrels satisfies world > demand for less than a year. Not very impressive. Also we are lucky > to get as much as 70% of the oil out of the ground. This is the typical lying with numbers that occurs. You are acting as if ANWR would be the only oil supplier in the world. Gimme a break. If ANWR only pumped 1 million bbl/day, it would quickly increase global oil stocks to the point that prices would drop back to the mid $20's range. At 1 million bbl/day, that would make ANWR last for at least 50 years. Nor will we reach 100 mbbl/day any time soon. It will take till 2020 before China has even a fraction of the US number of autos. By then they will be pumping the Spratlys fields for all the are worth. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 14:36:04 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:36:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <9887b5d5c94d4099365d5c245d7ee431@mac.com> Message-ID: >From: Samantha Atkins >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil >Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:16:44 -0700 > > >> >>And why don't the futures markets reflect this phenomenon? You can buy >>or sell oil right now for December 2010 delivery for less than $50/bbl. >>If close study of the situation provides strong evidence that the oil >>will be worth many times that, speculators stand to make enormous profits >>on the price rise. Yet no one is bidding the price up, and from what I >>have read even Peak Oil believers generally are not putting their money >>where their mouths are. >> > >Because much of the world is still in denial as to the actual situation. >Soon denial will no longer be an option. It will not be pretty. It will >be worse because its reality was denied for far too long. Humans have a >near endless ability to ignore unpleasant news. Look at the tech bubble >as a case in point. > >Rationally we should be building out alternative energy options including >nuclear on even the reasoned suspicion of Peak Oil. Alas, rationality is >difficult to come by in this species. > >- samantha Isn't it unlikely that the entire world is in denial? Wouldn't some enterprising investor (including the Peak Oil proponents) slap a few million down in order to get 300% returns in 5 years? It seems that if anyone actually believed that oil would be at $200/barrel in 5 years that futures prices would be edging up there to reflect a valid present cost. While we should develop alternative energy, oil is still the cheapest, cleanest form of energy available to us. Until it gets a lot more expensive there is little motivation to develop other energy sources. Once oil production actually peaks (as opposed to predicted peaks) we will still have many years available to us as oil prices increase to develop alternative energy. It should take many, many years to get from peak to negligible production so I don't see an impending crisis. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 25 14:37:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050425143756.20625.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If the computing medium has velocity, it has mass, even if it has no mass in a rest state. The act of computation would require the movement of energy, or matter, or information, or a combination of any of the three, ergo it has velocity and therefore mass. --- Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > Since the universe is a simulation, there's no mass at all. :-) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Avantguardian" > To: "ExI-Chat" > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 11:54 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe > > > > I am curious, does anyone have a reliable > > estimate of the mass of the universe in kilograms > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From brentn at freeshell.org Mon Apr 25 14:44:43 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:44:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <6b252bd1ccff514a07b9128eda42932e@mac.com> Message-ID: (4/25/05 2:29) Samantha Atkins wrote: >Huber's argument amounts to belief that somehow there will be more oil >available if we want it bad enough because we will come up with some >miracle technology to make it so just because we always have and >because Americans have a God given right to guzzle oil forever by gum. > There is no credible challenge of the facts as they currently stand. > Only the optimism that if we drag our butts, don't develop >alternatives and thus really need the oil that it will be there in >plenty and at affordable cost. I don't understand why anyone would >take such an empty argument seriously. I agree with your assessment of Huber's argument, but not for the reasoning behind it. As Mike has already said, Huber is a pretty bright guy. My opinion is that he is assuming that as oil becomes more expensive, we'll get commensurately better results at innovating out of the problem. That's a pretty safe bet, considering the human proclivity to pull rabbits out of hats when the chips are down. But you are correct that if we fail to solve the problem in a timely fashion, things could become sticky. I'm not willing to bet that way (yet). I think I saw someone mention this earlier, but the danger in dumping a ton of money into development of alternatives can artifically skew development towards technologies that are cost-effective to develop, but not to operate. However, Mike's argument that we shouldn't be developing solar cells because they are 10 times more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear power (assuming that solar is ~$0.70 per kwh and fossil fuels are ~$0.07. Pure handwaving.) does not hold because there is no guarantee that in the future, fossil fuel electricity will remain that cheap and there is no reason to believe that solar cannot be cheaper (for example, the PbS nanocrystal in PPV solar cells that are about 30% efficient over a much broader spectrum than silicon.) The net present value of a technology is very difficult to compute: it can be manipulated by both gainsayers and naysayers with equal effectiveness. The only effective way to make rational choices about this is to look at the science, not the economics. Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 25 14:46:36 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 07:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050425144636.47452.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Lee wrote: > > Once oil production actually peaks (as opposed to predicted peaks) we > will still have many years available to us as oil prices increase to > develop alternative energy. As well as more conservation technologies. Peak Oil production, even if true, is really immaterial. What matters is the rate of consumption of oil per dollar (or yuan) of GNP. We are currently on a continuously decreasing curve of less oil per dollar of GNP, at least here in the US as well as in China, demonstrating further technological advancement and transition to information technologies and services industries, while production industries become further automated. The only area of the US economy that consumed more oil in 2000 than in 1990 was transportation, which is full of industries bogged down by too much government regulation, union controls, resistance to automation, and political influence, as well as consumer sentiment that saw the greater efficiency of the larger economy as an excuse to buy a bigger SUV, because they could afford to. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From brentn at freeshell.org Mon Apr 25 14:49:50 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:49:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050425143333.19485.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (4/25/05 7:33) Mike Lorrey wrote: >Yes. Political forces want high oil prices for several reasons. One is >to get America off of its consumption economy, to depopulate the rural >area further and congregate in cities so as to be easier to control, >another is to trigger a recession in preparation for a Chinese dollar >bomb attack prior to their retaking Taiwan (and assisted by JP Morgan). >Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked >into. I recommend that you stop reading Tom Clancy novels. I think your view of reality is warping just a bit. What is it about conspiracy theories that make them so attractive to people? B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brentn at freeshell.org Mon Apr 25 14:51:50 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:51:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (4/25/05 10:36) Brian Lee wrote: > It should take many, many years to get from peak to >negligible production so I don't see an impending crisis. The fault with this premise is that you assume that the crisis will be precipitated by exhaustion. The propenents of the Peak Oil crisis state (convincingly) that the -reduction in production rate- will precipitate the crisis because of the vastly increased demand from the developing world. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brentn at freeshell.org Mon Apr 25 14:53:00 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:53:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <20050425143756.20625.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (4/25/05 7:37) Mike Lorrey wrote: >If the computing medium has velocity, it has mass, even if it has no >mass in a rest state. The act of computation would require the movement >of energy, or matter, or information, or a combination of any of the >three, ergo it has velocity and therefore mass. Incorrect. You mean, if it has momentum, it has mass. Lots of things with no mass have velocity. Like rumors, for instance. ;) B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 14:59:26 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:59:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: Brent Neal >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil >Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:49:50 -0400 > > (4/25/05 7:33) Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >Yes. Political forces want high oil prices for several reasons. One is > >to get America off of its consumption economy, to depopulate the rural > >area further and congregate in cities so as to be easier to control, > >another is to trigger a recession in preparation for a Chinese dollar > >bomb attack prior to their retaking Taiwan (and assisted by JP Morgan). > >Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked > >into. > > >I recommend that you stop reading Tom Clancy novels. I think your view of >reality is warping just a bit. > >What is it about conspiracy theories that make them so attractive to >people? > >B >-- >Brent Neal >Geek of all Trades >http://brentn.freeshell.org I think conspiracy theories are attractive because they show a comforting worldview where someone/group is actually controlling the seemingly chaotic and irrational events. This meshes into the whole monotheistic mythos where God is in control. Just my own crackpot theory to explain away crackpot theories. BAL From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Apr 25 15:13:39 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:13:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] This Magazine on transhumanism Message-ID: <131190-220054125151339435@M2W042.mail2web.com> From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 pgptag at gmail.com The Canadian political magazine This Magazine has an article on transhumanism. George Dvorsky and Betterhumans are frequently quoted. The article tries to be objective, is not a hate piece. Fabulous! Congratulations George! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From dirk at neopax.com Mon Apr 25 15:22:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:22:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050425143333.19485.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050425143333.19485.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <426D0B22.7070109@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Yes. Political forces want high oil prices for several reasons. One is >to get America off of its consumption economy, to depopulate the rural >area further and congregate in cities so as to be easier to control, >another is to trigger a recession in preparation for a Chinese dollar >bomb attack prior to their retaking Taiwan (and assisted by JP Morgan). >Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked >into. > > > After the Chinese attack. They will hold that in reserve as a threat. BTW, you forgot to mention that oil companies like high oil prices. 1% on a $100 barrel is better than 1% on a $30 one. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Mon Apr 25 15:23:45 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:23:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426D0B81.70303@neopax.com> Brian Lee wrote: > > I think conspiracy theories are attractive because they show a > comforting worldview where someone/group is actually controlling the > seemingly chaotic and irrational events. This meshes into the whole > monotheistic mythos where God is in control. > Actually, there are plenty of conspiracies all vying with each other. A few are illegal but most are not. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From curtis.sandoval at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 15:53:44 2005 From: curtis.sandoval at gmail.com (Curtis Sandoval) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:53:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: <426D0B81.70303@neopax.com> References: <426D0B81.70303@neopax.com> Message-ID: I would take this a step further and suggest that every corporation or corporate entity is a conspiracy, in that a conspiracy is merely an attempt by a number of entities to act in concert toward a common end. Not every conspiracy has an illegal goal, and not every act of a corporation is legal. This crosses over into another thread then, where "conspiracy theory" could merely mean "the study of corporations", and this would be nearly synonymous with "game theory", which tends to drive their actions. This could be further extended to consider conspiracies/corporations to be meta-organisms, merely another life form made up of lower life forms (humans) as they behave. On a simpler note, the abbreviation "Co." could just as easily stand for "conspiracy" as "corporation". On 4/25/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Brian Lee wrote: > > > > > I think conspiracy theories are attractive because they show a > > comforting worldview where someone/group is actually controlling the > > seemingly chaotic and irrational events. This meshes into the whole > > monotheistic mythos where God is in control. > > > Actually, there are plenty of conspiracies all vying with each other. > A few are illegal but most are not. > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 16:32:27 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:32:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was referring to the larger scale/ crazy conspiracy theories that involve secret societies, government plans to hand over parks to the UN, lizard aliens running the British royal families etc. I don't think it's any conspiracy that corporations are in existence to maximize shareholder returns. It just becomes a conspiracy when the oil barons are in cahoots with the five jew bankers to drive oil into the $500/barrel level to allow for the return of Krishna or something similar. BAL >From: Curtis Sandoval >To: dirk at neopax.com, ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] >Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:53:44 -0400 > >I would take this a step further and suggest that every corporation or >corporate entity is a conspiracy, in that a conspiracy is merely an >attempt by a number of entities to act in concert toward a common end. > Not every conspiracy has an illegal goal, and not every act of a >corporation is legal. This crosses over into another thread then, >where "conspiracy theory" could merely mean "the study of >corporations", and this would be nearly synonymous with "game theory", >which tends to drive their actions. This could be further extended to >consider conspiracies/corporations to be meta-organisms, merely >another life form made up of lower life forms (humans) as they behave. > >On a simpler note, the abbreviation "Co." could just as easily stand >for "conspiracy" as "corporation". > >On 4/25/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Brian Lee wrote: > > > > > > > > I think conspiracy theories are attractive because they show a > > > comforting worldview where someone/group is actually controlling the > > > seemingly chaotic and irrational events. This meshes into the whole > > > monotheistic mythos where God is in control. > > > > > Actually, there are plenty of conspiracies all vying with each other. > > A few are illegal but most are not. > > > > -- > > Dirk > > > > The Consensus:- > > The political party for the new millenium > > http://www.theconsensus.org > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Apr 25 17:13:52 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:13:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Friends, Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a global issue for transhumanity. ExI will be sending out an invitation later for a meeting in May. If your organization would like to suggest a meeting date and time, please let me know by Wednesday. It would be helpful if those of you who receive this message to forward it to other transhumanist organizations and groups. Pope Benedict?s Campaign NPR's Monday morning edition: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618049 "Religion Pope Benedict Warns Against Moral Relativism by Barbara Bradley Hagerty Morning Edition, April 25, 2005 ? The new leader of the Roman Catholic Church has denounced moral relativism, the idea that moral principles have no objective standards. Pope Benedict XVI has characterized it as the major evil facing the church. Some observers believe he is taking a stance in the tense cultural wars in the United States." I hope you all will work us. It will be a first time that we have a global issue to work together on and plan a strategy. I think we can make headway as a culture and a meaningful contribution to our future. I look forward to hearing from you, Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist Extropy Institute, President http://www.extropy.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Mon Apr 25 17:26:38 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:26:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <426D284E.7070101@neopax.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Friends, > > Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for > Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the > potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration > concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a > global issue for transhumanity. > > ExI will be sending out an invitation later for a meeting in May. If > your organization would like to suggest a meeting date and time, > please let me know by Wednesday. It would be helpful if those of you > who receive this message to forward it to other transhumanist > organizations and groups. Would that be all the orgs we know of, or only the ones that the organisers feel politically comfortable with? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From curtis.sandoval at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 17:28:03 2005 From: curtis.sandoval at gmail.com (Curtis Sandoval) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:28:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I understand your reference, but a "conspiracy" is any two or more entities that are working toward a common goal, it's a synonym for "cooperation". Conspiracy has a connotation that is not intrinsic to its definition, that of a nefarious goal as you mention. It's just an emotional tag that we apply to the word though, one that I believe is fairly recent as I doubt that Felix Bernard had evil plans in mind when he published "Winter Wonderland" in 1934. Corporations must conspire or they dissolve by the very definition, and they behave like an organism whose goals are propagation and shareholder equity among other things. Price-fixing, etc, are some of what I mentioned earlier, that not all corporations pursue legal means to achieve their goals, but following the organism model they are just practicing the law of survival and growth at any cost, game theory. The trick is keeping a safeguard to protect the greater organism (the planet, humanity, etc) from the localised opportunism of its subparts (corporations, bankers, petro-Krishnites, etc) not unlike preventing the spread of cancer in a human body. I agree with you, that it is not "a conspiracy" that corporations exist to yield shareholder returns, but individuals within the corporations must conspire toward these ends as well as corporations that conspire together for mutual benefit. One of my pet interests is semiotics, so maybe I think too much about the difference between the meaning of a word and its emotional/assumed meaning. Ted Rall wrote an article recently about how this is being used today, how certain people are calling Iraqis who attack U.S. forces "Insurgents", while similar forces were called "Freedom Fighters" when the U.S.S.R was in Afghanistan, and similar forces were called "Rebels" and "Revolutionaries" during the American and French revolutions. Connotations are commonly used to colour the image of what is being described, and as we all know the victors write the history books. On 4/25/05, Brian Lee wrote: > I was referring to the larger scale/ crazy conspiracy theories that involve > secret societies, government plans to hand over parks to the UN, lizard > aliens running the British royal families etc. > > I don't think it's any conspiracy that corporations are in existence to > maximize shareholder returns. It just becomes a conspiracy when the oil > barons are in cahoots with the five jew bankers to drive oil into the > $500/barrel level to allow for the return of Krishna or something similar. > > BAL > > >From: Curtis Sandoval > >To: dirk at neopax.com, ExI chat list > >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] > >Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:53:44 -0400 > > > >I would take this a step further and suggest that every corporation or > >corporate entity is a conspiracy, in that a conspiracy is merely an > >attempt by a number of entities to act in concert toward a common end. > > Not every conspiracy has an illegal goal, and not every act of a > >corporation is legal. This crosses over into another thread then, > >where "conspiracy theory" could merely mean "the study of > >corporations", and this would be nearly synonymous with "game theory", > >which tends to drive their actions. This could be further extended to > >consider conspiracies/corporations to be meta-organisms, merely > >another life form made up of lower life forms (humans) as they behave. > > > >On a simpler note, the abbreviation "Co." could just as easily stand > >for "conspiracy" as "corporation". > > > >On 4/25/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Brian Lee wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think conspiracy theories are attractive because they show a > > > > comforting worldview where someone/group is actually controlling the > > > > seemingly chaotic and irrational events. This meshes into the whole > > > > monotheistic mythos where God is in control. > > > > > > > Actually, there are plenty of conspiracies all vying with each other. > > > A few are illegal but most are not. > > > > > > -- > > > Dirk > > > > > > The Consensus:- > > > The political party for the new millenium > > > http://www.theconsensus.org > > > > > > -- > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From dirk at neopax.com Mon Apr 25 17:28:50 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:28:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426D28D2.8060107@neopax.com> Brian Lee wrote: > I was referring to the larger scale/ crazy conspiracy theories that > involve secret societies, government plans to hand over parks to the > UN, lizard aliens running the British royal families etc. > Well, we know for a fact that such conspiracies have existed (and only come to light because of their failure and/or their incompetence) P2 and MKULTRA to name but two. The latter only came to light because not quite all the files were destroyed when they should have been. Are there no others existing today? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Mon Apr 25 17:30:26 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:30:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: References: <426D0B81.70303@neopax.com> Message-ID: <426D2932.9060900@neopax.com> Curtis Sandoval wrote: >I would take this a step further and suggest that every corporation or >corporate entity is a conspiracy, in that a conspiracy is merely an >attempt by a number of entities to act in concert toward a common end. > Not every conspiracy has an illegal goal, and not every act of a >corporation is legal. This crosses over into another thread then, >where "conspiracy theory" could merely mean "the study of >corporations", and this would be nearly synonymous with "game theory", >which tends to drive their actions. This could be further extended to >consider conspiracies/corporations to be meta-organisms, merely >another life form made up of lower life forms (humans) as they behave. > > > I agree, which is why I find ouija such a fascinating thing conceptually. The unconscious conspiracies are the most powerful eg 'glass ceiling' etc -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 17:56:11 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:56:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050425105660ecf5fd@mail.gmail.com> Should be soon enough to issue a statement in useful time, and I recommend including a weekend (say, Fri to Mon) to give people more time. G. On 4/25/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Friends, > > Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for > Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the > potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration > concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a global > issue for transhumanity. > > ExI will be sending out an invitation later for a meeting in May. If your > organization would like to suggest a meeting date and time, please let me > know by Wednesday. It would be helpful if those of you who receive this > message to forward it to other transhumanist organizations and groups. > > Pope Benedict's Campaign > > NPR's Monday morning edition: > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618049 > > "Religion > Pope Benedict Warns Against Moral Relativism > by Barbara Bradley Hagerty > > Morning Edition, April 25, 2005 ? The new leader of the Roman Catholic > Church has denounced moral relativism, the idea that moral principles have > no objective standards. Pope Benedict XVI has characterized it as the major > evil facing the church. Some observers believe he is taking a stance in the > tense cultural wars in the United States." > > I hope you all will work us. It will be a first time that we have a global > issue to work together on and plan a strategy. I think we can make headway > as a culture and a meaningful contribution to our future. > > I look forward to hearing from you, > > Natasha Vita-More > Cultural Strategist > > Extropy Institute, President > http://www.extropy.org From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Apr 25 18:04:47 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050425180447.98442.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Friends, > > Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for > Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with > the > potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration > concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a > global > issue for transhumanity. I won't be there, but an idea for consideration: perhaps treat the Pope's call like a call to make morality more like science. Specifically, science is about explaining objective measurements; if a theory disagrees with the evidence, then the theory is wrong. However, scientists also know that while there probably are objective truths, they can at best only ever get better and better approximations to them; we can not know for sure that we know the absolute and final last word. Thus, yes, there may be objective moral truths. The Pope just happens not to be following them. (For instance, the idea that any one human being, even the Pope, is always infallibly correct has long since been disproven.) From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Apr 25 18:23:44 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:23:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign Message-ID: <132160-220054125182344253@M2W075.mail2web.com> Dirk wrote: >Would that be all the orgs we know of, or only the ones that the >organisers feel politically comfortable with? Since I am the organizer and it is being sponsored through Extropy Institute at the TransColloquium, I think that if you are interested you might speak to me or the ExI Board about participating, if you are interested. One thing to keep in mind is that this meeting is a cooperative and collaborative event for transhumanist organizations. It is not an event to argue political positions within transhumanism. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Apr 25 18:23:45 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:23:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign Message-ID: <410-220054125182345187@M2W126.mail2web.com> Dirk wrote: >Would that be all the orgs we know of, or only the ones that the >organisers feel politically comfortable with? Since I am the organizer and it is being sponsored through Extropy Institute at the TransColloquium, I think that if you are interested you might speak to me or the ExI Board about participating, if you are interested. One thing to keep in mind is that this meeting is a cooperative and collaborative event for transhumanist organizations. It is not an event to argue political positions within transhumanism. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From dirk at neopax.com Mon Apr 25 18:39:17 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:39:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: <132160-220054125182344253@M2W075.mail2web.com> References: <132160-220054125182344253@M2W075.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <426D3955.1050907@neopax.com> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >Dirk wrote: > > > >>Would that be all the orgs we know of, or only the ones that the >>organisers feel politically comfortable with? >> >> > >Since I am the organizer and it is being sponsored through Extropy >Institute at the TransColloquium, I think that if you are interested you >might speak to me or the ExI Board about participating, if you are >interested. > >One thing to keep in mind is that this meeting is a cooperative and >collaborative event for transhumanist organizations. It is not an event to >argue political positions within transhumanism. > > > That's good to know. However, I wasn't thinking about anything I'm associated with. Just curious as to whether the Transtopians and Promethians are going to be turned away at the door. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Apr 25 21:55:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050425215540.48704.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brent Neal wrote: > (4/25/05 7:33) Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >Yes. Political forces want high oil prices for several reasons. One > is > >to get America off of its consumption economy, to depopulate the > rural > >area further and congregate in cities so as to be easier to control, > >another is to trigger a recession in preparation for a Chinese > dollar > >bomb attack prior to their retaking Taiwan (and assisted by JP > Morgan). > >Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked > >into. > > > I recommend that you stop reading Tom Clancy novels. I think your > view of reality is warping just a bit. > > What is it about conspiracy theories that make them so attractive to > people? If I were basing my statements on the claims of bunker-bound wing-nuts, I'd agree with you. I am not, they are based on documents issued by the UN itself, by the World Wildlife Federation, by the World Biosphere offices, and by the World Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank, among other groups who are deeply involved in making this happen, including the World Federalist Society, which has a number of chapters around the country and was specifically organized to build grassroots support for UN global governance. I have, for example, in the past, shown Patri Friedman documents issued by the World Wildlife Federation showing that the UN is planning on giving NGOs like WWF, the Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, etc actual sovereignty over wildlife areas, starting with seamounts in international waters outside any nations' EEZ and moving on from there. This starting point is interesting because it directly threatens Patri's Seastead Project and the potential of high seas independent living for libertarians. I have found documents from the UN detailing how the calculated economic value of seamount ecologies will be turned into assets of the World Bank to finance these NGOs developing their own sovereign facilities on the high seas. The World Heritage and Biosphere programs are also being used for similar purposes. The UN publicly claims that this is merely a means of touristy designations, but this is absolutely false. The US park and forest system was similarly NOT developed for tourism, it was built to collateralize US government debt. Tourism is a side-effect and cover. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Mon Apr 25 22:13:35 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:13:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c549e4$06bf2b10$d8b81b97@administxl09yj> From: "Natasha Vita-More" Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a global issue for transhumanity. Cardinal Ratziger wrote pages and even books about "relativisms" (religious - as the central problem for faith; moral; cultural; etc.). "I would say that today relativism predominates. It seems that whoever is not a relativist is someone who is intolerant. To think that one can understand the essential truth is already seen as something intolerant." - Ratzinger (Are there "essential truths" in Transhumanism?) Of course, according to Ratzinger, only God (as revealed by Christ) is the matrix, the source of both truth and life. Ratzinger is well aware of the existence of different positions (like i.e. >H, but also Teilhard de C.) that he generally calls "anthropologisms". s. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZRELA.HTM From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 25 22:19:47 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050425221947.10393.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brian Lee wrote: > I think conspiracy theories are attractive because > they show a comforting > worldview where someone/group is actually > controlling the seemingly chaotic > and irrational events. This meshes into the whole > monotheistic mythos where > God is in control. > > Just my own crackpot theory to explain away crackpot > theories. > > BAL If you had read "Focault's Pendulum" then you would entertain that the possibility that "conspiracy theorists" amongst the ruling class are themselves the "conspiracy". i.e. A regular schmoe that can imagine ways that a small group of very powerful people could influence the course of world events will be labelled a "crack pot". But a small group of very powerful people that can imagine ways that a small group of very powerful people can influence the course of world events in their favor, are probably doing so. They may be "crack pots" too, but that doesn't change the fact that they are indeed running things. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Mon Apr 25 22:23:26 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:23:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: <000301c549e4$06bf2b10$d8b81b97@administxl09yj> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <000301c549e4$06bf2b10$d8b81b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <426D6DDE.2000207@neopax.com> scerir wrote: >From: "Natasha Vita-More" >Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for >Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the >potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration >concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a global >issue for transhumanity. > >Cardinal Ratziger wrote pages and even books >about "relativisms" (religious - as the central problem >for faith; moral; cultural; etc.). > >"I would say that today relativism predominates. >It seems that whoever is not a relativist is someone >who is intolerant. To think that one can understand >the essential truth is already seen as something >intolerant." >- Ratzinger > >(Are there "essential truths" in Transhumanism?) > > > Yes. That it's better to have the choice of being enhanced to PostHuman than not. And screw what anyone else thinks who disagrees with that essential truth. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Mon Apr 25 22:55:09 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:55:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory] In-Reply-To: <20050425221947.10393.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050425221947.10393.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <426D754D.2060303@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Brian Lee wrote: > > > > >>I think conspiracy theories are attractive because >>they show a comforting >>worldview where someone/group is actually >>controlling the seemingly chaotic >>and irrational events. This meshes into the whole >>monotheistic mythos where >>God is in control. >> >>Just my own crackpot theory to explain away crackpot >>theories. >> >>BAL >> >> > > If you had read "Focault's Pendulum" then you >would entertain that the possibility that "conspiracy >theorists" amongst the ruling class are themselves the >"conspiracy". i.e. A regular schmoe that can imagine >ways that a small group of very powerful people could >influence the course of world events will be labelled >a "crack pot". But a small group of very powerful >people that can imagine ways that a small group of >very powerful people can influence the course of world >events in their favor, are probably doing so. They may >be "crack pots" too, but that doesn't change the fact >that they are indeed running things. > > > > Moreso when the number of people who do have massive influence in the world, let alone one nation, probably number no more than a few hundred. And they all know each other. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From dgc at cox.net Mon Apr 25 23:10:24 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:10:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <004801c54997$1e8b1d50$fe00a8c0@HEMM> References: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> <004801c54997$1e8b1d50$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Message-ID: <426D78E0.7080500@cox.net> Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: >Since the universe is a simulation, there's no mass at all. :-) > > I know this was intended to be funny, but it is not true as stated. A simulation is a collection of information. Information (by definition, I think) requires that the information storage system is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, sot he storage system contains energy. but energy is mass. True, the information-mass of a simulation is incredibly tiny by comparison with the "real" mass of a "real" universe, but it is not zero. For reference, Google "beckenstein bound" as a place to start. Although the Beckenstein bound relates to spatial information density, it should lead to results on information energy density also. From megao at sasktel.net Mon Apr 25 22:41:17 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:41:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: <426D754D.2060303@neopax.com> References: <20050425221947.10393.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> <426D754D.2060303@neopax.com> Message-ID: <426D720D.5090504@sasktel.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > The Avantguardian wrote: > >> --- Brian Lee wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> I think conspiracy theories are attractive because >>> they show a comforting worldview where someone/group is actually >>> controlling the seemingly chaotic and irrational events. This meshes >>> into the whole >>> monotheistic mythos where God is in control. >>> >>> Just my own crackpot theory to explain away crackpot >>> theories. >>> >>> BAL >>> >> >> >> If you had read "Focault's Pendulum" then you >> would entertain that the possibility that "conspiracy >> theorists" amongst the ruling class are themselves the >> "conspiracy". i.e. A regular schmoe that can imagine >> ways that a small group of very powerful people could >> influence the course of world events will be labelled >> a "crack pot". But a small group of very powerful >> people that can imagine ways that a small group of >> very powerful people can influence the course of world >> events in their favor, are probably doing so. They may >> be "crack pots" too, but that doesn't change the fact >> that they are indeed running things. >> >> >> >> > Moreso when the number of people who do have massive influence in the > world, let alone one nation, probably number no more than a few > hundred. And they all know each other. So which is preferred... a few hundred key govt persons manipulating from a position of irresponsibility or a few hundred persons whose livlihood hangs on their decisions. We know who most of them are and as we saw with Martha Stewart they are not untouchable if they mess around with things. I'd rather see Kurzweil, Gates and a a dozen others like them conspiring to live longer , knowing that they are likely to commercialize this for others than a similar size bunch living in a fool's paradise wondering if there was a consensus that people really approve of this and deciding to study the subject and do nothing in the however long meantime. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 26 00:32:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050426003252.6238.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Moreso when the number of people who do have massive influence in > the > > world, let alone one nation, probably number no more than a few > > hundred. And they all know each other. > > > So which is preferred... a few hundred key govt persons manipulating > from a position of irresponsibility or > a few hundred persons whose livlihood hangs on their decisions. We > know who most of them are > and as we saw with Martha Stewart they are not untouchable if they > mess around with things. > > I'd rather see Kurzweil, Gates and a a dozen others like them > conspiring to live longer , knowing that they > are likely to commercialize this for others than a similar size bunch > living in a fool's paradise wondering if > there was a consensus that people really approve of this and deciding > to study the subject and do nothing in the however long meantime. To imagine that Kurzweil, Gates, and Stewart are of the few hundred spoken of is naive. Their wealth and power pales. Perhaps only Gates rivals the PTB. Besides, another causal link in the chain fell into place: China's government is exhorting its people to put their savings into gold, i.e they are preparing for a war-time economy. http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/106135.htm The JP Morgan-run chinese banking system is encouraging use of gold deposits and is issuing gold certificates for gold on deposit. JP Morgan runs the US Federal Reserve Bank. It also runs the Chinese reserve bank. Who therefore stands to profit the most from a conflict between these two nations? It is financing the military infrastructures and welfare systems of both nations. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From brentn at freeshell.org Tue Apr 26 00:48:07 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:48:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050425215540.48704.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (4/25/05 14:55) Mike Lorrey wrote: > >I have, for example, in the past, shown Patri Friedman documents issued >by the World Wildlife Federation showing that the UN is planning on >giving NGOs like WWF, the Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, etc actual >sovereignty over wildlife areas, starting with seamounts in >international waters outside any nations' EEZ and moving on from there. >This starting point is interesting because it directly threatens >Patri's Seastead Project and the potential of high seas independent >living for libertarians. > I find this to be uncompelling and smacking of wingnuttitude, since the Nature Conservancy is a private organization, not a UN NGO like the WHO. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From dirk at neopax.com Tue Apr 26 00:52:06 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:52:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: <20050426003252.6238.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050426003252.6238.