From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 1 02:52:43 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:52:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Please tell us a tree story Spike (long, not particularly extropian) In-Reply-To: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200509010254.j812sfw10514@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > > Yes I shall see something more wonderous than a tree: two > trees that have fallen in opposite directions... spike Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Before the students entered the classroom, the teacher turned the plate > around... kevinfreels wrote: > Maybe they fell at different times from different storms? BillK wrote: > Most likely solution, after the first fall had weakened the roots of > the second tree. OK cool, you are thinking. While hiking at Mount Rainier last week in the old growth forests, I made a number of observations about trees. In an old growth forest in the US northwest, the trees in the biggie range (two to four meter diameter) grow at a typical spacing of 10 to 15 meters. The distribution is not random, which should come as no surprise, because trees compete for resources. They distribute themselves more evenly than random. I did see something puzzling however. There are a number of big trees that are so close they touch. There are more trees that touch at their bases than there are trees that are 3 meters apart. I saw two trees that had fallen in opposite directions. This was not so remarkable, for one might imagine a whirlwind or tornado which has winds in opposite directions simultaneously. I noted that the two trees, if mentally set upright, would actually intersect. The roots on the up side were bent and gnarly (dude), perhaps from competing with the other tree. You may already know of the materials property of wood: it is highly anisotropic. This is a fancy engineering way of saying its strength is highly dependent on load and direction. Snap a toothpick, cut it with a scissor, crush it lengthwise, easy, easy, easy, since wood is a low strength material in compression, shear and bending load. But now try to pull that toothpick apart lengthwise. It will give you a new respect for the tensile strength of wood, and a new respect for the carbon-carbon bond. Back to trees: If you have strong roots on three sides and bent gnarly roots on one side, the most likely direction of fall is gnarly roots up, since the strong roots are unlikely to fail in tension. But they might fail in bending. In an old growth forest, old dead trees fall and become nurse logs: other trees germinate on the log itself, then devour the nutrients in the nurse log. If you have an old growth forest nearby, do look for nurse logs. I noticed that the newly germinated trees were more likely to sprout not on the top of the fallen log, but on the sides, where the cylindrical surface was about 45 degrees from horizontal. Perhaps the rough bark surface could trap more water for a longer time there than on the top of the log? If you find a nurse log, see if you find that there are two rows of newly germinated trees, along either side of the nurse log. Perhaps this would explain why there are so many touching pairs of trees: they both started about the same time on either side of the same nurse log, so neither had a big advantage over the other. They grew up together as twins. Now imagine branches growing out of the trunk toward the twin tree. The two steadily push on each other as the branches grow. In every case where I saw twin trees touching at their bases, they grew apart to form an enormous V. So they were leaning in just the wrong way, depending on their weak gnarly roots on the side that needed the enormous strength of wood in tension. The last bit of the puzzle was provided by twin trees whose roots had been force mostly above ground on the other- tree side, each wrapping around its twin in a root-amentary embrace ({8^D). One could easily imagine that the underground roots were interlaced, as one would interlace one's fingers to crack one's knuckles. With that mental picture one need not call for a whirlwind, but rather the ordinary storm gust strong enough to push over one of the twins, whose roots would then lever the other out of the ground in the opposite direction. Problem solved! As I walked among these stately patriarchs, I marveled at the changes they have seen in their centuries. Filled with awe and wonder was I at their steadfast perseverance across the generations of us temporary primates. My mind boggled as I struggled to comprehend just how much they would be worth if cut up into something useful. Kidding, bygones, I have made arrangements to go to Montana (on a motorcycle of course) to go look at old growth forest. Trees are cool. spike From davidmc at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 04:01:24 2005 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:01:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore In-Reply-To: <200508310358.j7V3wsO28659@tick.javien.com> References: <2DE9D54D-8DEA-4395-BF26-BED694486444@mac.com> <200508310358.j7V3wsO28659@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: The list was down again for a few hours today. As far as I can tell the cause is unrelated to the downtime last weekend. Just Murphy at work :-/ David On 8/30/05, spike wrote: > I was on vacation. Pondering trees. {8-] spike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:07 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore > > > > Something appears to have been wrong with the list. I sent a note to > > Natasha and spike when I noticed Saturday. I got no reply. This > > isn't the first time. > > > > - s > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Sep 1 04:55:16 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:55:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?] Message-ID: <431689B4.3050908@mindspring.com> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:31:00 -0700, "Terry W. Colvin" fnarded: >There is a professional society of which I have been a member >for over 20 years, SAWE, the Society of Aerospace Weight >Engineers. We sit around and argue about stuff like this. Really. >If you take issue with any of these concepts, do speak >up and state your reasoning. There are a lot of interesting points presented here, but I do have some concerns about going small and light-weight for crew selection on future manned missions. Designing for absolute minimum weight aerospace vehicles is fraught with problems. Current aircraft have a great deal of work done to define the performance criteria of the vehicle, the loading it is expected to encounter and such like - referred to as its "design envelope". Many moons ago I worked on a British military aircraft that had undergone a drastic weight reduction exercise, that employed a variety of techniques (using minimum thickness skins, scalloped edges to cleats and plating, punched and dished holes, the works). While a measure of weight as saved, it made the vehicle so difficult to manufacture that the cost increases by far outweighed any operational savings. it also wrapped the structural capability of the aircraft very close to its performance envelope - thinner skins oilcanned and flexed, the scalloped edges around fastener holes reduced the fatigue life, and so on. In a nutshell, while there are advantages to making stringent size and weight requirements on your crew, simply making a tight, lightweight design is not the complete answer. I also have a bit of a problem with the physical requirements placed on a crew. You have also to be concerned with whether or not a given cew member can coe with possible extremes that could be encounteed on a long-term mission. Coping with extremes of temperature, air pressure, acceleration and the like, must also be considered when choosing a crew. Would, for example, a person of a more delicate stature be capable of enduring a longer or more rigorous work schedule? Where does the cut-off occur between body size and work rate? Simply saying "Astronaut A is thirty percent lighter than Astronaut B, so has a sixty percent less consumable rate" doesn't mean much if Astronaut B can do twice the work in a given time and needs to take fewer rest breaks. Okay, sitting in the cabin of a spacecraft on a zero-g coast between Earth and Mars is going to favour the lightweight crew member. But lugging bits of gear about on the surface of Mars when they get there is going to put a much greater strain on the smaller guy. The enclosed-volume-to-mass of a big space suit going to be a lot easier on the big guy than the little one, especially if things like backpacks and power supplies are standardised. I worked on the design of the cockpit of the Royal Australian Air Force Hawk fast jet trainer. Up until then most of our customers had been on the small side, and in the "one size fits all" aircraft our major worry was whether we could wind the rudder pedals far back enough for the aircrew to reach them. It was a bit of a culture shock to suddenly have to find room in this little aircraft for the six-footers that the Aussies were recruiting into their air force. As it is, I'm still worried that their heads are a touch too close for comfort to the explosive cutting strips fitted to the inside of the canopy Like they say, size (in either direction) isn't everything. Just a thought. Robin Hill, STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire. -- "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 spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 1 05:59:50 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:59:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for longduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <431689B4.3050908@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200509010601.j8161kw31304@tick.javien.com> > > "Terry W. Colvin" fnarded: > ... > > Designing for absolute minimum weight aerospace vehicles is fraught > with problems... Granted, however we are discussing only *scaling* as a function of the needs of the astronaut. This exercise is not about shaving close to the margin; the margin is the same for the smaller vehicle as it is for the larger. My notion is that under these extreme conditions, we can make a spherical hab module with a diameter about four times the height of the astronaut. Not roomy, but survivable. The notion then is that the diameter of the sphere scales with the height of the astronaut, and if so, the mass scales as the cube of that height, and if so, finding the smallest astronaut is everything. > ... While a measure of weight as saved, it made the vehicle > so difficult to manufacture that the cost increases by far outweighed > any operational savings... Of course, but manufacturing constraints in aircraft, where you are making many, are not directly comparable to manufacturing constraints in spacecraft where you are making one or two. > ... - thinner skins > oilcanned and flexed... Not applicable to a spherical shell. > ...the scalloped edges around fastener holes > reduced the fatigue life, and so on... Generally not applicable to spacecraft. You would load up the sphere, insert the hapless astronaut, then weld the hatch closed. When she returns, the reentry vehicle would be attached and the hatch cut open. > In a nutshell, while there are advantages to making stringent size and > weight requirements on your crew, simply making a tight, lightweight > design is not the complete answer... OK, but spacecraft are not aircraft. I agree with all that is stated here for planes. > > I also have a bit of a problem with the physical requirements placed > on a crew. You have also to be concerned with whether or not a given > cew member can coe with possible extremes that could be encounteed > on a long-term mission... I grant you that it will take a very special person to pull this off. We have 6e9 people on this planet from which to choose. I think this special person exists somewhere. > Would, for example, a person of a more delicate > stature be capable of enduring a longer or more rigorous work schedule? Yes, I think this durable little person exists somewhere. Her job is a lot like a video game. I see little correlation between physical size and endurance at a video game console. > > Okay, sitting in the cabin of a spacecraft on a zero-g coast between > Earth and Mars is going to favour the lightweight crew member. But > lugging bits of gear about on the surface of Mars when they get there > is going to put a much greater strain on the smaller guy... Ja I should have defined this mission more carefully. There is no lugging stuff around on the surface in this scenario. The mission is to insert into Martian synchronous orbit for a little over two years, during which the astronaut guides robots on the surface which build things that humans will later use: manufacturing facilities, a pressure vessel for growing plants and living in, etc. After 2.4 years, the craft leaves Mars orbit, injects into LEO, docks with a reentry vehicle and comes home. We can carry enough delta V to do all this with current technology. In 2.4 years, she should be able to get some cool stuff accomplished. > ... > Like they say, size (in either direction) isn't everything... In aircraft, I agree. In Mars missions, size matters more than anything. spike ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ From amara at amara.com Thu Sep 1 06:31:16 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:31:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective Message-ID: spike: >ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that >flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ Yes, it is bad. And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that reported?) And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for example). 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/ ******************************************************************** "In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 07:18:34 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for longduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <200509010601.j8161kw31304@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050901071834.89005.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Ja I should have defined this mission more > carefully. There > is no lugging stuff around on the surface in this > scenario. The > mission is to insert into Martian synchronous orbit > for a little over > two years, during which the astronaut guides robots > on the > surface which build things that humans will later > use: manufacturing > facilities, a pressure vessel for growing plants and > living in, > etc. After 2.4 years, the craft leaves Mars orbit, > injects into LEO, > docks with a reentry vehicle and comes home. You should have said this first. Mission specifications mean everything in picking an ideal crew. If this is the case then an overachieving midget or a paraplegic person would be ideal. I know of many amputees capable of walking on their hands. I do not understand why you think it ought to be woman as upper body strength especially in a paraplegic might be important. > We can carry enough delta V to do all this with > current > technology. In 2.4 years, she should be able to get > some > cool stuff accomplished. > > In aircraft, I agree. In Mars missions, size > matters more > than anything. It depends entirely on the mission objectives. For an actual planet-fall mission, a diverse crew in body types, sexes, specialties, and skill sets would be ideal. To have an all midget crew in this circumstance would be tempting natural selection by lack of diversity. It would be essentially putting all our eggs in one basket. They could all remain in a sedated sleep for the trip there. The mission doctor could be a midget and stay awake for the trip to take care of the crew and awaken them upon arrival. During the trip there, the sleepers would require little more than a closets worth of space. Anyways, your midget fetish makes a little more sense now, Spike. ;) I actually know a midget deliveryman at work. He delivers dry ice to all the labs on campus and routinely hauls several hundreds of pounds of dry ice around. He is very strong for his size. If he has other appropriate skills and talents, he might be an ideal candidate. > > ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn > that > flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ I agree. But lots of people are doing great things now for their fellows. The point of tragedy is that it must be overcome and it brings out the best in our species. I do object to them pulling cops away from search and rescue to keep starving people from looting abandoned stores in New Orleans. If the store owners object so much, why don't they come to work and man the register? I am sure a lot of those people would happily pay for their food, if they had that option. I for one would do whatever it took to survive. 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 Thu Sep 1 08:25:29 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 01:25:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are we so busy worrying our egos about our or their fairness that we are not present to the horror or loss of any and/or all deaths? Evolved primates (probably evolved any old sentient) will feel the loss most keenly for those of nearest relationship. That would be a great start if we really felt it, down to the bone, and did not forget or distract ourselves with side issues. - samantha On Aug 31, 2005, at 11:31 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > spike: > >> ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that >> flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ >> > > Yes, it is bad. > > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > example). > > 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/ > ******************************************************************** > "In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 1 10:42:37 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:42:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:25:29AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Are we so busy worrying our egos about our or their fairness that we > are not present to the horror or loss of any and/or all deaths? > Evolved primates (probably evolved any old sentient) will feel the > loss most keenly for those of nearest relationship. That would be a > great start if we really felt it, down to the bone, and did not > forget or distract ourselves with side issues. Since we cannot yet change us to feel so, crude ratio-level patches such as periodic reminding us that coverage is frequently biased is the only available solution. FWIW, though this snafu is greatly overreported in comparison to the tsunami catastrophe, it is vastly underreported in the mass media (I'm tracking this third-hand from a critical care/relief POV) in regards to the severity and accumulating damage trainwreck. A strong sentiment from those in the trenches is outrage in regards to lack of preparedness and incompetence and slowness in relief. Here's hope that heads will roll. It is really quite awful, and most U.S. folks are not getting it yet. Now back to our regular programme of lunacy, and mental masturbation. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 1 12:14:31 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:14:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] AID to ExI members & other Transhumanists in LA, MS, AL Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050901070706.047bfd30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I am re-posting this message because we have had a number of responses from transhumanists who are offering their homes for people to stay, and other types of assistance. But I have not heard if anyone knows of transhumanists who live in the areas that were affected by Katrina. I urge you to please contact me or info at extropy.org if you know of anyone who needs help or have other suggestions to provide care for our members, friends and family members in this devastated region. Thank you, Natasha >Transhumanists - > >If you know of anyone who is located in New Orleans and other areas on >Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama who may need help, please contact the >Transhumanist Care program at Extropy Institute by sending email to >info at extropy.org > >I am not sure at this time what we can do, but I do know that if there are >transhumanists who are without homes, cloths, etc., we will do our best to >figure something out to help them. (There are ExI members throughout the >southern states who may be available to help.) > > >Many thanks, > >Natasha Vita-More >President Extropy Institute >Transhumanist Care Program Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iph1954 at msn.com Thu Sep 1 13:21:20 2005 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:21:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] C-R-Newsletter #33 Message-ID: Center for Responsible Nanotechnology Newsletter #33 August 31, 2005 To read this on the Web, with nice formatting and hyperlinks, go to http://www.crnano.org/archive05.htm#33 CONTENTS - CRN Forms Policy Task Force - Eric Drexler Joins Nanorex - Connecticut Schools Go Nano - NASA Website Covers CRN Work - CRN Goes to Vermont - CRN Goes to Chicago - CRN Goes to Bootcamp - Dimensions of Development - 13th Foresight Conference - Feature Essay: Molecular Manufacturing Design Software ========== We?re a little late getting the C-R-Newsletter out this month, but as you can see, we?ve been extremely busy. To keep up with the latest happenings on a daily basis, be sure to check our Responsible Nanotechnology weblog at http://CRNano.typepad.com/ NOTE: In the items below, links are indicated with [brackets], and shown at the end of each item. CRN Forms Policy Task Force The big news this month is that [CRN announced] the formation of a new Global Task Force to study the societal implications of advanced nanotechnology. Bringing together a diverse group of world-class experts from multiple disciplines, CRN will lead an historic, collaborative effort to develop comprehensive policy recommendations for the safe and responsible use of molecular manufacturing. Just [two weeks] after the initial announcement, which mentioned four ?charter members? of the CRN Task Force, we're up to 39 participants from six different countries. In addition, three organizations are publicly supporting this effort: the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, the Society of Police Futurists International, and the Nanotechnology Now web portal. Several online planning sessions have been held, and the CRN Task Force is now beginning its initial task: to itemize the necessary information that must be available in order to design wise and effective policy. http://www.crnano.org/PR-charter.htm http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/08/crn_task_force_.html Eric Drexler Joins Nanorex Nanorex, a molecular engineering software company based in Michigan, has named [Dr. K. Eric Drexler] as the company?s Chief Technical Advisor. [The company] said that Drexler will play a leading role in shaping Nanorex's product strategy and advancing the company?s academic outreach programs. Often described as the 'father of nanotechnology', Eric Drexler is on the [Board of Advisors] for CRN. His groundbreaking theoretical research has been the basis for three books, including [?Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation?], and numerous journal articles. Last year, he collaborated with Chris Phoenix, CRN's Director of Research, on [?Safe Exponential Manufacturing?], published in the Institute of Physics journal ?Nanotechnology.? In 1986, Drexler founded the [Foresight Nanotech Institute], a non-profit think tank and public interest organization focused on nanotechnology. He was awarded a PhD from MIT in Molecular Nanotechnology (the first degree of its kind). Drexler is expected to be deeply involved in the project to develop a [Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems], recently announced by Foresight and the Battelle research organization. http://e-drexler.com/p/idx04/00/0404drexlerBioCV.html http://www.nanorex.com/ http://www.crnano.org/about_us.htm#Advisors http://www.crnano.org/5min.htm http://www.crnano.org/papers.htm#Goo http://www.foresight.org/ http://www.foresight.org/cms/press_center/128 Connecticut Schools Go Nano Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell has enacted a [new law] requiring the Commissioner of Higher Education in her state to review the inclusion of nanotechnology, molecular manufacturing and advanced and developing technologies at institutions of higher education. CRN is pleased to note that this measure specifically designates molecular manufacturing as something that should be studied for inclusion in the curriculum at institutions of higher education. We encourage other states -- and indeed, other countries -- to follow Connecticut's lead. http://tinyurl.com/aljbt NASA Website Covers CRN Work The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), an independent, NASA-funded organization located in Atlanta, Georgia, was created to promote forward-looking research on radical space technologies that will take 10 to 40 years to come to fruition. Last year, NIAC [awarded a grant] to Chris Phoenix, CRN?s Director of Research, to conduct a feasibility study of nanoscale manufacturing. On NASA?s website, [an article] titled ?The Next Giant Leap? highlights the work NIAC is funding in nanotechnology research, and includes a description of the 112-page report Chris presented to them. We congratulate Chris on this much-deserved recognition. http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/09/niac_funds_crn_.html http://tinyurl.com/94luq CRN Goes to Vermont In late July, CRN principals Mike Treder and Chris Phoenix were invited to participate in a [special workshop] on ?geoethical nanotechnology,? held at a beautiful mountain retreat in Vermont. Our gracious host was Martine Rothblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics Corporation, and founder of the [Terasem Movement Foundation.] Among those [making presentations] were Ray Kurzweil, CEO of Kurzweil Technologies; Professor Frank Tipler of Tulane University; Douglas Mulhall, author of ?Our Molecular Future?; and Dr. Barry Blumberg, a Nobel Prize-winner in medicine and Founding Director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. CRN?s PowerPoint presentation for the event is available online [here.] Geoethical nanotechnology is defined as: the development and implementation under a global regulatory framework of machines capable of assembling molecules into a wide variety of objects, in a broad range of sizes, and in potentially vast quantities. http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/about_geoethica.html http://terasemfoundation.org/about.htm http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/applications_an.html http://www.terasemfoundation.org/webcast/ppt/Treder.ppt CRN Goes to Chicago Also in July, CRN Executive Director Mike Treder gave talks at two events in Chicago. First, at a special [nanotech symposium], Mike delivered a presentation called [?The Flat Horizon Problem: Nanotechnology on an Upward Slope?]. Then, during the annual conference of the World Future Society, Mike made a speech titled, [?Do Sweat the Small Stuff: Why Everyone Should Care About Nanotechnology?]