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <426D90B6.1000501@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." wrote: > > >>Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> >> >>>Moreso when the number of people who do have massive influence in >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>world, let alone one nation, probably number no more than a few >>>hundred. And they all know each other. >>> >>> >>So which is preferred... a few hundred key govt persons manipulating >>from a position of irresponsibility or >>a few hundred persons whose livlihood hangs on their decisions. We >>know who most of them are >>and as we saw with Martha Stewart they are not untouchable if they >>mess around with things. >> >>I'd rather see Kurzweil, Gates and a a dozen others like them >>conspiring to live longer , knowing that they >>are likely to commercialize this for others than a similar size bunch >>living in a fool's paradise wondering if >>there was a consensus that people really approve of this and deciding >>to study the subject and do nothing in the however long meantime. >> >> > >To imagine that Kurzweil, Gates, and Stewart are of the few hundred >spoken of is naive. Their wealth and power pales. Perhaps only Gates >rivals the PTB. > >Besides, another causal link in the chain fell into place: China's >government is exhorting its people to put their savings into gold, i.e >they are preparing for a war-time economy. >http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/106135.htm > >The JP Morgan-run chinese banking system is encouraging use of gold >deposits and is issuing gold certificates for gold on deposit. > >JP Morgan runs the US Federal Reserve Bank. It also runs the Chinese >reserve bank. Who therefore stands to profit the most from a conflict >between these two nations? It is financing the military infrastructures >and welfare systems of both nations. > > I expect any war to be triggered by the US, not China. As for conspiracies, how about this one - that the US is preparing to use such a war to wipe out its debt and generally try to screw the rest of the world with worthless dollars. It might mean some temporary hyperinflation at home and a bit of martial law, but that's what wars are for. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From megao at sasktel.net Tue Apr 26 00:26:05 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:26:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Achtung Der USA "Fuhrer scenario..." In-Reply-To: <426D90B6.1000501@neopax.com> References: <20050426003252.6238.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <426D90B6.1000501@neopax.com> Message-ID: <426D8A9D.1080909@sasktel.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> --- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." wrote: >> >> >>> Dirk Bruere wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Moreso when the number of people who do have massive influence in >>>> >>> >>> the >>> >>>> world, let alone one nation, probably number no more than a few >>>> hundred. And they all know each other. >>>> >>> >>> So which is preferred... a few hundred key govt persons manipulating >>> from a position of irresponsibility or >>> a few hundred persons whose livlihood hangs on their decisions. We >>> know who most of them are >>> and as we saw with Martha Stewart they are not untouchable if they >>> mess around with things. >>> >>> I'd rather see Kurzweil, Gates and a a dozen others like them >>> conspiring to live longer , knowing that they >>> are likely to commercialize this for others than a similar size bunch >>> living in a fool's paradise wondering if >>> there was a consensus that people really approve of this and deciding >>> to study the subject and do nothing in the however long meantime. >>> >> >> >> To imagine that Kurzweil, Gates, and Stewart are of the few hundred >> spoken of is naive. Their wealth and power pales. Perhaps only Gates >> rivals the PTB. >> >> Besides, another causal link in the chain fell into place: China's >> government is exhorting its people to put their savings into gold, i.e >> they are preparing for a war-time economy. >> http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/106135.htm >> >> The JP Morgan-run chinese banking system is encouraging use of gold >> deposits and is issuing gold certificates for gold on deposit. >> >> JP Morgan runs the US Federal Reserve Bank. It also runs the Chinese >> reserve bank. Who therefore stands to profit the most from a conflict >> between these two nations? It is financing the military infrastructures >> and welfare systems of both nations. >> >> > I expect any war to be triggered by the US, not China. > As for conspiracies, how about this one - that the US is preparing to > use such a war to wipe out its debt and generally try to screw the > rest of the world with worthless dollars. It might mean some temporary > hyperinflation at home and a bit of martial law, but that's what wars > are for. > And we wonder why any AI with half a brain would deny a claim of parentage from humans? I'd take my chances in a posthuman world over more of the same old repeats of history any day. The definition of insanity is knowing the futility of an effort and still doing it over and over , expecting a different result each time. From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Apr 26 01:47:58 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:47:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Achtung Der USA "Fuhrer scenario..." In-Reply-To: <426D8A9D.1080909@sasktel.net> References: <426D90B6.1000501@neopax.com> <20050426003252.6238.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <426D90B6.1000501@neopax.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050425213312.034bab90@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:26 PM 25/04/05 -0500, "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." wrote: >Dirk Bruere wrote: snip >>I expect any war to be triggered by the US, not China. My thesis on this subject is that humans go into war mode when triggered by the same kind of things that set our remote hunter gatherer ancestors on the warpath. I can see two mechanisms for going into war mode, being attacked, i.e., Pearl Harbor or as an effect of xenophobic memes that build up when there is a widespread belief in a bleak future. The latter would tend to be set off by a drop in economic well being of a substantial fraction of the population--something which has happened in the US as the lower class has been cut out of the economic pie. The two mechanisms add or perhaps multiply. >>As for conspiracies, how about this one - that the US is preparing to use >>such a war to wipe out its debt and generally try to screw the rest of >>the world with worthless dollars. It might mean some temporary >>hyperinflation at home and a bit of martial law, but that's what wars are for. Wars are also to reduce the population. At least that was the evolved function of them back in the stone age. >And we wonder why any AI with half a brain would deny a claim of >parentage from humans? >I'd take my chances in a posthuman world over more of the same old repeats >of history any day. >The definition of insanity is knowing the futility of an effort and still >doing it over and over , expecting a different result each time. I wonder how many cycles of population build up and wars that reduced population the world has seen? Wild state humans probably were able to double their population every 25 years. Which would mean about 4 population reducing wars per century. If you take the human line origin at rock chipping 2.5 million years ago that's 100,000 population reducing wars. Or 300,000 wars if you go back to the split from the chimps. I see your point. That's a lot of repeats. Keith Henson From riel at surriel.com Tue Apr 26 02:27:02 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050425215540.48704.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050425215540.48704.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > If I were basing my statements on the claims of bunker-bound wing-nuts, > I'd agree with you. I am not, they are based on documents issued by the > UN itself, by the World Wildlife Federation, ... Are any of those documents available online? I'd like to read them for myself... Color me sceptical, but granting WWF sovereignty over parts of the world sounds unlikely, while giving Greenpeace sovereignty sounds plain irresponsible ;) -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 26 03:40:41 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:40:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200504260340.j3Q3eeo03245@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brent Neal > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:52 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil > > (4/25/05 10:36) Brian Lee wrote: > > > It should take many, many years to get from peak to > >negligible production so I don't see an impending crisis. Has there been sufficient consideration of the great potential to cut oil consumption? An unspoken blessing of the US appetite for gas guzzling SUVs is that we have the potential to cut way back in short order just by driving the less-used second car. We fill stadiums with fans from all over the nation for our football and baseball contests. We have motorhomes and trailers that we tow to vacation spots, all at enormous cost in petroleum. All this could be switched off with little real pain. So a wasteful western lifestyle carries the advantage of providing lots of potential for belt tightening. A reduction of oil production can be a relatively comfortable transition. What do you make of this article from the Chicago Trib? spike Ethanol prices in free fall even as cost of gas goes up NewsStand - Sunday, April 24, 2005 Chicago Tribune Greg Burns CHICAGO - Higher gasoline prices usually spell good times for producers of ethanol, the fuel additive made from corn. These days, however, ethanol makers are getting creamed. Even as oil prices hover around $50 a barrel, ethanol has plunged by at least one-fourth since January. For the first time in memory, a gallon at wholesale is going for a dollar less than a gallon of gas at the pump. The free fall threatens a slew of new manufacturing plants started up in the rural heartland with the support of local farmers seeking gold in grain-based fuel. And it is fanning tensions between ethanol producers and Big Oil, their primary customer. As a dozen additional facilities now under construction come on line in the months ahead, overproduction promises to keep a lid on prices. Market forces are holding in check a product that has boomed in recent years, due in large measure to the intense support of farm-state politicians. "There's too many plants going up too fast for the market to absorb it," said Todd Block, general manager of Adkins Energy LLC, a two-year-old ethanol plant in Lena, Ill. "There's a big shakeout coming." The low prices have hurt the entire industry, added Bernie Punt, general manager of a plant in Sioux Center, Iowa: "It's to the point where it's ridiculous." To hear many analysts tell it, ethanol's problems are a simple matter of too much supply meeting too little demand. Produced in the same way as moonshine, ethanol is more easily made than distributed, they say, and the industry's infrastructure is still catching up. "We've had a tremendous increase in capacity and production. It just kind of flooded the market," noted Todd Duvick at Banc of America Securities, who recently cut his rating of industry leader Archer Daniels Midland Co. ADM stock has fallen nearly 20 percent in a month as investors react to the small-fry pouring into a business it once dominated. Not everyone's convinced, however, that supply and demand alone account for the low price. The heartland is filled with dark rumblings about oil-industry conspiracies to keep ethanol down and petroleum pre-eminent. "At a time when there's record high gas prices, they take all our profits," said Punt, who like other ethanol producers depends on oil giants to blend his product into their gas. "Unless most of these oil companies are told by the government they have to use it, they won't." Monte Shaw of the Renewable Fuels Association puts it bluntly: "They're ignoring an incredible bargain, and consumers are left paying higher prices." A spokesman for the oil industry branded that assertion "stupid" and "just ludicrous." "If somebody can make additional money blending ethanol, they will do that," said Edward Murphy at the American Petroleum Institute. To suggest otherwise, he said, "betrays a certain economic ignorance." Nevertheless, ethanol's political backers are taking action. House lawmakers from Midwest states on Wednesday introduced legislation that would mandate renewable-fuel consumption of 8 billion gallons by 2012, double the current usage. The Senate already is considering a look-alike bill. The proposal drew applause last week from Keith Bolin, a corn and swine farmer in Manlius, Ill., who heads the American Corn Growers Association. "The initiatives in this bill will greatly benefit America's farm families," said Bolin. Ethanol emerged from the ferment of farm politics over the past two decades to become one of the Midwest's signature public-policy issues. For cleaning up smog, reducing dependence on foreign oil and funneling money to an important constituency, ethanol can hardly be beat - as farm-state politicians have come to recognize. What better way to get rid of surplus grain than burning it in SUVs? As a result, lavish government subsidies support production, including direct federal benefits of 51 cents per gallon. Laws restricting the use of a competing gas additive known as MTBE help even more. Indirect subsidies that encourage overproduction of corn provide an additional benefit. These days, corn is plentiful, so raw material prices are cheap. Given the soaring price of oil, ethanol should be selling for at least 30 or 40 cents more, and yielding handsome profits all around, its backers say. Yet the economics of ethanol are complicated, and the market still adjusting to the addition of 30 new plants in the past three years, bringing the total to 83. For starters, cheap corn does not necessarily equate to cheap ethanol. In fact, one of the fuel additive's economic advantages for farmers is that its price does not correspond to that of the farm commodity. Lately, though, ethanol prices have failed to correlate as expected with energy prices, either. Some analysts chalk it up to the perils of forecasting in an immature market flush with mysteries. "What do we have to compare it to?" asked agriculture analyst Joe Victor of Allendale Inc. "We learn week by week." One wild card in ethanol's profitability is freight rates. It's costly to move the volatile brew from production sites scattered around the Midwest to motorists in California and New York. Fuel surcharges and rail-line congestion have added to the costs lately, producers say. Another factor is the sale of byproducts from ethanol's manufacture, notably grain protein used for livestock feed. Its value typically moves in lockstep with corn, offsetting about one-third of raw material costs - but not always. None of that would matter if the oil industry would simply tank up, ethanol boosters maintain. But that, too, is not so simple. >From opening storage tanks and blending facilities to labeling pumps and changing filters, switching to ethanol takes time and money, so oil companies aren't jumping at every enticing price dip, said Ed Swinderman, a vice president at Houston's Jim Jordan & Associates energy consultancy. "You've got to overcome the inertia," he said. Murphy of API noted that most oil companies use long-term contracts. "They're not varying production based on what's happening in the spot market." Shaw, of the Renewable Fuels Association, smells a rat: "Oil companies thus far have not reacted to the market. They're logistically capable of doing so without changing a thing. It's very frustrating. It's a little bit hinky." For the balance of the year, analysts expect ethanol prices to inch higher. Swinderman is looking for $1.35 per gallon, which would be profitable for the most efficient plants, but only break-even at best for the inefficient or debt-laden. Longer term, much depends on how quickly clean-air initiatives and other government mandates kick in. Ron Miller of Aventine Renewable Energy Inc. in Pekin, the No. 2 player behind ADM, expects less of a shakeout than some others do. "It's more a lost opportunity for the industry than real pain," he said. "At some point, demand will catch up." In fact, the pain may come in another fashion. As lawmakers seize the moment to press for greater ethanol use in gasoline, it reduces America's dependence on Saudi Arabia but increases it on Mother Nature. "If you're a senator from the Midwest, you're beating the tom-tom," said Allendale analyst Victor. "But what if we have a drought? Is there already too much dependence on ethanol?" From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 26 03:42:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050426034203.13910.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brent Neal wrote: > (4/25/05 14:55) Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > >I have, for example, in the past, shown Patri Friedman documents > issued > >by the World Wildlife Federation showing that the UN is planning on > >giving NGOs like WWF, the Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, etc actual > >sovereignty over wildlife areas, starting with seamounts in > >international waters outside any nations' EEZ and moving on from > there. > >This starting point is interesting because it directly threatens > >Patri's Seastead Project and the potential of high seas independent > >living for libertarians. > > > > I find this to be uncompelling and smacking of wingnuttitude, since > the Nature Conservancy is a private organization, not a UN NGO like > the WHO. Except you don't understand what is an NGO. WHO is not an NGO, it is an agency of the UN. International organizations like The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, that engage in either charitable or political lobbying, are NGOs. The National Rifle Association, for example, is a registered NGO at the UN. UN agencies can't be NGOs because they are UN Agencies. The Nature Conservancy, for instance, is headquartered on Palmyra Island, in the pacific, which the Conservancy ownes in its entirety, and thus is not subject to any state regulations or taxes. It is the sole policing authority onthe island, and the US government provides it national defense as a territorial dependency. I also find it curiously indicative of an individual in denial to deny the validity of the documents of these organize Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 26 03:48:26 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:48:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200504260348.j3Q3mPo04276@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rik van Riel ... > > Color me sceptical, but granting WWF sovereignty > over parts of the world sounds unlikely, while > giving Greenpeace sovereignty sounds plain > irresponsible ;) Ja, the World Wrestling Federation sounds like harmless fun, but how many of the world's navies Greenpeace pissed off? Do let us hope they do not become a sovereign power, for there may be many eager for reprisal. spike From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Apr 26 04:52:14 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:52:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) U.S. Ad Blitz Dismisses Obesity Threat as 'Hype' Message-ID: <426DC8FE.1040906@mindspring.com> burrito U.S. Ad Blitz Dismisses Obesity Threat as 'Hype' By Nichola GroomMon Apr 25, 5:36 PM ET A group backed by the U.S. food and restaurant industries on Monday launched an advertising campaign aimed at dismissing as hype concerns about the large number of obese Americans. The full-page ads in major U.S. newspapers were inspired by new government data questioning government assertions that obesity causes nearly as many deaths as smoking, according to the Center for Consumer Freedom, which paid for the ads. The group, based in Washington, does not disclose names of its donors, though spokesman Mike Burita said casual dining restaurant chains "are predominant sources of funding for us." A spokesman for Darden Restaurants Inc., the nation's largest casual dining company and owner of the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains, could not say whether Darden was among contributors to the group. Applebee's International Inc., another major casual dining chain, also could not say whether it contributes to the group, a spokeswoman said. The group spent about $600,000 on the ads, which appeared on Monday in the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today and the Chicago Tribune. Ads are also to run in Newsweek magazine and on billboards in the Washington-area metro system. The campaign, Burita said, was sparked by new statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a unit of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that contradict previous findings from the CDC that obesity was catching up to heart disease as a major cause of death in the United States. The CDC has said that smoking kills 435,000 Americans a year and that obesity kills close to 400,000 annually. But the NCHS report issued last week cuts that number by 75 percent. Since it was published last year, the CDC's 400,000 figure has been cited in media reports regarding the impact of obesity on everything from healthcare costs to diets. At the same time, U.S. food and restaurant companies have faced increased criticism from health and nutrition advocates who blame foods high in fat and sugar for contributing to what critics have called a nationwide obesity epidemic. The Center for Consumer Freedom hopes the ads will capture the attention of lawmakers and the CDC. "We're putting pressure on the leadership of the CDC, who has still not endorsed this new figure," Burita said. CDC spokesman Tom Skinner, who said he has seen the ad, said the CDC was not wrong a year ago. "All the science around computing mortality associated with obesity is still evolving. If you look at the papers and try to compare them, you really can't do that," Skinner said. He said it was more important to look at obesity-associated illness and disability. "It is a well-known fact that obesity is also contributing to other well-known leading causes of death including cancer and diabetes," Skinner said. Burita said his group wants some perspective. "Obesity is certainly a genuine problem. But when genuine problems become political issues they tend to become exaggerated, as this has," he said. (Additional reporting by Maggie Fox in Washington) http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050425/ts_nm/food_ads_obesity_dc;_ylt=ApQn_5o_1mT_s_S2xaQDm25Z.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give the gift of life to a sick child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' http://us.click.yahoo.com/lGEjbB/6WnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forteana/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: forteana-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 26 08:37:55 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:37:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <426CE0FB.2060601@optusnet.com.au> References: <20050425051904.C96FE57EE7@finney.org> <9887b5d5c94d4099365d5c245d7ee431@mac.com> <426CE0FB.2060601@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1605950b7087690ffe0fd654c2786263@mac.com> On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:22 AM, David wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 10:19 PM, Hal Finney wrote: >>> And why don't the futures markets reflect this phenomenon? You can >>> buy >>> or sell oil right now for December 2010 delivery for less than >>> $50/bbl. >>> If close study of the situation provides strong evidence that the oil >>> will be worth many times that, speculators stand to make enormous >>> profits >>> on the price rise. Yet no one is bidding the price up, and from >>> what I >>> have read even Peak Oil believers generally are not putting their >>> money >>> where their mouths are. >>> >> Because much of the world is still in denial as to the actual >> situation. Soon denial will no longer be an option. It will not be >> pretty. It will be worse because its reality was denied for far too >> long. Humans have a near endless ability to ignore unpleasant news. >> Look at the tech bubble as a case in point. >> Rationally we should be building out alternative energy options >> including nuclear on even the reasoned suspicion of Peak Oil. Alas, >> rationality is difficult to come by in this species. >> - samantha > > Being in denial would only apply to those who deny the peak oil theory. > It doesn't explain why even the people who are pushing the theory > are acting as if they don't believe in it. Market prices are set in large part on perceptions. As long as the majority of players believe Peak Oil is not here yet and what things that can be done to postpone that realization are still successful there would be little point in bidding the price up more than can currently be sustained. This is not a perfect market so the market is not an accurate measure for what is true or likely true re Peak Oil. > Personally, I think that within the oil industry Thomas Gold's theories > on primordial hydrocarbons are given a lot more creedence than is > publicly admitted. Claiming that fuels are running out, or not > arguing when greenies claim this, help to condition people to > expect higher energy prices (and future price rises). > Thomas Gold's theories have no validation that I am aware of. So, unless you have some there seems to be no reasonable relief in that direction. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 26 09:24:10 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:24:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0fa453f3b2c00d85143d67d9fea90f09@mac.com> On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:36 AM, Brian Lee wrote: >> >>> >>> And why don't the futures markets reflect this phenomenon? You can >>> buy >>> or sell oil right now for December 2010 delivery for less than >>> $50/bbl. >>> If close study of the situation provides strong evidence that the oil >>> will be worth many times that, speculators stand to make enormous >>> profits >>> on the price rise. Yet no one is bidding the price up, and from >>> what I >>> have read even Peak Oil believers generally are not putting their >>> money >>> where their mouths are. >>> >> >> Because much of the world is still in denial as to the actual >> situation. Soon denial will no longer be an option. It will not be >> pretty. It will be worse because its reality was denied for far too >> long. Humans have a near endless ability to ignore unpleasant news. >> Look at the tech bubble as a case in point. >> >> Rationally we should be building out alternative energy options >> including nuclear on even the reasoned suspicion of Peak Oil. Alas, >> rationality is difficult to come by in this species. >> >> - samantha > > Isn't it unlikely that the entire world is in denial? Wouldn't some > enterprising investor (including the Peak Oil proponents) slap a few > million down in order to get 300% returns in 5 years? It seems that if > anyone actually believed that oil would be at $200/barrel in 5 years > that futures prices would be edging up there to reflect a valid > present cost. Please describe how you would play it if you believed it and had some cash. I am quite interested. Prices are edging up with constraints to ease the correction where we still can. I don't personally think we will have that luxury for more than another year more, two at the outside. It is really hard for most people to believe something really nasty is the case until it is majorly ruining their day. Surely this is not a controversial statement in this group. Hell, the majority of humanity denies evolution and all matter of things they would simply prefer not to believe. There is more than a little economic and political pressure to keep the lid on this. Our financial markets are fragile enough without official recognition that we are likely soon without adequate relatively cheap energy. Our financials are much more fragile today than in the 70s. > > While we should develop alternative energy, oil is still the cheapest, > cleanest form of energy available to us. Until it gets a lot more > expensive there is little motivation to develop other energy sources. > Not for very long it isn't. Some would argue that without the hysteria, nuclear is already much cleaner and in a saner environment, cheaper. I don't think we can count on smooth ramps in price giving us plenty of time to substitute something different without incurring any major energy shortfalls and crises. We must have Plan B actually in production if we are going to keep the energy on. Not doing this is irresponsible and dangerous to our future. > Once oil production actually peaks (as opposed to predicted peaks) we > will still have many years available to us as oil prices increase to > develop alternative energy. It should take many, many years to get > from peak to negligible production so I don't see an impending crisis. That isn't the way it is likely to work. The rate of production for a declining well falls of after its peak. You can't get the same amount at all much less at the same cost per unit time. Also some of our major fields could drop out of production entirely quite suddenly even without geo-political crisis. For instance. the Saudi main field, Gharwar, has been water injected for decades. If the water level reaches the wellhead the field goes non-productive. This is not that easy to prevent indefinitely in an aged field. Gharwar accounts for 60% of Saudi production. Its loss or even clear decline would sent a huge spike into oil prices and cause a lot of panic. Gharwar produces mainly light sweet crude which is easiest to process into things like gasoline. It takes different types of refineries to process different grades of crude. Too little refinery capacity exists for some of the other grades that we will increasingly have to use. New refineries take 4 - 10 years to come online. Again the time to act is before the crisis is obvious if we are to insure adequate energy and thus financial, economic and political stability. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 26 09:50:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:50:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050425143333.19485.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050425143333.19485.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75e8eb8ee0aa6c6ca16213600272946f@mac.com> On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:33 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 9:37 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >>> Peak Oil exists for certain nations and certain oil companies, >> based on >>> who has the rights to certain oil fields and which fields are being >>> allowed to be developed by governments. The world is nowhere near >> any >>> sort of impending oil shortage. We have a minimum of 100 years of >> oil >>> available at todays market prices. >> >> Produce your evidence or withdraw this claim. > > It was clearly stated previously the years that the exploitable > reserves of different oil companies would peak out at. This isn't > something that is open to dispute. Peak Oil just doesn't count reserves > that are to date unexploited for other than economic reasons. Not to my knowledge. Where does this come from? > The > Spratlys reserves were unexploited for reasons of international tension > between four nations. ANWR is unexploited purely for environmental > reason. The amount of reserves there is barely worth the hassle. Even 19 billion barrels (many including many working for oil companies expect half of that) is not a whole lot of oil and thus has negligible effect on when we reach the Peak. We don't have any really large untapped known fields of easily economically exploitable crude. > California and Florida reserves (which are far larger than you > state) are closed of purely for the sake of tourists and waterfront > property owners not seeing oil derricks (much as Kerry and Kennedy got > the wind power project off Cape Cod cancelled). > >> >>> >>> The Canadian oil tar sands contain more oil (over 3,000 billion >>> barrels), as do Venezuelan tar sands, that the idea that we are >> running >>> out of oil is simply ludicrous. >> >> Except for the unfortunate fact that we have no means to economically >> (today's prices) and environmentally sanely extract and refine such >> oil. > > Not true. Prior technology could safely and not so cleanly extract the > oil at $60.00/bbl. New technology does it cleanly with steam treatment > and water remediation at under $30/bbl. I happen to know of a company > that just built the pilot plant in Alberta. It is not that clean and easy. If it was I would be totally invested in the relevant companies. Are you? I do have some Canada plays actually for precisely the hope that these projects will pay off. but they certainly are not in production at such a low price and in good quantity today. Your insinuation that they are is not useful. > >> >>> In the >>> shorter term, China, the Phillipines, Vietnam, and Indonesia are >>> sitting on 19 billion barrels under the Spratlys, while the US has >> an >>> equivalent amount sitting under ANWR, plus additional reserves >>> elsewhere. The oil and gas fields of Wyoming, I am hearing are >> seeing a >>> boom-time. >> >> US oil production peaked in the 70s (as predicted by Hubbert). Do >> you think we are dependent on Mideast oil just to amuse ourselves >> with the attendant complications and costs when we actually have >> everything we need right here? > > Yes. Political forces want high oil prices for several reasons. One is > to get America off of its consumption economy, to depopulate the rural > area further and congregate in cities so as to be easier to control, > another is to trigger a recession in preparation for a Chinese dollar > bomb attack prior to their retaking Taiwan (and assisted by JP Morgan). > Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked > into. I can't do anything with conspiracy theory stuff of this kind. > > The resulting economic depression will force the US government to hand > over title to federal and state parks and forests to the UN's World > Biosphere Reserve program, so as to fully collateralize the World > Bank/IMF. The point of this is to enable the WB/IMF to fully monetize > the UN budget at low government bond rates independently of member > nations, turning the UN into a truly federal world government, > independently sovereign from its member nations, much as the US states > transitioned during the Civil War and Reconstruction period. Combined > with their measures to turn the high seas into UN territory, so they > can raise taxes from international commerce, and world government will > be inevitable if we let it happen. Are you aware of how much US debt is owned by foreign governments that dhave been converting it to hard assets in the US for quite some time now? Our creditors want to be left holding something more than a lot of Federal IOUs by the time we finish imploding our economy. Real nefarious of them huh? Can we drop the conspiracy theory krap and get the discussion back on track? > >> ANWR is not that impressive to the actual oil >> companies. To put this in perspective, the world sucks down 77 mbd, >> call it 100 mbd in round numbers (we expect to reach this level >> easily >> with the next 5 - 10 years). The 19 billion barrels satisfies world >> demand for less than a year. Not very impressive. Also we are lucky >> to get as much as 70% of the oil out of the ground. > > This is the typical lying with numbers that occurs. You are acting as > if ANWR would be the only oil supplier in the world. Gimme a break. If > ANWR only pumped 1 million bbl/day, it would quickly increase global > oil stocks to the point that prices would drop back to the mid $20's > range. At 1 million bbl/day, that would make ANWR last for at least 50 > years. No. I am taking fields you suggest make Peak Oil a lie and showing they are inadequate for the job. Bring the others on and we'll tally them up. ANWR will not pump 1 mbd. The expectation is for half of that. So less than 1% of daily global consumption today much less by the time it comes online. How is this going to make such a difference? How much current in production sources decline will we have suffered before it and the others come online? > > Nor will we reach 100 mbbl/day any time soon. It will take till 2020 > before China has even a fraction of the US number of autos. By then > they will be pumping the Spratlys fields for all the are worth. > We are at 77 mbd now. We are expected to hit 130 within 25 years if we get the same percent of our energy usage from oil. As extropians and good hearted people who would like many parts of the world to advance I don't think we can find the energy projections that hard to believe. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 26 10:17:24 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:17:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Is there a text version? Why is this a more reasonable target than the actually more politically connected and powerful Christian evangelicals increasingly in control of the world's one remaining superpower? It seems like there are plenty of more obvious targets that are more of an immediate threat. How is this the best opportunity right now? - samantha On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Friends, > > Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for > Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the > potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration > concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a > global issue for transhumanity. > > ExI will be sending out an invitation later for a meeting in May. If > your organization would like to suggest a meeting date and time, > please let me know by Wednesday. It would be helpful if those of you > who receive this message to forward it to other transhumanist > organizations and groups. > > Pope Benedict?s Campaign > > NPR's Monday morning edition:? > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618049 > > "Religion > Pope Benedict Warns Against Moral Relativism > ?by Barbara Bradley Hagerty > > Morning Edition, April 25, 2005 ? The new leader of the Roman > Catholic Church has denounced moral relativism, the idea that moral > principles have no objective standards. Pope Benedict XVI has > characterized it as the major evil facing the church. Some observers > believe he is taking a stance in the tense cultural wars in the United > States." > > I hope you all will work us. It will be a first time that we have a > global issue to work together on and plan a strategy. I think we can > make headway as a culture and a meaningful contribution to our future. > > I look forward to hearing from you, > ? > Natasha Vita-More > Cultural Strategist > > Extropy Institute, President > http://www.extropy.org > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2246 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Apr 26 10:20:11 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:20:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign Message-ID: Natasha wrote: > Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for > Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the > potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration > concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a global > issue for transhumanity. Did anyone actually hear Ratzinger's inauguration speech? That would be the 'official church view'. (I didn't hear it) Even though I've been on travel for large chunks of the last two weeks (I was much more concerned if my plane would be permitted to land at the main Rome airport on the day of his inauguration), of the bits and pieces I've picked up from the English press, the new Pope is seriously backpaddling to his own personal views and offering conciliatory gestures. He gave that 'moral relativism speech' on his way to the electoral process, _before_ he was elected as the official Church mouthpiece. So while I agree that this discussion is good preparation, and I think that a person who has as strong of views as he does is unlikely to change (but who knows?), until his 'moral relativism' idea is given as the official Church doctrine, I think that the Extropy Institute should not assume too much (yet) about what are the new Church policies. Amara P.S. I tried to listen to the NPR radiocast that spawned this discussion, but the sound file at their website gives many errors to my computer, and I didn't succeed to hear what they said. The NPR might have more current data about the 'New Pope's campaign' than what I've picked up in bits and pieces in the last couple weeks, so is there a written account somewhere (NPR or not-NPR) of the campaign? -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "The universe is big: it doesn't fit in one viewgraph." -- Carlos Frenk [showing the VIRGO Consortium Hubble volume simulation] From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 26 10:25:16 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:25:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: <20050426003252.6238.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050426003252.6238.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> study the subject and do nothing in the however long meantime. > > To imagine that Kurzweil, Gates, and Stewart are of the few hundred > spoken of is naive. Their wealth and power pales. Perhaps only Gates > rivals the PTB. > > Besides, another causal link in the chain fell into place: China's > government is exhorting its people to put their savings into gold, i.e > they are preparing for a war-time economy. > http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/106135.htm > > The JP Morgan-run chinese banking system is encouraging use of gold > deposits and is issuing gold certificates for gold on deposit. Good for them! About time people realized the fundamental worthlessness of fiat currency. I exhort people to put a lot of their money into gold myself. For a country to do so is quite prudent in these times . It is not necessarily a warlike move at all. Here is a great mystery. Why is the price of gold flat with that kind of pressure in play? > > JP Morgan runs the US Federal Reserve Bank. It also runs the Chinese > reserve bank. Who therefore stands to profit the most from a conflict > between these two nations? It is financing the military infrastructures > and welfare systems of both nations. > All of the banks are going to be hosed if they are called on more than a small fraction of their very highly leveraged positions. I think you need better scapegoats. -s From eugen at leitl.org Tue Apr 26 13:28:39 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:28:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!) In-Reply-To: <20050422004538.97784.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050421231056.GL31578@leitl.org> <20050422004538.97784.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050426132839.GA20550@leitl.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 05:45:38PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > I'd like to reply point by point, but going over your letter, I see a I've asked a few very specific questions. > pattern that... I see a pattern of you not responding to specific questions. > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:23:53PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > Last I'd heard, DDOS and spam account for about 2/3rd of an ISP's > > > typical bandwidth costs. > > > > You're wrong. > > ...you reject the facts I have gathered from my personal experience. I have a very low esteem of personal experiences, including my own. > With that divide between us, I don't see that there's anything to be > gained by discussion. We both apply equally valid logical arguments, > but starting from completely different (and seemingly mutally > contradictory) evidence. I could cite stuff like > http://www.bizreport.com/news/5395 > > > A study released in May by the FBI and the Computer Security > > Institute found that DDoS attacks cost businesses $66 million in > > 2002, compared to $18 million in 2001. In absence of facts, I believe that readily. > or related stuff like > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5165642.html > > > UK security company mi2g estimated the economic damage done by > > Netsky.B worldwide to be at least US$3.12 billion This is far more difficult to quantify, but I agree with that in principle. > but you'd just reject it. No. You claimed 2/3rd of an ISPs total traffic was due to spam and viruses. That claim is completely bogus, though precise data are hard to come by. Right now 2/3rd seems to be web and p2p traffic, though there's considerable variation in the fraction over individual ISPs. > I will give one nit that proves we are coming from different > perspectives: I do not consider holding a MSCE - MicroSoft Certified > Engineer, that is, as opposed to Master's of Science in Computer > Engineering from a good college - to be proof that one is "adequately > skilled" to be a professional software engineer. That people with only Actually, most of CompSci Masters are not adequately skilled to be a professional software engineer, either. So, how are you proposing to employ all those MCSEs put out of business in an alternative reality where systems are suddenly efficient, self-mainaining and self-healing? (You remember; what we were talking about). You claimed new technologies were creating new technical jobs, and would absorb those displaced. What are these new technologies creating new technical jobs in large numbers? > that certificate as proof of their skills shows the desperation of the > dotcom years, not that adequately skilled software engineers are being > laid off. The people who got only-need-MSCE technical jobs at that > time largely had other, nontechnical career options before then, which > options are largely still open today. For the most part, the only Being flipping hamburgers, gardening and nursing? > people I hear disagreeing with that are those who got MSCEs and refuse > to admit how worthless those certificates are, especially how they do > not prove that the holders are special or competent in any major way, > shape, or form. This misconception (I'd call it "delusion", except > that it's unfortunately spread to many people, like the one about the > Earth's spin significantly affecting the direction of toilet flushes) > tremendously impairs their willingness to seek other types of work, > despite the fact that they keep getting turned down when they apply for > computer jobs, thus they perceive a sustained economic depression where > the rest of us see a recovering economy. I'm not seeing a recovering economy for the last 15 years. Granted, the EU situation is unusually harsh. > work and getting nowhere, spend 20 hours a week doing that and 20 hours > a week finding out what you can about the jobs that are out there that > you'd like and studying - practicing, if possible - the skills they > call for. Improve thyself until you really are among the best > candidates for the jobs you apply for...or just found your own small Excellent advice for an individual, useless advice for a large fraction of displaced workforce. > business, though most people prefer not to go that far.) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Apr 26 13:24:40 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:24:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity In-Reply-To: <426A9558.5070306@neopax.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> <426A9558.5070306@neopax.com> Message-ID: <426E4118.4050506@jefallbright.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Jef Allbright wrote: > >> Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >>> Jef Allbright wrote: >>> >>>> Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an >>>> increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes >>>> the enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents. >>>> >>> I think that the opposite is likely. >>> That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and >>> polarised, competition between new Human species. >>> Racism writ larger than ever. >>> Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out >>> to those who do. >>> >> Dirk, cooperative advantage is fundamental to competitive success at >> all scales of organization, from the subatomic through prebiological >> and biological to cultural. >> >> Do you not think these hypothetical separatists would have some >> interests in common, and find ways to cooperate, even temporarily, to >> overcome others less organized? Do you not think that those who find >> themselves at a disadvantage would tend to adapt and cooperate rather >> than be destroyed? >> >> Why do you speculate that these "new humans", more advanced than us, >> would recapitulate evolutionary growth from isolated biological >> organisms to cooperative cultural organisms? >> >> "Looking out for your own" is the essence of morality, and in the >> broader sense means converting your potential enemies into trading >> partners rather than destroying them. > > > The only morality will be game theory . > If it is cost effective to trade, then trade. > If it is cost effective to annihilate the opposition then that's what > will happen. > Why do you expect evolutionary pressures to cease or expect some kind > of universal morality beyond game theory? > Interesting, your basic assertions match mine, but then you conclude that we disagree. I too think it's all about game theory, but keeping in mind that most games are presented within artificially narrow context, so one tends to see the pieces but not the greater pattern, and paradox rather than a coherent whole. There's a time to trade and a time to annihilate, each in the near-term smaller scale, but overall evolutionary growth favors synergy. Competition at one scale can be seen as cooperation at a larger scale since it tends to produce systems that are more robust than what preceded them. Whether it's two hydrogen and one oxygen atom forming water, mitochondria working within the machinery of our cells, or groups of humans working together to do what no subgroup could do alone, each instance of "cooperation", or synergy, results in a system with greater degrees of freedom--greater probable survival value--than before. As I've said, looking out for Self is of the essence in morality, as it is with game theory. For an agent not to look out for its own interests (as it sees them) would be irrational or insane. But wisdom is seeing Self in the bigger picture. For any given context, what is considered "moral" (by that subjective agent) is what works. And over increasing context (of actors and interactions) what increasingly works is considered increasingly moral. Dirk, I'm arguing *for* evolutionary theory, and saying that synergy--what we call "cooperation" when it's between agents--is fundamental to survival and growth of any evolving system. - Jef From brentn at freeshell.org Tue Apr 26 14:20:52 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:20:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050426034203.13910.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (4/25/05 20:42) Mike Lorrey wrote: >The Nature Conservancy, for instance, is headquartered on Palmyra >Island, in the pacific, which the Conservancy ownes in its entirety, >and thus is not subject to any state regulations or taxes. It is the >sole policing authority onthe island, and the US government provides it >national defense as a territorial dependency. > Its interesting that its OK for corporations to move offshore for tax reasons, but not charitable organizations. Its also interesting that an environmental organization that relies on property rights and private ownership to accomplish its goals is somehow suspect. I personally find that much more appealing than the Sierra Club's nihilist lobbying tactics. >I also find it curiously indicative of an individual in denial to deny >the validity of the documents of these organize I've seen no documents. All I've seen are your assertions that these documents exist. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From dirk at neopax.com Tue Apr 26 14:57:30 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:57:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity In-Reply-To: <426E4118.4050506@jefallbright.net> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> <426A9558.5070306@neopax.com> <426E4118.4050506@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <426E56DA.1070604@neopax.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> Jef Allbright wrote: >> >>> Dirk Bruere wrote: >>> >>>> Jef Allbright wrote: >>>> >>>>> Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an >>>>> increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes >>>>> the enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents. >>>>> >>>> I think that the opposite is likely. >>>> That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and >>>> polarised, competition between new Human species. >>>> Racism writ larger than ever. >>>> Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out >>>> to those who do. >>>> >>> Dirk, cooperative advantage is fundamental to competitive success at >>> all scales of organization, from the subatomic through prebiological >>> and biological to cultural. >>> >>> Do you not think these hypothetical separatists would have some >>> interests in common, and find ways to cooperate, even temporarily, >>> to overcome others less organized? Do you not think that those who >>> find themselves at a disadvantage would tend to adapt and cooperate >>> rather than be destroyed? >>> >>> Why do you speculate that these "new humans", more advanced than us, >>> would recapitulate evolutionary growth from isolated biological >>> organisms to cooperative cultural organisms? >>> >>> "Looking out for your own" is the essence of morality, and in the >>> broader sense means converting your potential enemies into trading >>> partners rather than destroying them. >> >> >> >> The only morality will be game theory . >> If it is cost effective to trade, then trade. >> If it is cost effective to annihilate the opposition then that's what >> will happen. >> Why do you expect evolutionary pressures to cease or expect some kind >> of universal morality beyond game theory? >> > Interesting, your basic assertions match mine, but then you conclude > that we disagree. > > I too think it's all about game theory, but keeping in mind that most > games are presented within artificially narrow context, so one tends > to see the pieces but not the greater pattern, and paradox rather than > a coherent whole. > > There's a time to trade and a time to annihilate, each in the > near-term smaller scale, but overall evolutionary growth favors > synergy. Competition at one scale can be seen as cooperation at a > larger scale since it tends to produce systems that are more robust > than what preceded them. Whether it's two hydrogen and one oxygen atom > forming water, mitochondria working within the machinery of our cells, > or groups of humans working together to do what no subgroup could do > alone, each instance of "cooperation", or synergy, results in a system > with greater degrees of freedom--greater probable survival value--than > before. > As I've said, looking out for Self is of the essence in morality, as > it is with game theory. For an agent not to look out for its own > interests (as it sees them) would be irrational or insane. But wisdom > is seeing Self in the bigger picture. For any given context, what is > considered "moral" (by that subjective agent) is what works. And over > increasing context (of actors and interactions) what increasingly > works is considered increasingly moral. 'Self' in the current bigger picture is the success of propagating ones genes into the future. With immortals that big picture shrinks down to more immediate self. > > Dirk, I'm arguing *for* evolutionary theory, and saying that > synergy--what we call "cooperation" when it's between agents--is > fundamental to survival and growth of any evolving system. > > Of course it is, but 99% of all the species that have existed are extinct. Co-operation occurs within species and competition between species in the same ecological niche. I susepct that one of the defining aspects of PostHumans is that their 'niche' will encompass just about everything. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005 From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 15:40:00 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:40:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yeah, gold is a great investment. Check out these excellent returns of gold: http://www.retirement-planning.com/returnrates.htm You're better off investing in 3 month t-bills. BAL >From: Samantha Atkins >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ >Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:25:16 -0700 > >On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >>> study the subject and do nothing in the however long meantime. >> >>To imagine that Kurzweil, Gates, and Stewart are of the few hundred >>spoken of is naive. Their wealth and power pales. Perhaps only Gates >>rivals the PTB. >> >>Besides, another causal link in the chain fell into place: China's >>government is exhorting its people to put their savings into gold, i.e >>they are preparing for a war-time economy. >>http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/106135.htm >> >>The JP Morgan-run chinese banking system is encouraging use of gold >>deposits and is issuing gold certificates for gold on deposit. > >Good for them! About time people realized the fundamental worthlessness of >fiat currency. I exhort people to put a lot of their money into gold >myself. For a country to do so is quite prudent in these times . It is >not necessarily a warlike move at all. Here is a great mystery. Why is >the price of gold flat with that kind of pressure in play? > >> >>JP Morgan runs the US Federal Reserve Bank. It also runs the Chinese >>reserve bank. Who therefore stands to profit the most from a conflict >>between these two nations? It is financing the military infrastructures >>and welfare systems of both nations. >> > >All of the banks are going to be hosed if they are called on more than a >small fraction of their very highly leveraged positions. I think you need >better scapegoats. > >-s > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 16:05:08 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:05:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/26/05, Brian Lee wrote: > Yeah, gold is a great investment. Check out these excellent returns of gold: > http://www.retirement-planning.com/returnrates.htm > > You're better off investing in 3 month t-bills. > Gold and precious metals are a reasonable investment in times of devaluing paper currency. If the US is embarked on a policy of dollar devaluation to help solve the deficit problem then converting paper dollars into precious metal asserts could be a good move. Foreign investors will get fed up with watching the value of dollar investments collapse in value. Internal US investors should also be thinking about investing in tangible assets that hold their value in times of higher inflation and stock market crashes. BillK From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Apr 26 16:36:12 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:36:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity In-Reply-To: <426E56DA.1070604@neopax.com> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> <426A9558.5070306@neopax.com> <426E4118.4050506@jefallbright.net> <426E56DA.1070604@neopax.com> Message-ID: <426E6DFC.401@jefallbright.net> Jef: Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes the enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents. Dirk: I think that the opposite is likely. That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and polarised, competition between new Human species. Racism writ larger than ever. Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to those who do. Dirk: 'Self' in the current bigger picture is the success of propagating ones genes into the future. With immortals that big picture shrinks down to more immediate self. Jef: I'm arguing *for* evolutionary theory, and saying that synergy--what we call "cooperation" when it's between agents--is fundamental to survival and growth of any evolving system. Dirk: Of course it is, but 99% of all the species that have existed are extinct. Co-operation occurs within species and competition between species in the same ecological niche. I susepct that one of the defining aspects of PostHumans is that their 'niche' will encompass just about everything. ------------------- Ah, I think I now understand the basis of your assertion of "massive, and polarized, competition between new Human species. Racism writ larger than ever." Given an immediate Self effectively all-encompassing due to near immortality, and vastly expanded environment for this selfish Self to grow into, then I can see why you would predict this kind of all or nothing competition. However, I would argue that as the Players evolve, so does the Game, and that when we reach this level of growth and capability, the game will be qualitatively different. I hesitate to make any predictions, from my limited point of view, of what such a qualitatively different game would be like, but I can offer one likely example: Physical size and spread will continue to be a competitive advantage in terms of "holding the high ground", being able to flank and surround an enemy, and being able to store and utilize massive resources. However, a system spread even as far around as the Earth would have inherent problems of communication latency between its subsystems. For this reason, the hypothetical PostHuman Self can not be shrunk down as you suggest because to do so would limit its ability to compete. Thus, it seems the hypothetical PostHuman must necessarily be in the form of a "culture" of semi-autonomous, and thus highly cooperative, subsystems. In summary, the most successful (read effectively competitive) systems of the future can be expected to possess more diversity (degrees of freedom), AND be more highly cooperative, than those of today. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From dirk at neopax.com Tue Apr 26 16:44:42 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:44:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity In-Reply-To: <426E6DFC.401@jefallbright.net> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> <426A9558.5070306@neopax.com> <426E4118.4050506@jefallbright.net> <426E56DA.1070604@neopax.com> <426E6DFC.401@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <426E6FFA.8070801@neopax.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > Jef: Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an > increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes the > enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents. > > Dirk: I think that the opposite is likely. That with increasing > diversity there will come a massive, and polarised, competition > between new Human species. Racism writ larger than ever. Those who > don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to those who > do. > > > > Dirk: 'Self' in the current bigger picture is the success of > propagating ones genes into the future. With immortals that big > picture shrinks down to more immediate self. > > Jef: I'm arguing *for* evolutionary theory, and saying that > synergy--what we call "cooperation" when it's between agents--is > fundamental to survival and growth of any evolving system. > > Dirk: Of course it is, but 99% of all the species that have existed > are extinct. Co-operation occurs within species and competition > between species in the same ecological niche. I susepct that one of > the defining aspects of PostHumans is that their 'niche' will > encompass just about everything. > > ------------------- > > Ah, I think I now understand the basis of your assertion of "massive, > and polarized, competition between new Human species. Racism writ > larger than ever." Given an immediate Self effectively > all-encompassing due to near immortality, and vastly expanded > environment for this selfish Self to grow into, then I can see why you > would predict this kind of all or nothing competition. > > However, I would argue that as the Players evolve, so does the Game, > and that when we reach this level of growth and capability, the game > will be qualitatively different. I hesitate to make any predictions, > from my limited point of view, of what such a qualitatively different > game would be like, but I can offer one likely example: > > Physical size and spread will continue to be a competitive advantage > in terms of "holding the high ground", being able to flank and > surround an enemy, and being able to store and utilize massive > resources. However, a system spread even as far around as the Earth > would have inherent problems of communication latency between its > subsystems. For this reason, the hypothetical PostHuman Self can not > be shrunk down as you suggest because to do so would limit its ability > to compete. Thus, it seems the hypothetical PostHuman must > necessarily be in the form of a "culture" of semi-autonomous, and thus > highly cooperative, subsystems. > > In summary, the most successful (read effectively competitive) systems > of the future can be expected to possess more diversity (degrees of > freedom), AND be more highly cooperative, than those of today. Which is why I claimed in another thread IIRC that PostHumans will evolve into one of two forms. Super self reliant individuals and hive minds. As for the semi-autonomous bits within such hive minds, think super-nationalism. I see the 'individuals' getting out of town really fast because of their inability to compete, and evolutionary convergence to a single planetary (or even solar system) hive mind. Whether the latter is achieved via merger, extermination or assimilation by conquest I can't guess. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005 From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 17:05:35 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:05:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There are better investments in times of devaluing US currency. For example, euro/yen denominated stocks, bonds and real estate. Long term, gold has always been the fool's investment. While gold is up gangbusters in the past 3 years, it is because of the declining dollar. There's higher return in just buying euros. BAL >From: BillK >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ >Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:05:08 +0100 > >On 4/26/05, Brian Lee wrote: > > Yeah, gold is a great investment. Check out these excellent returns of >gold: > > http://www.retirement-planning.com/returnrates.htm > > > > You're better off investing in 3 month t-bills. > > > >Gold and precious metals are a reasonable investment in times of >devaluing paper currency. If the US is embarked on a policy of dollar >devaluation to help solve the deficit problem then converting paper >dollars into precious metal asserts could be a good move. Foreign >investors will get fed up with watching the value of dollar >investments collapse in value. >Internal US investors should also be thinking about investing in >tangible assets that hold their value in times of higher inflation and >stock market crashes. > >BillK >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From scerir at libero.it Tue Apr 26 17:14:39 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:14:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425120705.04697908@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <001d01c54a83$6e7e0150$cdc41b97@administxl09yj> Samantha Atkins asked: Is there a text version? Dunno. Try the official e-Vatican page http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione/index_en.htm From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 26 17:36:43 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:36:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I did not say gold is primarily an investment. It is an excellent hedge against a falling dollar and most likely worse to come. Also there is considerable likelihood that the price of gold is currently being artificially suppressed. - samantha On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:40 AM, Brian Lee wrote: > Yeah, gold is a great investment. Check out these excellent returns of > gold: > http://www.retirement-planning.com/returnrates.htm > > You're better off investing in 3 month t-bills. > > BAL > >> From: Samantha Atkins >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ >> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:25:16 -0700 >> >> On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> >>>> study the subject and do nothing in the however long meantime. >>> >>> To imagine that Kurzweil, Gates, and Stewart are of the few hundred >>> spoken of is naive. Their wealth and power pales. Perhaps only Gates >>> rivals the PTB. >>> >>> Besides, another causal link in the chain fell into place: China's >>> government is exhorting its people to put their savings into gold, >>> i.e >>> they are preparing for a war-time economy. >>> http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/106135.htm >>> >>> The JP Morgan-run chinese banking system is encouraging use of gold >>> deposits and is issuing gold certificates for gold on deposit. >> >> Good for them! About time people realized the fundamental >> worthlessness of fiat currency. I exhort people to put a lot of >> their money into gold myself. For a country to do so is quite >> prudent in these times . It is not necessarily a warlike move at >> all. Here is a great mystery. Why is the price of gold flat with >> that kind of pressure in play? >> >>> >>> JP Morgan runs the US Federal Reserve Bank. It also runs the Chinese >>> reserve bank. Who therefore stands to profit the most from a conflict >>> between these two nations? It is financing the military >>> infrastructures >>> and welfare systems of both nations. >>> >> >> All of the banks are going to be hosed if they are called on more >> than a small fraction of their very highly leveraged positions. I >> think you need better scapegoats. >> >> -s >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From dwish at indco.net Tue Apr 26 18:28:37 2005 From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200504261836.j3QIa2o15103@tick.javien.com> I had read an article about new exploration in the Gulf of Mexico using new technology, which they said shows a HUGE oil reserve almost twice the amount of oil as has been used up till today. That would be a turn around from the cheap oil economic times we have lived in. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brent Neal Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:21 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil (4/25/05 20:42) Mike Lorrey wrote: >The Nature Conservancy, for instance, is headquartered on Palmyra >Island, in the pacific, which the Conservancy ownes in its entirety, >and thus is not subject to any state regulations or taxes. It is the >sole policing authority onthe island, and the US government provides it >national defense as a territorial dependency. > Its interesting that its OK for corporations to move offshore for tax reasons, but not charitable organizations. Its also interesting that an environmental organization that relies on property rights and private ownership to accomplish its goals is somehow suspect. I personally find that much more appealing than the Sierra Club's nihilist lobbying tactics. >I also find it curiously indicative of an individual in denial to deny >the validity of the documents of these organize I've seen no documents. All I've seen are your assertions that these documents exist. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/2005 From hal at finney.org Tue Apr 26 19:11:55 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org> Dustin Wish writes: > I had read an article about new exploration in the Gulf of Mexico using new > technology, which they said shows a HUGE oil reserve almost twice the amount > of oil as has been used up till today. That would be a turn around from the > cheap oil economic times we have lived in. On the other hand, this news from a Peak Oil site is discouraging for Gulf of Mexico oil development: http://www.energybulletin.net/5438.html "According to a new study published on Sunday by state oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos, the potential for oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has been greatly overestimated. "Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, revealed that terrain in waters deeper than 3,000 meters in the Gulf of Mexico an area known as the Abyssal Plain were 'not suitable for oil exploration.' The statement represents a serious setback for future drilling in the area, and, according to petroleum analysts, jeopardizes any possible collaborations with foreign investors. ... "Pemex had initially earmarked a possible 54 billion barrels of oil that could be drilled from the area. With that figure now cut in half, P??rez Cruz says, exploration becomes economically unviable" This is why I say that Peak Oil sites provide biased news. They search the press for all the bad things, but won't reprint good news (that is, news which goes against their theories). Unfortunately I have not found a site which focuses on good news on this topic, so it is hard to acquire a balanced picture. I did order the book by Huber but it would be nice to see a blog or some other source that discusses topics on a day to day basis. Of course an unbiased site would be best, but I've given up hope in that regard! At this point I just try to find a mix of information sources. Hal From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Apr 26 20:44:59 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org> References: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050426154135.03bfea80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:11 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Hal wrote: >...Peak Oil sites provide biased news. They search >the press for all the bad things, but won't reprint good news (that >is, news which goes against their theories). Unfortunately I have not >found a site which focuses on good news on this topic, so it is hard to >acquire a balanced picture. I did order the book by Huber but it would >be nice to see a blog or some other source that discusses topics on a >day to day basis. Of course an unbiased site would be best, but I've >given up hope in that regard! At this point I just try to find a mix >of information sources. Well, here's another, rather simplified but ... http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=632811 < I, like most people, have been in denial about oil depletion for years. I was once a creature of the oil industry. I taught for 11 years in one of its elite training houses, at the Royal School of Mines. I did so much consulting for big oil companies that I was once able to buy my daughter two horses. I did not believe the early toppers when their stories first became public in the late 1990s. I was an environmentalist by then, but still had a healthy respect for the oil industry. I made the snap judgement that the early toppers couldn't be correct. How could the industry I had grown up in be so wrong? > From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Tue Apr 26 20:49:30 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:49:30 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org> References: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Hal Finney wrote: >day to day basis. Of course an unbiased site would be best, but I've >given up hope in that regard! Have you given a look at the Wikipedia article on the matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy that tries to represent competing viewpoints as objectively as possible. It doesn't work all the time, but most of the time yes. The article on Peak Oil has at the bottom a huge collection of links to articles, websites and books. Alfio From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 26 21:26:30 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:26:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <200504261836.j3QIa2o15103@tick.javien.com> References: <200504261836.j3QIa2o15103@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: It obviously has not been vetted yet. Can you provide references? My uess is that the technology used is the first thing not yet vetted as accurate. - samantha On Apr 26, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote: > > > I had read an article about new exploration in the Gulf of Mexico > using new > technology, which they said shows a HUGE oil reserve almost twice the > amount > of oil as has been used up till today. That would be a turn around > from the > cheap oil economic times we have lived in. > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brent Neal > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:21 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil > > (4/25/05 20:42) Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> The Nature Conservancy, for instance, is headquartered on Palmyra >> Island, in the pacific, which the Conservancy ownes in its entirety, >> and thus is not subject to any state regulations or taxes. It is the >> sole policing authority onthe island, and the US government provides >> it >> national defense as a territorial dependency. >> > > Its interesting that its OK for corporations to move offshore for tax > reasons, but not charitable organizations. Its also interesting that > an > environmental organization that relies on property rights and private > ownership to accomplish its goals is somehow suspect. I personally > find > that much more appealing than the Sierra Club's nihilist lobbying > tactics. > >> I also find it curiously indicative of an individual in denial to deny >> the validity of the documents of these organize > > I've seen no documents. All I've seen are your assertions that these > documents exist. > > B > -- > Brent Neal > Geek of all Trades > http://brentn.freeshell.org > > "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 26 23:49:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050426234928.36232.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Lee wrote: > Yeah, gold is a great investment. Check out these excellent returns > of gold: > http://www.retirement-planning.com/returnrates.htm > > You're better off investing in 3 month t-bills. HA! "Source: Salomon Brothers, 1993". Does your toast taste stale? In the last 5 years gold prices have climed from the $270's to as much as $457/oz. The late 1990's gold price depression was caused by a collusion of gold hedger Barrick Gold and JP Morgan in liquidating european central bank gold stocks to earn $6 billion in profits while depression gold prices with disinformation and hedge program gaming (currently the subject of a class action lawsuit in US Federal Court). Greenspan claims that the present 'natural' price of gold should be between $300-$400/ounce depending on the economy and the deficit. The increased price of gold is due to devaluation, heavy deficit spending, and excessive foreign posession of US currency and debt, and warns that the price could skyrocket if the federal government doesn't get its budget deficit back down. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 26 23:54:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050426235411.22675.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Dustin Wish writes: > > I had read an article about new exploration in the Gulf of Mexico > using new > > technology, which they said shows a HUGE oil reserve almost twice > the amount > > of oil as has been used up till today. That would be a turn around > from the > > cheap oil economic times we have lived in. > > On the other hand, this news from a Peak Oil site is discouraging for > Gulf of Mexico oil development: > http://www.energybulletin.net/5438.html > > "According to a new study published on Sunday by state oil monopoly > Petroleos Mexicanos, the potential for oil exploration in the Gulf of > Mexico has been greatly overestimated. > > "Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, revealed that terrain in waters > deeper > than 3,000 meters in the Gulf of Mexico an area known as the Abyssal > Plain were 'not suitable for oil exploration.' The statement > represents > a serious setback for future drilling in the area, and, according to > petroleum analysts, jeopardizes any possible collaborations with > foreign > investors. > ... > "Pemex had initially earmarked a possible 54 billion barrels of oil > that could be drilled from the area. With that figure now cut in > half, P??rez Cruz says, exploration becomes economically unviable" > > This is why I say that Peak Oil sites provide biased news. They > search > the press for all the bad things, but won't reprint good news (that > is, news which goes against their theories). Especially when you consider that Pemex is the only oil company in the world that has never turned a profit. When you have a company management that could teach the saudis a thing or two about graft and nepotism, it isn't hard to wonder why they are now trying to downplay expectations. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Apr 26 23:58:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050426235807.2269.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Hal Finney wrote: > > >day to day basis. Of course an unbiased site would be best, but > I've > >given up hope in that regard! > > Have you given a look at the Wikipedia article on the matter? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Mwahahahahaaa.... how entertaining: "Based on available production data, proponents have predicted the peak years to be 1989, 1995, 1995-2000, or, according to one influential group, 2007 for oil and somewhat later for natural gas." Geeze, if you replaced the words "peak years" with "return of Jesus Christ" you'd have a nice joke about cheated chiliasts.... I'm sorry, couldn't help it. Who is it now that needs to wear tinfoil hats and start digging their bunkers? HAW! Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From matus at matus1976.com Wed Apr 27 03:02:20 2005 From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:02:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <7f9f7f21212597ff8f38e7b6597b549f@mac.com> Message-ID: <002701c54ad5$8ba234c0$6601a8c0@hplaptop> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But whether we > are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way irrelevant. If most Has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined while demand continued to be at least consistent? Ever? Why all of the sudden are we suggesting it will happen with Oil? This discussion ignores the fact that one can manufacture gasoline out of a few dollars of electricity right from the carbon dioxide in the air and hydrogen in the water. And since nothing has the energy carrying capacity that gasoline does (~13,000 Wh/kg) we will continue to use it for decades, even if it ends up as the equivalent of a battery (used primarily as energy storage and created with other electrical means, solar or nuclear) >From some googling 1 gallon of gasoline weighs around 6.8lbs (depending on temp) which = 3.1kg. So 1 gallon of gasoline contains roughly 39,000 Wh. Which translates to 39 kWh. Assuming electricity is 10c / kWhr, that's $3.90 cents worth of electricity to create gasoline, assuming process is 100% efficient. With a more reasonable goal of 50% efficiency, that's up to around $7.80 / gallon of synthetically manufactured gasoline. The price of electricity continues to decline in real dollars. With a more widespread use of nuclear and solar power, the price of synthetic gasoline will clearly be less expensive than well oil refined gasoline before any kind of devastating 'peak' hits. Electricity price - http://www.open.ac.uk/T206/illustrations/t206b1c01f41.jpg Matus From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 27 03:54:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050427035406.33554.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Matus wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > > > I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But > whether we are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way > irrelevant. If most > > Has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined while demand > continued to be at least consistent? Ever? Why all of the sudden > are we suggesting it will happen with Oil? What I find very compelling is that wikipedians have exposed that the wikipedia article on abiogenic petroleum theory has been hacked with unjustified critical alterations by an anonymous user at Halliburton, alterations that try to cast doubt on abiogenic petroleum origins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenic_petroleum_origin (See "Possible conflict of interest") Why would Halliburton seek to do this? Perhaps because the theory and its supporting evidence (as well as the fact that abiogenic oil is the standard accepted theory in Russian geology circles) cast serious doubt on the "Peak Oil" proponents? I also see major hype about "Peak Oil" coming from sources like Halliburton, yet both Saudi Arabia and Iran's oil ministers both assert that the problem with gasoline prices and the panic-driven spot markets, is that there is a very serious shortage of refining capacity, NOT production capacity. I talk to folks in the Iranian oil industry who can't give their oil away at $30/bbl. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 27 05:00:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Phreak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050427050028.6877.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >From Wikipedia: "Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Hubbert curve, devised by M. King Hubbert, predicts future oil availability.The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, or ASPO, is a network of scientists, affiliated with European institutions and universities, having an interest in determining the date and impact of the peak and decline of the world?s production of oil and gas, due to resource constraints. ASPO was founded by Colin Campbell in 2000. It is the most influential organization supporting the "peak oil" theory known as the Hubbert curve, devised by M. King Hubbert, which predicts future oil availability. It appears in the documentary film The End of Suburbia. Geologists from the following countries are represented in ASPO: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. [edit] Mission 1. To evaluate the world?s endowment and definition of oil and gas; 2. To study depletion, taking due account of economics, demand, technology and politics; 3. To raise awareness of the serious consequences for Mankind." It is thus clear that, like the European driven hysteria about global warming, as a mechanism to institute US carbon taxes that will help fund a social welfare state in the US while purporting to be "solving global warming", the "Peak Oil" phenom is just another European-run propaganda front in the euro-socialist culture-war against low-tax Americans. When "Peak Oil" fails to sink in, what next? Shall we see claims by european scientists that hyperthermophiles are gobbling up all of the oil? Will we see european marine biologists protest the tapping of undersea oil seeps when rare and endangered species of Archaea are discovered surviving off of the seepage oil? Will we EVER see a widespread public acknowledgement by european scientists that Europe is solving its energy needs via nuclear power, and its nuclear waste problems with breeder reactors? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 05:16:55 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:16:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] NeoFiles: Time and Connectivity Message-ID: <470a3c52050426221614f3f381@mail.gmail.com> The new issue of RU Sirius' NeoFilesis out: If Ray Kurzweil's co-author Terry Grossmanand writer Ramez Naam are correct, we're going to be around for a long time (or at least our progeny will be long-lived). What to do with all that time? One of the most fulfilling things we will likely do is build human connections and relationships. Networker Joi Itotells us how the community of minds that have been linking together in cyberspace continually find new forms and formats to experiment with. Some work better than others, and even the best of them still need to be tended to and cared for by their most motivated participants. But in sum, seeing where these endless permutations of digital communion - these temporary synergies of brains and memes - take us is well worth sticking around for. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 05:42:08 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:42:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crystal Gazing into India Biotech 2010 Message-ID: <470a3c520504262242611ad535@mail.gmail.com> >From BioSpectrum India, a short report on biotech trends in India: A business report in 2010 may read somewhat like this. "Because of globalization, the world is drinking Colombian coffee, using Japanese cameras, driving American cars, ... and being treated and cured by novel medicines discovered in India." So the outsourcing trend now seen in Information and Communication Technologies may continue with biotechnologies. This time, not only due to differentials in the cost of work, but also and mainly due to differentials in cultural acceptance and regulations of biotechnologies. There is the possibility, hinted at but not explicitly mentioned by the article, that we may one day go to India for advanced biotech treatments and enhancements still outlawed in other parts of the world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed Apr 27 16:34:05 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:34:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426FBEFD.5080802@pobox.com> Hughes, James J. wrote: >> until his 'moral relativism' idea is given as the official Church >> doctrine, I think that the Extropy Institute should not assume too much >> (yet) about what are the new Church policies. > > Also, among all the things that Cardinal Ratzinger has opposed over the > years, and seems likely to oppose as Pope, "moral relativism" is close to > the bottom of the list of things I think we should be jumping to the > defense of. > > Yes, we believe in moral complexity, tolerance, acknowledgment that there > are no moral absolutes, and that morals are the product of human reason and > feeling. But I'm not a defender of "moral relativism." We believe? Speak for yourself - in matters of belief, always. I believe in moral complexity, intolerance, acknowledgment that moral absolutes can vary from mind to mind, and that morals are the product of human reason and feeling. I am an opponent of moral relativism. I don't say "we" about any of that and that's the main problem with trying to articulate a transhumanist position on it. > What I think we should be focusing on is Benedict's likely focus on > bioethics: > > http://cyborgdemocracy.net/2005/04/ratzinger-on-genetic-enhancement-and.html Agreed. From my perspective moral relativism is a complex philosophical confusion, something that needs to be explained more than fought. But to fight for moral relativism is a very hard-to-defend ground on which to stake one's battlefield, leaving aside that it's not worth defending. Some people analyze that moral relativism helped kill off the Democratic party in the US, and they may well be right. See also "Higher Superstition". How do you rally people to fight for the idea that nothing is worth fighting for? It may make a fine way to smile down at the philosophically unsophisticated from the coffeehouse, but it doesn't call a people to arms. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jonkc at att.net Wed Apr 27 17:47:56 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:47:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE References: <426FBEFD.5080802@pobox.com> Message-ID: <003401c54b51$5db822f0$68ef4d0c@MyComputer> PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 729 April 27, 2005 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein PYROFUSION: A ROOM-TEMPERATURE, PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE has been reported by a UCLA collaboration, potentially leading to new kinds of fusion devices and other novel applications such as microthrusters for MEMS spaceships. The key component of the UCLA device is a pyroelectric crystal, a class of materials that includes lithium niobate, an inexpensive solid that is used to filter signals in cell phones. When heated a pyroelectric crystal polarizes charge, segregating a significant amount of electric charge near a surface, leading to a very large electric field there. In turn, this effect can accelerate electrons to relatively high (keV) energies (see Update 564, http://www.aip.org/pnu/2001/split/564-2.html). The UCLA researchers (Seth Putterman, 310-825-2269) take this idea and add a few other elements to it. In a vacuum chamber containing deuterium gas, they place a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one of its faces touches a copper disc which itself is surmounted by a tungsten probe. They cool and then heat the crystal, which creates an electric potential energy of about 120 kilovolts at its surface. The electric field at the end of the tungsten probe tip is so high (25 V/nm) that it strips electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. Repelled by the negatively charged tip, and crystal field, the resulting deuterium ions then accelerate towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2), slamming into it so hard that some of the deuterium ions fuse with deuterium in the target. Each deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction creates a helium-3 nucleus and a 2.45 MeV neutron, the latter being collected as evidence for nuclear fusion. In a typical heating cycle, the researchers measure a peak of about 900 neutrons per second, about 400 times the "background" of naturally occurring neutrons. During a heating cycle, which could last from 5 minutes to 8 hours depending on how fast they heat the crystal, the researchers estimate that they create approximately 10^-8 joules of fusion energy. (To provide some perspective, it takes about 1,000 joules to heat an 8-oz (237 ml) cup of coffee one degree Celsius.) By using a larger tungsten tip, cooling the crystal to cryogenic temperatures, and constructing a target containing tritium, the researchers believe they can scale up the observed neutron production 1000 times, to more than 10^6 neutrons per second. (Naranjo, Gimzewski, Putterman, Nature, 28 April 2005). The experimental setup is strikingly simple: "We can build a tiny self-contained handheld object which when plunged into ice water creates fusion," Putterman says. (http://rodan.physics.ucla.edu/pyrofusion ) From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Apr 27 17:53:08 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:53:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign Message-ID: <82190-22005432717538854@M2W099.mail2web.com> Ahem. I think that Amara's post was an assumption that you are following for a good cause, but it is not what the ExI meeting is about. This is not a meeting about "moral relativism." This is a meeting "Dealing with New Pope's Campaign" and the reverberations that could follow, i.e., life-extension biotechnologies. Also, I'm wondering why no one picked up on the "cultural wars." Toward progress! Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:34:05 -0700 To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign Hughes, James J. wrote: >> until his 'moral relativism' idea is given as the official Church >> doctrine, I think that the Extropy Institute should not assume too much >> (yet) about what are the new Church policies. > > Also, among all the things that Cardinal Ratzinger has opposed over the > years, and seems likely to oppose as Pope, "moral relativism" is close to > the bottom of the list of things I think we should be jumping to the > defense of. > > Yes, we believe in moral complexity, tolerance, acknowledgment that there > are no moral absolutes, and that morals are the product of human reason and > feeling. But I'm not a defender of "moral relativism." We believe? Speak for yourself - in matters of belief, always. I believe in moral complexity, intolerance, acknowledgment that moral absolutes can vary from mind to mind, and that morals are the product of human reason and feeling. I am an opponent of moral relativism. I don't say "we" about any of that and that's the main problem with trying to articulate a transhumanist position on it. > What I think we should be focusing on is Benedict's likely focus on > bioethics: > > http://cyborgdemocracy.net/2005/04/ratzinger-on-genetic-enhancement-and.html Agreed. From my perspective moral relativism is a complex philosophical confusion, something that needs to be explained more than fought. But to fight for moral relativism is a very hard-to-defend ground on which to stake one's battlefield, leaving aside that it's not worth defending. Some people analyze that moral relativism helped kill off the Democratic party in the US, and they may well be right. See also "Higher Superstition". How do you rally people to fight for the idea that nothing is worth fighting for? It may make a fine way to smile down at the philosophically unsophisticated from the coffeehouse, but it doesn't call a people to arms. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 17:54:59 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:54:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign In-Reply-To: <426FBEFD.5080802@pobox.com> References: <426FBEFD.5080802@pobox.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205042710543622196c@mail.gmail.com> Come on Eliezer. One thing is saying that there are no moral absolutes, and another thing is saying that there is nothing worth fighting for. If a tiger wants to eat me, I will definitely fight to protect my life even if I don't know, or care, whether it is or not the morally correct thing to do. G. On 4/27/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Agreed. From my perspective moral relativism is a complex philosophical > confusion, something that needs to be explained more than fought. But to > fight for moral relativism is a very hard-to-defend ground on which to stake > one's battlefield, leaving aside that it's not worth defending. Some people > analyze that moral relativism helped kill off the Democratic party in the US, > and they may well be right. See also "Higher Superstition". How do you rally > people to fight for the idea that nothing is worth fighting for? It may make > a fine way to smile down at the philosophically unsophisticated from the > coffeehouse, but it doesn't call a people to arms. From dirk at neopax.com Wed Apr 27 17:55:38 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:55:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: <003401c54b51$5db822f0$68ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <426FBEFD.5080802@pobox.com> <003401c54b51$5db822f0$68ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <426FD21A.4010601@neopax.com> John K Clark wrote: > PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE > The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News > Number 729 April 27, 2005 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein > PYROFUSION: > A ROOM-TEMPERATURE, PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE has > been reported by a UCLA collaboration, potentially leading to new > kinds of fusion devices and other novel applications such as > microthrusters for MEMS spaceships. The key component of the UCLA > device is a pyroelectric crystal, a class of materials that includes > lithium niobate, an inexpensive solid that is used to filter signals > in cell phones. When heated a pyroelectric crystal polarizes > charge, segregating a significant amount of electric charge near a > surface, leading to a very large electric field there. In turn, > this effect can accelerate electrons to relatively high (keV) > energies (see Update 564, > http://www.aip.org/pnu/2001/split/564-2.html). Nice, but nowhere as good as a Farnsworth fusor. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 27 17:56:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050427175641.98808.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > > What I think we should be focusing on is Benedict's likely focus on > > bioethics: > > > > > http://cyborgdemocracy.net/2005/04/ratzinger-on-genetic-enhancement-and.html > > Agreed. From my perspective moral relativism is a complex > philosophical > confusion, something that needs to be explained more than fought. Quite so, and packaged such that transhumanism is a more objective, not less objective, moral stance, than bioluddism. If you want to win the argument, you must argue from theology, not marxist dogma or post-modern philosophy. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 27 18:01:30 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050427180130.66139.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> One can get bursts of nuclear fusion from small devices. That's been known for a while. The problem is getting a net production of electricity - in this case, more joules out than are consumed by, for example, heating the crystal. (Looking at energy creation without acknowledging energy consumption is like looking at income without acknowledging expenses.) Still, this might have use as a neutron source for MEMS devices. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Apr 27 18:03:18 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:03:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign Message-ID: <315930-22005432718318103@M2W083.mail2web.com> Sorry I didn't get back to you Samantha. I don't know if there is a text version. I'm off onto more thoughts on the campaigns of other religous groups who also politically connected and which are necessary variables to a strategic model. I hope that folks can move beyond the moral relativism issues and consider cultural wars and what the long-range issues are of a powerful organization that have the world's ear. Best, Natasha Is there a text version? Why is this a more reasonable target than the actually more politically connected and powerful Christian evangelicals increasingly in control of the world's one remaining superpower? It seems like there are plenty of more obvious targets that are more of an immediate threat. How is this the best opportunity right now? - samantha On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Friends, > > Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for > Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the > potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration > concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a > global issue for transhumanity. > > ExI will be sending out an invitation later for a meeting in May. If > your organization would like to suggest a meeting date and time, > please let me know by Wednesday. It would be helpful if those of you > who receive this message to forward it to other transhumanist > organizations and groups. > > Pope Benedict?s Campaign > > NPR's Monday morning edition: > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618049 > > "Religion > Pope Benedict Warns Against Moral Relativism > by Barbara Bradley Hagerty > > Morning Edition, April 25, 2005 ? The new leader of the Roman > Catholic Church has denounced moral relativism, the idea that moral > principles have no objective standards. Pope Benedict XVI has > characterized it as the major evil facing the church. Some observers > believe he is taking a stance in the tense cultural wars in the United > States." > > I hope you all will work us. It will be a first time that we have a > global issue to work together on and plan a strategy. I think we can > make headway as a culture and a meaningful contribution to our future. > > I look forward to hearing from you, > > Natasha Vita-More > Cultural Strategist > > Extropy Institute, President > http://www.extropy.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From dirk at neopax.com Wed Apr 27 18:04:51 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:04:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: <82190-22005432717538854@M2W099.mail2web.com> References: <82190-22005432717538854@M2W099.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <426FD443.1070803@neopax.com> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >Ahem. > >I think that Amara's post was an assumption that you are following for a >good cause, but it is not what the ExI meeting is about. > >This is not a meeting about "moral relativism." > >This is a meeting "Dealing with New Pope's Campaign" and the reverberations >that could follow, i.e., life-extension biotechnologies. Also, I'm >wondering why no one picked up on the "cultural wars." > > > Well, this may seem rather obvious, but why not get a delegation together to actually talk to some senior people in the RC Church who are close to the new pope? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005 From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 27 18:17:36 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050427181736.48063.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > I think that Amara's post was an assumption that you are following > for a > good cause, but it is not what the ExI meeting is about. > > This is not a meeting about "moral relativism." > > This is a meeting "Dealing with New Pope's Campaign" and the > reverberations > that could follow, i.e., life-extension biotechnologies. Also, I'm > wondering why no one picked up on the "cultural wars." Just a guess, but, perhaps because we're already living in them? There's hope that, by addressing the logical underpinnings of the Pope's cultural statements, significant portions of those he addresses can be brought to support our side. Although that's not the only strategy to follow. Dressing our side up to appeal to the faith, or appeal to his privledged status, might be useful - especially since he's got to know that he was elected because of his age, and thus is likely very aware of his mortality. For example: "Do you want the elderly to suffer and die before their time, when they could do more good deeds if our technology was allowed to develop? What about yourself? You would likely be among the first to benefit*; you would have clear thought, and those you serve would not have to suffer by seeing you in torment, until God recalled you. Neither would this go against God's will, for if He really wanted you by His side, there remain many ways He could make it happen, but if He wanted you here longer, this would ward off the many corruptions that make it difficult. After that**, all your flock could be served in the same way. Is this not what your God would want?" * Because the Church would pay for it. But it would be bad form to make a big deal of this in front of those who finance him, as most of them prefer not to honestly think about where their tithes and contributions go. ** Referring to inevitable reductions in price after the early adopters pay off the R&D. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Apr 27 19:00:59 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050427190059.41686.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Sorry I didn't get back to you Samantha. I don't know if there is a > text version. I'm off onto more thoughts on the campaigns of other > religous groups who also politically connected and which are > necessary variables to a strategic model. > > I hope that folks can move beyond the moral relativism issues and > consider cultural wars and what the long-range issues are of a > powerful organization that have the world's ear. You mean the Ford Foundation? ;) Catholicism has the hooks in it to be reprogrammed, provided the right code. Ratzinger is, IMHO likely to only last a few years. He's 78 already, and likely to be like the first John Paul, who kicked off after only a month. Popes generally are not as long lived in office as JPII was. I would suggest that, at this point, likely candidates for Benedict's succession be provided with the arguments that will enable a significant shift in church thinking when a younger generation takes over. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Apr 27 19:51:25 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:51:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with NewPope'sCampaign Message-ID: <96610-220054327195125181@M2W081.mail2web.com> From: Mike Lorrey >You mean the Ford Foundation? ;) Funny. But no, I'm thinking Vensim. >Catholicism has the hooks in it to be reprogrammed, provided the right >code. Ratzinger is, IMHO likely to only last a few years. He's 78 >already, and likely to be like the first John Paul, who kicked off >after only a month. Popes generally are not as long lived in office as >JPII was. I would suggest that, at this point, likely candidates for >Benedict's succession be provided with the arguments that will enable a >significant shift in church thinking when a younger generation takes over. That too could happen and it just might. One thing I have learned over the years is that (1) things take longer than expected and (2) not to put off tomorrow what one can enjoy doing today. Best, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From eugen at leitl.org Wed Apr 27 21:59:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:59:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 11:34:46AM +0100, ben wrote: > I'm not arguing with your basic premise, but i would argue with the > above statement. I reckon it's almost certain that there will be a > *much* bigger gap between (many) posthumans and humans than that between > birds and humans. I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if that > wasn't so. We are very close to the floor, and the ceiling is very far up, so radiation/speciation in complexity space indicates the average (of course, number of individua and their spatial distribution will vary wildly) critter is way more complex than us. > In fact, the term 'posthumans' is almost meaningless as a basis for > comparing stuff like this. It's like saying that 'post-book media' will > or will not retain property X of books. It would be silly to say that > 'post-book media' would be closer to books than books are to clay > tablets, wouldn't it? I think the idea of the posthuman label is to denote an end to people As We Know Them, and TEOTWAWKI in general. For some strange reason, this is still controversial to some transhumanists. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 27 20:59:32 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:59:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <002701c54ad5$8ba234c0$6601a8c0@hplaptop> References: <002701c54ad5$8ba234c0$6601a8c0@hplaptop> Message-ID: <8fa89f4138184e1fa588b94955f10bd2@mac.com> On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Matus wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins >> >> I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But whether > we >> are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way irrelevant. If most > > Has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined while demand > continued to be at least consistent? Ever? Why all of the sudden are > we suggesting it will happen with Oil? Anything that exist in a fixed amount can in principle reach a Peak followed by decline in rpoduction. Do you have some strange magic that makes more oil than is actually in the ground? It is not "all of a sudden". > > This discussion ignores the fact that one can manufacture gasoline out > of a few dollars of electricity right from the carbon dioxide in the > air > and hydrogen in the water. Hahahaha. Show me how that is economical. > The degree of denial here makes me utterly hopeless that human beings > are smart enough to continue much longer. I am quite depressed. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 27 21:02:10 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:02:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Phreak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050427050028.6877.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050427050028.6877.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <513041507af14353fc908abd3c60fa74@mac.com> I quit. I have no time to take out the garbage you insist on heaping up. I hope you enjoy the hell you help create. On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:00 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> From Wikipedia: > "Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas >> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. > > The Hubbert curve, devised by M. King Hubbert, predicts future oil > availability.The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, or > ASPO, is a network of scientists, affiliated with European institutions > and universities, having an interest in determining the date and impact > of the peak and decline of the world?s production of oil and gas, due > to resource constraints. > > ASPO was founded by Colin Campbell in 2000. It is the most influential > organization supporting the "peak oil" theory known as the Hubbert > curve, devised by M. King Hubbert, which predicts future oil > availability. It appears in the documentary film The End of Suburbia. > > Geologists from the following countries are represented in ASPO: > Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, > Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the > United Kingdom. > > [edit] > Mission > 1. To evaluate the world?s endowment and definition of oil and gas; > > 2. To study depletion, taking due account of economics, demand, > technology and politics; > > 3. To raise awareness of the serious consequences for Mankind." > > It is thus clear that, like the European driven hysteria about global > warming, as a mechanism to institute US carbon taxes that will help > fund a social welfare state in the US while purporting to be "solving > global warming", the "Peak Oil" phenom is just another European-run > propaganda front in the euro-socialist culture-war against low-tax > Americans. When "Peak Oil" fails to sink in, what next? Shall we see > claims by european scientists that hyperthermophiles are gobbling up > all of the oil? Will we see european marine biologists protest the > tapping of undersea oil seeps when rare and endangered species of > Archaea are discovered surviving off of the seepage oil? Will we EVER > see a widespread public acknowledgement by european scientists that > Europe is solving its energy needs via nuclear power, and its nuclear > waste problems with breeder reactors? > > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." > -William Pitt (1759-1806) > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mail at cheeseman.sh Wed Apr 27 21:07:25 2005 From: mail at cheeseman.sh (Frederik Cheeseman) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:07:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] BBC : "Lecture sings praises of nanotech" (Reith lectures, Lord Broers, Royal Academy of Engineering) Message-ID: <20050427230725.7f58b464.mail@cheeseman.sh> Just saw : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4486689.stm and http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2005/ -- GPG key: AF9BE215 From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 27 21:11:23 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:11:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: <315930-22005432718318103@M2W083.mail2web.com> References: <315930-22005432718318103@M2W083.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <254df8e3a9dfabe6dabfae83cb3d72f8@mac.com> I am a bit confused what the transhumanist groups are being rallied for. The "culture wars" are a bit amorphous and over used. What sort of real difference do you see transhumanism standing for and in what context? How exactly do we find a place of traction to delive effective messages relative to the "culture wars"? What does this have to do with the new Pope? - samantha On Apr 27, 2005, at 11:03 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Sorry I didn't get back to you Samantha. I don't know if there is a > text > version. I'm off onto more thoughts on the campaigns of other religous > groups who also politically connected and which are necessary > variables to > a strategic model. > > I hope that folks can move beyond the moral relativism issues and > consider > cultural wars and what the long-range issues are of a powerful > organization > that have the world's ear. > > Best, > > Natasha > > > > > > > > Is there a text version? Why is this a more reasonable target than > the actually more politically connected and powerful Christian > evangelicals increasingly in control of the world's one remaining > superpower? It seems like there are plenty of more obvious targets > that are more of an immediate threat. How is this the best opportunity > right now? > > - samantha > > On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >> Friends, >> >> Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for >> Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the >> potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration >> concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a >> global issue for transhumanity. >> >> ExI will be sending out an invitation later for a meeting in May. If >> your organization would like to suggest a meeting date and time, >> please let me know by Wednesday. It would be helpful if those of you >> who receive this message to forward it to other transhumanist >> organizations and groups. >> >> Pope Benedict?s Campaign >> >> NPR's Monday morning edition: >> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618049 >> >> "Religion >> Pope Benedict Warns Against Moral Relativism >> by Barbara Bradley Hagerty >> >> Morning Edition, April 25, 2005 ? The new leader of the Roman >> Catholic Church has denounced moral relativism, the idea that moral >> principles have no objective standards. Pope Benedict XVI has >> characterized it as the major evil facing the church. Some observers >> believe he is taking a stance in the tense cultural wars in the United >> States." >> >> I hope you all will work us. It will be a first time that we have a >> global issue to work together on and plan a strategy. I think we can >> make headway as a culture and a meaningful contribution to our future. >> >> I look forward to hearing from you, >> >> Natasha Vita-More >> Cultural Strategist >> >> Extropy Institute, President >> http://www.extropy.org >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 27 21:13:32 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:13:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign In-Reply-To: <20050427175641.98808.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050427175641.98808.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 27, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > If you want to win the argument, you must argue from theology, not > marxist dogma or post-modern philosophy. > > Huh? Theology? Please explain. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 27 21:21:37 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:21:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> Message-ID: <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I think the idea of the posthuman label is to denote an end to people > As We Know Them, > and TEOTWAWKI in general. > > For some strange reason, this is still controversial to some > transhumanists. > Is it a "strange reason" that most of us enjoy being a person as we know them and are more than a bit put off by the notion that there may be no place for the majority of people around us in your apparent vision of a posthuman world? Are we supposed to just go blindly full tilt forward with little or no care what happens to the world as we know it and its people? If that is the view then I hope that it remains exceedingly controversial. - samantha From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Apr 27 21:29:06 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:29:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with NewPope'sCampaign Message-ID: <76040-22005432721296760@M2W073.mail2web.com> I was quoting. N Original Message: ----------------- From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:11:23 -0700 To: nvitamore at austin.rr.com, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with NewPope'sCampaign I am a bit confused what the transhumanist groups are being rallied for. The "culture wars" are a bit amorphous and over used. What sort of real difference do you see transhumanism standing for and in what context? How exactly do we find a place of traction to delive effective messages relative to the "culture wars"? What does this have to do with the new Pope? - samantha On Apr 27, 2005, at 11:03 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Sorry I didn't get back to you Samantha. I don't know if there is a > text > version. I'm off onto more thoughts on the campaigns of other religous > groups who also politically connected and which are necessary > variables to > a strategic model. > > I hope that folks can move beyond the moral relativism issues and > consider > cultural wars and what the long-range issues are of a powerful > organization > that have the world's ear. > > Best, > > Natasha > > > > > > > > Is there a text version? Why is this a more reasonable target than > the actually more politically connected and powerful Christian > evangelicals increasingly in control of the world's one remaining > superpower? It seems like there are plenty of more obvious targets > that are more of an immediate threat. How is this the best opportunity > right now? > > - samantha > > On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >> Friends, >> >> Extropy Institute is calling for a meeting at the TransColloquium for >> Transhumanist organizations to discuss strategies for dealing with the >> potential for conflicts that might arise from the Pope's declaration >> concerning the moral relativism and the "cultural wars". This is a >> global issue for transhumanity. >> >> ExI will be sending out an invitation later for a meeting in May. If >> your organization would like to suggest a meeting date and time, >> please let me know by Wednesday. It would be helpful if those of you >> who receive this message to forward it to other transhumanist >> organizations and groups. >> >> Pope Benedict?s Campaign >> >> NPR's Monday morning edition: >> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618049 >> >> "Religion >> Pope Benedict Warns Against Moral Relativism >> by Barbara Bradley Hagerty >> >> Morning Edition, April 25, 2005 ? The new leader of the Roman >> Catholic Church has denounced moral relativism, the idea that moral >> principles have no objective standards. Pope Benedict XVI has >> characterized it as the major evil facing the church. Some observers >> believe he is taking a stance in the tense cultural wars in the United >> States." >> >> I hope you all will work us. It will be a first time that we have a >> global issue to work together on and plan a strategy. I think we can >> make headway as a culture and a meaningful contribution to our future. >> >> I look forward to hearing from you, >> >> Natasha Vita-More >> Cultural Strategist >> >> Extropy Institute, President >> http://www.extropy.org >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From hal at finney.org Wed Apr 27 20:52:20 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Phreak Oil Message-ID: <20050427205220.9DC5F57EE6@finney.org> Mike Lorrey forwards from Wikipedia: > "Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas > ... > Geologists from the following countries are represented in ASPO: > Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, > Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the > United Kingdom. and then comments: > It is thus clear that, like the European driven hysteria about global > warming, as a mechanism to institute US carbon taxes that will help > fund a social welfare state in the US while purporting to be "solving > global warming", the "Peak Oil" phenom is just another European-run > propaganda front in the euro-socialist culture-war against low-tax > Americans. When "Peak Oil" fails to sink in, what next? Shall we see > claims by european scientists that hyperthermophiles are gobbling up > all of the oil? Will we see european marine biologists protest the > tapping of undersea oil seeps when rare and endangered species of > Archaea are discovered surviving off of the seepage oil? Will we EVER > see a widespread public acknowledgement by european scientists that > Europe is solving its energy needs via nuclear power, and its nuclear > waste problems with breeder reactors? I don't agree with Mike's ideological spin here. There are plenty of Americans worried about Peak Oil. It may be that ASPO is more euro-centric as it was founded by Colin Campbell. But if you do a Google search on Peak Oil you will see site after site with American commentators. And they aren't particularly bleeding-heart liberals, either. In fact PO crosses ideological boudaries in an interesting way. We do see environmentalists worried about both PO and Global Warming. But there are also distinctively American guns-n-gold survivalists who are extremely active on the PO message boards. I imagine there are end-times Christian Conservatives looking at this as well, although I haven't run across those groups personally. The real problem with organizations like ASPO is that they have already firmly staked themself to the position that PO will be a major problem in the near future, and as a result you will find the same one-sided news and reports as on other PO sites. It's not a good source for unbiased information. The Wikipedia article is reasonably balanced and does link to both sides, but the pro-PO sites among its links far outnumber the skeptical ones. I suppose that's inevitable; the same thing happened with Y2K. Fear sells. One good thing about Y2K is that it was over and done with. With PO, even if nothing happens it won't go away any time soon. In fact, the longer we go without disaster the more sure the proponents will become that doom is just around the corner. Hal From dgc at cox.net Wed Apr 27 22:51:08 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:51:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: <20050427180130.66139.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050427180130.66139.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4270175C.1060609@cox.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >One can get bursts of nuclear fusion from small devices. That's been >known for a while. The problem is getting a net production of >electricity - in this case, more joules out than are consumed by, for >example, heating the crystal. (Looking at energy creation without >acknowledging energy consumption is like looking at income without >acknowledging expenses.) > >Still, this might have use as a neutron source for MEMS devices. >_______________________________________________ > > What has happened to the list? Here we have the first simple, fully replicable, fully understood benchtop fusion device, and the only two responses are dismissive. Look: Its a first try. Yes, the result is not exothermic, but since the science is well understood, scientists can use this as a basis for improvement. With just a bit of cleverness, it may be possible to engineer a micro-scale chain reaction and achieve a controllable break-even. This should scare you, since it would then be trivial to use the result as a trigger for an arbitrarily large thermonuclear device. Oops. I corresponded with Seth Putterman (the lead investigator) in 1996 when I was interested in Sonoluminescence. He was probably the lead player in SBSL experiments, and we on this list were speculating about inducing fusion via SBSL. Needless to say he knows a whole lot about piezoelectric elements, which are the workhorse tools for SBSL. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 27 23:00:44 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050427230044.44220.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Matus wrote: > > Has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then > declined while demand > continued to be at least consistent? Ever? Why all > of the sudden are > we suggesting it will happen with Oil? > Hmmm. I think ivory from elephant tusks might be a resource that has peaked and is now declining despite high demand. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Wed Apr 27 23:18:23 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:18:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: <4270175C.1060609@cox.net> References: <20050427180130.66139.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <4270175C.1060609@cox.net> Message-ID: <42701DBF.5040608@neopax.com> Dan Clemmensen wrote: > What has happened to the list? Here we have the first simple, fully > replicable, > fully understood benchtop fusion device, and the only two responses > are dismissive. > > Look: Its a first try. Yes, the result is not exothermic, but since > the science is > well understood, scientists can use this as a basis for improvement. > With just a bit It's not the first benchtop fusion device and is about 7 orders of magnitude inferior to the best Farnsworth fusor. http://www.rexresearch.com/farnsworth/fusor.htm -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005 From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 23:21:21 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:21:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050427230044.44220.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: To a lesser extent ivory from elephant tusks is a great example against the sudden-death impact of peak oil theory. Ivory from elephants was the cheapest form available for teeth, piano keys, jewelry, etc etc. Once it became scarce alternatives were developed and there is still ivory from elephants available but it is much more expensive than before. So ivory alternatives (synthetic, seal, etc etc) became more cost effective. BAL >From: The Avantguardian >To: ExI chat list >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil >Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:00:44 -0700 (PDT) > > >--- Matus wrote: > > > > Has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then > > declined while demand > > continued to be at least consistent? Ever? Why all > > of the sudden are > > we suggesting it will happen with Oil? > > >Hmmm. I think ivory from elephant tusks might be a >resource that has peaked and is now declining despite >high demand. > > > >The Avantguardian >is >Stuart LaForge >alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > >"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't >attempted to contact us." >-Bill Watterson > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From hal at finney.org Wed Apr 27 23:04:35 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050427230435.0EFC657EE6@finney.org> I have an interesting personal background with respect to the oil industry. Unfortunately it does not give me any particular insight or expertise with regard to the Peak Oil question. My father, who died about 15 years ago, was in the oil industry his entire working life. He worked for only one company, The Union Oil Company of California, now called Unocal and about to be purchased by ChevronTexaco. He started off working in the lab, testing oil samples as they were brought in. Then he got into management and rose through the ranks. By the time he retired he had been promoted to vice president in charge of exploration and production for the western U.S. region, which included Texas, Wyoming, California and Alaska. My father's most notorious accomplishment was his involvement in the infamous 1969 oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast (where I now live, ironically). Although he was not the guy who caused it, he was in the chain of command. He had to spend about two months living in SB, supervising the details of dealing with the aftermath. This event is said to have been the seed for the formation of the organized environmental movement in America, and in particular for Earth Day, which was first celebrated the next year in Santa Barbara. We still have a nice Earth Day fair here every year, we had a pleasant day there this past Saturday. The first summer after I started college, my dad wanted me to work, but I hadn't found a job, so he got me a job as a roustabout in an oil field. This is basically an unskilled helper position. The oil field was an old one, so I was mostly assisting the maintenance mechanics who would repair and maintain the oil wells. I spent many hours climbing on top of the huge oil wells, loosening bolts or tightening cables. One week we had to clean out a sort of swimming pool filled with oil - I have no idea what it was for. That was terrible, walking around on the slick surface in boots, squeegie-ing the last bit of oil out, with the hot Orange County sun reflecting off the walls of the pool. The smell of oil still takes me back to that summer. Even 30 years of nostalgia can't erase the memory of how much I hated that job. I loved science fiction, computers, math, and I had nothing in common with these guys working the oil field. They were all unionized, and frankly they were the laziest people I've ever known. If they had put as much energy into actually doing their jobs as they put into avoiding doing them, they would have gotten things done that much easier. It's surprising in retrospect that even though they knew I was the VP's son, they showed me their expertise in goofing off. They'd find places to hide where the management wouldn't spot them, they'd refuse to answer radio calls, pretending that they had been out of range. One guy would buy beer regularly and spend all morning drinking, then tell me stories about the horrors of the Korean War. It was a bad experience. After that I made sure to find myself summer jobs of my own. The next summer I worked at JPL and it was great fun. Unfortunately, as I said my dad died a long time ago so I don't have the benefit of whatever insights he might have had about future oil production trends. But it is an issue that has a certain amount of personal meaning and poignancy for me, so it's kind of fun to be researching it. Hal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 00:08:54 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What the catholic bible says about immortality research- was TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428000854.63077.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > This is a meeting "Dealing with New Pope's Campaign" > and the reverberations > that could follow, i.e., life-extension > biotechnologies. Also, I'm > wondering why no one picked up on the "cultural > wars." Natasha, if you communicate with the new pope regarding life-extension biotechnologies please remind him of what the Book of Wisdom in the Catholic Bible says: " 12 Do not invite death by the error of your life, or bring on destruction by the works of your hands; 13 because GOD DID NOT MAKE DEATH, and he does not delight in the death of the living. 14 For he created all things so that they might exist; the generative forces of the world are wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them, and the dominionc of Hades is not on earth. 15 For RIGHTEOUSNESS IS IMMORTAL. 16 But the UNGODLY by their words and deeds summoned DEATH considering him a friend, they pined away and made a covenant with him, because they are fit to belong to his company." Furthermore a few verses later: "23 for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil's envy, death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it." My interpretation of these verses from the Catholic Vulgate is that God WANTS us to be immortal and those who are opposed to this are UNGODLY. Just a bit of trivia from a theologically well read fellow Extrope. Good luck. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu Apr 28 00:20:01 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:20:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap In-Reply-To: <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> Message-ID: <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> I don't see this as being what Eugen is saying at all. Saying that there will be an end to the Human species, and that they will be succeeded by some PostHuman successor species, is most definitely not the same as saying that "there may be no place for the majority of the people around us". I think even the most hardcore of us would agree that we would (and actively do) encourage the transition of each and every person alive today into a state of PostHumanity. That's why we almost universally agree on the desirability of making sure Transhumanist technologies are available to as wide an audience as possible. (Disagreement, of course, arises based on the question of just what is the most efficient way to make sure that happens; a relatively government-free Free Market, or a government-driven model; but the end result is common to both camps.) It is a critical question, and also opens up the can of worms of the desireability/morality/practicality of imposing such a transition on those who don't, in their pre-PostHuman state, choose to undergo the transition (in a world where the majority of the population has an effective IQ of 1000, can someone with a "normal" IQ of 100 make such a choice and be said to be truly "informed"? Such standards are relative...) Another sticky wicket appears when those who choose not to transform themselves seek to impose that decision on everyone. I say give as many people as possible the opportunity to shed their pre-PostHuman existence, and I am fairly sure that Eugen (and indeed the vast majority here) would agree on that broad goal. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/21) Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> >> I think the idea of the posthuman label is to denote an end to people >> As We Know Them, >> and TEOTWAWKI in general. >> >> For some strange reason, this is still controversial to some >> transhumanists. >> > > Is it a "strange reason" that most of us enjoy being a person as we > know them and are more than a bit put off by the notion that there may > be no place for the majority of people around us in your apparent > vision of a posthuman world? Are we supposed to just go blindly full > tilt forward with little or no care what happens to the world as we > know it and its people? If that is the view then I hope that it > remains exceedingly controversial. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Apr 28 00:20:28 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428002028.87161.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > What has happened to the list? Here we have the first simple, fully > replicable, > fully understood benchtop fusion device, and the only two responses > are > dismissive. I am under the impression this is far from the first. Desktop fusion has been done before. The great unsolved problem, which this does not appear to do much towards solving, is how to efficiently tap the reaction for much less energy than one gets out of it. > Look: Its a first try. Yes, the result is not exothermic, but since > the > science is > well understood, scientists can use this as a basis for improvement. > With just a bit > of cleverness, it may be possible to engineer a micro-scale chain > reaction and > achieve a controllable break-even. That's what they said about macro-scale fusion 50 years ago. It's been shown to take more than a bit of cleverness. That said, this will definitely be easier to work with than macro-scale fusion. The same is true of most types of desktop fusion, for instance sonoluminescence. (BTW, has there been any significant progress on turning that into an energy source lately?) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 01:16:26 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428011626.62848.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > What has happened to the list? Here we have the first simple, fully > replicable, > fully understood benchtop fusion device, and the only two responses > are dismissive. You think I'm surprised? This is exactly the malaise I've been pointing out for a few years now. If AI spontaneously happened somewhere tomorrow, most of this list would be posting critical swipes at it for at least a few weeks. Eli will have an explanation of how un-friendly it is, Samantha will call it a conspiracy of the Bush Skull-and-Bones crowd to con the people into worshipping it, Hal will insist that it is a put-on, and Kevin will post links to a group claiming to admit to the hoax. "It is far too early," many will say, "It's not supposed to happen yet [according to transhumanist dogma]", "even though we have doubts about Moore's Law's validity." Just yesterday I was looking at a video of a palm-top stirling engine that produces respectable and acceptable RPMs (not 1 or 2 RPM). If I announced this here, you are going to get some people criticize it, while others will note that the fellow who built it and tested it is the same notorious JL Naudin that tries all sorts of unorthodox fringe technologies, and use that to assasinate by association. Welcome to Sour-Puss-Central of the >H movement. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 01:17:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428011753.39524.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Matus wrote: > > > > Has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then > > declined while demand > > continued to be at least consistent? Ever? Why all > > of the sudden are > > we suggesting it will happen with Oil? > > > Hmmm. I think ivory from elephant tusks might be a > resource that has peaked and is now declining despite > high demand. On the contrary, now that elephant herds are privately managed and hunted on a free market basis, there has been a massive rebound in elephant populations, such that they are nowhere near endangered, and ivory tusk supplies are quite high. Whale oil, which was supplanted by petroleum for most applications, remained in supply for specialized lubrication purposes (like watches). It might also be said that the transitions from the Copper Age to the Bronze Age to the Iron Age reflect a transition in material usage Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From matus at matus1976.com Thu Apr 28 02:24:03 2005 From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:24:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <8fa89f4138184e1fa588b94955f10bd2@mac.com> Message-ID: <000001c54b99$5c9dc490$6601a8c0@hplaptop> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Matus wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > >> > >> I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But whether > > we > >> are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way irrelevant. If most > > > > Has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined while demand > > continued to be at least consistent? Ever? Why all of the sudden are > > we suggesting it will happen with Oil? > > Anything that exist in a fixed amount can in principle reach a Peak > followed by decline in rpoduction. Do you have some strange magic that > makes more oil than is actually in the ground? It is not "all of a > sudden". I say again, has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined in supply while demand continued? Absent, of course, government regulation. A lot of things *can* happen *in principle*. I still haven't seen one example? Did we run out of steel? Did we run out of tungsten? Did we run out of coal? Have we run out of wood? Uranium? Anything? Ever? > > > > > This discussion ignores the fact that one can manufacture gasoline out > > of a few dollars of electricity right from the carbon dioxide in the > > air > > and hydrogen in the water. > > Hahahaha. Show me how that is economical. > I showed you that it is obvious that it *will* be. It sure is a funny thing when extropians start suggesting that nothing new will come out of 6 billion human minds. Matus From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Apr 28 03:17:21 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:17:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation Message-ID: <427055C1.7060107@mindspring.com> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss < http://www.science-frontiers.com > SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 159, May-Jun 2005, p. 4 GEOLOGY Deep-earth methane generation For many years before his death in June 2004, T. Gold was a world-class iconoclast. One of his most contentious assertions made the earth a massive, still functioning generator of abiotic methane and petroleum, which could keep those big SUVs operating forever! (SF#114) Few question that *most* of our natural gas and oil wells discharge the decay products of buried plant life. Gold did! But he asserted that these indispensible hydrocarbons only *seem* biogenic because they are contaminated by a subsurface bacterial kingdom located 12 miles and more deep. This heretical model was not well-received despite the successes of Gold's previous bold contentions in astronomy and other fields. Nevertheless, some feature of Gold's subsurface kingdom are being confirmed. * A large population of subsurface bacteria does exist. * Some methane gas sources are certainly *not* of biological origin. The latest support for Gold comes from experiments by H. Scot, Indiana University, who subjected water and marble to the environment expected at depths of 12 miles and more. Sure enough, the water's hydrogen combined with the marble's carbon to form methane (CH4). Such abiotic processes could provide us with "fossil" fuels for millennia. (Wade, Nicholas; "Petroleum from Decay? Maybe Not, Study Says," New York *Times*, September 14, 2004. Cr. D. Phelps) *Comments*. ESC16 in our catalog *Anomalies in Geology*, elaborates on 11 anomalies associated with methane's origin. Three of these are: * The extraordinary quantities of methane hydrate present in offshore sediments. * The emission of methane during earthquakes. * The energy contents of tsunamis require the addition of explosive decomposition of offshore, buried methane hydrate during quakes. In other words, landslides and stratum shifts are inadequate. SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA. Annual subscription: $8.00. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 03:23:05 2005 From: p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com (Paul) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: <427055C1.7060107@mindspring.com> References: <427055C1.7060107@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <9b8a7dc005042720233bf83315@mail.gmail.com> * Some methane gas sources are certainly *not* of biological origin. > > The latest support for Gold comes from experiments by H. Scot, Indiana > University, who subjected water and marble to the environment expected > at depths of 12 miles and more. Sure enough, the water's hydrogen combined > with the marble's carbon to form methane (CH4). > > Such abiotic processes could provide us with "fossil" fuels for millennia. I wonder if the same or similar process is responsible martian methane, rather than sub-surface biology. -- Paul C. http://lockeinghobbes.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 04:49:17 2005 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:49:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the catholic bible says about immortality research- was TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: <20050428000854.63077.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050428000854.63077.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7a32170505042721494bb08dd7@mail.gmail.com> Don't even bother. You're sure to get hit with Hebrews 9:27 ("...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"). As you know, the Christian mindset is all about professing "eternal life." But what they're really talking about is an immaterial eternity *after* death. Personally, that's not at all what I have in mind. Zero On 4/27/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" > wrote: > > > This is a meeting "Dealing with New Pope's Campaign" > > and the reverberations > > that could follow, i.e., life-extension > > biotechnologies. Also, I'm > > wondering why no one picked up on the "cultural > > wars." > > Natasha, if you communicate with the new pope > regarding life-extension biotechnologies please remind > him of what the Book of Wisdom in the Catholic Bible > says: > > " 12 Do not invite death by the error of your life, > or bring on destruction by the works of your > hands; > 13 because GOD DID NOT MAKE DEATH, > and he does not delight in the death of the > living. > 14 For he created all things so that they might > exist; > the generative forces of the world are wholesome, > and there is no destructive poison in them, > and the dominionc of Hades is not on earth. > 15 For RIGHTEOUSNESS IS IMMORTAL. > 16 But the UNGODLY by their words and deeds summoned > DEATH > considering him a friend, they pined away > and made a covenant with him, > because they are fit to belong to his company." > > Furthermore a few verses later: > > "23 for God created us for incorruption, > and made us in the image of his own eternity, > 24 but through the devil's envy, death entered the > world, > and those who belong to his company experience > it." > > My interpretation of these verses from the Catholic > Vulgate is that God WANTS us to be immortal and those > who are opposed to this are UNGODLY. > > Just a bit of trivia from a theologically well read > fellow Extrope. Good luck. > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." > -Bill Watterson > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 04:56:22 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:56:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205042721562db00dd6@mail.gmail.com> So what? I enjoyed being a child, then grew out of it and enjoyed being an adult even more. On 4/27/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > > I think the idea of the posthuman label is to denote an end to people > > As We Know Them, > > and TEOTWAWKI in general. > > > > For some strange reason, this is still controversial to some > > transhumanists. > > > > Is it a "strange reason" that most of us enjoy being a person as we > know them and are more than a bit put off by the notion that there may > be no place for the majority of people around us in your apparent > vision of a posthuman world? Are we supposed to just go blindly full > tilt forward with little or no care what happens to the world as we > know it and its people? If that is the view then I hope that it > remains exceedingly controversial. > > - samantha From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 05:57:33 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:27:33 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc05042722572244e571@mail.gmail.com> On 28/04/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 11:34:46AM +0100, ben wrote: > > > I'm not arguing with your basic premise, but i would argue with the > > above statement. I reckon it's almost certain that there will be a > > *much* bigger gap between (many) posthumans and humans than that between > > birds and humans. I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if that > > wasn't so. > > We are very close to the floor, and the ceiling is very far up, so > radiation/speciation in complexity space indicates the average (of course, number of individua > and their spatial distribution will vary wildly) critter is way more complex than > us. > > > In fact, the term 'posthumans' is almost meaningless as a basis for > > comparing stuff like this. It's like saying that 'post-book media' will > > or will not retain property X of books. It would be silly to say that > > 'post-book media' would be closer to books than books are to clay > > tablets, wouldn't it? > > I think the idea of the posthuman label is to denote an end to people As We Know Them, > and TEOTWAWKI in general. > > For some strange reason, this is still controversial to some transhumanists. > It seems as though the consensus on homo sapiens vs homo neanderthalensis is that very slight differences in competitive ability (trade has been suggested recently on this list) resulted in homo sapiens eradicating homo neanderthalensis, through normal competition for resources. Not through malevolence, just co-existence. To me it's pretty clear that in an environment containing non-negligible posthuman and human populations, humans will quickly die out due to inability to compete. Given that the gap between posthumans and humans is likely to be much larger than that between neanderthals and modern humans*, I expect it'd happen pretty quickly. The only salvation I see for natural humans is if some subset of posthumans decides to protect them, providing them with some form of welfare. Maybe it could happen... as the band Porno for Pyros once said, we'd make great pets. * Assuming no welfare for posthumans from humans, you must deduce that posthuman populations will be more competitive than humans, otherwise they wont be able to establish themselves. Given the pre-existing human-biased social/political/economic structures, you can further deduce a fairly wide margin required between humans and posthumans before posthumans worthy of distinct categorization from humans can establish as a separate group. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 28 05:31:54 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:31:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: <427055C1.7060107@mindspring.com> References: <427055C1.7060107@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <613fd130b0bd9cef5d94fd064d491898@mac.com> That there is more methane is not questioned. That there is abiotic oil is. -s On Apr 27, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss > > < http://www.science-frontiers.com > > > SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 159, May-Jun 2005, p. 4 > > > GEOLOGY > > Deep-earth methane generation > > For many years before his death in June 2004, T. Gold was a world-class > iconoclast. One of his most contentious assertions made the earth a > massive, > still functioning generator of abiotic methane and petroleum, which > could > keep those big SUVs operating forever! (SF#114) > > Few question that *most* of our natural gas and oil wells discharge > the decay > products of buried plant life. Gold did! But he asserted that these > indispensible > hydrocarbons only *seem* biogenic because they are contaminated by a > subsurface > bacterial kingdom located 12 miles and more deep. This heretical > model was not > well-received despite the successes of Gold's previous bold > contentions in > astronomy and other fields. > > Nevertheless, some feature of Gold's subsurface kingdom are being > confirmed. > > * A large population of subsurface bacteria does exist. > > * Some methane gas sources are certainly *not* of biological origin. > > The latest support for Gold comes from experiments by H. Scot, Indiana > University, who subjected water and marble to the environment expected > at depths of 12 miles and more. Sure enough, the water's hydrogen > combined > with the marble's carbon to form methane (CH4). > > Such abiotic processes could provide us with "fossil" fuels for > millennia. > > (Wade, Nicholas; "Petroleum from Decay? Maybe Not, Study Says," > New York *Times*, September 14, 2004. Cr. D. Phelps) > > *Comments*. ESC16 in our catalog *Anomalies in Geology*, elaborates on > 11 anomalies associated with methane's origin. Three of these are: > > * The extraordinary quantities of methane hydrate present in offshore > sediments. > > * The emission of methane during earthquakes. > > * The energy contents of tsunamis require the addition of explosive > decomposition of offshore, buried methane hydrate during quakes. > In other words, landslides and stratum shifts are inadequate. > > > SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in > the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box > 107, > Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA. Annual subscription: $8.00. > > > -- > "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, > Frank Rice > > > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at > mindspring.com > > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * > U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program > ------------ > Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List > TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia > veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 28 05:29:44 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:29:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <000001c54b99$5c9dc490$6601a8c0@hplaptop> References: <000001c54b99$5c9dc490$6601a8c0@hplaptop> Message-ID: <367d7cd7f634470376c880cc06543ada@mac.com> On Apr 27, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Matus wrote: > >> >>> >>> This discussion ignores the fact that one can manufacture gasoline > out >>> of a few dollars of electricity right from the carbon dioxide in the >>> air >>> and hydrogen in the water. >> >> Hahahaha. Show me how that is economical. >> > > I showed you that it is obvious that it *will* be. > > It sure is a funny thing when extropians start suggesting that nothing > new will come out of 6 billion human minds. > It is even funnier when an extropian waves his hands and infers that to disagree with some unsubstantiated claim is somehow unextropic. - s "You'll think of something Mr. Rearden." - Atlas Shrugged From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 28 05:36:21 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:36:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205042721562db00dd6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> <470a3c5205042721562db00dd6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 27, 2005, at 9:56 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > So what? I enjoyed being a child, then grew out of it and enjoyed > being an adult even more. What of those who are not interested in your idea of what an adult is? Is it simply devil take the hindmost? That is an honest question. It may be that all we can do is to advance as best we can in pursuit of our own dreams even if that ends the world that others want. It may be that that is all there ever is. What do you think? - samantha > > On 4/27/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> >>> >>> I think the idea of the posthuman label is to denote an end to people >>> As We Know Them, >>> and TEOTWAWKI in general. >>> >>> For some strange reason, this is still controversial to some >>> transhumanists. >>> >> >> Is it a "strange reason" that most of us enjoy being a person as we >> know them and are more than a bit put off by the notion that there may >> be no place for the majority of people around us in your apparent >> vision of a posthuman world? Are we supposed to just go blindly full >> tilt forward with little or no care what happens to the world as we >> know it and its people? If that is the view then I hope that it >> remains exceedingly controversial. >> >> - samantha > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 28 05:22:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:22:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: <20050428011626.62848.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050428011626.62848.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <988d9b5040d14e8ad8e686b0308f3c5d@mac.com> On Apr 27, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: >>> >> What has happened to the list? Here we have the first simple, fully >> replicable, >> fully understood benchtop fusion device, and the only two responses >> are dismissive. > > You think I'm surprised? This is exactly the malaise I've been pointing > out for a few years now. If AI spontaneously happened somewhere > tomorrow, most of this list would be posting critical swipes at it for > at least a few weeks. Eli will have an explanation of how un-friendly > it is, Samantha will call it a conspiracy of the Bush Skull-and-Bones > crowd to con the people into worshipping it, Hal will insist that it is > a put-on, and Kevin will post links to a group claiming to admit to the > hoax. "It is far too early," many will say, "It's not supposed to > happen yet [according to transhumanist dogma]", "even though we have > doubts about Moore's Law's validity." That is enough! I have had it with your vicious theories and spitting nastiness. Now you put words in the mouths of list members and attack them outright? It is time you became reacquainted with the penalty box. - samantha From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 06:47:57 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What the catholic bible says about immortality research- was TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428064757.52708.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Zero Powers wrote: > Don't even bother. You're sure to get hit with > Hebrews 9:27 ("...it > is appointed unto men once to die, but after this > the judgment"). As > you know, the Christian mindset is all about > professing "eternal > life." But what they're really talking about is an > immaterial > eternity *after* death. > > Personally, that's not at all what I have in mind. > Zero It's not what I have in mind either, Zero. I am merely pointing out that the xtian doctrine has multiple precedents for the concept of super-longevity. In response to Hebrews 9:27 I say this. If I am appointed to die and be judged then why not let it be 10,000 years from now? God is eternal and surely cannot be in any hurry. If you are going to argue with brain-washed people, you had best do it within the context of their limited meme-set else they will not even acknowledge anything you say. It is hardly news that there are enough contradictory statements in the bible to make a case for just about anything-including death being somehow part of God's divine plan. But with a bit of wit and persistence, you can deflect their criticism and subvert their dogma to your cause. This should force xtians to do one of three things, either pretend you don't exist, open their minds to what you are saying, or suffer a mental meltdown from the contradictions inherent in their paradigm. This has been done many times and each time it has caused a splinter sect of xtianity to form. >From Martin Luther to John Smith, reinterpretation of the bible has always been a source of change and progress for xtianity. In light of this look at Genesis 3:24 for example: "24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Note that God did not uproot or destroy the tree of life. He merely put angels there to keep us away from it. The insinuation here is that it if we proved ourselves worthy, then someday we would be allowed to once again eat of its fruit. Otherwise why keep it around? Surely God doesn't need to eat nor do the angels as far as I know. Therefore a temporary suspension of our immortality privelages seems to be the only logical explanation. Look at these verses from Genesis chapter 5: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. 11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died. 14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. 17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died. 20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died. 27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died. It all sure sounds like super-longevity to me. Not some insubtantial immaterial after-life but real bonafide walking around, eating, and procreating here-and-now life. To top it all off, these guys lived right after Man's fall from grace, so, if anything, these guys should have LESS reason to be so blessed with longevity than we do, since Jesus had not yet been sacrificed to atone for their sins. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Thu Apr 28 08:09:21 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:09:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope's Campaign Message-ID: I thought I took what was posted at face value regarding the subject of the TransColloquium meeting, but think I've spent too much time learning what the meeting is _not_. Could you rephrase/re-summarize/re-something about what this meeting _is_? The fact that there are so many messages about it (I didn't read them all) might mean that others are confused too. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Time is defined so that motion looks simple." -- J. A. Wheeler From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 28 09:46:04 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:46:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap In-Reply-To: <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > I don't see this as being what Eugen is saying at all. > > Saying that there will be an end to the Human species, and that they > will be succeeded by some PostHuman successor species, is most > definitely not the same as saying that "there may be no place for the > majority of the people around us". > > I think even the most hardcore of us would agree that we would (and > actively do) encourage the transition of each and every person alive > today into a state of PostHumanity. That's why we almost universally > agree on the desirability of making sure Transhumanist technologies > are available to as wide an audience as possible. (Disagreement, of > course, arises based on the question of just what is the most > efficient way to make sure that happens; a relatively government-free > Free Market, or a government-driven model; but the end result is > common to both camps.) > Do you think the majority of the people will be interested soon enough? I don't see that as likely. What happens to those folks who aren't buying it? > It is a critical question, and also opens up the can of worms of the > desireability/morality/practicality of imposing such a transition on > those who don't, in their pre-PostHuman state, choose to undergo the > transition (in a world where the majority of the population has an > effective IQ of 1000, can someone with a "normal" IQ of 100 make such > a choice and be said to be truly "informed"? Such standards are > relative...) Another sticky wicket appears when those who choose not > to transform themselves seek to impose that decision on everyone. > If it is wrong for them to keep us relatively dumb and short-lived would it be right for us to force >human intelligence and indefinitely long life span on them against their wishes? Do we want to continue this step-wise conundrum indefinitely? Will each step of further progress revisit the question? Who is going to pay for all the upgrades if they aren't all effectively too abundantly available to need bother charging for? Wouldn't we then be attempting to force an equality of capability? Is that a good thing? Who says our set of desirability metrics are the most righteous and privileged to the point of forcing others to adopt what we consider desirable? > I say give as many people as possible the opportunity to shed their > pre-PostHuman existence, and I am fairly sure that Eugen (and indeed > the vast majority here) would agree on that broad goal. > I agree on the goal but it ducks a lot of very thorny questions to just say that much. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Thu Apr 28 11:54:15 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:54:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05042722572244e571@mail.gmail.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <710b78fc05042722572244e571@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050428115415.GV25963@leitl.org> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:27:33PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > The only salvation I see for natural humans is if some subset of > posthumans decides to protect them, providing them with some form of > welfare. Maybe it could happen... as the band Porno for Pyros once > said, we'd make great pets. I am hoping for a Lamarckian upgrade of the human primate, providing both potential protectors (retaining empathy) and reducing the number of those needing protection. If none of it happens, and we'll be in the truly dynamic part of the Singularity regime we'll go extinct. This is a dire outcome, and hopefully a source of strong motivation to not blow our chances while we're still in control. The trajectory envelope will get narrower with each time tick (a good model is deflecting a giant impactor; it's very easy if you start early, nearly impossible if the impactor is close). > * Assuming no welfare for posthumans from humans, you must deduce that > posthuman populations will be more competitive than humans, otherwise > they wont be able to establish themselves. Given the pre-existing > human-biased social/political/economic structures, you can further > deduce a fairly wide margin required between humans and posthumans > before posthumans worthy of distinct categorization from humans can > establish as a separate group. Pollution/habitat denaturation (what is driving the current extinction) is sufficient, there's no need for active competition. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 13:31:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428133104.75849.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Matus wrote: > > I say again, has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined > in > supply while demand continued? Absent, of course, government > regulation. A lot of things *can* happen *in principle*. I still > haven't seen one example? Did we run out of steel? Did we run out > of tungsten? Did we run out of coal? Have we run out of wood? > Uranium? Anything? Ever? Specifically, large beams used in post and beam construction in the medeival and renaissance periods gave way in Europe, as old growth forests either disappeared or became dedicated solely to construction of naval vessels, to construction with smaller beams and the start of the Georgian style, with many small pieces of wood forming complex trussworks, into the Baroque period and beyond. > > > > > > > > > This discussion ignores the fact that one can manufacture > gasoline > out > > > of a few dollars of electricity right from the carbon dioxide in > the > > > air > > > and hydrogen in the water. > > > > Hahahaha. Show me how that is economical. > > > > I showed you that it is obvious that it *will* be. > > It sure is a funny thing when extropians start suggesting that > nothing > new will come out of 6 billion human minds. > > Matus > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 13:38:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428133820.22656.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Paul wrote: > * Some methane gas sources are certainly *not* of biological origin. > > > > > The latest support for Gold comes from experiments by H. Scot, > Indiana > > University, who subjected water and marble to the environment > expected > > at depths of 12 miles and more. Sure enough, the water's hydrogen > combined > > with the marble's carbon to form methane (CH4). > > > > Such abiotic processes could provide us with "fossil" fuels for > millennia. > > > I wonder if the same or similar process is responsible martian > methane, rather than sub-surface biology. Marble is a rock that metamorphoses from limestone under pressure and heat. Limestone is created by corals sequestering CO2 and H20. Ergo, if methane emissions on Mars exist, and are not presently caused by current day biological processes, then the alternative is that they are from marbles that were once limestones, which were once corals. Mars does have a significant amount of carbonates beyond just limestone, which many geologists insist are abiotic in origins. I don't know. We will see. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 13:40:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428134041.97241.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > >>> > >> What has happened to the list? Here we have the first simple, > fully > >> replicable, > >> fully understood benchtop fusion device, and the only two > responses > >> are dismissive. > > > > You think I'm surprised? This is exactly the malaise I've been > pointing > > out for a few years now. If AI spontaneously happened somewhere > > tomorrow, most of this list would be posting critical swipes at it > for > > at least a few weeks. Eli will have an explanation of how > un-friendly > > it is, Samantha will call it a conspiracy of the Bush > Skull-and-Bones > > crowd to con the people into worshipping it, Hal will insist that > it is > > a put-on, and Kevin will post links to a group claiming to admit to > the > > hoax. "It is far too early," many will say, "It's not supposed to > > happen yet [according to transhumanist dogma]", "even though we > have > > doubts about Moore's Law's validity." > > > That is enough! I have had it with your vicious theories and > spitting > nastiness. Now you put words in the mouths of list members and > attack > them outright? It is time you became reacquainted with the penalty > box. Spoken like a true dogmatic. "Off to the reeducation camps with him!" Yes, Big Sister. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Thu Apr 28 15:09:01 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:09:01 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <000001c54b99$5c9dc490$6601a8c0@hplaptop> References: <000001c54b99$5c9dc490$6601a8c0@hplaptop> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Matus wrote: >I say again, has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined in >supply while demand continued? Absent, of course, government >regulation. A lot of things *can* happen *in principle*. I still >haven't seen one example? Did we run out of steel? Did we run out of >tungsten? Did we run out of coal? Have we run out of wood? Uranium? >Anything? Ever? Wood in the Easter island? Alfio From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 15:22:20 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:22:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wood in Easter Island is a good example of this happening in an isolated environment. But in a global environment the Easter Island problem does not exist. I should also point out that my wine rack frequenly runs out of 1990 Latour but I can compensate by trading to replinish my stock. BAL >From: Alfio Puglisi >To: ExI chat list >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil >Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:09:01 +0200 (MEST) > >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Matus wrote: > > >I say again, has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined in > >supply while demand continued? Absent, of course, government > >regulation. A lot of things *can* happen *in principle*. I still > >haven't seen one example? Did we run out of steel? Did we run out of > >tungsten? Did we run out of coal? Have we run out of wood? Uranium? > >Anything? Ever? > >Wood in the Easter island? > >Alfio > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From hal at finney.org Thu Apr 28 15:28:23 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050428152823.6307957EE7@finney.org> Samantha Atkins writes: > On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:36 AM, Brian Lee wrote: > > Isn't it unlikely that the entire world is in denial? Wouldn't some > > enterprising investor (including the Peak Oil proponents) slap a few > > million down in order to get 300% returns in 5 years? It seems that if > > anyone actually believed that oil would be at $200/barrel in 5 years > > that futures prices would be edging up there to reflect a valid > > present cost. > > Please describe how you would play it if you believed it and had some > cash. I am quite interested. Prices are edging up with constraints to > ease the correction where we still can. I don't personally think we > will have that luxury for more than another year more, two at the > outside. The straightforward way to benefit from a rise in oil prices is to own oil. The commodities markets are risky but there are ways to do it which reduce the risk. There are many web sites available to describe futures and options which would let you directly invest in oil (perhaps more accurately, bet on a rise in oil). You could also buy stock in oil companies, concentrating on ones that have large proven reserves. Some people point to the consolidation in this industry as evidence that insiders (oil company executives) think that the market is undervaluing the industry. Investing in alternatives to conventional oil is a possibility as well. Canadian companies with their tar sands, or more exotic alternatives like solar and wind, may become bigger players as conventional oil runs short. One problem is that even if the Peak Oil scenario is broadly correct, things may not play out exactly according to the script. Suppose that oil prices continue to climb over the next few years, and this depresses the world economy enough that we fall into a stubborn recession. This could reduce demand so that the price stops rising, or even falls. Oil usage drops quite a bit during a recession, as during the 80s. There was even a small decrease in consumption from 2000 to 2001 to 2002. The Peak Oil proponents could be right but oil prices could still fall, and then investments made on the opposite assumption would not pay off. There are no certainties! Hal From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Apr 28 16:42:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428164238.9548.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> BTW, it's not just us that are saying it's no breakthrough energy-wise. That seems to be the experts' take on it too; even the experimenters (or at least one of them) forsee it as more useful for neutron generation than energy production: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67368,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_8 Which is not to say that a far more efficient version can't be designed and built. Just that that would be its own breakthrough, and that it does not automatically follow from what's been achieved so far. From hemm at openlink.com.br Thu Apr 28 16:43:52 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:43:52 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE References: <20050428011626.62848.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <010201c54c11$76500d80$fe00a8c0@HEMM> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE > Just yesterday I was looking at a video of a palm-top stirling engine > that produces respectable and acceptable RPMs (not 1 or 2 RPM). If I > announced this here, you are going to get some people criticize it, > while others will note that the fellow who built it and tested it is > the same notorious JL Naudin that tries all sorts of unorthodox fringe > technologies, and use that to assasinate by association. This one? http://jlnlabs.imars.com/html/stirling.htm From jonkc at att.net Thu Apr 28 17:07:20 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:07:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE References: <20050427180130.66139.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <4270175C.1060609@cox.net> Message-ID: <018a01c54c14$c1c50a60$a4f04d0c@MyComputer> "Dan Clemmensen" >With just a bit of cleverness, it may be possible to >engineer a micro-scale chain reaction and achieve >a controllable break-even. This should scare you, >since it would then be trivial to use the result as >a trigger for an arbitrarily large thermonuclear device. To my knowledge a fusion chain reaction has never been observed, not in a H bomb or even the center of a star. And it's already possible to make an arbitrarily large thermonuclear device; you just need a chain reaction in a small fission bomb to heat and compress the fusion fuel. The recent developments claim to fame is that it is small and very cheap, not needing expensive high voltage power supplies. Even if it can't be scaled up for power production (the inventors don't seem to think it can be) a cheap neutron source would be very useful and a gadget that can accelerate gas to high velocity could perhaps be used in rockets. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From jonkc at att.net Thu Apr 28 17:51:22 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:51:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE References: <20050427180130.66139.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com><4270175C.1060609@cox.net> <018a01c54c14$c1c50a60$a4f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <01a001c54c1a$ef420870$a4f04d0c@MyComputer> One thing that impressed me about this cheap simple little gadget is that it could produce electrical fields as high as 25 volts per nanometer. That's HUGE! With something like that you might be able to make a particle accelerator that would fit on a desk that's as powerful as one of today's machines that cost many billions and is the size of a small country. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Apr 28 18:15:11 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428181511.29041.