. The conference, [WorldFuture 2005: Foresight, Innovation, and Strategy], was managed excellently and enjoyed huge attendance. http://www.crnano.org/SymposiumonNanotechnology_July05,Chicago_.pdf http://www.crnano.org/Speech%20-%20Upward%20Slope.ppt http://www.crnano.org/Speech%20-%20WFS%20-%20Web%20Version.ppt http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/08/wfs_conference_.html CRN Goes to Bootcamp In mid-July, CRN Research Director Chris Phoenix spent four days in Washington DC at a [Nano Training Bootcamp] sponsored by the ASME. He called it ?quite a brain-stretcher.? Topics included quantum mechanics, optics, thermoelectrics, nanolithography, and much more. Chris provided us with extensive blog reports during the event, so you can read about all the tech-talk from [Day One], [Day Two], [Day Three], and [Day Four]. http://www.asmeconferences.org/nanobootcamp05/speakers.cfm http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/nano_training_b.html http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc.html http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc_1.html http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc_2.html Dimensions of Development Many factors will determine how soon and how safely molecular manufacturing is integrated into society, including where, how openly, and how rapidly it is developed. Because nanotech manufacturing could be so disruptive and destabilizing, it is essential that we learn as much as possible about those factors and others. The more we know, the better we may be able to guide and manage this revolutionary transformation. Mike Treder?s [latest essay] for ?Future Brief? describes six different dimensions ? Number, Style, Venue, Approach, Program, and Pace ? along which molecular manufacturing may be developed. Making effective policy for the safe and responsible use of advanced nanotechnology will require a deep and comprehensive understanding of all six dimensions. To be effective, a coordinated and integrated strategy of multiple complimentary policies must be designed and implemented. (Note: At the time the essay was published, the [CRN Global Task Force on Implications and Policy] had not yet been announced.) http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederdimensions004.asp http://www.crnano.org/PR-charter.htm 13th Foresight Conference CRN is proud to be a media sponsor for the [13th Foresight Conference] on Advanced Nanotechnology. The title of the conference this year is "Advancing Beneficial Nanotechnology: Focusing on the Cutting Edge," and it will be divided into three stand-alone, complementary sessions ? Vision, Applications & Policy, and Research ? spread over six days. The conference is October 22-27, 2005, in San Francisco, California. They've got a great lineup of speakers, so we hope to see you there. http://foresight.org/conference2005/index.html Feature Essay: Molecular Manufacturing Design Software Chris Phoenix, Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology Nanofactories, controlled by computerized blueprints, will be able to build a vast range of high performance products. However, efficient product design will require advanced software. Different kinds of products will require different approaches to design. Some, such as high-performance supercomputers and advanced medical devices, will be packed with functionality and will require large amounts of research and invention. For these products, the hardest part of design will be knowing what you want to build in the first place. The ability to build test hardware rapidly and inexpensively will make it easier to do the necessary research, but that is not the focus of this essay. There are many products that we easily could imagine and that a nanofactory easily could build if told exactly how. But as any computer programmer knows, it's not easy to tell a computer what you want it to do?it's more or less like trying to direct a blind person to cook a meal in an unfamiliar kitchen. One mistake, and the food is spilled or the stove catches fire. Computer users have an easier time of it. To continue the analogy, if the blind person had become familiar with the kitchen, instructions could be given on the level of ?Get the onions from the left-hand vegetable drawer? rather than ?Move your hand two inches to your right... a bit more... pull the handle... bend down and reach forward... farther... open the drawer... feel the round things?? It is the job of the programmer to write the low-level instructions that create appliances from obstacles. Another advantage of modern computers, from the user's point of view, is their input devices. Instead of typing a number, a user can simply move a mouse, and a relatively simple routine can translate its motion into the desired number, and the number into the desired operation such as moving a pointer or a scroll bar. Suppose I wanted to design a motorcycle. Today, I would have to do engineering to determine stresses and strains, and design a structure to support them. The engineering would have to take into account the materials and fasteners, which in turn would have to be designed for inexpensive assembly. But these choices would limit the material properties, perhaps requiring several iterations of design. And that's just for the frame. Next, I would have to choose components for a suspension system, configure an engine, add an electrical system and a braking system, and mount a fuel tank. Then, I would have to design each element of the user interface, from the seat to the handgrips to the lights behind the dials on the instrument panel. Each thing the user would see or touch would have to be made attractive, and simultaneously specified in a way that could be molded or shaped. And each component would have to stay out of the way of the others: the engine would have to fit inside the frame, the fuel tank might have to be molded to avoid the cylinder heads or the battery, and the brake lines would have to be routed from the handlebars and along the frame, adding expense to the manufacturing process and complexity to the design process. As I described in lat month?s essay, most nanofactory-built human-scale products will be mostly empty space due to the awesomely high performance of both active and passive components. It will not be necessary to worry much about keeping components out of each other's way, because the components will be so small that they can be put almost anywhere. This means that, for example, the frame can be designed without worrying where the motor will be, because the motor will be a few microns of nanoscale motors lining the axles. Rather than routing large hydraulic brake lines, it will be possible to run highly redundant microscopic signal lines controlling the calipers?or more likely, the regenerative braking functionality built into the motors. It will not be necessary to worry about design for manufacturability. With a planar-assembly nanofactory, almost any shape can be made as easily as any other, because the shapes are made by adding sub-micron nanoblocks to selected locations in a supported plane of the growing product. There will be less constraint on form than there is in sand casting of metals, and of course far more precision. This also means that what is built can contain functional components incorporated in the structure. Rather than building a frame and mounting other pieces later, the frame can be built with all components installed, forming a complete product. This does require functional joints between nanoblocks, but this is a small price to pay for such flexibility. To specify functionality of a product, in many cases it will be sufficient to describe the desired functionality in the abstract without worrying about its physical implementation. If every cubic millimeter of the product contains a networked computer?which is quite possible, and may be the default?then to send a signal from point A to point B requires no more than specifying the points. Distributing energy or even transporting materials may not require much more attention: a rapidly rotating diamond shaft can transport more than a watt per square micron, and would be small enough to route automatically through almost any structure; pipes can be made significantly smaller if they are configured with continually inverting liners to reduce drag. Thus, to design the acceleration and braking behavior of the motorcycle, it might be enough to specify the desired torque on the wheels as a function of speed, tire skidding, and brake and throttle position. A spreadsheet-like interface could calculate the necessary power and force for the motors, and from that derive the necessary axle thickness. The battery would be fairly massive, so the user would position it, but might not have to worry about the motor-battery connection, and certainly should not have to design the motor controller. In order to include high-functionality materials such as motor arrays or stress-reporting materials, it would be necessary to start with a library of well-characterized ?virtual materials? with standard functionality. This approach could significantly reduce the functional density of the virtual material compared to what would be possible with a custom-designed solution, but this would be acceptable for many applications, because functional density of nano-built equipment may be anywhere from six to eighteen orders of magnitude better than today's equipment. Virtual materials could also be used to specify material properties such as density and elasticity over a wide range, or implement active materials that changed attributes such as color or shape under software control. Prototypes as well as consumer products could be heavily instrumented, warning of unexpected operating conditions such as excessive stress or wear on any part. Rather than careful calculations to determine the tradeoff between weight and strength, it might be better to build a first-guess model, try it on increasingly rough roads at increasingly high speeds, and measure rather than calculate the required strength. Once some parameters had been determined, a new version could be spreadsheeted and built in an hour or so at low cost. It would be unnecessary to trade time for money by doing careful calculations to minimize the number of prototypes. Then, for a low-performance application like a motorcycle, the final product could be built ten times stronger than was thought to be necessary without sacrificing much mass or cost. There are only a few sources of shape requirements. One is geometrical: round things roll, flat things stack, and triangles make good trusses. These shapes tend to be simple to specify, though some applications like fluid handling can require intricate curves. The second source of shape is compatibility with other shapes, as in a piece that must fit snugly to another piece. These shapes can frequently be input from existing databases or scanned from an existing object. A third source of shape is user preference. A look at the shapes of pen barrels, door handles, and eyeglasses shows that users are pleased by some pretty idiosyncratic shapes. To input arbitrary shapes into the blueprint, it may be useful to have some kind of interface that implements or simulates a moldable material like clay or taffy. A blob could simply be molded or stretched into a pleasing shape. Another useful technique could be to present the designer or user with several variations on a theme, let them select the best one, and build new variations on that until a sufficiently pleasing version is produced. Although there is more to product design than the inputs described here, this should give some flavor of how much more convenient it could be with computer-controlled rapid prototyping of complete products. Elegant computer-input devices, pervasive instrumentation and signal processing, virtual material libraries, inexpensive creation of one-off spreadsheeted prototypes, and several other techniques could make product design more like a combination of graphic arts and computer programming than the complex, slow, and expensive process it is today. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FUNDRAISING ALERT! Recent developments in efforts to roadmap the technical steps toward molecular manufacturing make the work of CRN more important than ever. It is critical that we examine the global implications of this rapidly emerging technology, and begin designing wise and effective policy. That?s why we have formed the CRN Task Force. But it won?t be easy. We need to grow, and rapidly, to meet the expanding challenge. Your donation to CRN will help us to achieve that growth. We rely largely on individual donations and small grants for our survival. To make a contribution on-line click this link > https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=5594 This is important work and we welcome your participation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Fine Print: The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology(TM) is an affiliate of World Care(R), an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. All donations to CRN are handled through World Care. The opinions expressed by CRN do not necessarily reflect those of World Care. Sign up for a FREE subscription to the C-R-Newsletter -- http://crnano.org/contact.htm#Newsletter From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 1 15:01:07 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:01:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011503.j81F37w30017@tick.javien.com> Amara wrote: > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > example). > > Amara They did mention it, but didn't really get to the point. Reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2005 -08-31T135023Z_01_DIT131351_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-DC.XML&pageNumber=0&summit= The important point of this tragedy is that now the terrorists have figured out a way to slay huge numbers of the other guys without a bomb and without a conspiracy: one guy could do it and probably wouldn't even get trampled or caught, since he would be at the rear of the stampede. Next time the other guys are having one of their gatherings, such as that exercise where they hurl rocks at the devil (?) I fear someone will begin shouting "He has a bomb! Run for your lives!" That particular exercise already caused numerous deaths by trampling, without anyone deliberately starting it. Terrorists could start fatal stampedes here by offering cheap Apple computers: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/16/computer.frenzy.ap/ We humans are weird apes. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Sep 1 15:47:37 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:47:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective References: Message-ID: <004001c5af0c$7afe6d50$0100a8c0@kevin> There's more to it than perspective. First of all, coverage is naturally going to be better where it is easier to cover. There is also the ongoing nature of the tradgedy - The people are still dying. They are starving and dehydrating at this very moment. Sansationalism plays a key - many would expect such a disaster in a 3rd world country, but not in a major metropolitan US city. ANd there is the "tribe" mentality. People are naturally going to be more concerned about there own tribe, therefore US journalists are only naturally going to be more concerned about US tradgedies. There's a lot of thought out there that 3rd world countries choose to be the way they are and that their problems are their own to solve. Personally I was shocked at the lack of coverage in Liberia and our lack of interest, but it's not the fault of the news organizations - it's the people who watch the news. The people who turn it off if they aren;t seeing what they want to see. Combined, these things make it only natural that New Orleans is going to be covered more than the Tsunami. It has nothing to do with "fairness" since there is no such thing. The problem lies in the education of the general population. If people want to talk about fairness, where are Thailand and SIngapore right now and why aren;t they here helping? What are their news organizations covering? What about Asia, Africa, etc? Do you honestly think any of them give a shit? I bet many across the world are laughing. Are they concerned with fairness? Somehow I doubt it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] news in perspective > Are we so busy worrying our egos about our or their fairness that we > are not present to the horror or loss of any and/or all deaths? > Evolved primates (probably evolved any old sentient) will feel the > loss most keenly for those of nearest relationship. That would be a > great start if we really felt it, down to the bone, and did not > forget or distract ourselves with side issues. > > > - samantha > > > On Aug 31, 2005, at 11:31 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > > > spike: > > > >> ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that > >> flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ > >> > > > > Yes, it is bad. > > > > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > > reported?) > > > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > > example). > > > > 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/ > > ******************************************************************** > > "In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Thu Sep 1 15:51:37 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901155138.25561.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > spike: > >ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that > >flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ > > Yes, it is bad. > > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > example). The mayor of New Orleans expects deaths in the thousands, IN NEW ORLEANS alone. There are hundreds of miles of gulf coast impacted. Some communities simply do not exist anymore, in the Biloxi area specifically (100 dead already in Biloxi, count still going up). Authorities have no idea what the death toll is simply because they are not counting yet in the hardest flooded areas. They aren't even picking up the dead, they are still focused on rescuing the living. They have no idea how many people are dead in their submerged homes, or suffocated in their attics. For millions of people in that area, they are not merely without power or water and living with soggy houses. Most are finding their homes either gone, or still under 3-20 feet of sewage filled water. Their places of work are destroyed. There are 60,000 people stranded in the Superdome stadium in downtown New Orleans without power and are running out of bottled water. There are now 3 million refugees evacuated from New Orleans alone, and the mayor is saying the city will need to remain evacuated for at least another month. Here are some before and after satellite pictures: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/new-orleans-imagery.htm Meanwhile, 8 of the nations major refineries are in that area and are shut down. The two largest pipelines up the east coast are idle. Gas prices went up $0.50 overnight in many areas, even 30 cents here in NH. Experts say gas prices will go over $4.00/gallon. This is going to trigger a national recession, which will have its own slow impact on thousands of lives in deaths, poverty, and family destruction. At the same time, I hear German newspaper Der Spiegel is quoting Environmental Minister Juergen Trittin as saying, in an essay published in the center-left daily Frankfurter Rundschau, the US deserved this for its opposition to the Kyoto treaty. http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/ Fuck Germany. Or at least fuck Trittin. Turns out such comments are to be expected from his ilk. He was apparently a leader of the Central Committee of the Kommunister Bund (a Maoist group) prior to his entryist migration to the Green Party in 1982.http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ksWYVxrRZU0J:www.mail-archive.com/marxism%40lists.panix.com/msg48585.html+trittin+kbw&hl=de&lr=lang_en But Trittin isn't alone. Suddeutsche Zeitung and Die Tageszeitung, two large-circulation left leaning papers, have echoed the accusations in their own editorials. If the rest of the world were as generous as the US has always been, this: http://www.etherzone.com/2005/sent082905.shtml would be a reality, instead of a sad satire on todays world. To be fair, Canada has stepped up: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/31/Canadian_relief_Katrina20050831.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050831_katrina_template_050831/?hub=CTVNewsAt11 Russia has also offered aid: http://www.tass.ru/eng/level2.html?NewsID=2367160&PageNum=0 But according to Blogs of War, there are no other known offers of assistance from other nations: http://www.blogsofwar.com/world_rushes_to_aid_katrinas_victims Other notables: The BP Foundation (founded by British Petroleum) has donated $1 million to the Red Cross for Katrina relief. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 15:55:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for longduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050901071834.89005.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050901155528.11417.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > You should have said this first. Mission > specifications mean everything in picking an ideal > crew. If this is the case then an overachieving midget > or a paraplegic person would be ideal. I know of many > amputees capable of walking on their hands. I do not > understand why you think it ought to be woman as upper > body strength especially in a paraplegic might be > important. Women have higher G tolerance, as well as higher tolerance against motion sickness. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From amara at amara.com Thu Sep 1 16:27:02 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:27:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective Message-ID: Me: > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > Spike: >They did mention it, but didn't really get to the point. OK >The important point of this tragedy is that now the terrorists have >figured out a way to slay huge numbers of the other guys without a >bomb and without a conspiracy: one guy could do it Yes. That is what is so sad now. The 'amplification of fear' factor is practically self-sustaining, and it doesn't take much to bring about a tragedy of this scale. BTW, despite my comment earlier about wishing that the America media put this in perspective, it seems from what I've read today that the economic consequences could be huge. And I don't like seeing people in other governments (e.g. Schroeder) exploiting the New Orleans tragedy in political ways. Nevertheless, I think that that the US government will have a hard time with receiving aid. The view of the US from countries outside has changed alot in the last 4 years. It's hard to help a government that one despises, even though it is the American people themselves, not the government, who will suffer. Here's a bit of 'trivia' that someone pointed me to today, a video, from January, from the PBS program "Nova": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html The video fairly accurately predicted what was going to happen. I wonder why the New Orleans area wasn't better prepared, given that these dangers were so well-known. 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/ ******************************************************************** "When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive--to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." ---Marcus Aurelius From jpnitya at verizon.net Thu Sep 1 16:45:01 2005 From: jpnitya at verizon.net (Joao Magalhaes) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:45:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Caloric restriction benefits limited in humans In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831114755.01dd8980@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831114755.01dd8980@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050901123103.0508d2c0@incoming.verizon.net> A few people have recently come out against the benefits of CR in people, including Aubrey. I'm a bit skeptical myself. I mean, I hope everybody knows that a low calorie diet is healthier while a high calorie diet could lead to obesity, diabetes, etc. That doesn't mean CR will work in people the way it does in mice, which BTW are very short-lived animals and hence the evolutionary forces acting on them to deal with periods of food shortage may be different than in humans because these periods in mice will be a larger proportion of the whole lifespan. My general advice is always that people should take attention to what they eat but don't exaggerate. I expect CR to make people live a little bit longer by decreasing the incidence of a number of diseases, but whether CR will delay aging in people like it does in mice is unlikely. Joao At 12:48 PM 31/8/2005, you wrote: >[Robert Bradbury elsewhere sez:] > >John Phelan and Michael Rose have published an article in >Ageing Research Reviews that indicates that caloric restriction >in humans is probably of marginal benefit. See [1,2]. > >Robert > >1. >http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2005/08/050830065729.htm >2. Phelan JP, Rose MR, "Why dietary restriction substantially increases >longevity >in animal models but won't in humans." Ageing Res Rev. 4(3):339-50 (Aug >2005). >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16046282 > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 1 16:58:52 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:58:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:27:02PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > BTW, despite my comment earlier about wishing that the America media > put this in perspective, it seems from what I've read today that the > economic consequences could be huge. And I don't like seeing people Economic consequences? It's just money. No amount of money can bring back dead people. Comments a la "this is our Hiroshima" and "this is our tsunami" and even "this is worse than the tsunami" (that's verbatim) demonstrate a certain provincial arrogance to it. A few thousands people are dead, sure, but this is in no way even the same magnitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Casualties_in_historical_context It's not important, unless it is ours that are hurting. It's a reporting and empathy bias dwarfing Texas. > in other governments (e.g. Schroeder) exploiting the New Orleans > tragedy in political ways. Nevertheless, I think that that the US He's just capitalizing on the fallout from Kyoto and ShrubCo's past policy. It's not callousness, and definitely not schadenfreude, but there's certainly a more detached view from the distance, and sure lots of lost goodwill. Perceived reporting and (partly unrepentantly offensive) perception bias is of course also not necessarily more endearing. > government will have a hard time with receiving aid. The view of the > US from countries outside has changed alot in the last 4 years. It's > hard to help a government that one despises, even though it is the > American people themselves, not the government, who will suffer. Yep. > Here's a bit of 'trivia' that someone pointed me to today, > a video, from January, from the PBS program "Nova": > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html > > The video fairly accurately predicted what was going to happen. > I wonder why the New Orleans area wasn't better prepared, given > that these dangers were so well-known. Reliable sources say 80% of funding for NO infrastructure budget was cut post 9/11. Another source says the NO mayor is not one of the brightest specimens of humankind -- no idea whether this is true. And of course there's the usual lack of compassion and leadership by the main simian. It's a mix of incompetence, corruption, and good old human stupidity, as usual. I'm reading Diamond's "Collapse" right now, there are plenty of lessons to us in there. Technology is useless, if wielded by idiots. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From user at dhp.com Thu Sep 1 17:15:10 2005 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: The debate over peak oil and its related causes/effects/probabilities has been discussed quite a bit on this list. I am curious if anyone has looked at the likelihood of peak oil simply by observing the actions of the parties that are likely to have the most perfect knowledge of the subject ? I was reading a text on game theory and related subjects recently and was reminded of the notion that (greatly simplified) the closer one suspects one is to the end of the game, the nastier one plays that game. At the same time, I have noticed the US (and others?) playing nastier and nastier at the game of oil politics over the course of my adulthood. Certainly there are localized secrets in the oil industry, but in the macro sense, I think it would be a good bet that the US Govt has the best overall intelligence and knowledge of what is really happening in the world. Combine those two, and perhaps you have some good (albeit indirect) evidence that peak oil is coming. Or at least that our leaders think it is. Before you respond, please note that I actually have no opinion on peak oil - I have digested many good arguments on either side, and have resigned myself to "further study" - as much as it can be said that someone has no prejudice on a particular subject, I will claim that for myself in relation to peak oil. With that in mind ... comments ? From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 17:23:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway Message-ID: <20050901172312.84734.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a Hummer, or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with 150 kW beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design useful on the battlefield Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 18:12:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901181205.50729.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > > BTW, despite my comment earlier about wishing that the America media > put this in perspective, it seems from what I've read today that the > economic consequences could be huge. And I don't like seeing people > in other governments (e.g. Schroeder) exploiting the New Orleans > tragedy in political ways. Nevertheless, I think that that the US > government will have a hard time with receiving aid. The view of the > US from countries outside has changed alot in the last 4 years. It's > hard to help a government that one despises, even though it is the > American people themselves, not the government, who will suffer. America sent millions to Iran after the Bam earthquakes. We spent billions on the USSR helping them defend against Germany, then at the height of the cold war we gave food aid. We gave lots of food aid to North Korea. Many Americans send aid to Cuba. Americans seem to have little problem differentiating the misery of people in other nations from the despicability of their governments. Would that the rest of the world were so noble. I would suggest looking to David's Medienkritik blog: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/ for objective european analysis of european left wing media irrationality. > > Here's a bit of 'trivia' that someone pointed me to today, > a video, from January, from the PBS program "Nova": > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html > > The video fairly accurately predicted what was going to happen. > I wonder why the New Orleans area wasn't better prepared, given > that these dangers were so well-known. New Orleans has been getting cuts in federal flood control funds since the Clinton administration. Clinton said that flooding is a local problem to be solved by local funding. The problem with New Orleans is that it has been a democrat controlled city intent on spending, - wasting -, millions of dollars on frivolous anti-gun lawsuits against gun makers for the crimes of criminals, and millions on welfare programs and bread and circuses, while ignoring its responsibilities to its citizens need for flood control. The Army Corps of Engineers isn't much better. Since it built the original levee system, it has been bogged down by environmentalist imposed wetlands protection mandates that have been abused by many land owners. This: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw104-13.000/hpw104-13_4.HTM reflects congressional testimony from 1995 on how the "404 System" is abused by property owners who don't want development and want to interfere in their neighbors. The Corps has become the de facto property police, judge, and jury for the entire delta area and has many millions a year wasted on these frivolous legal actions that wind up costing property owners lots of legal costs as well. It also turns out that environmentalists have been blocking levee modernization as well as Corps construction of a Hurricane Barrier that would have prevented this disaster. Specifically, SOWL, Save Our Wetlands, sued (http://saveourwetlands.org/edenislehistory.htm#lemieux2) to prevent the construction of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project. So you can put the blame for this on the loony left, once again. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From astapp at amazeent.com Thu Sep 1 18:51:35 2005 From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:51:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE056D6863@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Don't forget that the disappearing wetlands serve as a natural buffer against hurricanes by soaking up storm surge. According to http://hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/phillyinquirer100804.htm four miles of marsh can absorb a foot of storm surge. Katrina had an estimated 20ft surge. =================================================== Mike Lorrey wrote: The Army Corps of Engineers isn't much better. Since it built the original levee system, it has been bogged down by environmentalist imposed wetlands protection mandates that have been abused by many land owners. This: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw104-13.000/hpw104-13_4.HTM reflects congressional testimony from 1995 on how the "404 System" is abused by property owners who don't want development and want to interfere in their neighbors. The Corps has become the de facto property police, judge, and jury for the entire delta area and has many millions a year wasted on these frivolous legal actions that wind up costing property owners lots of legal costs as well. It also turns out that environmentalists have been blocking levee modernization as well as Corps construction of a Hurricane Barrier that would have prevented this disaster. Specifically, SOWL, Save Our Wetlands, sued (http://saveourwetlands.org/edenislehistory.htm#lemieux2) to prevent the construction of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project. So you can put the blame for this on the loony left, once again. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 19:44:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Towards Higher Quality, was: ping - please ignore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901194429.99010.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I for one miss the old Extropy magazine, both the print and online versions. They gave an outlet for high quality, in depth, well reasoned articles by extropic writers for like-minded to keep abreast of the movement without having to wade through a lot of diluted pap and sniping on email lists. Rather than an 'extropy-great' list, I'd suggest instead that we form a committee moderated blog that folks can forward posts and articles of interest to, people can comment on, trackback, etc. etc. and move ExI technology forward. Email lists are getting so last century. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 1 20:03:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:03:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> References: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sep 1, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:27:02PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > > >> BTW, despite my comment earlier about wishing that the America media >> put this in perspective, it seems from what I've read today that the >> economic consequences could be huge. And I don't like seeing people >> > > Economic consequences? It's just money. No amount of money can bring > back dead people. This is surely not the point. There are many severe weaknesses in the US economic situation. I would give an 80% probability of an economic downturn worse than 1987 in the next year. I would give 90% odds of an economic downturn of more than Great Depression magnitude before 2010. This level of economic event can cause very major disruption of all of our plans, dreams and hopes and ruin millions of lives. Major economic crises also can lead to major wars. This is not "just money" or in the least unimportant. Economic chaos of sufficient magnitude leads to a lot more dead people. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 1 20:53:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:53:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:03:11PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > This is surely not the point. There are many severe weaknesses in > the US economic situation. I would give an 80% probability of an I don't know what's going to happen, but if anything Big Bad happens it won't be because of a mere hurricane wreck. It would be but a trigger. I'm really recommending Jared Diamond's "Collapse". It's very pop science, and there are purportedly much better books, but this doesn't mean it doesn't contain applicable meta level diagnostics and algorithms. > economic downturn worse than 1987 in the next year. I would give 90% > odds of an economic downturn of more than Great Depression magnitude > before 2010. This level of economic event can cause very major > disruption of all of our plans, dreams and hopes and ruin millions of I much agree that We're Having Problems, which at best are delaying things considerably already. What do we do about it, though? We here, on this list? I can't see anything useful beyond personal scope plans. Being part of a solution catalyst would mean succeeding beyond the wildest dreams. > lives. Major economic crises also can lead to major wars. This is > not "just money" or in the least unimportant. Economic chaos of > sufficient magnitude leads to a lot more dead people. Military conflicts is both a cause of collapse and a terminal diagnostic. Many things must be already have gone to the crapper before resource distribution wars break out, and when they do the curtain is soon to follow. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:24:10 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:24:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050901172312.84734.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050901172312.84734.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a Hummer, > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with 150 kW > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design useful > on the battlefield > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped dead by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:40:19 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:40:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE056D6863@amazemail2.amazeent.com> References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE056D6863@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Message-ID: On 9/1/05, Acy James Stapp wrote: > Don't forget that the disappearing wetlands serve as a natural > buffer against hurricanes by soaking up storm surge. According to > http://hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/phillyinquirer100804.htm > four miles of marsh can absorb a foot of storm surge. Katrina > had an estimated 20ft surge. > See: New Orleans disaster serves up a tough lesson on environment Twice in eight months, Nature has given Man a brutal lesson about the cost of disrespect. Last December 26, beachfront resorts in Thailand were swept away by a tsunami that could have been tamed if developers had not destroyed coral reefs and ripped up mangroves, a natural bulwark against killer waves. On August 29, Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, a city built below sealevel, sustained by a complex system of dams and whose buffer against storm surges, the wetlands of the Mississippi Delta, had been eroded by reckless development. --------------------------------- Rather than blame everything (even bad weather!) on those evil left wing pinko communists, it looks to me as though rampant free market developers are far more to blame. Making as much money as they can while destroying 'the commons'. BillK From hal at finney.org Thu Sep 1 22:21:19 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> user writes: > The debate over peak oil and its related causes/effects/probabilities has > been discussed quite a bit on this list. I am curious if anyone has > looked at the likelihood of peak oil simply by observing the actions of > the parties that are likely to have the most perfect knowledge of the > subject ? Sure, in fact that is one of the strongest arguments against Peak Oil. Who are the insiders who would know if we were about to peak in oil production? Well, how about the oil companies? They should have plenty of inside information. What would you do if you owned an oil well and knew that the world was about to hit a supply/demand crunch in oil? Wouldn't that imply that oil prices are likely to shoot up incredibly high? There was a widely discussed article in the New York Times last week where Peak Oil analyst Matthew Simpson bet that oil would hit $200/barrel by 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/opinion/23tierney.html or http://www.iht.com/protected/articles/2005/08/23/opinion/edtierney.php If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that much in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It would be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary to cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far more valuable than it is today. The thing is, we don't see that. Insiders act as if they believe that today's oil prices are the best they will see in a while. They are pumping and selling oil as fast as they can. And it's not just oil producers. The speculators and hedgers acting in the futures market see the same thing. You can buy a contract today for oil to be delivered in 2010 and lock in a price. What do you think that price is? It's not $200, and it's not $100. It's not even today's price of $70 or so. It's more like $62/barrel, considerably LOWER than today's prices. You can lock in that price today and protect yourself against any price rises between now and 2010. If insiders knew that these prices were unrealistic, they could take positions in the futures market and make enormous profits in a few years. But by their actions they would drive up the prices of the futures contracts, and we don't see that. If you look at Peak Oil websites they have a lot of statistics and evidence for why the peak is just around the corner. It makes for a pretty impressive sounding case. But they don't have a good answer IMO for why all these facts and figures are unconvincing to people who are in the business and people who are investing money based on expectations of future prices. If these facts were really as convincing as Peak Oilers claim them to be, the markets wouldn't be behaving as they are. Insiders and market experts would be convinced, just as the Peak Oil enthusiasts have been, and we would see the kinds of high prices that Matt Simmons bet on. The fact that we don't see this behavior means that insiders don't believe in Peak Oil. To me, that is the strongest argument against that scenario. Hal Finney From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 1 23:20:45 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:20:45 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> References: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <43178CCD.7020107@aol.com> Hal Finney wrote: >Sure, in fact that is one of the strongest arguments against Peak Oil. >Who are the insiders who would know if we were about to peak in oil >production? Well, how about the oil companies? They should have plenty >of inside information. > > Speaking of which, wouldn't that be a good reason to start a more aggressive set of policies in the middle east and Venezuela? Wouldn't that simultaneously be a good impetus for building ethanol plants domestically? Both of which are happening in abundance. >What would you do if you owned an oil well and knew that the world was >about to hit a supply/demand crunch in oil? Wouldn't that imply that >oil prices are likely to shoot up incredibly high? > Aren't they? >If insiders knew that these prices were unrealistic, they could take >positions in the futures market and make enormous profits in a few years. >But by their actions they would drive up the prices of the futures >contracts, and we don't see that. > > Gamblers take both sides, they're smarter than you think. > >The fact that we don't see this behavior means that insiders don't believe >in Peak Oil. To me, that is the strongest argument against that scenario. > > It is -just common sense-. Oil is not renewing itself, there are no new supplies. The supply -will- dwindle. When is an open question. It shouldn't be regarded as suprising that our "easily accessible" wells are finite in size, should it? Robbie Lindauer From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 23:22:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901232214.96715.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a > Hummer, > > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with 150 kW > > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design > useful > > on the battlefield > > > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar > rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. > I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped dead > by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the bore of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating the laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sep 1 23:26:23 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901232623.73761.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Twice in eight months, Nature has given Man a brutal lesson about the > cost of disrespect. Last December 26, beachfront resorts in Thailand > were swept away by a tsunami that could have been tamed if developers > had not destroyed coral reefs and ripped up mangroves, a natural > bulwark against killer waves. > > On August 29, Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, a city built > below sealevel, sustained by a complex system of dams and whose > buffer > against storm surges, the wetlands of the Mississippi Delta, had been > eroded by reckless development. > > > --------------------------------- > > Rather than blame everything (even bad weather!) on those evil left > wing pinko communists, it looks to me as though rampant free market > developers are far more to blame. Making as much money as they can > while destroying 'the commons'. NO didn't get flooded from the delta side, they were flooded from Lake Ponchartrain, which has an open outlet to the sea through which the storm surge came. It was environmentalist opposition to building a conventional hurricane barrier, like Dutch engineers have advised for years, that was the cause. Claims about wetlands protecting NO are only true in that the storm surge did not come from the delta side of town, it came from lakeside, upon which NO has always been on the shoreline of. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 23:50:04 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:50:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050901232214.96715.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050901232214.96715.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > > > > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a > > Hummer, > > > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with 150 kW > > > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design > > useful > > > on the battlefield > > > > > > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar > > rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. > > I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped dead > > by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. > > I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the bore > of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating the > laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense > phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. > Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since about it though. Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is relatively easy. Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the rockets or coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time window in which to down these things. I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap MANPADS like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 00:27:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902002726.99228.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > Here's a bit of 'trivia' that someone pointed me to > today, > a video, from January, from the PBS program "Nova": > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html > > The video fairly accurately predicted what was going > to happen. > I wonder why the New Orleans area wasn't better > prepared, given > that these dangers were so well-known. Because when the solutions to dangerous problems are difficult to implement, we are reluctant to solve them and instead, we simply live in denial of the danger. "hmmm. . . is that smoke coming from Vesuvius? Well I don't have time to worry about that now, I must get my sapho to market." - Castigus of Pompei. 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 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 2 00:38:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:38:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> References: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sep 1, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:03:11PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> This is surely not the point. There are many severe weaknesses in >> the US economic situation. I would give an 80% probability of an >> > > I don't know what's going to happen, but if anything Big Bad happens > it won't be because of a mere hurricane wreck. It would be but a > trigger. I have a pretty good idea of what is likely but of course I can't say how far the repercussions of this particular event will extend. At the least I suspect it will wake people up to several vulnerabilities that have been largely ignored for too long. > > I'm really recommending Jared Diamond's "Collapse". It's very pop > science, and > there are purportedly much better books, but this doesn't mean it > doesn't > contain applicable meta level diagnostics and algorithms. > I read through most of this. It is a good book but I was disappointed by the ending. His models seem to traditional and static to apply without considerable rework in these accelerating times. I didn't see a lot of room to account for truly disruptive technologies. > >> economic downturn worse than 1987 in the next year. I would give 90% >> odds of an economic downturn of more than Great Depression magnitude >> before 2010. This level of economic event can cause very major >> disruption of all of our plans, dreams and hopes and ruin millions of >> > > I much agree that We're Having Problems, which at best are delaying > things > considerably already. What do we do about it, though? We here, on > this list? I can't see anything useful beyond personal scope plans. Yeah. Personal scope plans and what can be done to keep our dreams alive and moving forward even in the face of major crap hitting the fan would be good to discuss. In between the sky is falling and forced optimism even unto denial is planning to the degree we can for various possible scenarios. Another very important thing is how we personally keep our spirits up and our dreams alive and working toward realization regardless of what comes or seems likely to come. > Being part of a solution catalyst would mean succeeding beyond the > wildest > dreams. > Hey, I think there are some pretty wild dreams around here! But yeah, it seems it would take something the size of MNT or perhaps successful capture and mining of an asteroid or two to turn some of this around. - samantha From abeck at berklee.net Fri Sep 2 01:15:37 2005 From: abeck at berklee.net (Andrew Beck) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? Message-ID: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> >If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that much >in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and >selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It would >be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary to >cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far more >valuable than it is today. The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot up is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be at least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out. Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 01:22:50 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:22:50 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> Message-ID: <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> A green point here: If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the problem it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. Robbie Andrew Beck wrote: >>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that much >>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and >>selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It would >>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary to >>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far more >>valuable than it is today. >> >> > >The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot up is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be at least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out. > >Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 01:30:55 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:30:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need Message-ID: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in New Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out this morning that thousands of people were at the convention center and 8 hours later the best they could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with bottled water. This is 4 days after this event. I am certain there are supplies all around that area just waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Sep 2 01:40:43 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:40:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <002201c5af5f$558c7730$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: kevinfreels.com Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:30 PM > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in New Orleans? Yes, bumbling. I was thinking the same thing a couple of days ago, and things have only gotten worse: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/12537476.htm New Orleans in Anarchy With Fights, Rapes By ALLEN G. BREED, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago NEW ORLEANS - New Orleans descended into anarchy Thursday, as corpses lay abandoned in street medians, fights and fires broke out and storm survivors battled for seats on the buses that would carry them away from the chaos. The tired and hungry seethed, saying they had been forsaken. "This is a desperate SOS," mayor Ray Nagin said. "We are out here like pure animals," the Rev. Issac Clark said outside the New Orleans Convention Center, where he and other evacuees had been waiting for buses for days amid the filth and the dead. "I'm not sure I'm going to get out of here alive," said tourist Larry Mitzel of Saskatoon, Canada, who handed a reporter his business card in case he goes missing. "I'm scared of riots. I'm scared of the locals. We might get caught in the crossfire." Four days after Hurricane Katrina roared in with a devastating blow that inflicted potentially thousands of deaths, the frustration, fear and anger mounted, despite the promise of 1,400 National Guardsmen a day to stop the looting, plans for a $10 billion recovery bill in Congress and a government relief effort President Bush called the biggest in U.S. history. New Orleans' top emergency management official called that effort a "national disgrace" and questioned when reinforcements would actually reach the increasingly lawless city. About 15,000 to 20,000 people who had taken shelter at New Orleans convention center grew increasingly hostile after waiting for buses for days amid the filth and the dead. Police Chief Eddie Compass said he sent in 88 officers to quell the situation at the building, but they were quickly driven back by an angry mob. "We have individuals who are getting raped, we have individuals who are getting beaten," Compass said. "Tourists are walking in that direction and they are getting preyed upon." A military helicopter tried to land at the convention center several times to drop off food and water. But the rushing crowd forced the choppers to back off. Troopers then tossed the supplies to the crowd from 10 feet off the ground and flew away. In hopes of defusing the situation at the convention center, Mayor Ray Nagin gave the refugees permission to march across a bridge to the city's unflooded west bank for whatever relief they could find. But the bedlam made that difficult. "This is a desperate SOS," Nagin said in a statement. "Right now we are out of resources at the convention center and don't anticipate enough buses." At least seven bodies were scattered outside the convention center, a makeshift staging area for those rescued from rooftops, attics and highways. The sidewalks were packed with people without food, water or medical care, and with no sign of law enforcement. An old man in a chaise lounge lay dead in a grassy median as hungry babies wailed around him. Around the corner, an elderly woman lay dead in her wheelchair, covered up by a blanket, and another body lay beside her wrapped in a sheet. "I don't treat my dog like that," 47-year-old Daniel Edwards said as he pointed at the woman in the wheelchair. "You can do everything for other countries, but you can't do nothing for your own people," he added. "You can go overseas with the military, but you can't get them down here." The street outside the center, above the floodwaters, smelled of urine and feces, and was choked with dirty diapers, old bottles and garbage. "They've been teasing us with buses for four days," Edwards said. "They're telling us they're going to come get us one day, and then they don't show up." Every so often, an armored state police vehicle cruised in front of the convention center with four or five officers in riot gear with automatic weapons. But there was no sign of help from the National Guard. At one point the crowd began to chant "We want help! We want help!" Later, a woman, screaming, went on the front steps of the convention center and led the crowd in reciting the 23rd Psalm, "The Lord is my shepherd ..." "We are out here like pure animals," the Issac Clark said. "We've got people dying out here _ two babies have died, a woman died, a man died," said Helen Cheek. "We haven't had no food, we haven't had no water, we haven't had nothing. They just brought us here and dropped us." Tourist Debbie Durso of Washington, Mich., said she asked a police officer for assistance and his response was, "'Go to hell _ it's every man for himself.'" "This is just insanity," she said. "We have no food, no water ... all these trucks and buses go by and they do nothing but wave." At the hot and stinking Superdome, where 30,000 were being evacuated by bus to the Houston Astrodome, fistfights and fires erupted amid a seething sea of tense, suffering people who waited in a lines that stretched a half-mile to board yellow school buses. After a traffic jam kept buses from arriving for nearly four hours, a near-riot broke out in the scramble to get on the buses that finally did show up, with a group of refugees breaking through a line of heavily armed National Guardsmen. One military policeman was shot in