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > One thing that impressed me about this cheap simple little gadget is > that it > could produce electrical fields as high as 25 volts per nanometer. > That's > HUGE! With something like that you might be able to make a particle > accelerator that would fit on a desk that's as powerful as one of > today's > machines that cost many billions and is the size of a small country. Now, see, this is why we focus on what it does do rather than trying to palm it off as doing what it can't. Example: I recall another discussion in the not too distant past (though it might have been on another list), about how one could possibly slightly improve (make lighter per KW output) nuclear fission reactors as used to power ships of the sea, then use them to power particle accelerator engines to get very low fuel fraction Earth-to-orbit rockets, which should hopefully be cheaper because most of their mass is reusable. Problem is - or maybe now, *was* - that particle accelerators cost many billions and are about the size and mass of a good sized town. From matus at matus1976.com Thu Apr 28 18:32:47 2005 From: matus at matus1976.com (matus at matus1976.com) Date: 28 Apr 2005 18:32:47 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) Message-ID: <20050428183247.22977.qmail@post.phpwebhosting.com> >> >> I showed you that it is obvious that it *will* be. >> >> It sure is a funny thing when extropians start suggesting that nothing >> new will come out of 6 billion human minds. >> > >It is even funnier when an extropian waves his hands and infers that to >disagree with some unsubstantiated claim is somehow unextropic. > >- s > >"You'll think of something Mr. Rearden." - Atlas Shrugged Because I have to literally invent the method or alternative to well oil for you to expect that an alternative *might* happen? Even though every resource gets replaced by better alternatives when the supply changes? Conversely, you dont seem to demand this same proof for your extropian related ideals, just assume this will happen for every life extension related goal there is, yet require absolute proof when it comes to oil, of all things. Well I still havent seen any examples of resources that we have run out of suggested by you, yet you are still absolutely positive that no one will innovate or come up with an alternative to well oil, even though I have suggested a plausible alternative and could suggest many others (the creation of usable fuel oil from all organic waster recently running the news circles, for example), or figure out how to extract more oil from other sources. We got big wood beams in midevial times as a possbility, and trees on easter island. But that's not such a good case for the 'were gonna run out' camp, and both are questionable as examples. Interesting you cite that quote from Atlas Shrugged, considering it was a multitude of arbitrary government regulations that Mr. Rearden had to 'think of something' to get around, not any limitation on what human minds had come up with to accomplish things in the material world. Matus From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu Apr 28 19:36:49 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:36:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: <427055C1.7060107@mindspring.com> References: <427055C1.7060107@mindspring.com> Message-ID: The question for me began when I was very young - and although this may be flawed, it made for further inquiry: If dinosaurs got stuck in and died in the LaBrea tar pits, then what dinosaurs died to make the tar pits in the first place? It seemed like a chicken and egg scenario. The answer was eventually in chemistry class. We've all taken a carbohydrate, and cooked it to make caramel. The Earth takes hydrocarbons, aggregated at planetary formation, and cooks them into crude. Given that it has been shown that high impacts involving hydrocarbons have even formed protein chains, I think this at some point becomes obvious. It is our distance from the sun that put so much oil in Earth, not a bunch of dead matter. The only biotic process in the carbon cycle of crude oil is the extraction, distillation and combustion...! Bret On Apr 27, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss > > < http://www.science-frontiers.com > > > SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 159, May-Jun 2005, p. 4 > > > GEOLOGY > > Deep-earth methane generation > > For many years before his death in June 2004, T. Gold was a world-class > iconoclast. One of his most contentious assertions made the earth a > massive, > still functioning generator of abiotic methane and petroleum, which > could > keep those big SUVs operating forever! (SF#114) > > Few question that *most* of our natural gas and oil wells discharge > the decay > products of buried plant life. Gold did! But he asserted that these > indispensible > hydrocarbons only *seem* biogenic because they are contaminated by a > subsurface > bacterial kingdom located 12 miles and more deep. This heretical > model was not > well-received despite the successes of Gold's previous bold > contentions in > astronomy and other fields. > > Nevertheless, some feature of Gold's subsurface kingdom are being > confirmed. > > * A large population of subsurface bacteria does exist. > > * Some methane gas sources are certainly *not* of biological origin. > > The latest support for Gold comes from experiments by H. Scot, Indiana > University, who subjected water and marble to the environment expected > at depths of 12 miles and more. Sure enough, the water's hydrogen > combined > with the marble's carbon to form methane (CH4). > > Such abiotic processes could provide us with "fossil" fuels for > millennia. > > (Wade, Nicholas; "Petroleum from Decay? Maybe Not, Study Says," > New York *Times*, September 14, 2004. Cr. D. Phelps) > > *Comments*. ESC16 in our catalog *Anomalies in Geology*, elaborates on > 11 anomalies associated with methane's origin. Three of these are: > > * The extraordinary quantities of methane hydrate present in offshore > sediments. > > * The emission of methane during earthquakes. > > * The energy contents of tsunamis require the addition of explosive > decomposition of offshore, buried methane hydrate during quakes. > In other words, landslides and stratum shifts are inadequate. > > > SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in > the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box > 107, > Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA. Annual subscription: $8.00. > > > -- > "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, > Frank Rice > > > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at > mindspring.com > > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * > U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program > ------------ > Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List > TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia > veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From curtis.sandoval at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 19:46:40 2005 From: curtis.sandoval at gmail.com (Curtis Sandoval) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:46:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: References: <427055C1.7060107@mindspring.com> Message-ID: The problem I had with the biotic theory is the math. When it was described to me, it was made to sound like animals and plants had to die in a certain way in a certain area and be covered immediately to avoid decaying. With such special conditions, it would seem rare, and how many kilos of biomass must be compressed/heated to produce a kilo of oil? It just seemed like not enough life forms have ever died on the planet to produce a sustained output of millions of barrels of oil per year. Of course, the adults were "right" and I shelved the question under "things that don't seem right but that I can't prove without getting grounded." On 4/28/05, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > The question for me began when I was very young - and although this may > be flawed, it made for further inquiry: If dinosaurs got stuck in and > died in the LaBrea tar pits, then what dinosaurs died to make the tar > pits in the first place? It seemed like a chicken and egg scenario. > > The answer was eventually in chemistry class. We've all taken a > carbohydrate, and cooked it to make caramel. The Earth takes > hydrocarbons, aggregated at planetary formation, and cooks them into > crude. Given that it has been shown that high impacts involving > hydrocarbons have even formed protein chains, I think this at some > point becomes obvious. It is our distance from the sun that put so much > oil in Earth, not a bunch of dead matter. > > The only biotic process in the carbon cycle of crude oil is the > extraction, distillation and combustion...! > > > Bret > > > On Apr 27, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > > Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss > > > > < http://www.science-frontiers.com > > > > > SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 159, May-Jun 2005, p. 4 > > > > > > GEOLOGY > > > > Deep-earth methane generation > > > > For many years before his death in June 2004, T. Gold was a world-class > > iconoclast. One of his most contentious assertions made the earth a > > massive, > > still functioning generator of abiotic methane and petroleum, which > > could > > keep those big SUVs operating forever! (SF#114) > > > > Few question that *most* of our natural gas and oil wells discharge > > the decay > > products of buried plant life. Gold did! But he asserted that these > > indispensible > > hydrocarbons only *seem* biogenic because they are contaminated by a > > subsurface > > bacterial kingdom located 12 miles and more deep. This heretical > > model was not > > well-received despite the successes of Gold's previous bold > > contentions in > > astronomy and other fields. > > > > Nevertheless, some feature of Gold's subsurface kingdom are being > > confirmed. > > > > * A large population of subsurface bacteria does exist. > > > > * Some methane gas sources are certainly *not* of biological origin. > > > > The latest support for Gold comes from experiments by H. Scot, Indiana > > University, who subjected water and marble to the environment expected > > at depths of 12 miles and more. Sure enough, the water's hydrogen > > combined > > with the marble's carbon to form methane (CH4). > > > > Such abiotic processes could provide us with "fossil" fuels for > > millennia. > > > > (Wade, Nicholas; "Petroleum from Decay? Maybe Not, Study Says," > > New York *Times*, September 14, 2004. Cr. D. Phelps) > > > > *Comments*. ESC16 in our catalog *Anomalies in Geology*, elaborates on > > 11 anomalies associated with methane's origin. Three of these are: > > > > * The extraordinary quantities of methane hydrate present in offshore > > sediments. > > > > * The emission of methane during earthquakes. > > > > * The energy contents of tsunamis require the addition of explosive > > decomposition of offshore, buried methane hydrate during quakes. > > In other words, landslides and stratum shifts are inadequate. > > > > > > SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in > > the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box > > 107, > > Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA. Annual subscription: $8.00. > > > > > > -- > > "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, > > Frank Rice > > > > > > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at > > mindspring.com > > > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * > > U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program > > ------------ > > Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List > > TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia > > veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Thu Apr 28 23:41:36 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:41:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <426D78E0.7080500@cox.net> References: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> <004801c54997$1e8b1d50$fe00a8c0@HEMM> <426D78E0.7080500@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050428234136.GB25963@leitl.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:10:24PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > I know this was intended to be funny, but it is not true as stated. A > simulation is a collection of information. Information (by definition, I > think) requires that the information storage system is not in This assumes the simulation metaverse is identical with this universe. For multiple reasons, it is unlikely that the metaverse physics is similiar to this universe's physics. > thermodynamic equilibrium, sot he storage system contains energy. but > energy is mass. True, the information-mass of a simulation is incredibly > tiny by comparison with the "real" mass of a "real" universe, but it is > not zero. > > For reference, Google "beckenstein bound" as a place to start. Although > the Beckenstein bound relates to spatial information density, it should > lead to results on information energy density also. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hal at finney.org Thu Apr 28 21:33:35 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation Message-ID: <20050428213335.50EB657EE6@finney.org> Bret Kulakovich writes: > The question for me began when I was very young - and although this may > be flawed, it made for further inquiry: If dinosaurs got stuck in and > died in the LaBrea tar pits, then what dinosaurs died to make the tar > pits in the first place? It seemed like a chicken and egg scenario. The La Brea tar pits don't actually contain dinosaurs. They are much newer and only contain relatively recent animals like mammoths and saber tooth tigers (as well as non-extinct animals). They go back tens of thousands of years, thousands of times less than the time interval to the dinosaurs. Comparatively speaking, the tar pits are a modern day phenomenon. The only reason that the animals in the tar pits are extinct is because of a mass extinction event in North America which roughly coincided with the introduction of humans to the continent. > The answer was eventually in chemistry class. We've all taken a > carbohydrate, and cooked it to make caramel. The Earth takes > hydrocarbons, aggregated at planetary formation, and cooks them into > crude. Given that it has been shown that high impacts involving > hydrocarbons have even formed protein chains, I think this at some > point becomes obvious. It is our distance from the sun that put so much > oil in Earth, not a bunch of dead matter. As you probably know, that's not the conventional scientific explanation. My advice is to give more credence to the belief which is widely held by experts who have devoted their lives to the study of the field. Hal From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Apr 28 22:54:18 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:54:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <20050428234136.GB25963@leitl.org> References: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> <004801c54997$1e8b1d50$fe00a8c0@HEMM> <426D78E0.7080500@cox.net> <20050428234136.GB25963@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050428175036.01cf3108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:10:24PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > True, the information-mass of a simulation is incredibly > > tiny by comparison with the "real" mass of a "real" universe, but it is > > not zero. At 01:41 AM 4/29/2005 +0200, Gene wrote: >This assumes the simulation metaverse is identical with this universe. For >multiple reasons, it is unlikely that the metaverse physics is similiar to >this universe's physics. You don't think it's a safe bet that however exotic the physics of any hypothetical substrate metaverse, information will not travel or be stored or transformed free of cost? Damien Broderick From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri Apr 29 00:16:14 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:16:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap In-Reply-To: <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> Message-ID: <42717CCE.50603@humanenhancement.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> I don't see this as being what Eugen is saying at all. >> >> Saying that there will be an end to the Human species, and that they >> will be succeeded by some PostHuman successor species, is most >> definitely not the same as saying that "there may be no place for the >> majority of the people around us". >> >> I think even the most hardcore of us would agree that we would (and >> actively do) encourage the transition of each and every person alive >> today into a state of PostHumanity. That's why we almost universally >> agree on the desirability of making sure Transhumanist technologies >> are available to as wide an audience as possible. (Disagreement, of >> course, arises based on the question of just what is the most >> efficient way to make sure that happens; a relatively government-free >> Free Market, or a government-driven model; but the end result is >> common to both camps.) >> > > Do you think the majority of the people will be interested soon > enough? I don't see that as likely. What happens to those folks who > aren't buying it? I'm not sure what you mean about "soon enough". Much as I abhor speculation about the particulars of the coming Singularity (given that such a thing by definition makes prediction impossible), I happen to think the emergence of a PostHuman species is at least as likely to trigger such an event as the development of strong AI or nanotechnology (which are often cited as potential triggers). It could well be that within a few months of the emergence of the first group of true PostHumans, with their massively enhanced intellects and physical forms, a wave of bandwagon-jumping will sweep the globe as the pre-PostHumans see the advantages of transitioning, leaving behind a relative handful of True Believers as the rest of us go jetting off to the far reaches of the Milky Way in our personal lighthuggers. Or, the numbers of PostHumans could remain relatively small, and they could dedicate themselves to the service of their still-unenhanced Little Cousins, utilizing a portion of their intellects to that purpose as they explore the wider areas of truth and knowledge amongst themselves, completely unsuspected by the masses. Or, the first group of PostHumans could wipe out the remaining humans, or uplift them against their will. The truth is, we have no way of knowing what our responses will be when we have an IQ of 10,000, physical immortality, and the resources of a small nation. All the more reason to be in the vanguard, sez I. Cuts down on the risk of being in the ranks of the exterminated or abandoned. Although I would say that waiting until everyone is guaranteed a seat on the train is not an option, mostly because it will NEVER happen. Someone will always choose-- through ignorance, superstition (is there a difference?), or just plain cussedness-- to remain as they are. Those people must not be allowed to hold up our own evolution: "Your decision to remain the same does not compel me not to change." > >> It is a critical question, and also opens up the can of worms of the >> desireability/morality/practicality of imposing such a transition on >> those who don't, in their pre-PostHuman state, choose to undergo the >> transition (in a world where the majority of the population has an >> effective IQ of 1000, can someone with a "normal" IQ of 100 make such >> a choice and be said to be truly "informed"? Such standards are >> relative...) Another sticky wicket appears when those who choose not >> to transform themselves seek to impose that decision on everyone. >> > > If it is wrong for them to keep us relatively dumb and short-lived > would it be right for us to force >human intelligence and indefinitely > long life span on them against their wishes? To my mind, the answer to your question would be no; to force such a transition against someone's will would be immoral. There are two caveats, however. If it became impossible to attain (or retain) a PostHuman status _without_ resorting to such a mass-uplift program (a-la Magneto in the first X-Men movie, who sought to turn the world's leaders into mutants so they would become sympathetic to the plight of mutants), then I would say it would be justified to do so. I will grant that it is certainly not a cut-and-dried case. In the situation as I describe it, it is literally the evolutionary struggle for survival between two species, and given a choice I think forced uplifting is preferable (on an individual level) to extermination, if a PostHuman species is faced with extermination itself. The second caveat is, I think, even more disturbing to us mere humans in its way. Much as we, today, concede that the mentally retarded are incapable of making sound judgements for themselves, it may well be the case that PostHumanity could see mere humanity in a similar position, relatively speaking. Insights and gestalts which are clear as crystal to someone with an IQ of 10,000 would doubtless be hopelessly confused muddles of ignorance and confusion in our poor primate brains. It may well be the case that there is an objective and perfectly sound reason for forcing such uplifts that is unknowable to someone in our state, the logic and inevitability of which can only be appreciated after one has been uplifted. Much as someone with an IQ of 50 today would be incapable of making an informed decision to _decline_ the opportunity to take a drug that would double their IQ. But of course those caveats are mere speculation. Until we are faced with the reality of the situation unfolding before our eyes, the original principle, that forced uplifting is immoral, should stand as the default position. Only if that position becomes untenable should it be reassessed. > Do we want to continue this step-wise conundrum indefinitely? Will > each step of further progress revisit the question? Now you're getting into the "what will the Singularity after the Singularity be like?" Obviously, we can't know. But for now, we can tentatively say we can apply the same principle, subject to revision once our several-orders-of-magnitude-smarter intellects deal with the question. > Who is going to pay for all the upgrades if they aren't all > effectively too abundantly available to need bother charging for? Here's where the capitalist-vs.-socialist axis within contemporary >H comes in. The capitalists (I include here the libertarians, naturally) would answer your question by saying that everybody will pay for their own upgrades. The socialists would answer by saying the State will provide upgrades for everyone. It's a legitimate debate (despite what people on BOTH sides of the discussion say), and the reality will probably come somewhere in the middle, but from a personal standpoint I will tell you that I will be paying for as many upgrades as corporations will sell me and the state will allow me to purchase (and I can afford, naturally!). > Wouldn't we then be attempting to force an equality of capability? Is > that a good thing? I daresay if you asked that question of James Hughes and Max More, you would get pretty much diametrically opposed answers. Yet each is a Transhumanist in his own way, because that's a question of methods, not goals. Personally, I don't think it's practical to force equality of capability short of a social system that would make Aldous Huxley blush. I favor personal competition, tempered by the intervention of society as a whole when such competition spills over into realms where it proves detrimental to society as a whole (I am thinking of Icelandic feud as an example of a social convention used to regulate individual conflict, keeping it from degenerating into whole-scale civil war; there are many others). > Who says our set of desirability metrics are the most righteous and > privileged to the point of forcing others to adopt what we consider > desirable? I don't think we should, with the caveats I give above. Let each have his choice, unless their choice means I will be eliminated myself, or unless my massively-augmented intellect realizes that those poor colloidal-brained primates aren't capable of making those decisions for themselves. But I'll defer those questions until they become relevant... > >> I say give as many people as possible the opportunity to shed their >> pre-PostHuman existence, and I am fairly sure that Eugen (and indeed >> the vast majority here) would agree on that broad goal. >> > > I agree on the goal but it ducks a lot of very thorny questions to > just say that much. Not at all; it just provides a point of reference from which we _can_ start talking about the thorny issues, especially since there seem to be well-defined camps with different opinions on the best way to approach some of them. Which is what we're doing right here (and I might argue which is one of the main purposes of these sorts of discussion lists, especially this one and WTA-talk). Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated yesterday!) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 29 00:53:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429005332.22125.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:10:24PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > I know this was intended to be funny, but it is not true as stated. > A > > simulation is a collection of information. Information (by > definition, I > > think) requires that the information storage system is not in > > This assumes the simulation metaverse is identical with this > universe. For > multiple reasons, it is unlikely that the metaverse physics is > similiar to > this universe's physics. On the contrary, I expect that something like M theory describes the physics of all possible universes. This is quite obviously the only way to accomplish true universe simulation on the fly. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 29 03:07:03 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 04:07:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050428175036.01cf3108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> <004801c54997$1e8b1d50$fe00a8c0@HEMM> <426D78E0.7080500@cox.net> <20050428234136.GB25963@leitl.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050428175036.01cf3108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4271A4D7.30205@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:10:24PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote: >> >> > True, the information-mass of a simulation is incredibly >> > tiny by comparison with the "real" mass of a "real" universe, but >> it is >> > not zero. > > > At 01:41 AM 4/29/2005 +0200, Gene wrote: > >> This assumes the simulation metaverse is identical with this >> universe. For >> multiple reasons, it is unlikely that the metaverse physics is >> similiar to >> this universe's physics. > > > You don't think it's a safe bet that however exotic the physics of any > hypothetical substrate metaverse, information will not travel or be > stored or transformed free of cost? > Not necessarily if c->infinity in some universes -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 27/04/2005 From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Apr 29 05:19:57 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:19:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] sleep mutation Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050429001843.01d66888@pop-server.satx.rr.com> The Times: A GENE that could explain why some people can get by on just a few hours' sleep each night has been discovered by US researchers. A small mutation in a gene known as the Shaker - also nicknamed the "Thatcher gene" after the former British prime minister who famously needed little sleep - allows fruitflies to thrive on a fraction of the sleep they usually require, according to researchers at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. The Shaker gene controls the flow of potassium into cells, which affects their electrical activity. Several other studies have shown that a similar process affects human sleep: in mammals, potassium channels in nerve cells are important to the generation of "slow waves" that occur in the brain during deep sleep. "Humans have the same kind of genes and potassium channels and we know that slow waves must be generated by changes in the excitability of neuron cell membranes," said Chiara Cirelli, who led the research. Naomi Rogers, a sleep expert and senior research fellow at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research in Sydney said researchers had suspected for some time that individual genes might determine how much sleep people need. "Often it's been in families that you see these sort of traits where people need little sleep, so it's not surprising that there's a gene or a group of genes that is responsible for this," she said. The study found that a particular mutation in the Shaker gene led Drosophila fruitflies to sleep for a third as long as usual, without impairing performance. Dr Rogers said less than 10 per cent of the population were "short-sleepers" - people who could exist on three or four hours of sleep a night. "People are working longer hours or shift work, they have family commitments, a lot of businesses are global 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so we're getting less sleep," she said. "The military, for example, is quite interested in looking at this." From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 05:34:59 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:34:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism Message-ID: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. But I don't think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality. The universe, as we presently know and understand it, does not seem to care about old ladies. Others may say, well the old lady is past reproductive age and probably has nothing left to contribute to the biological or memetic evolution of the human race. She is consuming or holding resources that should be given to younger generations. Her flat should be given to a younger person who can still have children or develop breakthrough ideas. The money of her pension should be put to a productive use. Ergo, the moral thing to do is NOT helping her to cross the street: the sooner she is killed by a car, the better. I think this is bullshit. Can I prove that it is bullshit in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality? No. Do I lose any sleep on not being able to prove it? Definitely no. I just don't care. I have chosen to help old ladies to cross the street, and to hold kindness to others as a basic value. It is a choice, not something that I can (or want to) prove. To make an analogy, there is no "correct" geometry. 3D geometries in which the 3D space of physics is equivalent to a plane (high school Euclidean geometry), or a sphere, or a saddle, or a torus, or even stranger things, have equal citizen rights in the world of mathematics and asking which one is correct makes no sense. One may ask which one corresponds to the physical world, but modern science is beginning to uncover that even this question makes little sense. Different geometries are "the best" in different situations - Euclidean geometry is the best to design a bridge, but Riemannian geometry is the best to study a black hole. The key concept is not truth, or correctness, but usefulness: the useful question to ask is not what is the true geometry, but what is the most useful geometry for a given application. I think the same can be said of morals: don't ask what is the right thing to do, ask what is the best thing to do. Of course then you will have to accept values as a given (otherwise, best for what?), but I don't see anything bad with this. Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas, but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid committing atrocities in defense of your ideas. This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. In summary, I think Pope Benedict was right to identify moral relativism as the worse enemy of the Church's dogmatic, inflexible and intolerant approach to morality, and that we should openly support moral relativism. From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Apr 29 06:21:24 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:21:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap In-Reply-To: <42717CCE.50603@humanenhancement.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> <42717CCE.50603@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: On Apr 28, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: >> >>> I don't see this as being what Eugen is saying at all. >>> >>> Saying that there will be an end to the Human species, and that they >>> will be succeeded by some PostHuman successor species, is most >>> definitely not the same as saying that "there may be no place for >>> the majority of the people around us". >>> >>> I think even the most hardcore of us would agree that we would (and >>> actively do) encourage the transition of each and every person alive >>> today into a state of PostHumanity. That's why we almost universally >>> agree on the desirability of making sure Transhumanist technologies >>> are available to as wide an audience as possible. (Disagreement, of >>> course, arises based on the question of just what is the most >>> efficient way to make sure that happens; a relatively >>> government-free Free Market, or a government-driven model; but the >>> end result is common to both camps.) >>> >> >> Do you think the majority of the people will be interested soon >> enough? I don't see that as likely. What happens to those folks >> who aren't buying it? > > > I'm not sure what you mean about "soon enough". Much as I abhor > speculation about the particulars of the coming Singularity (given > that such a thing by definition makes prediction impossible), I happen > to think the emergence of a PostHuman species is at least as likely to > trigger such an event as the development of strong AI or > nanotechnology (which are often cited as potential triggers). I only meant soon enough not to get totally creamed economically by the posthumans if we don't have so much abundance that everyone has what they need and more than a little of what they desire. Normal humans skill levels would not likely be very marketable. So what happens to those people who plain don't want to make he move even if it is free? If we have practical abundance I see no reason those choosing to remain human need be in any immediate danger except perhaps psychologically. I am currently more in favor of and into contributing toward IA and other aspects of creating posthumans form humans. I believe that starting with that beginning is more likely to end up well than starting from scratch as in AI efforts. > > It could well be that within a few months of the emergence of the > first group of true PostHumans, with their massively enhanced > intellects and physical forms, a wave of bandwagon-jumping will sweep > the globe as the pre-PostHumans see the advantages of transitioning, > leaving behind a relative handful of True Believers as the rest of us > go jetting off to the far reaches of the Milky Way in our personal > lighthuggers. Romantic but I suspect posthumans will emerge gradually and be quite vulnerable in the beginning. I don't think the ideal outcome is that the posthumans simply split but it is preferable to destroying humanity. > Or, the numbers of PostHumans could remain relatively small, and they > could dedicate themselves to the service of their still-unenhanced > Little Cousins, utilizing a portion of their intellects to that > purpose as they explore the wider areas of truth and knowledge amongst > themselves, completely unsuspected by the masses. Or, the first group > of PostHumans could wipe out the remaining humans, or uplift them > against their will. The truth is, we have no way of knowing what our > responses will be when we have an IQ of 10,000, physical immortality, > and the resources of a small nation. Then those that care about humanity have quite ample reason to do what they can to prevent posthumanity from coming into existence. I think we need a lot better answers and a real idea of and commitment to what the intent is. I cannot say that becoming posthuman is worth it to me personally if it likely means the destruction of all but a posthuman handful of what was humanity. I am in this that everyone on earth may have undreamed of abundance and opportunity including the opportunity to become posthuman. I am not interested in the advancment of a handful to super powered selfish ape statuswho then destroy everyone else. > > All the more reason to be in the vanguard, sez I. Cuts down on the > risk of being in the ranks of the exterminated or abandoned. I would rather be exterminated than exterminate humanity. It is a matter of choice. We should not try to excuse the ugly choice as what our mysterious someday super brain might decide. We can decide now what we are building and what type of being we wish to become. That is the part that is known and in our control. Every moment we can continue to decide. > > Although I would say that waiting until everyone is guaranteed a seat > on the train is not an option, mostly because it will NEVER happen. > Someone will always choose-- through ignorance, superstition (is there > a difference?), or just plain cussedness-- to remain as they are. > Those people must not be allowed to hold up our own evolution: > Sounds pretty arrogant. You say you only want the freedom to decide for you. then you want the freedom to decide for everyone or to condemn them to dead if they do not agree with you. > "Your decision to remain the same does not compel me not to change." But as stated our decision to change may condemn all of humanity except those who chose as we do because we leave open the option of deciding to destroy them. If we make no commitment to humanity then why should humanity aid or even tolerate our existence? Who cares how fast and deeply we can think or how much raw power we wield if we remain a stunted disassociated chimps psychologically? The power of gods should not be given to stunted chimps. > > >> >>> It is a critical question, and also opens up the can of worms of the >>> desireability/morality/practicality of imposing such a transition on >>> those who don't, in their pre-PostHuman state, choose to undergo the >>> transition (in a world where the majority of the population has an >>> effective IQ of 1000, can someone with a "normal" IQ of 100 make >>> such a choice and be said to be truly "informed"? Such standards are >>> relative...) Another sticky wicket appears when those who choose not >>> to transform themselves seek to impose that decision on everyone. >>> >> >> If it is wrong for them to keep us relatively dumb and short-lived >> would it be right for us to force >human intelligence and >> indefinitely long life span on them against their wishes? > > > To my mind, the answer to your question would be no; to force such a > transition against someone's will would be immoral. There are two > caveats, however. > > If it became impossible to attain (or retain) a PostHuman status > _without_ resorting to such a mass-uplift program (a-la Magneto in the > first X-Men movie, who sought to turn the world's leaders into mutants > so they would become sympathetic to the plight of mutants), then I > would say it would be justified to do so. I will grant that it is > certainly not a cut-and-dried case. In the situation as I describe it, > it is literally the evolutionary struggle for survival between two > species, and given a choice I think forced uplifting is preferable (on > an individual level) to extermination, if a PostHuman species is faced > with extermination itself. > We do not have to have an "evolutionary struggle" of the kind you may have in mind unless we decide to. That is my point. What are we willing to commit to? How much are we willing to grow to be ready to command the powers of a god? We must learn to go beyond models that no longer confine beings such as we are becoming. The non-posthumans can not even pose a threat a bit further down the road. There is no real struggle for survival at that point. Until then the question is why humanity should give birth to us and allow us to grow beyond our vulnerable stage. Clearly it should not do so without some assurances as to our subsequent treatment of humanity. > The second caveat is, I think, even more disturbing to us mere humans > in its way. Much as we, today, concede that the mentally retarded are > incapable of making sound judgements for themselves, it may well be > the case that PostHumanity could see mere humanity in a similar > position, relatively speaking. Insights and gestalts which are clear > as crystal to someone with an IQ of 10,000 would doubtless be > hopelessly confused muddles of ignorance and confusion in our poor > primate brains. It may well be the case that there is an objective and > perfectly sound reason for forcing such uplifts that is unknowable to > someone in our state, the logic and inevitability of which can only be > appreciated after one has been uplifted. Much as someone with an IQ of > 50 today would be incapable of making an informed decision to > _decline_ the opportunity to take a drug that would double their IQ. > That is indeed possible but it is not the assurance that is needed for our own sanity. To force transcension seems almost a contradiction in terms. It is likely a matter of much more than merely upgrading the hardware. Do you really want to bring to full posthuman capability someone violently opposed? It is far better to offer gentle slopes and persuasion. With medical nanotech around there is no great hurry for people to be ready and willing to become posthuman. They can dawdle for centuries if they wish. They can even die if they wish. > But of course those caveats are mere speculation. Until we are faced > with the reality of the situation unfolding before our eyes, the > original principle, that forced uplifting is immoral, should stand as > the default position. Only if that position becomes untenable should > it be reassessed. > >> Do we want to continue this step-wise conundrum indefinitely? Will >> each step of further progress revisit the question? > > > Now you're getting into the "what will the Singularity after the > Singularity be like?" Obviously, we can't know. But for now, we can > tentatively say we can apply the same principle, subject to revision > once our several-orders-of-magnitude-smarter intellects deal with the > question. There are many steps between here and there and many more I suspect thereafter. That is part of a the difference between Singularity and Rapture. Just because we can't see past the Singularity is no reason to suppose there is no further development on the other side. > >> Who is going to pay for all the upgrades if they aren't all >> effectively too abundantly available to need bother charging for? > > > Here's where the capitalist-vs.-socialist axis within contemporary >H > comes in. The capitalists (I include here the libertarians, naturally) > would answer your question by saying that everybody will pay for their > own upgrades. The socialists would answer by saying the State will > provide upgrades for everyone. It's a legitimate debate (despite what > people on BOTH sides of the discussion say), and the reality will > probably come somewhere in the middle, but from a personal standpoint > I will tell you that I will be paying for as many upgrades as > corporations will sell me and the state will allow me to purchase (and > I can afford, naturally!). > Everyone will not pay for their own if the un-upgraded are no longer employable. I suggest that part of the price of the birth of posthumanity is a compact with humanity. Part of the compact may be that in exchange for our birth we improve the processes and make uplift available to all who desire it and have prepared or are willing to be prepared for it. It seem a reasonable thing to ask. So I disagree with both of the answers above. > >> Wouldn't we then be attempting to force an equality of capability? >> Is that a good thing? > > > I daresay if you asked that question of James Hughes and Max More, you > would get pretty much diametrically opposed answers. Yet each is a > Transhumanist in his own way, because that's a question of methods, > not goals. Personally, I don't think it's practical to force equality > of capability short of a social system that would make Aldous Huxley > blush. I favor personal competition, tempered by the intervention of > society as a whole when such competition spills over into realms where > it proves detrimental to society as a whole (I am thinking of > Icelandic feud as an example of a social convention used to regulate > individual conflict, keeping it from degenerating into whole-scale > civil war; there are many others). I think this may be a modeling that we don't carry forward but I could be wrong. > > >> Who says our set of desirability metrics are the most righteous and >> privileged to the point of forcing others to adopt what we consider >> desirable? > > > I don't think we should, with the caveats I give above. Let each have > his choice, unless their choice means I will be eliminated myself, or > unless my massively-augmented intellect realizes that those poor > colloidal-brained primates aren't capable of making those decisions > for themselves. But I'll defer those questions until they become > relevant... > It goes both ways. There will be those sooner or later whose abilities extent beyond anything you wish to pursue. The point of "enough" comes to even a posthuman. Unless we set out to create a world where to rest is to be in mortal danger. Again, it is our choice. I will not chose an infinite hampster wheel of continuous upgrades or else as the goal of my becoming posthuman. I would sooner run away to a nunnery. > >> >>> I say give as many people as possible the opportunity to shed their >>> pre-PostHuman existence, and I am fairly sure that Eugen (and indeed >>> the vast majority here) would agree on that broad goal. >>> >> >> I agree on the goal but it ducks a lot of very thorny questions to >> just say that much. > > > Not at all; it just provides a point of reference from which we _can_ > start talking about the thorny issues, especially since there seem to > be well-defined camps with different opinions on the best way to > approach some of them. Which is what we're doing right here (and I > might argue which is one of the main purposes of these sorts of > discussion lists, especially this one and WTA-talk). Yes indeed. Thank you for the conversation. - samantha From sentience at pobox.com Fri Apr 29 06:26:29 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:26:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4271D395.9020606@pobox.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas, > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas. > > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. That's a complete non-sequitur. Morality exists within a human mind. Reality, as best we can figure out how it works, was around at least 13 billion years before ever humans showed on the scene. I'm not sure what "absolute truth" is but if you define it in such a way that it equates to "external reality" then I'm all for external reality. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Fri Apr 29 09:01:00 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:01:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050428175036.01cf3108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> <004801c54997$1e8b1d50$fe00a8c0@HEMM> <426D78E0.7080500@cox.net> <20050428234136.GB25963@leitl.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050428175036.01cf3108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050429090100.GG25963@leitl.org> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 05:54:18PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > You don't think it's a safe bet that however exotic the physics of any > hypothetical substrate metaverse, information will not travel or be stored > or transformed free of cost? Matter, energy, entropy/information are all manifestations of this spacetime. We have no idea how there (if there is a there) looks like. QM nonlocality alone is something massively weird, and yet there is light cone limit to signalling -- it makes no sense at all. Is there a cost function, allowing us to extrapolate about which properties are cheap to compute in the metaverse? Whatever it is, if taken at face value (digitalphysics.org/everything-l@), bits and change rate are damn cheap over there. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Apr 29 09:26:46 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:26:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <20050429005332.22125.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050429005332.22125.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050429092646.GN25963@leitl.org> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 05:53:31PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > On the contrary, I expect that something like M theory describes the > physics of all possible universes. This is quite obviously the only way > to accomplish true universe simulation on the fly. Empirically, all you see within a simulation, is the simulation. The meta level is unknown and unknowable (unless there are constraints to the kinds of running it, which shine through). Apart from that it could be trained ants or tortoises all the way down, or billiard balls and bits of string -- we can't know. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 08:42:01 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:42:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <470a3c520504290141497197b1@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> <4271D395.9020606@pobox.com> <470a3c520504290141497197b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050429014250191ce3@mail.gmail.com> I don't see what point you are making. Assuming you are referring to the last paragraph quoted as a non-sequitur, let me rephrase it: History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can. On 4/29/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that > > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say > > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth > > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and > > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas, > > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The > > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid > > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas. > > > > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of > > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The > > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. > > That's a complete non-sequitur. Morality exists within a human mind. > Reality, as best we can figure out how it works, was around at least 13 > billion years before ever humans showed on the scene. I'm not sure what > "absolute truth" is but if you define it in such a way that it equates to > "external reality" then I'm all for external reality. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Fri Apr 29 11:48:46 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:48:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <200504260340.j3Q3eeo03245@tick.javien.com> References: <200504260340.j3Q3eeo03245@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050429114846.GC25963@leitl.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 08:40:41PM -0700, spike wrote: > Has there been sufficient consideration of the great potential > to cut oil consumption? An unspoken blessing of the US If the fuel price goes up, so does good transportation, which will bring some transport companies out of business and result in higher prices of basic goods for end customers. This will reduce consumption. > appetite for gas guzzling SUVs is that we have the potential > to cut way back in short order just by driving the less-used > second car. I would start with insulating your house and use a passive solar system for water and heating. > What do you make of this article from the Chicago Trib? > > spike > > > Ethanol prices in free fall even as cost of gas goes up Ethanol via destillation from fermented biomass is completely insane. It's good for niche applications for developing countries, who don't have access to modern processes and can afford to waste a lot of acreage and energy to generate fuel with a terrible efficiency. Ditto biodiesel from rapeseed. You have to use a process which uses the entire biomass to do it right. This will be still a no go for countries with dense population, and good environmental protection. Methanol/ethanol in vehicular fuel cells, synthesized from synthesis gas from Methane/Coal/Oil/Biomass is an excellent idea. Methane fuel cells in domestic application for joint electricity/heat generation is an excellent idea, and a large step towards hydrogen economy. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Apr 29 12:19:32 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:19:32 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <4271D395.9020606@pobox.com> References: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> <4271D395.9020606@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20050429121932.GH25963@leitl.org> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:26:29PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of > >absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The I don't like these terms either, because apart from evolutionary artefacted fuzzy consensus (with many an outlier) there is no such animal. > >Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. > > That's a complete non-sequitur. Morality exists within a human mind. > Reality, as best we can figure out how it works, was around at least 13 > billion years before ever humans showed on the scene. I'm not sure what > "absolute truth" is but if you define it in such a way that it equates to > "external reality" then I'm all for external reality. External reality does not put a lot of bounds on behaviour algorithms. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Apr 29 12:02:58 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:02:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <055639272b69d1b0984993c1092eb8cd@mac.com> On Apr 28, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. > > But I don't think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, > objective, or whatever morality. First there is confusion about the fact that our knowledge is limited , contextual and then there is an often played false dichotomy between some non-existent missing "absolute knowledge" and, since we can't have that impossible thing, all our moral notions being utterly relative to the point of being wholly subjective and meaningless. > The universe, as we presently know and understand it, does not seem to > care about old ladies. Er, since the universe is not a conscious entity capable of such things as caring this is a completely empty statement. > Others may say, well the old lady is past > reproductive age and probably has nothing left to contribute to the > biological or memetic evolution of the human race. She is consuming or > holding resources that should be given to younger generations. Her > flat should be given to a younger person who can still have children > or develop breakthrough ideas. The money of her pension should be put > to a productive use. Ergo, the moral thing to do is NOT helping her to > cross the street: the sooner she is killed by a car, the better. All of those statements are certainly full of subjective opinion about the value of human life. Most of them are opinions none on this list hold as valid. Such opinions cannot be used to build a rational useful morality. > > I think this is bullshit. Can I prove that it is bullshit in terms of > any absolute, objective, or whatever morality? Objective is very different from "absolute". It is possible to define a rational morality in terms of the nature of the entities involved to the extent we understand it within the domain that we can actually apply morality to. > No. Do I lose any sleep > on not being able to prove it? Definitely no. I just don't care. I > have chosen to help old ladies to cross the street, and to hold > kindness to others as a basic value. It is a choice, not something > that I can (or want to) prove. > Just not caring leaves the field to dogmatists on one hand and to those that make morality meaningless on the other. Not caring is not in your rational interest. > I think the same can be said of morals: don't ask what is the right > thing to do, ask what is the best thing to do. Of course then you will > have to accept values as a given (otherwise, best for what?), but I > don't see anything bad with this. > Values do not have to be accepted as merely a given. > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas, > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas. > Fair enough. > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. > Again. these are not the same thing. > In summary, I think Pope Benedict was right to identify moral > relativism as the worse enemy of the Church's dogmatic, inflexible and > intolerant approach to morality, and that we should openly support > moral relativism. > Within your limited meaning I see your point. But there is too much all-dissolving ethical slop is in "moral relativism" for it to be anything to rally around. - s From eugen at leitl.org Fri Apr 29 15:14:28 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:14:28 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity In-Reply-To: <426E6DFC.401@jefallbright.net> References: <80140-22005452213464030@M2W062.mail2web.com> <470a3c52050422071235ed1e90@mail.gmail.com> <426916FF.1070607@jefallbright.net> <42691A22.5070303@neopax.com> <42692D26.8090005@jefallbright.net> <426A9558.5070306@neopax.com> <426E4118.4050506@jefallbright.net> <426E56DA.1070604@neopax.com> <426E6DFC.401@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <20050429151428.GB25963@leitl.org> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:36:12AM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > In summary, the most successful (read effectively competitive) systems > of the future can be expected to possess more diversity (degrees of > freedom), AND be more highly cooperative, than those of today. Keeping track of past interactions with identifyable players is a basic successfull metastrategy, especially with long-lived individuals and locality (high probability of future interaction) vs. one-time anonymity. That would be a good mechanism to establish drive interaction locality, actually. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 17:23:35 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:23:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <055639272b69d1b0984993c1092eb8cd@mac.com> References: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> <055639272b69d1b0984993c1092eb8cd@mac.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205042910232f4c21e8@mail.gmail.com> To Samantha: Perhaps due to English not being my native language, the difference you make between "absolute" and "objective" is lost to me (at least in this context). Could you explain? G. From dirk at neopax.com Fri Apr 29 17:47:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:47:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cyc In-Reply-To: References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> <42717CCE.50603@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4272731E.4070905@neopax.com> Any opinions on Cyc? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/2005 From hal at finney.org Fri Apr 29 16:37:13 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 08:40:41PM -0700, spike wrote: > Has there been sufficient consideration of the great potential > to cut oil consumption? An unspoken blessing of the US > appetite for gas guzzling SUVs is that we have the potential > to cut way back in short order just by driving the less-used > second car. Yes, this can happen to some extent, but not everyone has two cars or can substitute them in this way. Still I think you are right that as gas prices rise there are a number of short-term things that people can do which can modestly reduce demand - carpooling, taking the bus or train, shortening vacations, consolidating short shopping trips. 5 or 10 percent reduction is probably possible without too much pain. One issue is that commercial transportation also uses a pretty good percentage of imported oil, and that is already very efficient. Business has plenty of incentive to pare expenses down to the bare minimum in order to gain a competitive advantage, even when fuel prices are modest. Not much savings will be possible in this sector. Another thing that doesn't work too well is replacement of the vehicle fleet by higher mileage cars and trucks. All those SUVs are going to be on the road for years and years, no matter how high gas gets. They may be second-hand, they may drop in price, but that just means that poor people will drive them. Let's suppose that gas goes up to $5/gallon, and average distance travelled for personal vehicles drops from 20000 to 15000 miles per year. An SUV gets maybe 15 mpg, so that is 1000 gallons or $5000 per year. Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting 30 mpg and selling for $25000. You'll save $2500/year in gas costs. But the SUV is practically worthless in this environment and has little resale value. That means it's going to take ten years to pay off your investment in the new car, with your savings on gas. That's not a very attractive proposition. Now, you can work these numbers quite a bit and get somewhat more optimistic or pessimistic payoff times, but the bottom line is that it is expensive to replace a vehicle and that fuel costs aren't all that dominant in terms of the total cost of ownership. This is also why I say that poor people will buy SUVs if the prices drop enough, because the savings on the purchase will pay for the higher fuel costs for years to come. Either way, we are going to be burdened by SUVs for at least a decade to come. And to the extent that high gas prices motivate a faster than usual replacement of the personal vehicle fleet, that is an economic cost which we all pay. All those replacement cars leave us essentially where we are today. That is money, capital and labor not spent on improving the world and making life a better place to live. And that translates into reduced economic growth and a slower rise in the quality of life. It's a genuine cost. Of course, it's also possible that Peak Oilers are wrong, gas won't go up to $5/gallon and that all those people buying SUVs are not idiots. Ultimately, car purchasers are responding to the price signals they receive by looking at gas prices. This gets back to the point I have made before, that if the smart money thought oil was going to go through the roof in a few years, it would already be bid up. Oil would already be high in anticipation of future shortages; gas prices would already be high for the same reason; and people would already have stopped buying SUVs. It's the invisible hand at work. The fact that this is not happening, that people are still buying low mileage vehicles, is not evidence of irrationality. Rather it is direct, visible evidence that Peak Oil predictions of high oil prices are simply wrong. Hal From john-c-wright at sff.net Fri Apr 29 18:22:44 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:22:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that Message-ID: <200504291822.j3TIMtR28791@tick.javien.com> Dear Mr. Allbright, My apologies for the delay in penning this reply, but other matters have whelmed me. You have given me much to think about, and, unfortunately, much to say, so I apologize for the length of this letter. You will see in the letter that my understanding is limited and weak. Your conception comes from something alien to my rationalistic tradition, so perhaps you can explain your conception to me in simple terms. Please do not interpret my disagreement as any sign of disrespect. Now, to the matter: To the best of my limited understanding, your conception of an arrow of morality has three shortcomings: first, it is useless to any who do not accept mere survival as the ground of morality; second, it is mute to determine what objects should be included or excluded from the moral order, some of which are already universal in any case; third, morality by its nature must be treated as if it were an absolute by its partisans, or else it has no ability to act as a moral code. 1. I asked for a description of what is meant by your idea that morality is ?what works?, especially were a given system of moral rules or reciprocities works better for a larger group than for a smaller included group. Identifying ?what works? in an empirical science is easy: when the results as witnessed by our eyes are as predicted, the theory giving rise to the prediction is said to have ?worked.? If the results are other than predicted, no matter what good the theory may be on other grounds, it does not work as an empirical predictive theory. I then asked how to apply this to a normative science, such as ethics, where we are not dealing with theories predicting what will happen, but, rather, with maxims of what men ought or ought not to do. You say: "what works" means a structure that will tend to survive and grow, regardless of whether it is fully comprehended by any observer system. I submit, however, that there is no ground to say one thing ?works? and another ?does not work?, without a normative axiom beforehand to define what works. Mere survival is insufficient for this end: if the human race, for example, were promised mankind would enjoy a population level on average of two hundred millions, guaranteed to survive at least two hundred thousand years, if only we were absorbed into a Borg cube, and lost our souls; or if we were, given the alternative, offered a population only of one hundred millions and a span of one hundred thousand years if we are members of the United Federation of Planets, I would select the Federation over the Borg for myself and my children. My point is that only if I accepted the normative axiom that mere survival at any price were the supreme governing moral principle, am I would obligated to accept the offer of the Borg to be assimilated. They offer twice as many survivors to last twice as long. But this is not a axiom I accept: there are times when it is better for the nation to perish than that one innocent man should die. Thank goodness, those times are rare, but the mere existence of normative values no lower than mere survival makes me chary of accepting your formulation without some additional argument to support it. 2. The second basic problem with the ?arrow of morality? formulation, is that it cannot be used to tell in what direction the arrow of morality should grow, and, hence, cannot tell a man how he should act. This is a specific application of a general philosophical error when dealing with evolving or changing standards: a standard, by definition, if it changes, cannot be used as a standard. A moral code is a specific formulation of the universal morality; the main point of difference from culture to culture or age to age is the scale of the moral code: whether the moral order protects and commands one?s neighbor?s only, one?s tribes or nation, or all mankind. This seems to be the arrow of morality of which you speak, the motion from a parochial to a cosmopolitan moral code. The Stoic, the Christian, the Buddhist and the Mohammedan each embrace a code, which is universal and cosmopolitan. Pagan codes of honor (with all due respect to my pagan ancestors) are parochial; pagan gods were meant to be the tribal gods of a given tribe, and their rules were never claimed to protect or to bind strangers from the antipodes. But the monotheistic religions made the assertion of universality. These systems claim to apply to every living soul. The parochialism of the previous tribal gods was rejected by the Roman and absorbed by the Hindu: antislavery societies, believe it or not, existed among the Imperial Romans and during the Christian Dark Ages. Likewise, the followers of the Prophet were forbidden to enslave any of their fellows who submitted to the Will of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful. The size of the group to be considered covered by the moral order increased from the local tribe to all mankind with these cosmopolitan religions. Communism and Nazism, of course, reverse this. These aberrations spring from a higher culture and reject it, restricting the moral order no longer to mankind, or even to Christendom, but only to members of a favored race (in the case of the Nazi, the so-called Aryan) or to members of a favored economic class (in the case of the Communist, the so-called Proletarian). Their savagery exceeded that of the ancient pagans, perhaps in part because the knowledge that they were betraying a conception something finer and higher than their own tormented them. Oddly enough, in the modern era, two factions among us are attempting to increase the scope of morality in two opposite directions. Some would insist that the moral order protect animals; others would insist that the moral order protect unborn babies. The first would outlaw carnivores as cannibals, the second would outlaw abortionists as infanticides. Now, is there any way to predict or prefer which way the arrow or morality will go in the future? If we grant human rights to beasts, they might increase in survival and growth (unless animal population numbers drop once they are no longer domesticated for food); if we grant human rights to fetuses, they personally will increase in survival, and families who otherwise would go childless will grow. So which way is the arrow of morality supposed to grow? Your formulation of ?what works? seems as ambiguous as a Delphic oracle. 3. No matter what the viewpoint from the objective observer as to the actuarial benefit of adopting or rejecting specific innovations to a given moral code, from the viewpoint within a moral code, the moral code itself will contain reasons to explain and support itself. The observer outside the moral code talking to the partisan within the moral code may say anything he likes about the ?growth and survival? benefits of a particular innovation; but, unless he speaks to the specific reasons why the partisan adheres to a particular moral code, the information is of no value to the partisan. An example might make this clear. Suppose we have two men, both of whom agree on the basics of a moral system. Let us say one is a Franciscan Monk, the other is a member of the Military Order of the Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem. Both are Christians, but one has taken a vow of pacifism, the other, a vow to recover Jerusalem from the Paynims by forces of arms. An objective observer shows them Game Theory. He explains to our Monk and our Knight a simple game, called the Prisoner?s Dilemma, where if two players each cooperate with the other, they break even; if one cooperates and one betrays, the betrayer wins; if they both betray, both lose. Our objective observer convinces them that one and only one strategy is favorable over the long term: the strategy of simple reciprocity. Namely, a player who is willing to cooperate with other players until betrayed, to betray once each time he is betrayed, but to forgive and cooperate again next trial. Our observer might urge, for example, that the pacifist retaliate upon certain occasions in order to deter further attacks; or he might urge the Crusader to fight only defensively, and to cooperate with the Turk whenever possible. No matter what these calculations are, Christianity is fundamentally otherworldly, so that their survival rate on Earth could not have been the prime concern to our Monk and our Knight when they took their vows. Even if the Monk and the Knight are carefully convinced by our observer, his arguments can have no effect on them, because they do not share the normative axiom that survival and growth are paramount concerns. In other words, a basic problem with the ?arrow of morality? approach is that it is in fact not objective, merely one philosophy like any other, apparently a form of utilitarianism. It will not convince anyone who does not already share the axioms of utilitarianism (albeit, it might be useful as a predictor of which philosophy will be the most popular or longest-lasting.) As a related thought, let me submit that humanity has no need of changing standards in morality, nor any ability to change those standards even if it wanted to. Morality, in human experience, is one unified structure, and always has been: a set of maxims or imperatives commanding human action. I propose that the emphasis on certain maxims or imperatives, their rank or priority, might differ from one man to the next or from one school of thought to the name, but the general moral order of the universe known to all men through their natural reason. What is amazing about the various ages and races of man, is not that we see, here and there, customs of particular cruelty or degeneracy, such as temple prostitution or human sacrifice, but that we see nearly universal agreement on the basics: the Eightfold Path of the Buddha and the Ten Commandments of Moses cover the same points, as do the utterings of Lapland witches and the staves of Norse prophecy. Even vicious beasts like the Communists can only justify their shocking inhumanity, their brutal mass-murders, mass-lies, mass-robberies, and so on, by reference to a moral maxim (charity to the poor) which has at least the same pedigree as the moral maxims condemning murder, lying, and robbery. Hence, the universality of moral maxims suggests that moral systems cannot differ in their fundamentals. They differ in the arguments used to support the maxims, and they differ in the different weight given the moral maxims compared one with another. (The Chinaman and the Jew, for example, will both acknowledge the moral maxim of respecting one?s parents: but Chinese tradition has a much more elaborate and demanding system of ranks within each family than the Jewish.) We can look at morality only one of two ways: from the inside, or from the outside. From the inside, we, as moral beings, can weigh in our consciences the wisdom of changing the emphasis or scope of a moral rule to which we all defer as authoritative. The arrow of morality can grow only in the direction already implied, but not yet come to flower, in the maxims we already accept. From the outside, we, as purely rational beings, can look at some aspect of morality or a particular moral code in non-moralistic terms, such as, for example, looking at the incentives which cause certain formulations of local moral codes to flourish or gain partisans, while other diminish. The difficulty with the arrow of morality formulation (as I understand it) is that it cannot bridge this gap between inside and outside. The man inside it does not need it: Christendom already preaches and practices toleration of dissent. The man outside cannot use it: knowing a certain code will reach more people or ?works better? than another code provides no particular motive to amend a moral code. It might or it might not, depending on what he thinks the moral stature of ?working better? is. JCW --- Original Message --- From: Jef Allbright To: ExI chat list CC: john-c-wright at sff.net Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:13:54 -0700 Subject: Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality [Was:The statement that > john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > > >My apologies for the length of this post, but as a humble disciple of > >philosophy, I find such specualtions sweeter than wine, despite that the eternal > >questions have been debated, well, eternally. > > > > > That some questions are debated eternally is a strong hint to widen back > and view such issues from a broader perspective. > > I too enjoy philosophical speculation but available time is quite > limited and after three iterations I seem to have made almost no > progress conveying even the first of my points - the significance of > nested scopes of context. > > >Below, A is for Allbright and W is for Wright. > > > >A: "I'm afraid my main point was lost -- again due in no small part to my > >tersity -- the point being that *all* subjective input should be considered, but > >then weighted according to its [ultimately subjective] grounding in > >empirically verifiable "reality"." > > > >W: Your point was not lost on me, I hope. What I was trying to do was argue the > >opposite side of this very question. My argument was twofold > > > >(1) The statement is self-contradictory. Those who argue that truth (what you > >call "input") is ultimately subjective, argue as if truth is objective. Those > >who put the word "reality" in scare quotes argue as if they are talking about > >reality, that is, real reality without any scare quotes. > > > > > As I've stated three times now in this discussion, I do believe in > ultimate reality, highlighted by my statements that from a god's eye > point of view, all is objective. > > Certainly I do argue from assumptions of truth and consistency, as has > been agreed and doesn't require pointing out yet again. I suspect that > a relatively superficial interpretation of my statements on subjectivity > and incompleteness may lead one to conclude that I am arguing from an > existentialist, nihilist, or (forbid) postmodernist point of view, but I > have tried to point out that (1) I assume there is an ultimate reality > (but I don't say it's static), (2) I point out that our knowledge of > reality is necessarily incomplete and subjective, and (3) I argue that > there is progress toward increasingly accurate approximations of > reality, measured in terms of what works. > > It would be foolish to argue the validity of your three self-evident > truth statements, except (as I tried to do) to point out that the system > doing the truth evaluation is itself limited to a subset of reality > (truth) and is therefore inherently limited in its ability to certify > absolutely the truth of any proposition. No matter how obvious a > proposition may appear, it may be superseded by a more encompassing > interpretation. This is a pragmatic approach to truth, but does not > deny the correctness of your examples within the domains in which they > were intended. > > >(2) The statement rests on the assumption that moral maxims can be supported or > >denied by means of reference to statements of observation, what you call the > >naturallistic fallacy. > > > >For example, comparisons of the statistics of the crime rates and the use of > >torture might tell you whether or not torture has a deterent effect on crime, > >but this reveals only whether it is efficient, not whether it is morally upright > >to use torture as an instrument of law-enforcement. > > > >The statement that torture is efficient is a contingent statement: the statement > >is true if the statistics support it, false if not, and in any case is dependent > >on the accuracy of the demographic data. The statement that torture is barbaric > >is an absolute statement. The statement may be true of false, but, no matter > >what, statistics will not show whether the statement is true or false because > >"barbarism" is a moral condemnation, not an thing that can be measured by a census. > > > > > > > Yes, I hope we can agree that the Naturalistic Fallacy of attempting to > derive "ought from is" is in error because value judgments are > necessarily subjective. > > >A: "My theory doesn't provide absolute moral answers, but it claims that > >there is a rational basis for finding increasingly moral answers." > > > >W: Do you agree that the idea of increasingly accurate measurements only makes > >sense if there is some real thing being measured? > > > > > > I've said that I assume (point of faith) an ultimate reality against > which our measurements are necessarily approximate and incomplete. Can > we get beyond this starting point? > > >We cannot get ever-more-precise measurements of the speed of light in a vacuum > >unless the speed of light actually exists. Likewise, we cannot get increasingly > >ever more objective and increasingly ever more correct maxims of morality unless > >there actually is a moral order to the universe. > > > > > > John, I'm breaking protocol here, but I would like to draw your personal > attention to this statement, which is causing me some frustration. I've > repeatedly made this point. In fact, during our last exchange I showed > that you had inverted this point and now you are challenging me to make > it again! So here it is, copied verbatim from the previous exchange: > > On the contrary, I argue that from the God's eye view, morality is > in fact objective. However this ultimate view is only approachable, > but not obtainable. > > Please remember, I started by saying my intention is to make three > points relating to the following: (1) nested scopes of context, (2) > subjectivity and nature of Self, (3) what we call "good" and thus moral > is measured by what works, and what works over a larger context is > (necessarily subjectively) considered better. > > >A: (Works better with what end in mind?) Anything that subjectively promotes Self. > > > >W: This is a subtle thought, and I am sorry you have no time to write it out > >more clearly. > > > >If you do get a chance at some later date to expound on this principle, I, at > >least, would be interested in the disquisition. > > > I have no hope of currently being able to convey this, which I consider > a more subtle point, considering the difficulty we're still having with > the previous. You may wish to refer to Derek Parfit, _Reasons and > Persons_, for a rigorous philosophical analysis of a large portion. > Buddhist thinking and discoveries in cognitive science fill out the concept. > > >My main question would be how to > >reconcile that three examples I gave of the heroic Achilles, the saintly John > >the Baptist and the wise Socrates with this principle of self-growth. It seems > >to me that the hero, the saint, and the philosopher all value something greater > >than himself (glory, God, or truth) for which he is willing to lay down his life. > > > > > Yes, the key is that while all moral choice is necessarily subjective > (from the viewpoint of self), the Self with which one identifies can be > (and generally is) greater than the conventional concept of self limited > to one's physical body. We identify with our goals which extend outward > and into the future; we identify with the society within which we are > enmeshed, and we identify (at a less than conscious level) with kin and > other members of our in-group. > > As I stated in an earlier exchange, and quoted a few paragraphs above, I > do not propose to provide absolute moral answers, but I claim that we > can develop a rational basis for finding increasingly moral answers. > > In the cases of Achilles, John the Baptist, and Socrates, their actions > can be considered moral to the extent that they were performed with the > "greater good" (with which they must necessarily identify) as their > objective. > > >I would be interested to see how self-sacrifice can be reconciled a philosophy > >which takes self-growth as its foundation. > > > > > > I hope this was sufficiently elucidated above. > > >A: (Works better for whom?) Works better for Self. "Better" is inherently > >subjective [meaning dependent on the observer]. Self means that with which one > >identifies. > > > >Q: This sounds like a formal description rather than a moral maxim. I suppose > >one could define "self" broadly enough to include the divinity or the community > >so as to explain the self-sacrifice of saints and heroes. (In other words, > >Socrates considers his "Self" to be the laws of Athens, and loyalty to their > >precepts, even when the laws are in the wrong, justifies his drinking hemlock.) > > > > > > Yes, as described above. > > >But, by the same token, one could define the "self" and the "growth" of > >Raskolnikov to include that he must kill an innocent old crone and her > >halfwitted half-sister. > > > > > Raskolnikov, in his dysfunctional state of mind, believed he had moral > justification for his actions. He believed, necessarily subjectively, > and within his limited context of awareness, that his actions were for > the greater good. Along the same lines, political assassinations have > been performed, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, > and preemptive war has been carried out, all for ostensibly moral reasons. > > In all these examples, we can see that moral goodness is subjective and > limited in terms of context of awareness. No absolute moral maxim helps > here, because such moral absolutes can and have been used > interchangeably by either side. My point is that we can not know > absolute moral certainty, but we can recognize that as the context is > broadened, in terms of the number of actors, the variety of > interactions, and the time over which interactions occur, we can > evaluate, with increasing agreement, the relative morality of an action > in terms of how well it (subjectively) works. > > From this realization, we can proceed to develop a science of > principles of effective interaction. Our understanding in this area is > growing with studies in complex systems theory (and other areas) which > can be applied at all scales from the cosmic, through inorganic > chemistry, through biological evolution and on to human culture. > > - Jef > http://www.jefallbright.net From amara at amara.com Fri Apr 29 15:45:49 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:45:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Time-management for anarchists Message-ID: I picked this up from BoingBoing today. Neat! http://nomediakings.org/vidz/time_management_for_anarchists_the_movie.html Time-management for anarchists from a productive anarcho-geek "Time Management for Anarchists (starring Emma Goldman and Mikhail Bakunin, no less) is a great Getting-Things-Done-style tutorial on how to throw off the yoke of your day job and still remain productive without a labor-alienating boss cracking the whip over you. Jim built it in Flash to accompany a talk he gives, so it runs a little slow without his patter overtop of it." -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It never hurts to be conservative where the galactic plane is involved." -- Chris Fassnacht From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Fri Apr 29 18:56:43 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:56:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050429014250191ce3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 >To: ExI chat list >Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:42:01 +0200 > >I don't see what point you are making. Assuming you are referring to >the last paragraph quoted as a non-sequitur, let me rephrase it: >History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the >Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough >reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can. This is inaccurate. Conviction of knowledge of Truth does not *always* lead to mass murder. Making overly broad, indefensible statements like this weakens the rest of your argument. Additionally, in relation to mathematics and some sciences, objective Truth exists. BAL From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Apr 29 16:26:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429162650.60907.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that > > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say > > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that > > "worth fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many > > factors and may vary according to circumstances. You still fight > > for your ideas, but acknowledging that you are fighting for your > > ideas and not for The > > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid > > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas. This doesn't seem to work, though. Who is it that has committed the most atrocities? Those who developed and promote moral relativism. The idea that any idea is as good as any other ideas means that all ideas are worth zero. If there is no quantitative or qualitative means of determining which is more objective, then there is no means of valuing any particular idea. When a person or group easily accepts this sort of thinking, they very quickly learn to apply the same principle to people, that if one person is as good as any other, then nobody is worth anything, and anyone can be disposed of if the disposal achieves the ends that an individual or group personally wants or needs. That post-modernists tend so much toward collectivism is a natural consequence of this sort of thinking and explains why almost all modern era genocides were launched by collectivist movements who couched their actions as justified under the goals of their own group as inherently good and not judged according to an objective truth. > > > > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts > of > > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of > The > > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. On the contrary, the gassing instinct arises from those who presume to define their own truth independent of outside objective reality, rationalized by their own will to achieve their self-serving goals. > > That's a complete non-sequitur. Morality exists within a human mind. > Reality, as best we can figure out how it works, was around at least > 13 billion years before ever humans showed on the scene. I'm not sure > what "absolute truth" is but if you define it in such a way that it > equates to "external reality" then I'm all for external reality. Hear hear. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 29 21:42:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429214215.80298.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I don't see what point you are making. Assuming you > are referring to > the last paragraph quoted as a non-sequitur, let me > rephrase it: > History shows that the convinction of being the sole > depository of the > Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is > a good enough > reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can. I feel your pain, Guilio, the problem is no matter how far you distance yourself from the notion that you embody truth, there will be someone else who is firmly convinced that they are the sole arbirter of truth. So whereas you have made the world safe from you, you have not made the world safe from these guys. A further complication of the problem is that the "Champions of Truth" as you call them have all decided in some oxymoronic way to team up with each other despite the fact they champion different truths and wage memetic war on relativists like yourself. Thus you have flag-waving Southern Baptist fundies teaming up with the Catholic old-guard to try to illegalize homosexual partnerships for example. Thank God, the Muslim fundies are still at war with the other (Xtian and Jewish) fundies because that will keep secularists and atheists from being gassed for a while. I wonder what then? Will the Champions of Truth then duke it out to see who is the champion of "real truth"? To make it stranger too there are "Truths" that don't have champions that are still Truth -like the Law of Karma. i.e. that actions have consequences. This Truth bears similarities to the actual physics of the universe as embodied by the formulation of newton's third law of mechanics or causality in general. Yet you won't see Buddhists launching crusades to crush the infidels, because that would be bad Karma. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 29 22:06:26 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429220626.84321.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. > > But I don't think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, > objective, or whatever morality. > The universe, as we presently know and understand it, does not seem > to > care about old ladies. Others may say, well the old lady is past > reproductive age and probably has nothing left to contribute to the > biological or memetic evolution of the human race. She is consuming > or > holding resources that should be given to younger generations. Her > flat should be given to a younger person who can still have children > or develop breakthrough ideas. The money of her pension should be put > to a productive use. Ergo, the moral thing to do is NOT helping her > to > cross the street: the sooner she is killed by a car, the better. > > I think this is bullshit. Can I prove that it is bullshit in terms of > any absolute, objective, or whatever morality? No. I can take a crack at it: Even the elderly can and often do, for instance by staffing support systems (sometimes formal, sometimes ad-hoc) or acting as repositories of wisdom which might not be accessible to certain youths in any other practical manner, contribute to the biological and memetic evolution of the human race. In most cases, this contribution is larger than the resources to maintain them - at least in fairly recent historic times, after food became relatively cheap (to where politics became the prime reason for the continued existance of serious hunger) but before elder care started requiring massive capital flows, and arguably even today (since the capital flows are mostly from the elder and relatives, and relatively minimally from strangers via taxes; further, any elderly going across the street is probably not currently consuming said massive flows). In part because the elderly are dispending wisdom to the young, it makes sense to help them demonstrate the virtues of kindness and cooperation: so that the young that they impress will, in turn, be more inclined to cooperate with you should you ever encounter them. (Refer to Prisoner's Dillema for the meaning of "cooperate" here.) This includes helping old ladies across the street. It has generally been my experience that many of these morals do eventually make sense, although some may take a while to figure out. However, precisely because of that, it sometimes makes sense to do what does not currently seem logical: one might have merely not yet figured out the logic behind it. (This is a general weakness of the "logic only" morality systems: confusing the set of all logic with the subset of logic that is currently known to a given person, specifically making the assumption that if the set of all logic can justify moral practices and unjustify immoral ones, then the set of logic that is currently known to a given person can suffice to meet the same end - even if that may seem a practical necessity in order to fulfill a "logic only" morality system. Instead of being a requirement whose implications can be ignored, it means that said morality system can never be perfect in practice.) Quite a few morality systems fall apart when one looks at how a human being can actually use them. For instance, if there were a perfect human being, then treating that person as infallible might make moral sense. But even the Pope is imperfect - it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at times, and even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by apologizing for said errors - therefore the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is itself immoral: it allows mistakes and misjudgements to be hardened into unyielding evils merely because a certain person made them. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Apr 30 00:31:11 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:31:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality In-Reply-To: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com> References: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4272D1CF.4090609@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Dear Mr. Allbright, My apologies for the delay in penning this reply, but other >matters have whelmed me. You have given me much to think about, and, >unfortunately, much to say, so I apologize for the length of this letter. > >You will see in the letter that my understanding is limited and weak. Your >conception comes from something alien to my rationalistic tradition, so perhaps >you can explain your conception to me in simple terms. Please do not interpret >my disagreement as any sign of disrespect. > >Now, to the matter: > >To the best of my limited understanding, your conception of an arrow of morality >has three shortcomings: first, it is useless to any who do not accept mere >survival as the ground of morality; second, it is mute to determine what objects >should be included or excluded from the moral order, some of which are already >universal in any case; third, morality by its nature must be treated as if it >were an absolute by its partisans, or else it has no ability to act as a moral >code. > > Dear Mr. Wright, I appreciate your interest and thank you for challenging this thinking and promoting discussion of these concepts which, while outside the range of popular thought, especially in the western tradition, are in my opinion both timely and pertinent to our society as technology leads to qualitatively greater awareness of ourselves, our environment, and our intentional actions within our environment. This theory of morality is grounded in the observation that there is an external reality, that appears to be stable and reliable, that we can model with increasing but never perfect accuracy, measurable by experiment. This assertion has been debated for millenia, but I have no time or interest for such debate and would refer anyone interested to the widely available philosophical corpus. To avoid useless argument, I say I take this position on faith, but I believe it is the crux of rationality. Because all moral decisions are based on values, and values are necessarily subjective, it is necessary that we define Self, and contrary to popular conception, this effective moral Self, the locus of all intention, is not constrained to one's physical organism. This inclusive Self, representing one's interests and intentions and thereby identification with the surrounding world, is seen as the agent of moral action. This theory does not provide absolute answers to specific moral questions, but does say that answers can be found, which are dependent on context, and that with increasing context moral solutions will be seen as increasingly "true" (meaning increasingly corresponding to ultimate objective reality.) Within any given context, "right action" is action that works from the point of view of the moral agent, and with increasing context (of agents, type of interactions, and number of interactions) actions that work will necessarily be seen as actions that are "right". [This puts the concept of morals (actually ethics) as laws, codified and handed down, in obsolete historical context.] This theory moves the focus of thought about morality, from the obsolete concept of absolute moral laws handed down (which were in fact based on what worked over long periods of time), to a more aware focus on determining answers of subjective "right" and "wrong" based on scientific understanding of what works at the appropriate level of context. More specifically, it highlights that all moral issues involve transactions between Self and Other, and that principles of effective interaction between Self and Other can form the basis of moral guidance in unknown moral situations. Fundamental to effective interaction between Self and Other is the concept of synergy, or positive sumness. In contrast to the Malthusion perspective that growth for one agent necessarily means loss for the other, it is increasingly apparent from game theory, economics, and even hard physics that there is a universal tendency to favor win-win interactions, where the mutual interaction of two sub-systems results in a combined system with new characteristics, determined, but not predicted by the component systems. I refer to this synergistic advantage, from the point of view of Self, as "growth" [lacking another suitable word or short phrase for the concept.] [While the foregoing is very coherent, but abstract, the following is more tentative and likely to be updated and revised.] We can infer some guidelines for effective (synergetic) interaction between Self and Other. * All effective moral decisions are from the viewpoint of Self. As already discussed, this is inherent in the nature of value-based decision-making, which is necessarily subjective. To deny the primacy of Self in moral decision-making is to promote a situation where Self is taught to obey external authority to the exclusion of its own senses and judgments, and history abounds with atrocities committed with this kind of false "moral" justification. Remember also that the effective intentional Self is not constrained to the individual organism, but defined as well by its relationships to its environment and often acts on behalf of its group identification which may be family, team, tribe, nation, etc. * All effective moral decisions are intended to further the growth of Self. A moral agent must necessarily act in such a way to further its own interests. To do otherwise would be considered irrational or insane (doesn't work.) "Self-sacrifice" of an individual is often seen as a very moral act when it furthers the interests of a much larger group with which the individual identifies. Suicide, on the other hand is often a very immoral act (doesn't "work" at any context), when it is the result of the breakdown of proper functioning of an individual. Self-defense is not only moral justifiable, but morally required. Note also the Red Queen Principle, that just keeping up is actually falling behind. Growth is a requirement, not an option. * The most effective moral decisions are those that are synergetic. It is therefore better to convert an enemy to a partner, thus providing enhanced opportunities for interaction and growth in the future, rather than to destroy one's enemies. Thus murder is morally undesirable. It is therefore better to promote diversity, which provides a richer environment for future growth, rather than to try to achieve commonality which may seem safer but leads to stagnation. From this it follows that it is good for Self to promote, rather than diminish Other. Thus theft is morally undesirable. And so on... I will read carefully through your long email and respond point by point as I can, time permitting. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sat Apr 30 03:16:31 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:16:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap In-Reply-To: References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> <42717CCE.50603@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <4272F88F.4080309@humanenhancement.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > I only meant soon enough not to get totally creamed economically by > the posthumans if we don't have so much abundance that everyone has > what they need and more than a little of what they desire. Normal > humans skill levels would not likely be very marketable. So what > happens to those people who plain don't want to make he move even if > it is free? > > If we have practical abundance I see no reason those choosing to > remain human need be in any immediate danger except perhaps > psychologically. > > I am currently more in favor of and into contributing toward IA and > other aspects of creating posthumans form humans. I believe that > starting with that beginning is more likely to end up well than > starting from scratch as in AI efforts. I suppose it depends on the nature of the PostHuman condition. Will it necessarily include "practical abundance"? I don't think that's a requirement, myself, and thus it might well be the case that contemporary economics still function (at least in the near-term after the advent of PostHumanity; I think eventually the scales will tip in favor of "practical abundance" eventually). But bear in mind, there are other forms of competition than economics. In the social sphere, PostHumans will have as many if not more advantages over normal humans than they do in the economic sphere. To make a necessarily poor analogy, two PostHumans could interact on a social level as we do today with email and full access to the Internet. A normal human would be writing letters and mailing them, trundling down to the library for any references that might be needed. Imagine a normal human trying to have a relationship with a PostHuman, who is used to being able to share mental experiences as easily as we share files online. "Mere humans" are going to be at a disadvantage in every sphere; not only economic, but social, political, athletic, academic, etc. >> The truth is, we have no way of knowing what our responses will be >> when we have an IQ of 10,000, physical immortality, and the resources >> of a small nation. > > > Then those that care about humanity have quite ample reason to do what > they can to prevent posthumanity from coming into existence. I think > we need a lot better answers and a real idea of and commitment to what > the intent is. I cannot say that becoming posthuman is worth it to > me personally if it likely means the destruction of all but a > posthuman handful of what was humanity. I am in this that everyone > on earth may have undreamed of abundance and opportunity including the > opportunity to become posthuman. I am not interested in the > advancment of a handful to super powered selfish ape status who then > destroy everyone else. The point is, you and I are literally incapable of imagining what our PostHuman selves would think is appropriate. Speculation, in that case, is useless. We can gush all the platitudes about the dignity of humanity, and respect for those who choose the other path, but once we have transitioned ourselves, all bets are off. Much as the promises you or I might make as a four-year-old cannot seriously be counted on when we're forty. > I would rather be exterminated than exterminate humanity. It is a > matter of choice. Indeed. While I respect your choice to be exterminated in such a situation, I trust you will respect my choice to resist such a fate. Hopefully, of course, it won't come down to such a decision. It certainly doesn't _have_ to; there are many possible scenarios. But if does come down to a question of them or us, quite frankly, I choose us. > We should not try to excuse the ugly choice as what our mysterious > someday super brain might decide. We can decide now what we are > building and what type of being we wish to become. That is the part > that is known and in our control. Every moment we can continue to > decide. But our future-selves are not bound by those decisions, any more than we are bound by the choices we made in kindergarten. >> Although I would say that waiting until everyone is guaranteed a seat >> on the train is not an option, mostly because it will NEVER happen. >> Someone will always choose-- through ignorance, superstition (is >> there a difference?), or just plain cussedness-- to remain as they >> are. Those people must not be allowed to hold up our own evolution: >> > > > Sounds pretty arrogant. You say you only want the freedom to decide > for you. then you want the freedom to decide for everyone or to > condemn them to dead if they do not agree with you. The freedom to improve onesself is the ultimate freedom. Is freedom not worth fighting for? And please always bear in mind, this is an outcome Ineither desire nor particularly expect. But to condemn you and I to death, illness, and relative retardation when it is not necessarily inevitable is something that deserves to be resisted. Would you not agree that a group that wanted to kill everyone once they reached the age of 15, and who actively prevented any sort of education, and who held back any medicines, would be a group that should be resisted, and violently if necessary? I see no practical difference between my hypothetical example and those who want to nip Transhumanism in the bud in the name of it's being "unnatural". Now, I'm not calling for the Transhumanist Revolution... fortunately it hasn't come to that, and in all likelihood won't. I don't think it's ultimately possible to contain the social and technological trends that are already extant. > "Your decision to remain the same does not compel me not to change." > > But as stated our decision to change may condemn all of humanity > except those who chose as we do because we leave open the option of > deciding to destroy them. If we make no commitment to humanity then > why should humanity aid or even tolerate our existence? Who cares > how fast and deeply we can think or how much raw power we wield if we > remain a stunted disassociated chimps psychologically? The power of > gods should not be given to stunted chimps. Self-selected psychology is, of course, one of the elements that is often bandied about as a PostHuman trait. But are you arguing for the inclusion of some sort of "we love humanity" meme on the basis of its inherent value, or merely as something that is necessary at the onset of PostHumanity, as a sort of tactical maneuver? > We do not have to have an "evolutionary struggle" of the kind you may > have in mind unless we decide to. That is my point. What are we > willing to commit to? How much are we willing to grow to be ready to > command the powers of a god? We must learn to go beyond models that > no longer confine beings such as we are becoming. The non-posthumans > can not even pose a threat a bit further down the road. There is no > real struggle for survival at that point. Until then the question is > why humanity should give birth to us and allow us to grow beyond our > vulnerable stage. Clearly it should not do so without some > assurances as to our subsequent treatment of humanity. > > I was reluctant to indulge my flights of fancy, and this is exactly why. I don't "have in mind" the sort of conflict I described. I was merely putting it out as one of many possibilities. > That is indeed possible but it is not the assurance that is needed for > our own sanity. To force transcension seems almost a contradiction in > terms. It is likely a matter of much more than merely upgrading the > hardware. Do you really want to bring to full posthuman capability > someone violently opposed? It is far better to offer gentle slopes > and persuasion. With medical nanotech around there is no great hurry > for people to be ready and willing to become posthuman. They can > dawdle for centuries if they wish. They can even die if they wish. You and I might agree with that point of view today. But our PostHuman selves might look back on this email and smile condescendingly at our niavete. Remember, I'm just idly speculating here; my point is we can't KNOW what we'll think, and anything we say today could be completely reversed after we're Gods. > >> Now you're getting into the "what will the Singularity after the >> Singularity be like?" Obviously, we can't know. But for now, we can >> tentatively say we can apply the same principle, subject to revision >> once our several-orders-of-magnitude-smarter intellects deal with the >> question. > > > There are many steps between here and there and many more I suspect > thereafter. That is part of a the difference between Singularity and > Rapture. Just because we can't see past the Singularity is no reason > to suppose there is no further development on the other side. Of course not! There will absolutely be development post-Singularity (more than we can imagine, most likely). But we, by definition have no idea what form it'll take. So unless you're writing for Analog, such speculation is useless. :-) > Everyone will not pay for their own if the un-upgraded are no longer > employable. I suggest that part of the price of the birth of > posthumanity is a compact with humanity. Part of the compact may be > that in exchange for our birth we improve the processes and make > uplift available to all who desire it and have prepared or are willing > to be prepared for it. It seem a reasonable thing to ask. So I > disagree with both of the answers above. What if the "practical abundance" you mentioned above becomes a reality? Then "employable" ceases to be a meaningful category. And I'm all in favor of allowing as many people to transition to PostHumanity as want to. But you seem to be saying that nobody should be able to until everyone is able to. I happen to think that waiting until everyone can partake would be like waiting to build the first car until everyone can have one, or the first PC until we can give one to everyone on the planet. There are going to be "first adopters" of any technology, and I am doing everything I can to not only make sure those technologies become available, but that I'm first in line. I refuse to forego my own ascention on the merest _possibility_ that the distribution of such technology is inequitable, waiting until I am assured that everyone gets their immortal intelligence-enhanced body. Is it right that I am denied my PostHuman state because _everyone_ can't do it too? I think not. >> >> I daresay if you asked that question of James Hughes and Max More, >> you would get pretty much diametrically opposed answers. Yet each is >> a Transhumanist in his own way, because that's a question of methods, >> not goals. Personally, I don't think it's practical to force equality >> of capability short of a social system that would make Aldous Huxley >> blush. I favor personal competition, tempered by the intervention of >> society as a whole when such competition spills over into realms >> where it proves detrimental to society as a whole (I am thinking of >> Icelandic feud as an example of a social convention used to regulate >> individual conflict, keeping it from degenerating into whole-scale >> civil war; there are many others). > > > I think this may be a modeling that we don't carry forward but I could > be wrong. > After the Singularity? All bets are off. But right now, we need to figure out what sort of pre-Singularity socio-political structure will allow the maximum number of people to ascend to PostHumanity once the time comes. I happen to think a (small-r) republican-capitalist system (as we have here in the US) is optimal, while others think anarcho-capitalism or democratic socialism are the answer. Well, such is the debate in the marketplace of ideas... > It goes both ways. There will be those sooner or later whose > abilities extent beyond anything you wish to pursue. The point of > "enough" comes to even a posthuman. Unless we set out to create a > world where to rest is to be in mortal danger. Again, it is our > choice. I will not chose an infinite hampster wheel of continuous > upgrades or else as the goal of my becoming posthuman. I would > sooner run away to a nunnery. Abilities I don't want to pursue? What are these words of which you speak? They are foreign to me... ;-) As Benjamin Franklin said, "When you're finished changing, you're finished." >> Not at all; it just provides a point of reference from which we _can_ >> start talking about the thorny issues, especially since there seem to >> be well-defined camps with different opinions on the best way to >> approach some of them. Which is what we're doing right here (and I >> might argue which is one of the main purposes of these sorts of >> discussion lists, especially this one and WTA-talk). > > > Yes indeed. Thank you for the conversation. And you! Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/27/05) From riel at surriel.com Sat Apr 30 04:39:18 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05042722572244e571@mail.gmail.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <710b78fc05042722572244e571@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Emlyn wrote: > To me it's pretty clear that in an environment containing > non-negligible posthuman and human populations, humans will quickly > die out due to inability to compete. Given that the gap between > posthumans and humans is likely to be much larger than that between > neanderthals and modern humans*, I expect it'd happen pretty quickly. Assuming posthumans are interested in living in the shadow at the bottom of a gravity well. Then again, posthumanism may well have started with the cell phone - how long until people will stop carrying around their cell phone and use implants? Will people stop talking through those implants and communicate thoughts more directly? Language-less communication has obvious stealth benefits to the intelligence community, so chances are money will be invested in this kind of technology. Posthumans could be smart monkeys with embedded cell phones/PDAs, or completely transformed creatures able of living in hard vacuum. With a bit of luck, we could even have both... -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 07:31:43 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:31:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: References: <470a3c52050429014250191ce3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050430003150bd3028@mail.gmail.com> Not *always* of course. If a Champion Of The Truth is locked in jail, he is not able to kill others. I am also willing to concede that there are people who are convinced that they know The Truth, but choose to be tolerant and respectful of others who do not. I don't have any problem with them. But my point is that conviction of knowledge of Truth *can* lead to mass murder and *does* lead to mass murder (countless examples from History here). So since the notion of moral Truth does not make much practical difference for many people (for example, I am not interested in it but try making good moral choices anyway), and can have very dangerous consequences in the hands of others, I try to saty away from it. G. On 4/29/05, Brian Lee wrote: > > > >From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > >To: ExI chat list > >Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism > >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:42:01 +0200 > > > >I don't see what point you are making. Assuming you are referring to > >the last paragraph quoted as a non-sequitur, let me rephrase it: > >History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the > >Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough > >reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can. > > This is inaccurate. Conviction of knowledge of Truth does not *always* lead > to mass murder. Making overly broad, indefensible statements like this > weakens the rest of your argument. > > Additionally, in relation to mathematics and some sciences, objective Truth > exists. > > BAL From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Sat Apr 30 11:54:55 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:54:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050430003150bd3028@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I think if you remove, religion, nationalism and bunch of other factors your historical examples of mass murder in the pursuit of absolute Truth dissolve. So then I ask, is it the absolute Truth that is bad, or the nationalism behind it? Or the perceived science behind it? Etc etc. This type of reasoning if frequently heard for why organised religion is so bad, and so forth. Of course it is obligatory of me to point out how civil rights activists were "Champions of the Truth". No mass murder and the biggest US reform in the second half of the 20th century. BAL >From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 >To: Brian Lee , ExI chat list > >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism >Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:31:43 +0200 > >Not *always* of course. If a Champion Of The Truth is locked in jail, >he is not able to kill others. I am also willing to concede that there >are people who are convinced that they know The Truth, but choose to >be tolerant and respectful of others who do not. I don't have any >problem with them. >But my point is that conviction of knowledge of Truth *can* lead to >mass murder and *does* lead to mass murder (countless examples from >History here). So since the notion of moral Truth does not make much >practical difference for many people (for example, I am not interested >in it but try making good moral choices anyway), and can have very >dangerous consequences in the hands of others, I try to saty away from >it. >G. > >On 4/29/05, Brian Lee wrote: > > > > > > >From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > > >To: ExI chat list > > >Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism > > >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:42:01 +0200 > > > > > >I don't see what point you are making. Assuming you are referring to > > >the last paragraph quoted as a non-sequitur, let me rephrase it: > > >History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the > > >Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough > > >reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can. > > > > This is inaccurate. Conviction of knowledge of Truth does not *always* >lead > > to mass murder. Making overly broad, indefensible statements like this > > weakens the rest of your argument. > > > > Additionally, in relation to mathematics and some sciences, objective >Truth > > exists. > > > > BAL From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Apr 30 15:48:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430154831.69749.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 08:40:41PM -0700, spike wrote: > > > Has there been sufficient consideration of the great potential > > to cut oil consumption? An unspoken blessing of the US > > If the fuel price goes up, so does good transportation, which will > bring some > transport companies out of business and result in higher prices of > basic > goods for end customers. This will reduce consumption. > > > appetite for gas guzzling SUVs is that we have the potential > > to cut way back in short order just by driving the less-used > > second car. > > I would start with insulating your house and use a passive solar > system for water and heating. Ugh, talk about horrendous cost per kwh (solar, not the insulation). a) if you have not already, convert every light bulb in your home to compact fluorescent or LED (LED where you can and as product is available, CF everywhere else. They now make CF bulbs that fit most every light bulb geometry in the range of a standard incandescent bulb or larger. Some smaller, but the smaller ones can be done with LED more efficiently. b) if you house has rain gutters and spouts, save your rain water with barrels, then use that water to water your lawn. Saving water saves energy too. c) put glazings on your windows which allow light in at low angles, less at high angles, and which reflect IR. d) if you have a pool you never use, and don't plan on using, get a rigid cover for it which is highly insulative and reflective. This is where solar panels would come in effective: cooling that water, and rigging a heat exchanger in the water to cool your house with. Ways to improve gas milage: a) a gas condensator/reatomizer: http://www.agsint.com/conden.shl This is a device that captures 'blow by gasoline', i.e. gasoline that doesn't burn in combustion or which blows by the rings or the valve seals into the engine ventilation system. This fuel is condensed then reatomized into the intake manifold airstream. Claims a 40% improvement in milage. b) catalytic injector: http://nationalfuelsaver.com/ This device uses the positive crankcase ventilation hose to inject a vaporized amount of platinum, rhodium, and other catalytic metals into the intake manifold airstream, to the point that after a few thousand miles of operation, the combustion chambers are coated with catalytic metals, thus vastly increasing combustion of fuel from 68% up to 90%. I have personally used one of these devices, on a 1984 Toyota SR4 Pickup truck I had. I boosted milage from 22 mpg to 27 mpg, and power increased as well. c) install platium coated spark plugs. in particular, try the splitfire or multi-electrode spark plugs. The 4x ones are overkill, BTW. Double electrode (2x) platinum spark plugs will help significantly. b and c work because they help burn fuel that otherwise would not burn in the engine, and would instead be burnt in the catalytic converter, which doesn't contribute to the work your engine is doing. Why car makers aren't coating combustion chamber heads and piston tops with platinum and rhodium ceramic is a good question. > > > What do you make of this article from the Chicago Trib? > > > > spike > > > > > > Ethanol prices in free fall even as cost of gas goes up > > Ethanol via destillation from fermented biomass is completely insane. > It's > good for niche applications for developing countries, who don't have > access > to modern processes and can afford to waste a lot of acreage and > energy to > generate fuel with a terrible efficiency. Ditto biodiesel from > rapeseed. > > You have to use a process which uses the entire biomass to do it > right. This > will be still a no go for countries with dense population, and good > environmental protection. > > Methanol/ethanol in vehicular fuel cells, synthesized from synthesis > gas from > Methane/Coal/Oil/Biomass is an excellent idea. > > Methane fuel cells in domestic application for joint electricity/heat > generation is an excellent idea, and a large step towards hydrogen > economy. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Sat Apr 30 19:17:46 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:17:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <8fa89f4138184e1fa588b94955f10bd2@mac.com> References: <002701c54ad5$8ba234c0$6601a8c0@hplaptop> <8fa89f4138184e1fa588b94955f10bd2@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050430191746.GF21410@leitl.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 01:59:32PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >This discussion ignores the fact that one can manufacture gasoline out > >of a few dollars of electricity right from the carbon dioxide in the > >air > >and hydrogen in the water. > > Hahahaha. Show me how that is economical. While one could develop electro-/photosynthesis routes to, say, methanol from CO2 and water it's a bit silly. It's much easier to use fossil and renewable (biomass) sources of carbon, and synthesize both fuel and synthetic precursors from there (perhaps using nuclear fission for process heat, if you want to minimize CO2 output overall) -- via Fischer-Tropsch process' modern variants. But we can do much better still by directly using photovoltaics and novel batteries (high power density, many recharge cycles, rapid recharging) to drive vehicles for personal transportation. It would be much better still to use telepresence over broadband (I understand Japan rolls out 1 GBit fiber Ethernet to the curb, with last leg being Fast Ethernet, for cheap), and not move atoms at all, if you can avoid it. The peak oil issue is very serious, though, for psychological reasons. If wide, sudden realization that demand surges on while output decays sets in the market reaction won't be pretty, and prices will suddenly go through the roof (and will stay there, for a while) -- which will cause all kind of disruptions which will make the Oil Shock look like the picnic it was. So, I don't think we can afford to dismiss the Peak Oil issue. We've already have been dragging our collective feet for over 35 years on hydrogen economy, we *will* have to deal with it eventually, so why not now? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Apr 30 19:47:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:47:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap (was: Spain has become the third country in Europe to legalise gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050430194703.GH21410@leitl.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 02:21:37PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >I think the idea of the posthuman label is to denote an end to people > >As We Know Them, > >and TEOTWAWKI in general. > > > >For some strange reason, this is still controversial to some > >transhumanists. > > Is it a "strange reason" that most of us enjoy being a person as we Absolutely no disagreement there. Life's good, and all that. But, long-term (not necessarily long in terms of the wall-clock) there (hopefully, or all this is moot) will be increasingly more and more options available, and also a mounting pressure to choose between them. Being a baby is nice, too, but we all have moved on since. I presume people would frown if some (assuming, it was possible) decided to stay at that stage indefinitely. (Breastfeeding, diaper rash, and cuddly toys in bright colors, and all that funky poo. Weee! I take it all back). > know them and are more than a bit put off by the notion that there may > be no place for the majority of people around us in your apparent It is not my vision. I, personally, would prefer babies could stay babies indefinitely, if that's what they really want to do. But the point is that the world doesn't care, and it is not a good idea to try to serenely float in the amniotic fluid towards the far (which could be soon) future. > vision of a posthuman world? Are we supposed to just go blindly full > tilt forward with little or no care what happens to the world as we Actually, the very opposite. You're supposed to care, and make plans, to minimize the amount of potential disruption and mayhem. > know it and its people? If that is the view then I hope that it > remains exceedingly controversial. I'd be happy if we could start a constructive discussion on the premise that the human primate bauplan people are going to become an endangered species sometime within this century, or slightly beyond, and will need a protection plan and rehabilitation programme. The only option straight out is the "head in the sand" one (because it's indistinguishable from "welcome to the fossil record", which would kinda suck). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 30 19:12:10 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:12:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] test - ignore Message-ID: For some reason I am no longer receiving hat list posts on my primary account. I think the upgrade to Tiger OS X at nearly the time this happened was only coincidence. From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Apr 30 21:19:59 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:19:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy + capitalism. From my research, democracy and capitalism lean toward compatibility and could be helpful advocates of human rights. Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial relations between nations could be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human rights? Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Fri Apr 29 16:12:23 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe Message-ID: <20050429161223.8883757EE6@finney.org> A good thought experiment is Conway's game of Life. This is a two dimensional cellular automoton (CA) model with simple rules that provides for interestingly complex behavior. "Gliders", "spaceships", "blinkers" and other types of objects exist in Life. It has been shown that it is possible to build computers in the Life universe, using streams of gliders to carry information. We can simulate the Life universe in our own, using computers. Programs to do this are widely available. In the same way, it may be possible to simulate our own universe in Life, using computers in the Life universe. What about concepts like mass or energy? Do they have correlates in the Life universe? Not in any simple form. The number of "on" and "off" cells varies considerably from generation to generation. It might be possible to identify some measures that are roughly conserved over time, but there is nothing obvious, at least at the scale where we usually observer Life. It's hard to say what the "cost" of computation is in Life. There may not be any such thing that we can perceive and understand. Hal From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com Fri Apr 29 20:48:45 2005 From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:48:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42729DAD.9090007@dsl.pipex.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >The universe, as we presently know and understand it, does not seem to >care about old ladies. > Sure it does. In so far as we can say there are old ladies in the universe, we can say there's also caring-about-old-ladies in the universe. Things like "old ladies" and "caring-about-old-ladies" are about equally problematic when it comes to the connection between representation and world. >Others may say, well the old lady is past reproductive age and probably has nothing left to contribute to the biological or memetic evolution of the human race. She is consuming or holding resources that should be given to younger generations. Her flat should be given to a younger person who can still have children or develop breakthrough ideas. The money of her pension should be put to a productive use. Ergo, the moral thing to do is NOT helping her to cross the street: the sooner she is killed by a car, the better. > > I think we can have a perfectly naturalistic assessment of this situation. In this case, the statement is an intentionally contrarian example, and thus we can dismiss it. >I think this is bullshit. Can I prove that it is bullshit in terms of >any absolute, objective, or whatever morality? No. > I just gave what I consider a pretty good hypothesis as to why the statement is bullshit; you can probably corroborate it for me. You may think I'm being disingenuous, but that's my point: that just *is* a naturalistic account of morality. A moral is, loosely, a representation that becomes stable within some population and alters moral behaviour. A naturalistic account of morality asks how this happens. Philosophy books are filled with pages of statements that, on such a naturalistic account of morality, we can probably safely ignore, simply because, as moral representations, they don't have legs. (They might illuminate other aspects of moral psychology, however.) What sort of moral things do people do in practise? How do they differ between groups? As far as I know, this is an area where differences aren't extreme. The sort of extreme moral situations we do see tend to concern inter-group dynamics; either in-group fundamentalism in reaction to an outside challenge to group integrity, or the perceived necessity to one group of destroying another. In less extreme circumstances, we can usefully ask what leads to situations where people routinely break moral norms. Since I doubt the average criminal's career choice was made through a sense of moral autonomy, I don't think this is likely to present any problems of the sort we're discussing. Where morals do differ, we might be tempted to lapse back into relativism. But if there is no fact as to which moral you should accept, then we can happily eliminate moral conflicts by arbitrarily changing prevalent morality. Basically, we can operate under a form of utilitarianism where utility is defined as the satisfaction of innate moral intuitions. Whereas it isn?t obvious on most accounts of utilitarianism whether the increase of utility is a genuine moral good, on this account, the more moral satisfaction you have, the more moral satisfaction you have. Thus, what is ultimately moral is what can become stable within a population and morally satisfies the most people. Unlike a criminal, a sociopath might make a convincing argument for moral autonomy, which leads to a more difficult question. Is there a standpoint from which we can judge whether moral intuition is functioning properly? Pragmatically, the answer is probably yes; on a deeper level, I'm not sure. That presents a problem for transhumanists, who might want to alter their moral intuitions. Then we can ask, Are there moral intuitions that are necessary given X, Y, Z? Where X, Y, Z are general axioms of the space of autonomous intelligent beings. Is it possible to answer this question? I don't know. Regardless, for our immediate purposes we don't need an answer, we can dissolve most problems in a straightforward way with a simple naturalistic approach. There are other objections here. For example, it might turn out to be the case that our intuitive moral expectations and our moral intuitions are always in conflict. Perhaps we routinely expect more than we're willing to give. Perhaps we expect types of things we cannot give at all. Resolving such issues would be problematic but they would at least be finite. BM From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Apr 29 20:53:27 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:53:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lanier: Exocomputing in the Year 2304 Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050429155041.01cb4cb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> [ I've just seen this abstract from July last year, sounds interesting. Does anyone have the complete text?] http://www.oopsla.org:8080/2004/ShowEvent.do?id=806 Onward! Keynote?Exocomputing in the Year 2304: A Survey of Confirmed Alien Information Technologies Ballroom A-B Thursday, 13:30, 1 hour 30 minutes ---------- Jaron Lanier, Interstellar Computer Science Institute: Jaron Lanier joined the Interstellar Computer Science Institute, based in Berkeley, CA, Earth, in 2303 as a Senior Research Scientist. He specializes in Virtual Reality, General Bio-information Theory, and Exocomputing. As more alien civilizations have been encountered in recent decades, a variety of exotic information technology strategies have come to light. It has often been difficult to analyze these technologies, as alien cognitive and social factors must be taken into account, and these are in themselves challenging to interpret. It is now becoming possible to present an overview of a variety of alien information technologies and to glean insights into how they might inform the future of human IT as well as what might be expected from future alien encounters. From scerir at libero.it Fri Apr 29 21:18:51 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:18:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe References: <20050423025438.39462.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com><004801c54997$1e8b1d50$fe00a8c0@HEMM> <426D78E0.7080500@cox.net><20050428234136.GB25963@leitl.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050428175036.01cf3108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c54d01$0aa838f0$92c61b97@administxl09yj> Dan: A simulation is a collection of information. Information (by definition, I think) requires that the information storage system is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, sot he storage system contains energy. But energy is mass. Eugene: This assumes the simulation metaverse is identical with this universe. For multiple reasons, it is unlikely that the metaverse physics is similiar to this universe's physics. Damien: You don't think it's a safe bet that however exotic the physics of any hypothetical substrate metaverse, information will not travel or be stored or transformed free of cost? Information should be whatever contributes to a reduction in the uncertainty of the state of a system. The old principle (Jaynes, 1957) says that a system is expected to be in the state with maximal entropy, because if it were in a state with a lower entropy it would also contain more information than previously specified. Information, then, seems to be [1,2] "local", sometimes even "subjective" [3]. Is there a "metaverse"? Is the physics of this "metaverse" different? In a certain sense QM is between that exotic physics of an hypothetical metaverse and the ordinary physics of the ordinary universe. The current interpretation of QM consists in a prescription for computing the probability of finding (after measurement) a certain state of affairs at a given time. One has to make use (by integration over space) of the *simultaneous* values of a certain function (of coordinates and time), at that particular time. But in another Lorentz frame things change: a given region at a given time is no longer the same given region at the same given time; so the prescription for computing the probability of finding a certain quantum state must be changed, and must be changed also because the store of *simultaneous* values of that function (of coordinates and time) that the prescription uses for computing the probabilities is, in general, not independent of the specific Lorentz frame. Here comes the magic. Following the above reasoning we expect that, i.e., the information about the probability of a particle being at a distance x comes to us with a signal velocity c. Then |wavefunction(x,t - r/c)|^2 should represent the probability that a particle is at x, as seen at the origin. The normalization expression should then be Integral(t=fixed) |wavefunction(x,t - r/c)|^2 ds = 1 where ds is a measure of the backward light cone. QM, instead, uses the magic normalization expression Integral(t=fixed) |wavefunction(x,t)|^2 dxdxdx = 1 which means that the probability space, at a fixed time, implies that we have *istantaneous* information of probabilities at all distances, and we add up all these probabilities equal to one. Here starts the nonlocality/nonseparability issue, at least if you think there is, out there, a real space-time. But if you remove this belief [4], this faith, you realize that QM is close to be the exotic physics of an hypothetical metaverse. [1] Asher Peres http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310010 [2] Asher died recently, his story, nice read http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0404085 [3] David Mermin http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0107151 [4] "Most physicists are happy with our experimental results: they conclude that quantum theory is once again well supported by experimental data. (Some will even claim that the experiments where not necessary since they know that quantum theory is correct!). However, the issue is not a matter of happiness or of simple belief in a theory! If the speed of quantum information is indeed infinite, or non-existing, then we are left with the two remaining alternatives: either space-time or free will is an illusion. I am tempted to vote for the first one! But - again - it is not a matter of personal preference. The real problem for physics is the following: how could one test it?" -Nicolas Gisin From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 29 22:49:34 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429224935.22833.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of > the > Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough > reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can. How about being one but not the sole depository, along with the knowledge that all depositories (including oneself) are incomplete and have some non-Truth, each one having a different set? :) From riel at surriel.com Sat Apr 30 04:31:11 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap In-Reply-To: <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > If it is wrong for them to keep us relatively dumb and short-lived would > it be right for us to force >human intelligence and indefinitely long > life span on them against their wishes? That's just a post-human variation on the pro-life movement. Very much against the libertarian principles many of the people on this list hold when it comes to other areas. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 30 22:33:01 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Test In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430223302.21314.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> *PING* . . . Anybody out there? . . . *PING* The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com