the leg as he and a man scuffled for the MP's rifle, police Capt. Ernie Demmo said. The man was arrested. Some of those among the mostly poor crowd had been in the dome for four days without air conditioning, working toilets or a place to bathe. An ambulance service airlifting the sick and injured out of the Superdome suspended flights as too dangerous after it was reported that a bullet was fired at a military helicopter. "If they're just taking us anywhere, just anywhere, I say praise God," said refugee John Phillip. "Nothing could be worse than what we've been through." By Thursday evening, 11 hours after the military began evacuating the Superdome, the arena held 10,000 more people than it did at dawn. National Guard Capt. John Pollard said evacuees from around the city poured into the Superdome and swelled the crowd to about 30,000 because they believed the arena was the best place to get a ride out of town. As he watched a line snaking for blocks through ankle-deep waters, New Orleans' emergency operations chief Terry Ebbert blamed the inadequate response on the Federal Emergency Management Agency. "This is not a FEMA operation. I haven't seen a single FEMA guy," he said. He added: "We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans." FEMA officials said some operations had to be suspended in areas where gunfire has broken out. A day after Nagin took 1,500 police officers off search-and-rescue duty to try to restore order in the streets, there were continued reports of looting, shootings, gunfire and carjackings _ and not all the crimes were driven by greed. When some hospitals try to airlift patients, Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesan said, "there are people just taking potshots at police and at helicopters, telling them, `You better come get my family.'" Outside a looted Rite-Aid drugstore, some people were anxious to show they needed what they were taking. A gray-haired man who would not give his name pulled up his T-shirt to show a surgery scar and explained that he needs pads for incontinence. "I'm a Christian. I feel bad going in there," he said. Earl Baker carried toothpaste, toothbrushes and deodorant. "Look, I'm only getting necessities," he said. "All of this is personal hygiene. I ain't getting nothing to get drunk or high with." While floodwaters in the city appeared to stabilize, efforts continued to plug three breaches that had opened up in the levee system that protects this below-sea-level city. Helicopters dropped sandbags into the breach and pilings were being pounded into the mouth of the canal Thursday to close its connection to Lake Pontchartrain, state Transportation Secretary Johnny Bradberry said. He said contractors had completed building a rock road to let heavy equipment roll to the area by midnight. The next step called for using about 250 concrete road barriers to seal the gap. In Washington, the White House said Bush will tour the devastated Gulf Coast region on Friday and has asked his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and former President Clinton to lead a private fund-raising campaign for victims. The president urged a crackdown on the lawlessness. "I think there ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law during an emergency such as this _ whether it be looting, or price gouging at the gasoline pump, or taking advantage of charitable giving or insurance fraud," Bush said. "And I've made that clear to our attorney general. The citizens ought to be working together." Donald Dudley, a 55-year-old New Orleans seafood merchant, complained that when he and other hungry refugees broke into the kitchen of the convention center and tried to prepare food, the National Guard chased them away. "They pulled guns and told us we had to leave that kitchen or they would blow our damn brains out," he said. "We don't want their help. Give us some vehicles and we'll get ourselves out of here!" ____ Associated Press reporters Adam Nossiter, Brett Martel, Robert Tanner and Mary Foster contributed to this report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Sep 2 01:46:57 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:46:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: kevinfreels.com Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:30 PM > Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? Iraq has taken a lot of our resources, hasn't it? Iraq even thinned the ranks of our National Guard ... they are supposed to be here - not in Iraq - in case of national emergencies. I have a first cousin (with a husband and son) who has been living in Metarie - just outside of New Orleans - for over a decade. I sent her an email - hoping she will be an an internet cafe somewhere sometime - and haven't heard back from her yet. Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgc at cox.net Fri Sep 2 01:53:32 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:53:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> kevinfreels.com wrote: > > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort > in New Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out > this morning that thousands of people were at the convention center > and 8 hours later the best they could do was a single Blackhawk > helicopter with bottled water. This is 4 days after this event. I am > certain there are supplies all around that area just waiting to get to > people. Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping > water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? Indeed. This disaster is very different from the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. The Tsunami was an unpredicted event of very low probability in an area with a sparse logistical base. Pre-planning for such events must be generalized and non-specific. By contrast, a hurricane-induced break in New Orleans' levees was predictable, predicted, and evaluated as the most likely major disaster in the US. Humans need a gallon of drinking water a day, plus some washing water. Just how hard is it to commandeer all the water trucks in the towns along the Lower Mississippi river, place hen in barges, and send the to New Orleans? In my (rich) neighborhood, there are several companies that have such trucks. Each truck has a 7000-gallon tank. the trucks are used to fill swimming pools. 20 trucks a day will support 140,000 people. A single tow-boat per day can trivially handle enough barges to carry the food and water for 100,000 people. What astounded me was the inattention the press gave to the levees. The press did their hurricane thing, looking at the "standard" hurricane damage in Biloxi and Gulfport,and they thought New Orleans was the same. The canal levee was breached on Monday afternoon,and the press ignored it until noon on Tuesday. The breach was the most important part of the story, and anyone with the sense god gave a grasshopper should have known it (with <10 minutes of research) at the time Katrina first turned north in the gulf. I sure did. If I knew it, the governor of Louisiana should have known it. When the Mayor (correctly and courageously) ordered the evacuation and estimated that 100,000 would be left behind, the governor should have commandeered the water trucks and ordered them filled. Of course, someone should also have recommended that everyone remaining in New Orleans fill their bathtubs with double layered 30-gallon garbage bags full of water, and everyone should have placed all dry food into double garbage bags, but that's too simple. I guess. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 02:28:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > > > > > > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a > > > Hummer, > > > > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with > 150 kW > > > > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design > > > useful > > > > on the battlefield > > > > > > > > > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar > > > rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. > > > I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped > dead > > > by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. > > > > I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the > bore > > of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating > the > > laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense > > phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. > > > > Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a > HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. > IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to > hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since > about it though. > Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is > relatively easy. > Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the > rockets or > coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time > window in which to down these things. > > I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap > MANPADS > like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying > can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 2 02:32:34 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:32:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> Message-ID: <93F82E16-27B2-4DFC-86F3-57977FD1ACCC@mac.com> What would be needed to purify some of the water the people have all too much of for drinking purposes? What were all those scary powers given to FEMA for if they accomplish so very little in an actual emergency? Who wouldn't loot at least food stores after days of exposure, hunger, thirst and appalling very dangerous conditions? How is it more important to deal really harshly with looters than to end these deplorable conditions giving rise to these behaviors as quickly as possible? I don't understand this. In case of real emergency or disaster I now feel much less safe. - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 02:37:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian mythology, putting the burden on the agricultural system means much more farmland put under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for farmland, means ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys wildlife habitat. VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two things: a) to grow hay for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and b) to grow sheep for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in those cold cold winters of the late 19th century when we were headed into an ice age. Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we have more wildlife than before the europeans came here, and NY and Boston are not hip deep in horseshit, disease, and stink. Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who knows not what they ask for. Besides all that, all the distillery mash will release much more methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought methane was six times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A report just came out that its actually 12 times more powerful. --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > A green point here: > > If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > problem > it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. > > Robbie > > > Andrew Beck wrote: > > >>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that > much > >>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and > >>selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It > would > >>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary > to > >>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far > more > >>valuable than it is today. > >> > >> > > > >The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil > to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a > small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of > people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their > easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% > prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot up > is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be at > least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't > comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out. > > > >Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position > to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. > >_______________________________________________ > >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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:37:36 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:37:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > > > > > > > > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a > > > > Hummer, > > > > > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with > > 150 kW > > > > > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design > > > > useful > > > > > on the battlefield > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar > > > > rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. > > > > I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped > > dead > > > > by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. > > > > > > I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the > > bore > > > of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating > > the > > > laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense > > > phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. > > > > > > > Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a > > HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. > > Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation > missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, > just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. > > > IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to > > hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since > > about it though. > > Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is > > relatively easy. > > Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the > > rockets or > > coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time > > window in which to down these things. > > > > I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap > > MANPADS > > like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying > > can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. > > Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the > claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do > anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good > to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. > > The people making it, buying it and paying for it are the last ones to want to develop a $1 countermeasure. I'll leave that to Hezbollah after its deployed. If they can't come up with somthing I'll accept you are correct. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 2 02:39:33 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:39:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> References: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sep 1, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:03:11PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> This is surely not the point. There are many severe weaknesses in >> the US economic situation. I would give an 80% probability of an >> > > I don't know what's going to happen, but if anything Big Bad happens > it won't be because of a mere hurricane wreck. It would be but a > trigger. Charlie Stross has some interesting thoughts about how bad this could be on one of his blogs. It is potentially a bit more than a trigger. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2005/08/31/#katrina-1 Wed, 31 Aug 2005 Katrina aftermath I've avoided posting about the inundation of New Orleans, or Hurricane Katrina, until now -- I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic and it wasn't obviously any business of mine (other than the odd anxious "are you alright?" email to friends and acquaintances who live a whole lot closer). However: the devastation is now clearly so extensive that I expect it to have very personal consequences indeed. Leaving aside any political partisan finger-pointing, it's worth noting that it's not just New Orleans that's underwater. As Stratfor pointed out in a recent bulletin, New Orleans is just one of the residential hubs of the Port of Southern Louisiana, the huge terminal complex that covers the bottom-most fifty miles of the Mississippi. "The Port of Southern Louisiana is the fifth-largest port in the world in terms of tonnage, and the largest port in the United States. The only global ports larger are Singapore, Rotterdam, Shanghai and Hong Kong. ... The Port of Southern Louisiana stretches up and down the Mississippi River for about 50 miles, running north and south of New Orleans from St. James to St. Charles Parish. It is the key port for the export of grains to the rest of the world -- corn, soybeans, wheat and animal feed. Midwestern farmers and global consumers depend on those exports. The United States imports crude oil, petrochemicals, steel, fertilizers and ores through the port. Fifteen percent of all U.S. exports by value go through the port. Nearly half of the exports go to Europe." The actual estimates for insured structural damage caused by Hurricane Katrina are currently around US $25-30Bn. The current loss of life estimates are in the hundreds (although I'd be unsurprised if the eventual death toll does not eventually top 9/11 by quite a margin). But the economic damage from closing the Port of Southern Louisiana for up to three months is huge -- plausibly equal to 5% of the US balance of trade with the rest of the world. I can't put a figure on that total, but I'd be surprised if it isn't an order of magnitude more than the $25-30Bn insurance costs, and possibly even higher than the cost to date of the Iraq war and occupation ($200Bn). A couple of hundred billion here, a couple of hundred billion there -- pretty soon we're talking real money. What are the likely consequences (locally and globally) of blowing a 5% of GDP sized hole under the waterline of the US economy? (PS: for anyone who suspects this question is prompted by nascent anti-Americanism, rest assured: the real reason is that I earn about 70% of my income in dollars. If the US economy sneezes, I catch a cold ...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 02:49:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050902024955.65091.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: kevinfreels.com > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:30 PM > > > Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and > MREs? Where is the command and control center? > > Iraq has taken a lot of our resources, hasn't it? > > Iraq even thinned the ranks of our National Guard ... they are > supposed to be here - not in Iraq - in case of national emergencies. Apparently not. We just raised a million bucks up here in NH for the effort today, and have offered 1100 NG troops, the feds have accepted less than 500 so far, they'll be flying down this weekend. >From what I'm reading, there are a lot of welfare mentalities sitting around waiting for the government to do do do for them. If people living below sea level on the coast in a hurricane zone do not have supplies to deal with such emergencies, they shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone but themselves. The mayor and governor told the residents of NO to evacuate. Those that stayed around, from the tv video, seem to have done so for the looting opportunities, or live where they are worried about being looted while gone because they know their neighborhood. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Fri Sep 2 02:57:12 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:57:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <93F82E16-27B2-4DFC-86F3-57977FD1ACCC@mac.com> Message-ID: <200509020259.j822x7w03358@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 > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:33 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > What would be needed to purify some of the water the people have all > too much of for drinking purposes? Distilling urine is harder than a lot of good alternatives. Hand operated reverse osmosis pumps that backpackers use will get drinking water out of muddy flood water. I have half a mind to send my RO pumps down to New Orleans, if I knew where to send them. The water in the tank (but not the bowl) of a toilet is considered potable without treatment. I don't see why not, it seems clean enough back there. If you don't have a RO water pump, that might be a good thing to have in your emergency supplies closet. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 03:06:54 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:06:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <20050902024955.65091.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003f01c5af6b$5fe21260$0100a8c0@kevin> Yeah Mike, tell that to a couple of 90 yr old women I know down there that couldn't leave because they had little extra money and no place to go. Once the levees broker - which was after the storm, there was very little time to get out and no way to notify them about it. Their area is out of the normal "looting" type neighborhood you described but as the bowl filled up, those people moved outwards into other neighborhoods. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > > --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > From: kevinfreels.com > > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:30 PM > > > > > Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and > > MREs? Where is the command and control center? > > > > Iraq has taken a lot of our resources, hasn't it? > > > > Iraq even thinned the ranks of our National Guard ... they are > > supposed to be here - not in Iraq - in case of national emergencies. > > Apparently not. We just raised a million bucks up here in NH for the > effort today, and have offered 1100 NG troops, the feds have accepted > less than 500 so far, they'll be flying down this weekend. > > >From what I'm reading, there are a lot of welfare mentalities sitting > around waiting for the government to do do do for them. If people > living below sea level on the coast in a hurricane zone do not have > supplies to deal with such emergencies, they shouldn't be pointing > fingers at anyone but themselves. > > The mayor and governor told the residents of NO to evacuate. Those that > stayed around, from the tv video, seem to have done so for the looting > opportunities, or live where they are worried about being looted while > gone because they know their neighborhood. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political 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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 03:09:24 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:09:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> <93F82E16-27B2-4DFC-86F3-57977FD1ACCC@mac.com> Message-ID: <004c01c5af6b$b92ca740$0100a8c0@kevin> Exactly. Of course, you have to deal with certain looters -0 especially if what they are looting are gun stores. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > What would be needed to purify some of the water the people have all > too much of for drinking purposes? > > What were all those scary powers given to FEMA for if they > accomplish so very little in an actual emergency? > > Who wouldn't loot at least food stores after days of exposure, > hunger, thirst and appalling very dangerous conditions? How is it > more important to deal really harshly with looters than to end these > deplorable conditions giving rise to these behaviors as quickly as > possible? I don't understand this. In case of real emergency or > disaster I now feel much less safe. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From user at dhp.com Fri Sep 2 03:03:18 2005 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who > knows not what they ask for. Also, calculations and economics aside, burning dead plants for fuel (whether recently dead corn or ancient dead dinosaurs) is a low tech way of running our world that we should be ashamed of. If we are going to make any shift at all, I would like it to be a qualitative shift to a modern technology, and not just a shuffling around of means to find different ways to set dead plants on fire. From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 03:04:07 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:04:07 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4317C127.3030707@aol.com> Interesting, my chemistry book says: C6Hl2O6 ? 2 CH3CH2OH + 2 CO2 + energy glucose ethyl alcohol carbon dioxide As for fallow land, in 1980, around 170,000 acres in Hawaii were dedicated to sugar production, now down to 20k acres, with 150k acres laying, for the most part, fallow. Here it's good sense. In the midwest where they continue to produce corn in abundance, corn-produced alcohol averages about $2.12 per gallon buying corn at market rates, not even touching the abundant supply. Robbie Mike Lorrey wrote: >On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian mythology, putting >the burden on the agricultural system means much more farmland put >under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for farmland, means >ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys wildlife habitat. >VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two things: a) to grow hay >for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and b) to grow sheep >for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in those cold cold >winters of the late 19th century when we were headed into an ice age. > >Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we have more wildlife >than before the europeans came here, and NY and Boston are not hip deep >in horseshit, disease, and stink. > >Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy >and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who >knows not what they ask for. > >Besides all that, all the distillery mash will release much more >methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought methane was six >times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A report just came out >that its actually 12 times more powerful. > >--- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >>A green point here: >> >>If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the >>problem >>it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. >> >>Robbie >> >> >>Andrew Beck wrote: >> >> >> >>>>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that >>>> >>>> >>much >> >> >>>>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and >>>>selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It >>>> >>>> >>would >> >> >>>>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary >>>> >>>> >>to >> >> >>>>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far >>>> >>>> >>more >> >> >>>>valuable than it is today. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil >>> >>> >>to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a >>small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of >>people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their >>easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% >>prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot up >>is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be at >>least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't >>comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out. >> >> >>>Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position >>> >>> >>to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. >> >> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 >Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: >http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com >Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Mail >Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: >http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From neptune at superlink.net Fri Sep 2 03:18:00 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:18:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Game Theory Applied to Nuclear Proliferation Message-ID: <005501c5af6c$ed5f4620$f2893cd1@pavilion> "Is the nuclear proliferation a blessing?" "Yes it is. Why? Because things that are good for us are good for others. Terror equilibrium has been guarantor of peace in Europe during the Cold War. Without it Soviets could have a temptation to invade Europe. When there are no nuclear weapons there are classic wars, which can result in massacres comparable to the First World War. Iran/Iraq war was compared to the war between France and Germany. If both sides had nuclear weapons they would hesitate to enter the conflict, which would have saved millions of lives. Possession of nuclear weapons is a good and not a bad. Its dissemination is good and not bad. Indeed, the more countries possess such dissuasive weapon, the wider will be the territory of peace and stability, which we experienced in Europe throughout the Cold War. There have to be serious arguments used in order to prohibit certain country to use such means of dissuading potential aggressors." from http://lemennicier.bwm-mediasoft.com/col_docs/doc_55_fr.pdf Regards, Dan From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Sep 2 03:20:54 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:20:54 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > I have a first cousin (with a husband and son) who has been living in Metarie - just outside of New Orleans - for over a decade. I sent her an email - hoping she will be an an internet cafe somewhere sometime - and haven't heard back from her yet. > I have a childhood friend in Metarie and have received no response to my email. Guess she's without power. :( Hope she's ok. Regards, MB From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Sep 2 03:29:53 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:29:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> Message-ID: <004f01c5af6e$958b60d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Dan Clemmensen" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:53 PM > > What astounded me was the inattention the press gave to the levees. The > press did their hurricane thing, looking at the "standard" hurricane > damage in Biloxi and Gulfport,and they thought New Orleans was the same. This is another interesting perspective on some possible inattention due to ...?: press box Lost in the Flood Why no mention of race or class in TV's Katrina coverage? By Jack Shafer Posted Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005, at 4:22 PM PT I can't say I saw everything that the TV newscasters pumped out about Katrina, but I viewed enough repeated segments to say with 90 percent confidence that broadcasters covering the New Orleans end of the disaster demurred from mentioning two topics that must have occurred to every sentient viewer: race and class. Nearly every rescued person, temporary resident of the Superdome, looter, or loiterer on the high ground of the freeway I saw on TV was African-American. And from the look of it, they weren't wealthy residents of the Garden District. This storm appears to have hurt blacks more directly than whites, but the broadcasters scarcely mentioned that fact. Now, don't get me wrong. Just because 67 percent of New Orleans residents are black, I don't expect CNN to rename the storm "Hurricane" Carter in honor of the black boxer. Just because Katrina's next stop after destroying coastal Mississippi was counties that are 25 percent to 86 percent African-American (according to this U.S. Census map), and 27.9 percent of New Orleans residents are below the poverty line, I don't expect the Rev. Jesse Jackson to call the news channels to give a comment. But in the their frenzy to beat freshness into the endless loops of disaster footage that have been running all day, broadcasters might have mentioned that nearly all the visible people left behind in New Orleans are of the black persuasion, and mostly poor. To be sure, some reporters sidled up to the race and class issue. I heard them ask the storm's New Orleans victims why they hadn't left town when the evacuation call came. Many said they were broke?"I live from paycheck to paycheck," explained one woman. Others said they didn't own a car with which to escape and that they hadn't understood the importance of evacuation. But I don't recall any reporter exploring the class issue directly by getting a paycheck-to-paycheck victim to explain that he couldn't risk leaving because if he lost his furniture and appliances, his pots and pans, his bedding and clothes, to Katrina or looters, he'd have no way to replace them. No insurance, no stable, large extended family that could lend him cash to get back on his feet, no middle-class job to return to after the storm. What accounts for the broadcasters' timidity? I saw only a couple of black faces anchoring or co-anchoring but didn't see any black faces reporting from New Orleans. So, it's safe to assume that the reluctance to talk about race on the air was a mostly white thing. That would tend to imply that white people don't enjoy discussing the subject. But they do, as long as they get to call another white person racist. My guess is that Caucasian broadcasters refrain from extemporizing about race on the air mostly because they fear having an Al Campanis moment. Campanis, you may recall, was the Los Angeles Dodgers vice president who brought his career to an end when he appeared on Nightline in 1987 and explained to Ted Koppel that blacks might not have "some of the necessities" it takes to manage a major league team or run it as a general manager for the same reason black people aren't "good swimmers." They lack "buoyancy," he said. Not to excuse Campanis, but as racists go he was an underachiever. While playing in the minor leagues, he threw down his mitt and challenged another player who was bullying Jackie Robinson. As Dodger GM, he aggressively signed black and Latino players, treated them well, and earned their admiration. Although his Nightline statement was transparently racist, in the furor that followed, nobody could cite another racist remark he had ever made. His racism, which surely blocked blacks from potential front-office Dodger careers, was the racism of overwhelming ignorance?a trait he shared (shares?) with many other baseball executives. This sort of latent racism (or something more potent) may lurk in the hearts of many white people who end up on TV, as it does in the hearts of many who watch. Or, even if they're completely clean of racism's taint, anchors and reporters fear that they'll suffer a career-stopping Campanis moment by blurting something poorly thought out or something that gets misconstrued. Better, most think, to avoid discussing race at all unless someone with impeccable race credentials appears to supervise?and indemnify?everybody from potentially damaging charges of racism. Race remains largely untouchable for TV because broadcasters sense that they can't make an error without destroying careers. That's a true pity. If the subject were a little less taboo, one of last night's anchors could have asked a reporter, "Can you explain to our viewers, who by now have surely noticed, why 99 percent of the New Orleans evacuees we're seeing are African-American? I suppose our viewers have noticed, too, that the provocative looting footage we're airing and re-airing seems to depict mostly African-Americans." If the reporter on the ground couldn't answer the questions, a researcher could have Nexised the New Orleans Times-Picayune five-parter from 2002, "Washing Away," which reported that the city's 100,000 residents without private transportation were likely to be stranded by a big storm. In other words, what's happening is what was expected to happen: The poor didn't get out in time. To the question of looting, an informed reporter or anchor might have pointed out that anybody?even one of the 500 Nordic blondes working in broadcast news?would loot food from a shuttered shop if they found themselves trapped by a flood and had no idea when help would come. However sympathetic I might be to people liberating necessities during a disaster in order to survive, I can't muster the same tolerance for those caught on camera helping themselves in a leisurely fashion to dry goods at Wal-Mart. Those people weren't looting as much as they were shopping for good stuff to steal. MSNBC's anchor Rita Cosby, who blurted an outraged if inarticulate harrumph when she aired the Wal-Mart heist footage, deserves more respect than the broadcasters who gave the tape the sort of nonjudgmental commentary they might deliver if they were watching the perps vacuum the carpets at home. When disaster strikes, Americans?especially journalists?like to pretend that no matter who gets hit, no matter what race, color, creed, or socioeconomic level they hail from, we're all in it together. This spirit informs the 1997 disaster flick Volcano, in which a "can't we all just get along" moment arrives at the film's end: Volcanic ash covers every face in the big crowd scene, and everybody realizes that we're all members of one united race. But we aren't one united race, we aren't one united class, and Katrina didn't hit all folks equally. By failing to acknowledge upfront that black New Orleanians?and perhaps black Mississippians?suffered more from Katrina than whites, the TV talkers may escape potential accusations that they're racist. But by ignoring race and class, they boot the journalistic opportunity to bring attention to the disenfranchisement of a whole definable segment of the population. What I wouldn't pay to hear a Fox anchor ask, "Say, Bob, why are these African-Americans so poor to begin with?" sidebar Return to article Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: c.gif?NA=1132&NC=1262&DI=4098&PI=7315&PS=61736 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 42 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 04:01:27 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:01:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> <004f01c5af6e$958b60d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <00b901c5af72$fe514a40$0100a8c0@kevin> This whole article is crap. Indeed, why are so many of them poor? Could it be the spirit of entitlement in the area? The fact that everyone there xepects a handout? The fact that everyone expected that if anything happened, someone would take care of them? And who would be responsible for this? Me? You? The racist "american people"? This is crap. Their mayor is black. If anyone is responsible it is him. These journalists act like this is the result of some huge racial conspiracy. No doubt someone will say this was planned by white people. This has nothing to do with race. It is incompetence and ignorance. I know I started this thread. and I just had a thought. These people have been sitting there for 4 days and yet camera crews and police cars can drive by? Why the hell do they just sit there? Sure, there are some who couldn;t make the walk, but by the looks of the peopole I would guess that most of those "trapped without food" could just walk out at any time. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olga Bourlin" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > From: "Dan Clemmensen" > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:53 PM > > > > What astounded me was the inattention the press gave to the levees. The > > press did their hurricane thing, looking at the "standard" hurricane > > damage in Biloxi and Gulfport,and they thought New Orleans was the same. > > This is another interesting perspective on some possible inattention due to > ..?:. > > press box > Lost in the Flood > Why no mention of race or class in TV's Katrina coverage? > By Jack Shafer > Posted Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005, at 4:22 PM PT > > > > > I can't say I saw everything that the TV newscasters pumped out about > Katrina, but I viewed enough repeated segments to say with 90 percent > confidence that broadcasters covering the New Orleans end of the disaster > demurred from mentioning two topics that must have occurred to every > sentient viewer: race and class. > > Nearly every rescued person, temporary resident of the Superdome, looter, or > loiterer on the high ground of the freeway I saw on TV was African-American. > And from the look of it, they weren't wealthy residents of the Garden > District. This storm appears to have hurt blacks more directly than whites, > but the broadcasters scarcely mentioned that fact. > > > Now, don't get me wrong. Just because 67 percent of New Orleans residents > are black, I don't expect CNN to rename the storm "Hurricane" Carter in > honor of the black boxer. Just because Katrina's next stop after destroying > coastal Mississippi was counties that are 25 percent to 86 percent > African-American (according to this U.S. Census map), and 27.9 percent of > New Orleans residents are below the poverty line, I don't expect the Rev. > Jesse Jackson to call the news channels to give a comment. But in the their > frenzy to beat freshness into the endless loops of disaster footage that > have been running all day, broadcasters might have mentioned that nearly all > the visible people left behind in New Orleans are of the black persuasion, > and mostly poor. > > To be sure, some reporters sidled up to the race and class issue. I heard > them ask the storm's New Orleans victims why they hadn't left town when the > evacuation call came. Many said they were broke?"I live from paycheck to > paycheck," explained one woman. Others said they didn't own a car with which > to escape and that they hadn't understood the importance of evacuation. > > But I don't recall any reporter exploring the class issue directly by > getting a paycheck-to-paycheck victim to explain that he couldn't risk > leaving because if he lost his furniture and appliances, his pots and pans, > his bedding and clothes, to Katrina or looters, he'd have no way to replace > them. No insurance, no stable, large extended family that could lend him > cash to get back on his feet, no middle-class job to return to after the > storm. > > What accounts for the broadcasters' timidity? I saw only a couple of black > faces anchoring or co-anchoring but didn't see any black faces reporting > from New Orleans. So, it's safe to assume that the reluctance to talk about > race on the air was a mostly white thing. That would tend to imply that > white people don't enjoy discussing the subject. But they do, as long as > they get to call another white person racist. > > My guess is that Caucasian broadcasters refrain from extemporizing about > race on the air mostly because they fear having an Al Campanis moment. > Campanis, you may recall, was the Los Angeles Dodgers vice president who > brought his career to an end when he appeared on Nightline in 1987 and > explained to Ted Koppel that blacks might not have "some of the necessities" > it takes to manage a major league team or run it as a general manager for > the same reason black people aren't "good swimmers." They lack "buoyancy," > he said. > > Not to excuse Campanis, but as racists go he was an underachiever. While > playing in the minor leagues, he threw down his mitt and challenged another > player who was bullying Jackie Robinson. As Dodger GM, he aggressively > signed black and Latino players, treated them well, and earned their > admiration. Although his Nightline statement was transparently racist, in > the furor that followed, nobody could cite another racist remark he had ever > made. His racism, which surely blocked blacks from potential front-office > Dodger careers, was the racism of overwhelming ignorance?a trait he shared > (shares?) with many other baseball executives. > > This sort of latent racism (or something more potent) may lurk in the hearts > of many white people who end up on TV, as it does in the hearts of many who > watch. Or, even if they're completely clean of racism's taint, anchors and > reporters fear that they'll suffer a career-stopping Campanis moment by > blurting something poorly thought out or something that gets misconstrued. > Better, most think, to avoid discussing race at all unless someone with > impeccable race credentials appears to supervise?and indemnify?everybody > from potentially damaging charges of racism. > > Race remains largely untouchable for TV because broadcasters sense that they > can't make an error without destroying careers. That's a true pity. If the > subject were a little less taboo, one of last night's anchors could have > asked a reporter, "Can you explain to our viewers, who by now have surely > noticed, why 99 percent of the New Orleans evacuees we're seeing are > African-American? I suppose our viewers have noticed, too, that the > provocative looting footage we're airing and re-airing seems to depict > mostly African-Americans." > > If the reporter on the ground couldn't answer the questions, a researcher > could have Nexised the New Orleans Times-Picayune five-parter from 2002, > "Washing Away," which reported that the city's 100,000 residents without > private transportation were likely to be stranded by a big storm. In other > words, what's happening is what was expected to happen: The poor didn't get > out in time. > > To the question of looting, an informed reporter or anchor might have > pointed out that anybody?even one of the 500 Nordic blondes working in > broadcast news?would loot food from a shuttered shop if they found > themselves trapped by a flood and had no idea when help would come. However > sympathetic I might be to people liberating necessities during a disaster in > order to survive, I can't muster the same tolerance for those caught on > camera helping themselves in a leisurely fashion to dry goods at Wal-Mart. > Those people weren't looting as much as they were shopping for good stuff to > steal. MSNBC's anchor Rita Cosby, who blurted an outraged if inarticulate > harrumph when she aired the Wal-Mart heist footage, deserves more respect > than the broadcasters who gave the tape the sort of nonjudgmental commentary > they might deliver if they were watching the perps vacuum the carpets at > home. > > When disaster strikes, Americans?especially journalists?like to pretend that > no matter who gets hit, no matter what race, color, creed, or socioeconomic > level they hail from, we're all in it together. This spirit informs the 1997 > disaster flick Volcano, in which a "can't we all just get along" moment > arrives at the film's end: Volcanic ash covers every face in the big crowd > scene, and everybody realizes that we're all members of one united race. > > But we aren't one united race, we aren't one united class, and Katrina > didn't hit all folks equally. By failing to acknowledge upfront that black > New Orleanians?and perhaps black Mississippians?suffered more from Katrina > than whites, the TV talkers may escape potential accusations that they're > racist. But by ignoring race and class, they boot the journalistic > opportunity to bring attention to the disenfranchisement of a whole > definable segment of the population. What I wouldn't pay to hear a Fox > anchor ask, "Say, Bob, why are these African-Americans so poor to begin > with?" > > sidebar > Return to article > > > > Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. > > Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 04:02:41 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:02:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin><001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <00bf01c5af73$2afa3e30$0100a8c0@kevin> FYI. It's hard to get calls in, nut I have peope in Harahan that have power. They also say that most of the area can receive text messages on cell phones but can't get rhough on voice. Have you tried that? ----- Original Message ----- From: "MB" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > > I have a first cousin (with a husband and son) who has been living in Metarie - just outside of New Orleans - for over a decade. I sent her an email - hoping she will be an an internet cafe somewhere sometime - and haven't heard back from her yet. > > > > > I have a childhood friend in Metarie and have received no response to > my email. Guess she's without power. :( Hope she's ok. > > > Regards, > MB > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 2 04:24:13 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:24:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <004f01c5af6e$958b60d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200509020426.j824QLw14232@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin ... > By Jack Shafer > Posted Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005, at 4:22 PM PT > > > Nearly every rescued person, temporary resident of the Superdome, looter, > or loiterer on the high ground of the freeway I saw on TV was African- > American... If an African-American is born in America, both her parents are born in America, all her grandparents, great grandparents, and their parents were born in America, at what point is it no longer legitimate that she call herself African American? When does she become, like me, a native American? I have an ancestor who was born in Pretoria South Africa. May I call myself African American? Will all my descendants, for all eternity, be able to call themselves African American? I suspect that only a very small percentage of the population of New Orleans are real African Americans or have ever even been to Africa. Jack Shafer should let it go, be color blind and repent of comments like this one: >This sort of latent racism (or something more potent) may lurk in the >hearts of many white people who end up on TV, as it does in the hearts of >many who watch... Guilty until proven innocent. Of course, it is impossible to prove innocence of latent racism. This comment is *overt* racism, blatant and shameful as all hell. OK now I have said my piece on this, recall a suggestion I made a couple years ago about setting up a number of webcams that would not be controlled by any news agency but rather would give an unbiased unblinking random survey of a disaster area. The cams could be sampled by a web surfer without artificially concentrating on the worst places or seeking out any particular group of looters. Those would tell the real story, would they not? spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 2 04:53:13 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:53:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Manhattan vs. New Orleans Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> My impression, from coverage and commentary, is that, to everyone's pleasant surprise, beyond the quiet and extraordinary heroisms on 9/11, was a communal unity. There *wasn't* the expected uptick in crime with the police busy elsewhere, or desperate people savaging one another for a chance of survival. There *were* people pulling together, and helping one another. My impression, from coverage and commentary of New Orleans, is there are heroics, but less dramatic. Certainly many people trying to help one another. But an atmosphere in many areas of felonious barbarity. Looting, rape, murder, brutality -- not to save oneself or one's loved ones, but in sociopathic nihilism. (1) Do you agree that these are the pictures that have been painted for us of the two events? (2) Do you think either reflect the gist of what has happened? If not, what has caused the distortion(s)? (3) What explains the differences between these two portrayed responses? The causes of the events? The composition of the populace? -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 2 05:24:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:24:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020526.j825Qrw21330@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of user > Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? ... > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy > > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who > > knows not what they ask for... User, I could see ethanol as a transition phase, where we add more ethanol to gasoline over about a decade, to take advantage of the infrastructure already in place. We could use the existing gasoline stations, pumps, etc. Most modern internal combustion engines can run on about 15% ethanol with no modifications, and can go up to around 25% without too much effort or expense. An ethanol-gasoline mix could carry part of the load while we gear up nuclear and coal fired power plants as well as refineries suited to processing sour crude. We will need a few years to get cars adapted to use electricity. Ethanol could help get us thru the transition. Here's a notion I had today. Assume a temporary oil crisis such as one caused by Katrina. We know that a 5% shortfall in supply can cause a huge and destructive surge in price. On the other hand, a small fuel savings could easily cover a 5% shortfall in supply. A government could declare a temporary open season on what types of vehicles are allowed on the roads. Many homes have a dirt bike or other small rec vehicle that could be temporarily declared street legal. We could declare a temporary 50 mph speed limit for the month of September, in all but the far left lane. This might encourage people to ride bicycles, motorized scooters, go carts and dirt bikes on the street for a few weeks, just long enough to get thru the crisis. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 05:56:18 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050902055618.37354.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this > entire rescue effort in New Orleans? I cannot > believe for a second that FEMA just found out this > morning that thousands of people were at the > convention center and 8 hours later the best they > could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with > bottled water. Well I feel like its complaining about spilled milk, but it seems pretty obvious to me. You can't cut taxes, fund a $250 billion dollar ground war, AND be prepared for disaster relief. Not unless the Federal Government is somehow capable of magically creating money and manpower. As far as I know the federal government is drowning in a bathtub right now. It's called the Mississippi Basin. We get what we ask for. A little over half of us voted for these types of policies, so we got exactly what we deserved. This is 4 days after this event. I am > certain there are supplies all around that area just > waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s > flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? > Where is the command and control center? > We have most of our logistics infrastructure in the middle east to support to our troops in Iraq. Even as it is, the logistic support to the troops on the ground is suboptimal in regards to certain things like body armor and hard topped vehicles for convoy support. I don't believe there are that many spare C130s to drop off any spare MREs to the people affected. I hardly think an administration that can't foresee the need for an exit strategy when entering a war would have a contigency plan for natural disaster during the war. Karma is a bitch and nature does not care how self-righteous you are. The humbling of America has begun. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 06:32:04 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:32:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 9/1/05 6:30 PM, "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in New > Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out this morning > that thousands of people were at the convention center and 8 hours later the > best they could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with bottled water. This > is 4 days after this event. I am certain there are supplies all around that > area just waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton > Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? A few points that you may have missed: 1) The Federal government has very limited jurisdiction in this case, and the Feds have been very proactive to the extent they could be; they pre-positioned most of their assets a couple days before the storm. The truly grotesque failure of leadership and planning falls squarely on the State of Louisiana, which not only shows clear evidence of having no plan whatsoever but also is sitting on their asses rather than pushing the necessary buttons required to get more Federal resources in there. Remember, the State of Louisiana is a sovereign entity, and the Federal government has very limited ability to act in their jurisdiction without official permission by the governor. Unfortunately, the governor is WAY out of her league, and clearly lost. 2) The logistical infrastructure has been so thoroughly destroyed that there is extremely limited ability to deliver support. Dropping water and MREs does not do much good if half the place is under a few meters of water. Can't drive in, can't boat in, and can't fly in, for a country-sized region. They are using what logistical assets they can reasonably mobilize under the circumstances. Anybody expecting more has utterly unrealistic notions about the nature of logistics under the circumstances. 3) What transportation elements can operate in this environment have a very low carrying capacity that is entirely inadequate for the sheer number of people the have to support. If there were only thousands of people left behind, it would have been less of an issue, but there are hundreds of thousands of people spread over a vast area. Massive airdrops are not granular enough, as there is no distribution channel within the city once you drop a pallet somewhere. 4) As further evidence, the disparities in competence and reaction between affected States, notably Mississippi and Louisiana, is stark. Mississippi is just about the poorest State in the country and took the hurricane head on, thoroughly annihilating a fair portion of that State, but the authorities took charge of the situation very quickly. Louisiana did not prepare ahead of time, and then sat around with a thumb up their ass after the fact. Looting in Mississippi was squashed with extreme prejudice early on. The biggest villains in this whole mess is the State of Louisiana, and its leaders. Criminal incompetence and negligence, amplified by a genuine crisis. Heads are going to roll in the that State when this is all over. J. Andrew Rogers From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 06:32:16 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:32:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/1/05 7:28 PM, "Mike Lorrey" wrote: > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> >>> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> >> > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html >>>>> >>>>> The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a >>>> Hummer, >>>>> or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with >> 150 kW >>>>> beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design >>>> useful >>>>> on the battlefield >>>>> >>>> >>>> Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar >>>> rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. >>>> I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped >> dead >>>> by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. >>> >>> I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the >> bore >>> of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating >> the >>> laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense >>> phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. >>> >> >> Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a >> HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. > > Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation > missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, > just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. > >> IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to >> hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since >> about it though. >> Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is >> relatively easy. >> Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the >> rockets or >> coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time >> window in which to down these things. >> >> I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap >> MANPADS >> like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying >> can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. > > Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the > claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do > anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good > to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail > Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: > http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 2 05:40:01 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:40:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4317E5B1.6040508@sasktel.net> This may be a bit tasteless to say but the New Orleans lost city by water is much the same to its residents as the loss of Bagdad or Beirut to war has been to their residents. Amara Graps wrote: > spike: > >> ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that >> flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ > > > Yes, it is bad. > > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > example). > > Amara > From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 06:44:34 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:44:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/1/05 7:28 PM, "Mike Lorrey" wrote: > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: >> Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a >> HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. > > Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation > missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, > just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. State-of-the-art active radar systems do not detectably radiate at all, another very, very slick piece of American military technology. It is how stealth attack aircraft like the F-22 can use search radar while still being invisible in the broad RF spectrum. Broad spectrum IR imaging is much better for terminal guidance because it can be made very smart. Modern guidance packages of this type can determine the make and model of their target a long way off, and sometimes the country that owns the hardware. Which is why modern IR guidance packages are all but impervious to decoys and spoofing. > Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the > claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do > anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good > to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. Many critics fail to understand that at some level of power, a laser is qualitatively different in its interaction with matter than a milliwatt laser pointer. These lasers have proven quite effective against dumb/hard targets. J. Andrew Rogers From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 06:47:55 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050902064756.85722.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > By contrast, a hurricane-induced break in New > Orleans' levees was > predictable, predicted, and evaluated as the most > likely major disaster > in the US. Yes but we all know that the people in charge do not listen to learned experts but instead to a loud booming voice in their head they call God. > > Humans need a gallon of drinking water a day, plus > some washing water. > Just how hard is it to commandeer all the water > trucks in the towns > along the Lower Mississippi river, place hen in > barges, and send the to > New Orleans? In my (rich) neighborhood, there are > several companies that > have such trucks. Each truck has a 7000-gallon tank. > the trucks are used > to fill swimming pools. 20 trucks a day will support > 140,000 people. A > single tow-boat per day can trivially handle enough > barges to carry the > food and water for 100,000 people. Yes. Also what they ought to do is bring in powered and solar stills. The problem is not there isn't any water there, the problem is that it is contaminated. Bringing them a gallon of water keeps one of them hydrated for a day. Bring them a still and that person can be hydrated indefinately. > > What astounded me was the inattention the press gave > to the levees. The > press did their hurricane thing, looking at the > "standard" hurricane > damage in Biloxi and Gulfport,and they thought New > Orleans was the same. > The canal levee was breached on Monday afternoon,and > the press ignored > it until noon on Tuesday. The breach was the most > important part of the > story, and anyone with the sense god gave a > grasshopper should have > known it (with <10 minutes of research) at the time > Katrina first turned > north in the gulf. I sure did. If I knew it, the > governor of Louisiana > should have known it. When the Mayor (correctly and > courageously) > ordered the evacuation and estimated that 100,000 > would be left behind, > the governor should have commandeered the water > trucks and ordered them > filled. Of course, someone should also have > recommended that everyone > remaining in New Orleans fill their bathtubs with > double layered > 30-gallon garbage bags full of water, and everyone > should have placed > all dry food into double garbage bags, but that's > too simple. I guess. I am sure they ( the local government) did the best they could. The notion that someone might be in need of water after a flood may not come easy to many people. 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 06:48:54 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:48:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 9/1/05 11:32 PM, "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: [...empty response elided...] I have no idea how that happened. Must have been an email client hiccup or operator stupidity. Sorry. J. Andrew Rogers From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 07:09:27 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050902070928.53082.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian > mythology, putting > the burden on the agricultural system means much > more farmland put > under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for > farmland, means > ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys > wildlife habitat. > VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two > things: a) to grow hay > for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and > b) to grow sheep > for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in > those cold cold > winters of the late 19th century when we were headed > into an ice age. > > Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we > have more wildlife > than before the europeans came here, and NY and > Boston are not hip deep > in horseshit, disease, and stink. > > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a > 19th century economy > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it > is a luddite who > knows not what they ask for. I could probably supply all the ethanol and biodiesel the United States would need by harvesting seaweed from the sargasso sea. This would not require one additinal acre of farmland. > > Besides all that, all the distillery mash will > release much more > methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought > methane was six > times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A > report just came out > that its actually 12 times more powerful. A well designed bioreactor would use the methane generated to power the distillation process. You are making your judgements based on unenlightened technology. 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 07:58:14 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <200509020259.j822x7w03358@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050902075814.93092.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: If you don't have a RO water pump, that > might be a good thing to have in your emergency > supplies closet. One can make a pretty good solar powered still using a washtub, a bucket (or coffee can), some string or duct tape, a plastic garbage bag or other large sheet of plastic, and two small rocks (preferably clean). 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 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 08:28:21 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 01:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902082821.53082.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: The logistical infrastructure has been so > thoroughly destroyed that there > is extremely limited ability to deliver support. > Dropping water and MREs > does not do much good if half the place is under a > few meters of water. > Can't drive in, can't boat in, and can't fly in, for > a country-sized region. > They are using what logistical assets they can > reasonably mobilize under the > circumstances. Anybody expecting more has utterly > unrealistic notions about > the nature of logistics under the circumstances. > > 3) What transportation elements can operate in this > environment have a very > low carrying capacity that is entirely inadequate > for the sheer number of > people the have to support. If there were only > thousands of people left > behind, it would have been less of an issue, but > there are hundreds of > thousands of people spread over a vast area. > Massive airdrops are not > granular enough, as there is no distribution channel > within the city once > you drop a pallet somewhere. You have some excellent points here. Doesn't the navy have amphibious hovercraft? It seems like hovercraft and amphibious assault vehicles may be the vehicles of choice for relief efforts in NO. 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 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 08:36:23 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 01:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902083624.53965.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" > I have no idea how that happened. Must have been an > email client hiccup or > operator stupidity. > > Sorry. It's ok Light-Fighter, it happens to the best of us. :) 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 Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 08:41:26 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:41:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Towards Higher Quality, was: ping - please ignore In-Reply-To: <20050901194429.99010.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050901194429.99010.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5366105b05090201415c47a509@mail.gmail.com> On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > I for one miss the old Extropy magazine, both the print and online > versions. They gave an outlet for high quality, in depth, well reasoned > articles by extropic writers for like-minded to keep abreast of the > movement without having to wade through a lot of diluted pap and > sniping on email lists. Me too. Anyone have back issues for sale? Contact me off-list, if you please. > > Rather than an 'extropy-great' list, I'd suggest instead that we form a > committee moderated blog that folks can forward posts and articles of > interest to, people can comment on, trackback, etc. etc. and move ExI > technology forward. Email lists are getting so last century. > Somewhat related--any volunteers (or anyone already doing it) for reviewing 'transhumanism" and related tags on del.icio.us/technorati? That might make a good first step towards a collaborative filter. A group blog has a couple of candidates, doesn't it? Transhumanism.org, JEET, etc. -- 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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 08:41:42 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:41:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On 9/1/05 7:28 PM, "Mike Lorrey" wrote: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a > >> HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. > > > > Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation > > missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, > > just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. > > > State-of-the-art active radar systems do not detectably radiate at all, > another very, very slick piece of American military technology. It is how > stealth attack aircraft like the F-22 can use search radar while still > being > invisible in the broad RF spectrum. > > Broad spectrum IR imaging is much better for terminal guidance because it > can be made very smart. Modern guidance packages of this type can > determine > the make and model of their target a long way off, and sometimes the > country > that owns the hardware. Which is why modern IR guidance packages are all > but impervious to decoys and spoofing. > > > > Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the > > claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do > > anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good > > to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. > > > Many critics fail to understand that at some level of power, a laser is > qualitatively different in its interaction with matter than a milliwatt > laser pointer. These lasers have proven quite effective against dumb/hard > targets. > Well, the 100kW aint it. I've worked on lasers putting out 1kW onto 10 mm square carbon fibre mat and it does zilch. Dry hardwood is almost as good. Now work out the power density of the 100kW laser compared to beam size on target. There are numerous ways to absorb, deflect or reradiate that kind of power for the few seconds necessary for the munition to reach its target. Bear in mind that these systems are used in the terminal phase of attack. The laser will work with PGMs, but not with dumb katyushas that have been hardened. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 08:45:08 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:45:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Manhattan vs. New Orleans In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, David Lubkin wrote: > > My impression, from coverage and commentary, is that, to everyone's > pleasant surprise, beyond the quiet and extraordinary heroisms on > 9/11, was a communal unity. There *wasn't* the expected uptick in > crime with the police busy elsewhere, or desperate people savaging > one another for a chance of survival. There *were* people pulling > together, and helping one another. > > My impression, from coverage and commentary of New Orleans, is there > are heroics, but less dramatic. Certainly many people trying to help > one another. But an atmosphere in many areas of felonious barbarity. > Looting, rape, murder, brutality -- not to save oneself or one's > loved ones, but in sociopathic nihilism. > > (1) Do you agree that these are the pictures that have been painted > for us of the two events? > > (2) Do you think either reflect the gist of what has happened? If > not, what has caused the distortion(s)? > > (3) What explains the differences between these two portrayed > responses? The causes of the events? The composition of the populace? > > No doubt racists will draw their own conclusions, but the major factor is that with 9/11 the victims died pretty much all in one rapid hit while everyone else was OK. In NO the victims are still alive and suffering a protracted disaster. Plus there are far more actual victims in a city that has been effectivelt destroyed. In NY IIRC three buildings were knocked over. No big deal in real estate terms (except to insurers). Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 08:46:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:46:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <20050902075814.93092.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200509020259.j822x7w03358@tick.javien.com> <20050902075814.93092.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050902084655.GI2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 12:58:14AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- spike wrote: > > If you don't have a RO water pump, that > > might be a good thing to have in your emergency > > supplies closet. > > One can make a pretty good solar powered still using a > washtub, a bucket (or coffee can), some string or duct > tape, a plastic garbage bag or other large sheet of > plastic, and two small rocks (preferably clean). People, there are lists and whole treatises devoted to what's to be in your emergency kit. Don't reinvent the wheel, find them, and use them. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- 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 Sep 2 10:10:09 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:10:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49949997-4BC2-4934-8705-E6C92FD3B997@mac.com> On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:32 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > A few points that you may have missed: > > 1) The Federal government has very limited jurisdiction in this > case, and > the Feds have been very proactive to the extent they could be; they > pre-positioned most of their assets a couple days before the > storm. The > truly grotesque failure of leadership and planning falls squarely > on the > State of Louisiana, which not only shows clear evidence of having > no plan > whatsoever but also is sitting on their asses rather than pushing the > necessary buttons required to get more Federal resources in there. > Remember, the State of Louisiana is a sovereign entity, and the > Federal > government has very limited ability to act in their jurisdiction > without > official permission by the governor. Unfortunately, the governor > is WAY out > of her league, and clearly lost. > As I understand it it is very much the job of FEMA and the National Guard to coordinate large scale crisis response. What is in the way of that happening? I don't think they are waiting on some missing local permission. So what has broken down there? Surely it cant' be that hard to evacuate the rest of New Orleans and get the people water and food in the meantime. I see no real justification for your casting blame on the Louisiana leadership. In any case I am not real interested in casting blame right now. I just want the rest of the people evacuated and their needs taken care of NOW. This sovereignty argument seems like a bad joke of an excuse. The Feds have been running roughshod over state's rights. FEMA has a mandate to supersede and coordinate local efforts in an emergency anyway as I understand it. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the governor would do less than beg for all possible help in any case. > 2) The logistical infrastructure has been so thoroughly destroyed > that there > is extremely limited ability to deliver support. Dropping water > and MREs > does not do much good if half the place is under a few meters of > water. > Can't drive in, can't boat in, and can't fly in, for a country- > sized region. > They are using what logistical assets they can reasonably mobilize > under the > circumstances. Anybody expecting more has utterly unrealistic > notions about > the nature of logistics under the circumstances. Are you saying that we do not have the means to lower pallets of goods from military helicopters exactly where we want them? We surely can fly in and we can boat most of the way in. Are you saying that marines can't manage to get into a disaster zone in America but can kick bitt anywhere and everywhere else in the world? I do not believe this. Besides. A lot of the people are in very packed and accessible places. Even they are not being remotely taken care of. What is the excuse for that? > > 3) What transportation elements can operate in this environment > have a very > low carrying capacity that is entirely inadequate for the sheer > number of > people the have to support. If there were only thousands of people > left > behind, it would have been less of an issue, but there are hundreds of > thousands of people spread over a vast area. Massive airdrops are not > granular enough, as there is no distribution channel within the > city once > you drop a pallet somewhere. They are a start and a lot better than sitting back and letting the people go berserk on top of all their other losses. Dropping a pallet with some easy way to find it at least puts resources on the ground and is an improvement. > > 4) As further evidence, the disparities in competence and reaction > between > affected States, notably Mississippi and Louisiana, is stark. > Mississippi > is just about the poorest State in the country and took the > hurricane head > on, thoroughly annihilating a fair portion of that State, but the > authorities took charge of the situation very quickly. Louisiana > did not > prepare ahead of time, and then sat around with a thumb up their > ass after > the fact. Looting in Mississippi was squashed with extreme > prejudice early > on. New Orleans is a very different beast than most of Mississippi. It is basically a bowl protected from its lake and the Ocean by the sides of the bowl. In a major storm surge or breach the bowl can start filling with water flooding much of the city. I do not know of an equally fragile large metropolitan area in Mississippi that faces the same challenges. > > > The biggest villains in this whole mess is the State of Louisiana, > and its > leaders. Criminal incompetence and negligence, amplified by a genuine > crisis. Heads are going to roll in the that State when this is all > over. I wish we would stop looking for who to blame and get on with saving lives. I wish we would study all the things that went wrong to build better safeguards and procedures for the next crises. And it is certainly true that all the states have received a lot less federal dollars. Their budgets are seriously strained. Infrastructure needs are being slighted all over the country. And yes some of that is the fault of this federal administration and the asinine war on terror and especially the war in Iraq. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 10:34:47 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:34:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050902103447.GT2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:44:34PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > State-of-the-art active radar systems do not detectably radiate at all, > another very, very slick piece of American military technology. It is how I don't see how this is supposed to be possible. Are you sure you're not meaning passive radar? > stealth attack aircraft like the F-22 can use search radar while still being > invisible in the broad RF spectrum. > > Many critics fail to understand that at some level of power, a laser is > qualitatively different in its interaction with matter than a milliwatt > laser pointer. These lasers have proven quite effective against dumb/hard > targets. At some level of power, you have plasma defocusing the beam in the path, requiring very large apertures, which make such lasers not portable. Over distances, you need active optics tracking the beam despite atmospheric microlensing. Mirorring the target makes it effectively immune against laser (though the sensors remain the weak part of it, of course). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Sep 2 10:46:20 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:46:20 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <00bf01c5af73$2afa3e30$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin><001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <00bf01c5af73$2afa3e30$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: No, I have not. I do not have her cell phone number and there's nothing I could do for her anyway. I am concerned, but maybe she went to family in SC or something. I'll wait. Thanks for the info, though. :) It's good to hear some positive news from the area. :) I remember Hurricane Hugo in Charleston some years ago and it was devastating, though not as bad. It was a couple of weeks before power was restored to our family. At that point we went to help with cleanup. Regards, MB On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > FYI. It's hard to get calls in, nut I have peope in Harahan that have power. > They also say that most of the area can receive text messages on cell > phones but can't get rhough on voice. Have you tried that? > From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 11:21:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:21:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <200509020526.j825Qrw21330@tick.javien.com> References: <200509020526.j825Qrw21330@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050902112155.GY2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 10:24:58PM -0700, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of user > > Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? > ... > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy > > > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who > > > knows not what they ask for... > > User, I could see ethanol as a transition phase, where we add Why ethanol, on earth? Why not synmethanol? Or biodiesel, if you absolutely have to curry favors to big dirty agribusiness? Why not simply lighter, more efficient vehicles (my car averages about 6.2 l/100 km, which is probably half or less of the typical U.S. car, not even SUV)? > more ethanol to gasoline over about a decade, to take advantage > of the infrastructure already in place. We could use the An onboard fuel reformer, or a high-temperature fuel cell would make the most advantage from the infrastructure in place. Alcohols are too corrosive for the current infrastructure, unless used just as additives -- but why bother with footnotes? > existing gasoline stations, pumps, etc. Most modern internal > combustion engines can run on about 15% ethanol with no > modifications, and can go up to around 25% without too much > effort or expense. What is the half life of a modern car? A few years, typically. It would make more sense to just stick to new vehicles. > An ethanol-gasoline mix could carry part of the load > while we gear up nuclear and coal fired power plants as well Nuke? Coal? Are you crazy? > as refineries suited to processing sour crude. We will need > a few years to get cars adapted to use electricity. Ethanol EVs are around. You won't achieve a redesign in a few years, at least as long as established manufactures are merely sticking to putting lipstick on a pig. > could help get us thru the transition. No, it would be a big mistake to make. Biodiesel would be a far smaller mistake, if you insist to make any. > Here's a notion I had today. Assume a temporary > oil crisis such as one caused by Katrina. We know that This isn't just Katrina: http://benzinpreis.de/statistik.phtml?o=7&jahr=2005&sorte=Normal > a 5% shortfall in supply can cause a huge and destructive > surge in price. On the other hand, a small fuel savings > could easily cover a 5% shortfall in supply. A government Or you could just use a price ratchet via taxes, allowing a monotonous slow increase in prices. We've been at >6.5 US$/gallon for a long time. You'll get used to it, too. > could declare a temporary open season on what types > of vehicles are allowed on the roads. Many homes have a > dirt bike or other small rec vehicle that could be temporarily > declared street legal. We could declare a temporary 50 mph > speed limit for the month of September, in all but the far > left lane. This might encourage people to ride bicycles, > motorized scooters, go carts and dirt bikes on the street > for a few weeks, just long enough to get thru the crisis. The crisis is completely artificial. I don't think your legislation changes have any real bite to it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- 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 Sep 2 11:31:33 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Manhattan vs. New Orleans In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050902113133.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 12:53:13AM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > My impression, from coverage and commentary of New Orleans, is there My impression from third-hand information from the trenches is that the mass media are innacurate and really slow (by at least 24 h) reporters. Some rather interesting news gets entirely unreported. YMMV. > are heroics, but less dramatic. Certainly many people trying to help > one another. But an atmosphere in many areas of felonious barbarity. > Looting, rape, murder, brutality -- not to save oneself or one's > loved ones, but in sociopathic nihilism. Local police command chain has become dissociated, with local forces participating in the looting. Failure to enforce order has caused external support to stop for time being. Patients are dying like flies. > (1) Do you agree that these are the pictures that have been painted > for us of the two events? Painted by whom? > (2) Do you think either reflect the gist of what has happened? If > not, what has caused the distortion(s)? I don't see any active distortion in the mass media which is not caused by the usual incompetence. > (3) What explains the differences between these two portrayed > responses? The causes of the events? The composition of the populace? The two classes of events are completely incomparable at about every level. I won't even start enumerating. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri Sep 2 13:36:34 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:36:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Waterford-3 plant outside NOLA? Message-ID: <44D552AF-8667-4871-8049-A37614CA8305@bonfireproductions.com> Anyone know how the Waterford-3 nuclear plant made out? I understand it is just up the river from New Orleans. If we're having security issues in the area, this could be a problem. I just haven't heard anything on the feeds about it, which I find curious. ]3 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 13:37:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <4317C127.3030707@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Your chemistry book deals with converting sugar. You need to turn to the pages where it talks about the decay products of the starches, fiber, protiens, and other compounds that make up plant structure. Ever heard of swamp gas? It's methane. Comes from when man or nature dumps plant waste en masse. Now considered 12 times more greenhousey than CO2, and plants don't absorb it from the atmosphere like they do CO2. --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > Interesting, my chemistry book says: > > C6Hl2O6 ??? 2 CH3CH2OH + 2 CO2 + energy > > glucose ethyl alcohol carbon dioxide > > As for fallow land, in 1980, around 170,000 acres in Hawaii were > dedicated to sugar production, now down to 20k acres, with 150k acres > laying, for the most part, fallow. Actually, returning to jungle, as it should. > > Here it's good sense. > > In the midwest where they continue to produce corn in abundance, > corn-produced alcohol averages about $2.12 per gallon buying corn at > market rates, not even touching the abundant supply. > > Robbie > > > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian mythology, > putting > >the burden on the agricultural system means much more farmland put > >under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for farmland, means > >ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys wildlife > habitat. > >VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two things: a) to grow hay > >for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and b) to grow sheep > >for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in those cold cold > >winters of the late 19th century when we were headed into an ice > age. > > > >Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we have more > wildlife > >than before the europeans came here, and NY and Boston are not hip > deep > >in horseshit, disease, and stink. > > > >Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century > economy > >and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who > >knows not what they ask for. > > > >Besides all that, all the distillery mash will release much more > >methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought methane was six > >times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A report just came > out > >that its actually 12 times more powerful. > > > >--- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > > > > > >>A green point here: > >> > >>If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > >>problem > >>it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. > >> > >>Robbie > >> > >> > >>Andrew Beck wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth > that > >>>> > >>>> > >>much > >> > >> > >>>>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth > and > >>>>selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It > >>>> > >>>> > >>would > >> > >> > >>>>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum > necessary > >>>> > >>>> > >>to > >> > >> > >>>>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far > >>>> > >>>> > >>more > >> > >> > >>>>valuable than it is today. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the > oil > >>> > >>> > >>to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a > >>small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because > of > >>people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their > >>easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% > >>prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot > up > >>is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be > at > >>least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and > won't > >>comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running > out. > >> > >> > >>>Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a > position > >>> > >>> > >>to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. > >> > >> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>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 > >Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > >http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > >Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Yahoo! Mail > >Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: > >http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Fri Sep 2 13:46:24 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:46:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Waterford-3 plant outside NOLA? Message-ID: <380-22005952134624870@M2W057.mail2web.com> From: Bret Kulakovich >Anyone know how the Waterford-3 nuclear plant made out? I understand >it is just up the river from New Orleans. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9118049/ http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3776111 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 13:59:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <00b901c5af72$fe514a40$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050902135913.43602.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > This whole article is crap. Indeed, why are so many of them poor? > Could it be the spirit of entitlement in the area? The fact that > everyone there xepects a handout? The fact that everyone expected > that if anything happened, someone would take care of them? > And who would be responsible for this? Me? You? The racist "american > people"? This is crap. Their mayor is black. If anyone is responsible > it is him. These journalists act like this is the result of some huge > racial conspiracy. No doubt someone will say this was planned by white > people. This has nothing to do with race. It is incompetence and > ignorance. Sure is, but you know the media would rather point fingers at Bush than at Nagin. Nagin, after all, spent millions trying to sue gun makers for the crimes of criminals. The media is incapable of criticising an incompetent black unless they are also an 'uncle tom' republican. > I know I started this thread. and I just had a thought. > These people have been sitting there for 4 days and yet camera crews > and police cars can drive by? Why the hell do they just sit there? Because government said buses were coming, and waiting to ride a bus is a lot less effort than walking ten or twenty miles. After all, it's governments job to take care of people, innit? Of course, a lot of them are now pissed off cause it took three days to get enough buses there, which is to be expected when all the population of a city with any intelligence and initiative evacuates: those left have no idea how to run anything. Those complaining about the response should also consider that, as you are wondering why your friends in the area are not emailing you, the fact is that the entire communications system of the region is non-existent. Thousands of trees down on phone and power and cable wires. Cell towers destroyed, or dependent on connections to now-non-existent land line phone services. Companies are just now moving portable cells into the area. > Sure, there are some who couldn;t make the walk, but by the looks of > the peopole I would guess that most of those "trapped without food" > could just walk out at any time. A lot of those look like a few weeks without food would do them a world of good. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 2 13:13:06 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:13:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] profitable arbitrage VS gouging/profiteering on disaster Message-ID: <43184FE2.4040900@sasktel.net> I asked someone in the oilpatch who invest, re-invests and has made good from the last few years of oil activity where the money goes from oil investment profits. He said most is still re-invested. What I wanted to know is where else is it might be going. Is the bubble still moving along or are some starting to diversify? Price wise the overnight move from 1.00-1.20/liter CAD is not prompted by supply and demand as I can't see supply bid up for actual delivery that dramatically, that fast. However unleaded gas and heating oil options I can see moving overnight. In this case I am of the opinion that an executive order should have been made as a pre-emptive to cap upward moves in options to say 1/2 a cent a day so that the supply-demand crisis would not simply flush the consumer dollars into options traders profiting on fear/catastrophe in a manner not actually related to market forces. This sort of thing happened with the first BSE with beef and I still remember the phone call I got just as the news broke asking if I wanted to capture the move on beef and "ride it all the way to the bottom". This the sort of thing both our prime minister and the USA president could have done just ahead of the actual crisis to buffer the shock to the population. In my mind this is one of the few things a government can do independant of the market which is intended to be for the general good VS the gouging by a few well placed arbitragers getting an exhorbitant windfall. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 14:10:24 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902141024.25653.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote:> > Well, the 100kW aint it. > I've worked on lasers putting out 1kW onto 10 mm square carbon fibre > mat and it does zilch. Dry hardwood is almost as good. > Now work out the power density of the 100kW laser compared to beam > size on target. 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave oven is different from a radar gun. > > There are numerous ways to absorb, deflect or reradiate that kind of > power for the few seconds necessary for the munition to reach its > target. Bear in mind that these systems are used in the terminal > phase of attack. The laser will work with PGMs, but not with dumb > katyushas that have been hardened. Any dumb ballistic weapon that you force to be modified with graphite sheets, glue, sawdust, etc will, even if they prevent laser pulse attack, so fundamentally change the ballistic characteristics of the warhead as to make it unusable unless the modifications are done by the manufacturer and he publishes ballistic tables for the new design. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sep 2 14:19:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902103447.GT2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050902141913.39808.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > At some level of power, you have plasma defocusing the beam in the > path, > requiring very large apertures, which make such lasers not portable. > Over distances, you need active optics tracking the beam despite > atmospheric microlensing. > > Mirorring the target makes it effectively immune against laser > (though the sensors remain the weak part of it, of course). Ever changed a halogen bulb? High concentration light has difficulty with impurities. The oil and/or dirt from a fingerprint on such a bulb will cause it to fail, either immediately, or soon. So what if you mirror the surface of a mortar round at the factory? Your grunts are going to get it dirty, are going to handle it with bare oily hands, so that even if you are able to mirror polish the surface to a high enough degree for a laser (which will require polishing to such a degree that the mortar round's price inflates from a few bucks up to thousands of dollars each, thus making your war much more expensive), your grunts are going to negate all that with handling. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri Sep 2 14:20:17 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:20:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Waterford-3 plant outside NOLA? In-Reply-To: <380-22005952134624870@M2W057.mail2web.com> References: <380-22005952134624870@M2W057.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <8CB547AA-0433-4AA8-ABA6-906BF5F5E62A@bonfireproductions.com> Phew. Thanks Natasha - why that didn't come up under Google news, I don't know. I only found mention in a 'why there is no power for pipelines' article from a few days ago, and that the plant was offlined before Katrina arrived. Maybe it was my spelling. I remember seeing Waterford from the air a few years back, and it had just occurred to me where I was at the time. Thanks again, Bret On Sep 2, 2005, at 9:46 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: Bret Kulakovich > > > > >> Anyone know how the Waterford-3 nuclear plant made out? I understand >> it is just up the river from New Orleans. >> >> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9118049/ > http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3776111 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 16:31:44 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:31:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5366105b05090209315abc91f1@mail.gmail.com> [snip] > > IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to > > hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since > > about it though. > > Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is > > relatively easy. > > Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the > > rockets or > > coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time > > window in which to down these things. Sometimes you see weapons projects appear in the trade press or patent applications, and then they go quiet for a time. This might mark the development period. No sense advertising you've got a great idea if it might not pan out. > > > > I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap > > MANPADS > > like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying > > can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. > Raytheon has a very interesting fixed HPM defense against MANPADS. See AvWeek in the last few months (email me for a reference tomorrow) for details. The idea uses a high power phased array that runs from the local electric grid to sense and attack the missiles in-flight. Raytheon developed, IIRC, from classified HPM projects and on their own dime. Now you just need some software upgrades for AEGIS-class radar sets. LockMart will either license it if Uncle Sam insists, or hold out for a big fat redevelopment contract. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 16:56:49 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:56:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <5366105b05090209315abc91f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5366105b05090209315abc91f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050902165649.GI2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:31:44AM -0500, Jay Dugger wrote: > Raytheon has a very interesting fixed HPM defense against MANPADS. See > AvWeek in the last few months (email me for a reference tomorrow) for > details. The idea uses a high power phased array that runs from the > local electric grid to sense and attack the missiles in-flight. > Raytheon developed, IIRC, from classified HPM projects and on their > own dime. This sounds very interesting, for a space propulsion point of view. Please give us any references you come across (assuming, you're not talking about Vigilant Eagle http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_010483.pdf ). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 17:30:06 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:30:06 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Your chemistry book deals with converting sugar. You need to turn to >the pages where it talks about the decay products of the starches, >fiber, protiens, and other compounds that make up plant structure. > It deals with that too. > Ever >heard of swamp gas? It's methane. > People have been using refuse from sugar cane for fertilizer and feed for centuries. If you process the whole plant instead of refined sugar, you get high grade protein feed and fertilizer suitable for replanting and/or pig-feed which is useful out here where Lau Lau rules. Ever hear the expression "happy as a pig" - comes from the pigs eating the still-slightly-alcohol-infused mash-waste from a distillation process. Makes good tasting pigs too - good food comes from happy animals :) > Comes from when man or nature dumps >plant waste en masse. Now considered 12 times more greenhousey than >CO2, and plants don't absorb it from the atmosphere like they do CO2. > > Did your mother drop you on your head or something? Alcohol or biodeisel procession of plant waste renders useful byproducts such as fertilizer and energy, making it smart and wise to convert. Here in Hawaii we in fact have a major problem with excess green-waste (stuff grows so fast here you gotta cut your lawn twice a week just to keep it below your ankles - I compost it and put it on my lawn but lots of people don't). If those plants were then either composted properly and/or processed using a nicely bred yeast we could turn our wate management nightmare into an economic boon. Robbie From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 2 17:18:43 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:18:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] peak oil debate - "happy as a pig in shit" In-Reply-To: <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> Message-ID: <43188973.4060905@sasktel.net> Most of the world has more marginal curcumstances than Hawaii. So for us we have to have a valuable extractive, bio-pharm or complex bioactive to feed the money machine to grow the biomass. Marginal production will in time be enhanced by modification of plant chemistry or growth cycles. The cellulose based ethanol and fuel-cell use cycle is a handy way to get the last drop of good from biomass but for most of us it only works if the rest of the production economics stand on their own without considering the salvage value of the biomass. With logistical energy costs escalated, the micro-scale distance insensitive local production of low value products combines well with exporting to distant uses small physical quantities of high value materials. For me here it is cannabis. the oilseed is middling value and justifies long distance logistical cycles for processing and use. The fibre must be bio-procesed and used in as short distances as possible. However bioextractives however produced which have an exponent or high multiple value which can build and carry the whole production process. I have not read most of this string so the comments might be way offbase... the pig in (shit) just caught my eye. > People have been using refuse from sugar cane for fertilizer and feed > for centuries. If you process the whole plant instead of refined > sugar, you get high grade protein feed and fertilizer suitable for > replanting and/or pig-feed which is useful out here where Lau Lau > rules. Ever hear the expression "happy as a pig" - comes from the > pigs eating the still-slightly-alcohol-infused mash-waste from a > distillation process. Makes good tasting pigs too - good food comes > from happy animals :) > >> Comes from when man or nature dumps >> plant waste en masse. Now considered 12 times more greenhousey than >> CO2, and plants don't absorb it from the atmosphere like they do CO2. >> >> > > Did your mother drop you on your head or something? Alcohol or > biodeisel procession of plant waste renders useful byproducts such as > fertilizer and energy, making it smart and wise to convert. Here in > Hawaii we in fact have a major problem with excess green-waste (stuff > grows so fast here you gotta cut your lawn twice a week just to keep > it below your ankles - I compost it and put it on my lawn but lots of > people don't). If those plants were then either composted properly > and/or processed using a nicely bred yeast we could turn our wate > management nightmare into an economic boon. > > Robbie > > From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 18:56:35 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:56:35 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] peak oil debate - "happy as a pig in shit" In-Reply-To: <43188973.4060905@sasktel.net> References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> <43188973.4060905@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <4318A063.2070303@aol.com> Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > Most of the world has more marginal curcumstances than Hawaii. No doubt, however in both the "corn belt" and in the more arid regions there are good alternatives to sugar cane, namely subar beet (which actually processes at a higher level - around 14%), corn, rice, potatoes and barley - all of which are grown commercially now in abundance far exceeding demand with huge potential for increased production. Were demand to increase, existing fallow farmland could be utilized to fulfill needs providing economic stimulus to a now government subsidized industry as well as improved growing methods. I'm -not- suggesting that the total oil utilization could be replaced by alcohol/biodeisel products, only that as an interim solution until a conversion to nuclear power and electric vehicles and mass transportation systems could be affected. Of course the great success story is Brazil which now includes 24% sugar-produced ethanol in all of their fuel and their goal is to replace all oil use with sugar-produced ethanol. And they're "low-tech" compared to the kind of industrialized farming and processing we're capable here in the good 'ol USofA. Albeit at the great expense of the rainforests, but not, strangely, as great a loss as that lost to hamburger production. > So for us we have to have a valuable extractive, bio-pharm or complex > bioactive to feed the money machine > to grow the biomass. There are very, very effective existing ways of producing sugar-sources in almost every climate - and with a little R&D funded at say similar levels as Oil production and processing R&D, I'm sure those could be improved a thousand fold as people get better at it. Trends for sugar production in Hawaii showed an increase of more than 15% per year per acre in yeilded refined sugar up until the sugar crash - and that was before they were seriously considering bio-engineering plants (like sugar cane - say a hybrid between cane sugar and elephant bamboo or something?) > Marginal production will in time be enhanced by modification of plant > chemistry or growth cycles. Quite right! > > The cellulose based ethanol and fuel-cell use cycle is a handy way to > get the last drop of good from > biomass but for most of us it only works if the rest of the production > economics stand on their own > without considering the salvage value of the biomass. The problem with cellulose-based ethanol is the need to pre-process the material. For instance, unprocessed sugar-cane can be fermented using existing yeasts with a yeild of approximately 11% of the total mass. Whereas with processed sugar you get nearly 100% conversion. The difference - the unprocessed cellulose. The problem is that yeast doesn't naturally breakdown cellulose. You'd have to bio-engineer a good bacteria to first breakdown the cellulose and the return sugar for the yeast to make a really effective "self-perpetuating" cellulose fuel system. It is, no doubt, a worthwhile endeavor! > > With logistical energy costs escalated, the micro-scale distance > insensitive local production of low value > products combines well with exporting to distant uses small physical > quantities of high value materials. Local production is key, for sure, but also very good for local economies. > > For me here it is cannabis. the oilseed is middling value and > justifies long distance logistical cycles for > processing and use. The fibre must be bio-procesed and used in as > short distances as possible. And more fun than alcohol as I recall. May both be legal to produce at home soon! > > However bioextractives however produced which have an exponent or high > multiple value which > can build and carry the whole production process. > > I have not read most of this string so the comments might be way > offbase... the pig in (shit) just caught my eye. Ever actually see a pig stumbling around drunk? Very funny. Robbie Lindauer From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 19:20:46 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:20:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <49949997-4BC2-4934-8705-E6C92FD3B997@mac.com> Message-ID: <01f001c5aff3$6bc89b70$0100a8c0@kevin> > Are you saying that we do not have the means to lower pallets of > goods from military helicopters exactly where we want them? We > surely can fly in and we can boat most of the way in. Are you saying > that marines can't manage to get into a disaster zone in America but > can kick bitt anywhere and everywhere else in the world? I do not > believe this. Besides. A lot of the people are in very packed and > accessible places. Even they are not being remotely taken care of. > What is the excuse for that? An added point for you Samantha - whom I often disagree with - If the TV crews could get there, so could the water and food trucks. I could have loaded up a UHAUL truck at 8 am at Walmart after seeing the conference center on the news and driven there by 8pm from Evansville, IN. The only reason I didn't was because I was afraid I would interfere with a large-scale organized response that never came and because I was certain someone else would get there sooner. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 19:28:31 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:28:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <20050902055618.37354.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <021201c5aff4$81580ec0$0100a8c0@kevin> > > Well I feel like its complaining about spilled milk, > but it seems pretty obvious to me. You can't cut > taxes, fund a $250 billion dollar ground war, AND be > prepared for disaster relief. Not unless the Federal > Government is somehow capable of magically creating > money and manpower. As far as I know the federal > government is drowning in a bathtub right now. It's > called the Mississippi Basin. We get what we ask for. > A little over half of us voted for these types of > policies, so we got exactly what we deserved. Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to believe this is a cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind of stuff and can borrow damn near without limits. > We have most of our logistics infrastructure in the > middle east to support to our troops in Iraq. Even as > it is, the logistic support to the troops on the > ground is suboptimal in regards to certain things like > body armor and hard topped vehicles for convoy > support. > I don't believe there are that many spare C130s to > drop off any spare MREs to the people affected. Kidding again? I see them flying around here all the time. INDIANA > > I hardly think an administration that can't foresee > the need for an exit strategy when entering a war > would have a contigency plan for natural disaster > during the war. > From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 19:25:40 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:25:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902103447.GT2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 9/2/05 3:34 AM, "Eugen Leitl" wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:44:34PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > >> State-of-the-art active radar systems do not detectably radiate at all, >> another very, very slick piece of American military technology. It is how > > I don't see how this is supposed to be possible. Are you sure you're not > meaning passive radar? Nope, not passive radar, though on some levels it shares principles. I am not an authority on the details of it, and the real details are classified. The problem with passive radar is that you do not control the characteristics or power of the radiator that is illuminating the target, so one has to measure background and then do cross-correlation to find patterns allowing for variation and uncertainty in the reference. This limits range and resolution. This new type of active radar uses an ultra-wide band radiator that mimics background RF in all respects, but since the computer has perfect knowledge of the background 'noise', it can extract far more detail at far more range than traditional passive radar. A few advanced countries are using UWB radar for their weapon systems, which is much more resistant to ECM than traditional radar and is harder to detect at a distance due to the lower power in a given band. However, most of these systems still generate a signature that an advanced ECM package could detect. The special feature the US state-of-the-art UWB radar used in stealthy systems is that the mimicry of background RF is supposedly nearly perfect such that you can be looking directly at it at quite close range and never see it unless you have the 'key' required to decrypt the background RF one is looking at. In short, by the time the other guy has a prayer of detecting the radiator, you will be in visual range (and the other guy will have long since died). And of course, these same platforms can also be keyed off of AWACs and other external radiators for some proper passive radar. I guess this would be an example of an almost perfectly efficient RF data communication technology, though not used as such in the radar application. As I said, I don't know all the technical details beyond what I've gleaned from radar tech guys who've worked on a lot of military radar systems. Supposedly this is an incremental evolutionary convergence of advanced RF technology that the US has been perfecting for a long time. The radar packages used in many more conventional combat aircraft platforms use UWB radiators, but in a more traditional low probability of intercept configuration that can be detected if the ED/ECM is very slick, due primarily to the fact that it does not look like background RF noise. J. Andrew Rogers From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 19:38:16 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:38:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hyphenated Americans WAS: Getting AId to people in need References: <200509020426.j824QLw14232@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <021f01c5aff5$dda1bd60$0100a8c0@kevin> > > If an African-American is born in America, both her parents are > born in America, all her grandparents, great grandparents, and > their parents were born in America, at what point is it no longer > legitimate that she call herself African American? When does she > become, like me, a native American? I have an ancestor who was > born in Pretoria South Africa. May I call myself African > American? Will all my descendants, for all eternity, be able > to call themselves African American? This reminds me of a point I made for several years while a mortgage broker. The 1003 loan application REQUIRES a portion on page 3 to be filled out called HDMA for "government monitoring purposes" It asks race and asks whether a person is Latino or non-latino. in a separate section. The excuse is because you can be a latino and an asian or a latino AND an african american. Of course, you are asked to check all that apply in the second section that has boxes for caucasian, native american, asian, african american, etc. It has a box checked "I do not wish to furnish this information." Of course, if you do not furnish it, the lender will not do the loan because HUD requires that information to track and make sure we aren't declining people or charging higher rates because of race or "ethnicity". No one ever stopped to think that if you didn't ask, the underwriter couldn;t do that because they would have no idea what race or ethnicity they were. As a mortgage broker I was very upset at this. I refused to ask these questions and I began checking all boxes for everyone - regardless of race or ethnicity. The way I saw it, everyone descended from Africa and was therefore African American. EVen the "native Americans" descended from African stock, so we are all native americans - and asians, etc. One day at a closing a borrower noticed this and asked about it. He was very upset with me. After all, he was black and NOT caucasian! From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 19:51:30 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:51:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Robert Lindauer wrote > > People have been using refuse from sugar cane for fertilizer and feed > for centuries. If you process the whole plant instead of refined sugar, > you get high grade protein feed and fertilizer suitable for replanting > and/or pig-feed which is useful out here where Lau Lau rules. Ever hear > the expression "happy as a pig" - comes from the pigs eating the > still-slightly-alcohol-infused mash-waste from a distillation process. > You just made that up! :) Or, at least, if it is a true story in your locality it has nothing to do with the common idiom "happy as a pig in mud", (in polite company), or army-style "happy as a pig in sh*t". Sometimes shortened to just "happy as a pig" in conversation to avoid possible offence. This saying just means being blissfully happy, like when a pig is in it's ideal environment. The French version is "?tre heureux comme un poisson dans l'eau". Literally translated is "be happy as a fish in water". BillK From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Sep 2 22:03:49 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:03:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? Message-ID: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:29:55 -0700, "Terry W. Colvin" fwded: I wrote: Designing for absolute minimum weight aerospace vehicles is fraught with problems... Granted, however we are discussing only *scaling* as a function of the needs of the astronaut. Two of my arguments about current space exploration projects are that (a) their designers are obsessed with building to miniscule performance margins and (b) they are monstrously over-engineered. You've only to look at the problems with the shuttle orbiter's thermal tiles - they only work as heat shields, not debris impact shelds, and it only takes a tiny level of damage to severely compromise the entire vehicle. We should be designing bigger, simpler, more rugged and more flexible, not smaller, lighter and more fragile. Designing a cramped, highly confining vehicle for an undersize crew will never happen simply because of the sheer psychological problems of cooping-up a crew in a baked-bean can for years at a time. Unless your psychological profiles throw up hermit-types with agoraphobia and a desire to return to the womb, then you're going to have extreme problems from the moment you close the hatch. Besides, bigger means that you can work with a number of economies of scale - such as mass production and system duplication to make enough redundancy to cope with discrete failures. It's all very well reducing your air conditioning needs such that it can be provided by one CCU, but if that fails and you've no fall-back then you're in serious trouble. You're going to need prime systems and back-ups anyway. Larger devices tend to be more efficient. There is a point that as you reduce the mass of astronauts, a given number of duplicated support systems is not going to get any smaller. Indeed, why even stop at dwarves? Why not amputees? There's a lot of redundant skeletal tissue in legs. We're starting to make serious headway into tapping directly into the central nervous system. Why not interface your robotic controls directly with the astronaut and do away with limbs altogether? Then your space capsule would be the size of a rubbish bin. I'm afraid I'm not convinced. We should be building bigger spaceships, with multiple cabins, workshops, equipment bays and the like, so that if anything catastrophic happens to one compartment it can be sealed off to protect the rest of the ship. We want space ships not space canoes! Bigger is Better. Let's go for Saturn Vs for the twenty-first century, not bottle rockets! Another big no-no is sending a human crew all that way and not letting them land. You might as well just send robots. The only advantage of putting a human crew into orbit around Mars to supervise machines on the ground is that it reduces the radio-transmission lag. And Mars rovers have already demonstrated that they can be made smart enough to deal autonomously with exploring without human hands on the controls. Again, bigger spacecraft could support bigger, smarter, more versatile machines with greated power and longer endurance, but what would you rather see on the flanks of Mons Olympus, another robot or a human in a space suit? Robin Hill (thinking of founding the Campaign for Real Space Exploration), STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm -- "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 robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 22:32:00 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:32:00 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> Message-ID: <4318D2E0.20609@aol.com> Okay, but until you've seen pigs wallowing in fresh warm mash, you haven't lived! BillK wrote: >On 9/2/05, Robert Lindauer wrote > > >>People have been using refuse from sugar cane for fertilizer and feed >>for centuries. If you process the whole plant instead of refined sugar, >>you get high grade protein feed and fertilizer suitable for replanting >>and/or pig-feed which is useful out here where Lau Lau rules. Ever hear >>the expression "happy as a pig" - comes from the pigs eating the >>still-slightly-alcohol-infused mash-waste from a distillation process. >> >> >> > >You just made that up! :) >Or, at least, if it is a true story in your locality it has nothing to >do with the common idiom "happy as a pig in mud", (in polite company), >or army-style "happy as a pig in sh*t". >Sometimes shortened to just "happy as a pig" in conversation to avoid >possible offence. > >This saying just means being blissfully happy, like when a pig is in >it's ideal environment. > >The French version is "?tre heureux comme un poisson dans l'eau". >Literally translated is "be happy as a fish in water". > >BillK >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 2 22:50:45 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:50:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> References: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> Terry W. Colvin wrote: >Besides, bigger means that you can work with a number of economies >of scale - such as mass production and system duplication to make >enough redundancy to cope with discrete failures. Reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago with a distinguished astronomer (and apparent idiot) who had worked on some of the robotic space missions. I was talking about how useful it would be to, instead of having one or maybe two crafts that observe some solar system phenomena, set up an assembly line in near-Earth space. Build thousands of identical crafts. Perhaps finishing one a day, shoving it out into a new direction. First, he dismissed the value of having data from different spots in the solar system. I think he's wrong, but at least the point seems debatable. Then came his punchline, which demonstrated to me that Clarke's Laws are still in effect. He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, he really did mean *never*. -- David Lubkin. From dgc at cox.net Fri Sep 2 22:48:06 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:48:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> I cannot find the exact quote or attribution. I remember the quote as: "Any city is three days away from barbarism." Does anyone know the actual quote? From riel at surriel.com Fri Sep 2 23:30:55 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> References: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Hal Finney wrote: > If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that much > in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and > selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. If you were a 60 year old CEO, would you try to maximise profits today and keep shareholders happy, or would you gamble that prices will be higher 15 years in the future and hope you can string the shareholders along for that time ? -- "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 Fri Sep 2 23:40:15 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: References: <20050901172312.84734.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar rounds > etc in carbon fibre mat. Or making the surface have corner cubes. With small enough ones it may even have beneficial aerodynamic properties. -- "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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 00:46:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050903004628.65269.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I thought it was "any culture is two meals from revolution". --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > I cannot find the exact quote or attribution. I remember the quote > as: > "Any city is three days away from barbarism." > Does anyone know the actual quote? > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 3 02:19:15 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:19:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <20050903004628.65269.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> <20050903004628.65269.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050902211732.01ed3e60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 05:46 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Mike wrote: >I thought it was "any culture is two meals from revolution". No, no, that's "any bicycle is two wheels from revolution". Damien Broderick From outlawpoet at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 02:31:24 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:31:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050902211732.01ed3e60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> <20050903004628.65269.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050902211732.01ed3e60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f3050902193190705c7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/2/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 05:46 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Mike wrote: > > >I thought it was "any culture is two meals from revolution". > > No, no, that's "any bicycle is two wheels from revolution". I think you're remembering an old adage electric motor makers have, "a revolution at the axle, is worth two in the brush(es)" -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 03:00:00 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:00:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from agametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902112155.GY2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200509030300.j83302w31803@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > > > > User, I could see ethanol as a transition phase, where we add > > Why ethanol, on earth? Why not synmethanol? Or biodiesel, if > you absolutely have to curry favors to big dirty agribusiness?... Synmethanol and biodiesel are fine, those two guys can play too. I mentioned ethanol because it is easy to make and burn in current vehicles. Biodiesel will be useful for existing Diesel engines. In both cases, I am looking toward the current infrastructure as much as possible during the long transition away from fossil fuels. > Why not simply lighter, more efficient vehicles (my car averages > about 6.2 l/100 km, which is probably half or less of the typical > U.S. car, not even SUV)?... Eventually yes. Think about the transition phase. > > Alcohols are too corrosive for the current infrastructure, unless > used just as additives -- but why bother with footnotes? We will need them. I suspect the answer will come from many directions. > > What is the half life of a modern car? A few years, typically. > It would make more sense to just stick to new vehicles... Good question. I would think it is about 8 years. We will have them for a long time. Cars as we know them will still be with us when you and I take the old nitrogen bath Gene. {8-| {8-] > > > An ethanol-gasoline mix could carry part of the load > > while we gear up nuclear and coal fired power plants as well > > Nuke? Coal? Are you crazy? No, we will need those guys too. I suspect when the proles are faced with the choice of either a nuke plant in the back yard, a coal plant in the back yard or no power, we will choose the nuke plant in loud unison. > > ... Biodiesel would be > a far smaller mistake, if you insist to make any... I'm suggesting that we will have biodiesel, ethanol, synmethanol, full plug-in EVs, turbodiesel series hybrids, parallel hybrids, and good old fashioned gas-only V8 Detroits sharing the roads for the next five decades. ... > > Or you could just use a price ratchet via taxes, allowing > a monotonous slow increase in prices. We've been at > >6.5 US$/gallon for a long time. You'll get used to it, too... Here is where I disagree. The U.S. and state governments do not *really* have the leeway to tax motor fuels this high. If they try, their political opponents can win an election merely by promising to reduce fuel taxes, or any taxes that mess with our cars. We saw in Taxifornia a governor recalled a year into his second term, not because he was merely corrupt (we would tolerate corrupt) but rather because he *legitimately* raised the license fees for cars. The license fees on cars was a flat tax. A flat tax hits the portemonnaie of the poor man much harder than it does the rich. A fuel tax is also a flat tax in a sense, but more than that: a fuel tax is one that everyone pays over and over and over, since everything is made of fuel: the stuff at the grocery store, well, the stuff at every store. A fuel tax is a highly inflationary tax, and it is very destructive to any economy. Americans will not tolerate fuel taxes! We will skip the bit about hurling the tea into Boston Harbor, go straight to hurling the politicians into the Patomac River. We would vote for anyone who promises to end the fuel tax, and I myself would be at the front of the line with the blue finger. I would suggest an alternative: during the transition from fossil fuels we remove taxes and restrictions on any private manufacturing of alcohol, biodiesel or anything that can be used as a motor fuel. With no tax, we could produce oil equivalents at about four bucks a gallon, perhaps less. We would temporarily relax restrictions on water usage, such as pumping out of rivers, to establish corn, potatoes and rice on land that is currently not economical to farm. It will cost us a few fish, but it beats the alternatives. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 03:02:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:02:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509030302.j8332Gw32018@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin ... > > He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, he > really did mean *never*. > > > -- David Lubkin. Surely your friend forgot about the Iridium constellation. We build 73 of those. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 3 03:16:36 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:16:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract Message-ID: <004401c5b035$e4fb0ae0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? ... Halliburton gets Katrina contract, hires former FEMA director 1 Sept. 2005 WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- The US Navy asked Halliburton to repair naval facilities damaged by Hurricane Katrina, the Houston Chronicle reported today. The work was assigned to Halliburton's KBR subsidiary under the Navy's $500 million CONCAP contract awarded to KBR in 2001 and renewed in 2004. The repairs will take place in Louisiana and Mississippi. KBR has not been asked to repair the levees destroyed in New Orleans which became the primary cause of most of the damage. Since 1989, governments worldwide have awarded $3 billion in contracts to KBR's Government and Infrastructure Division to clean up damage caused by natural and man-made disasters. Earlier this year, the Navy awarded $350 million in contracts to KBR and three other companies to repair naval facilities in northwest Florida damaged by Hurricane Ivan, which struck in September 2004. The ongoing repair work involves aircraft support facilities, medium industrial buildings, marine construction, mechanical and electrical improvements, civil construction, and family housing renovation. In March, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is tasked with responding to hurricane disasters, became a lobbyist for KBR. Joe Allbaugh was director of FEMA during the first two years of the Bush administration. Today, FEMA is widely criticized for its slow response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Allbaugh managed Bush's campaign for Texas governor in 1994, served as Gov. Bush's chief of staff and was the national campaign manager for the Bush campaign in 2000. Along with Karen Hughes and Karl Rove, Allbaugh was one of Bush's closest advisers. "This is a perfect example of someone cashing in on a cozy political relationship," said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington watchdog group. "Allbaugh's former placement as a senior government official and his new lobbying position with KBR strengthens the company's already tight ties to the administration, and I hope that contractor accountability is not lost as a result." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 3 03:18:48 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:18:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Failed Storm Victims? Message-ID: <005001c5b036$33a103c0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Politicians. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050901/D8CBNMA88.html Olga From scerir at libero.it Sat Sep 3 06:10:44 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:10:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: <002601c5b04e$385aa750$5ebf1b97@administxl09yj> > Does anyone know the actual quote? There is a real quotation (courtesy of CNN, but taken from another list). "Don't try it! Sleeping inside with: Big dog Ugly woman Two shotguns Claw hammer." [On a New Orleans antique shop] From robgobblin at aol.com Sat Sep 3 06:30:48 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:30:48 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from agametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <200509030300.j83302w31803@tick.javien.com> References: <200509030300.j83302w31803@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2005, at 5:00 PM, spike wrote: > With no tax, we could produce oil > equivalents at about four bucks a gallon, perhaps less. We would > temporarily relax restrictions on water usage, such as pumping > out of rivers, to establish corn, potatoes and rice on land > that is currently not economical to farm. It will cost us > a few fish, but it beats the alternatives. Much less than $4.00/gallon to produce alcohol even using market-rate refined sugar, btw. Ethanol currently retails around 2.12/gallon in most of the midwest states and if you're in an e85 car in those states right now, you're lovin' life finally getting to say "I told you so" to all those gas-burners. But I agree with you, taxation -in general- is regressive especially taxation of fuel and income. And since firearms and tobacco are the only other things the federal revenuers really have their chubby little fingers in, let's just send them all home! Robbie From hal at finney.org Sat Sep 3 05:58:25 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050903055825.909C357EF7@finney.org> A terrific source for informed analysis of the economic questions about Peak Oil comes from http://www.econbrowser.org , the weblog of James D. Hamilton, Professor of Economics at UC San Diego. This blog, which started just this past June, is a great resource for insight on all kinds of economic topics, but JDH has taken a particular interest in Peak Oil and has shed very helpful light from an economic perspective. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/energy/index.html provides all of his energy-related postings, but in particular I would point to the three part series: How to talk to an economist about peak oil http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/07/how_to_talk_to.html Further discussion about economists and peak oil http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/07/further_discuss.html Discussions with economists about peak oil: Chapter 3 http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/07/discussions_wit.html These expand on the ideas I listed earlier about what we would expect to see if insiders really believed that Peak Oil were coming in the next few years, and how that doesn't match up with reality. You will also find many more good articles elsewhere on his blog, including discussions of the impact of Katrina on the oil markets and on the economy. I am finding Econbrowser to be an invaluable resource for improving my understanding of what is going on in the world. Another interesting economics blog, not as good as Econbrowser but still worth reading occasionally, is the Freakonomics blog at http://www.freakonomics.com/blog.php by the authors of the book. Steven Levitt is the award winning economist who writes most of the articles and he has had quite a few recently about oil markets in general and Peak Oil in particular. Hal Finney From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 07:21:53 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <021201c5aff4$81580ec0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050903072153.45552.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to > believe this is a > cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind > of stuff and can borrow > damn near without limits. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was merely hypothesizing why the federal government would sit idly by and watch one of its oldest and most historic cities become a third-world-country over night and then let it sit that way for days before doing anything. My assumption was that it was a cash flow problem as even loans take time to process but if you are right and cash flow/logistic problems are not to blame, then I was being overly charitable to the government. If the snafu was not logistical, then it was intentional. If the federal govern COULDN'T provide immediate disaster relief, that would be one thing. But if it COULD then apparently, it was just reluctant to do so and that opens a whole new can of worms. Because then one is left with the question of why the federal government didn't want to? Was it because the victims were blacks? Was it because New Orleans voted democrat last time around? Or maybe all the FEMA guys were waiting for Bush to get back from vacation so that he could tell them what to do? If it was Miami, Dubya would have had check in Jeb's hand before the hurricane hit. I don't think it's a state jurisdiction issue either as the federal government has made it crystal clear to California that it will come in and step all over state's jurisdiction when it WANTS to. Lets face it. In this administration, if you live in a blue state (or a blue county in a red state) you might was well be in Somalia. 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Sep 3 07:43:37 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:43:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <004401c5b035$e4fb0ae0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: On 9/2/05 8:16 PM, "Olga Bourlin" wrote: > Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? ... Well, duh. Who else could do it? This the kind of thing they *specialize* in. No matter what kind of contract Halliburton gets, it MUST be a sinister conspiracy of some type. It is written into their corporate charter doncha know. Recycle that aluminum foil please, when you are done wearing it on your head. Proof positive that knee-jerk tribalism and their kook fringe friends are alive and well... J. Andrew Rogers From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 07:58:51 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > On 9/2/05 8:16 PM, "Olga Bourlin" > wrote: > > Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? > ... > > > Well, duh. Who else could do it? This the kind of > thing they *specialize* > in. No matter what kind of contract Halliburton > gets, it MUST be a sinister > conspiracy of some type. It is written into their > corporate charter doncha > know. I think the lady's point is that Halliburton should not be (and probably isn't when I think about it) the ONLY company that can do it. There is this thing called monopoly that gums up the gears of a freemarket economy and I don't need my tin-foil hat to figure out that monopoly needs a collusion between the government and A COMPANY in order to prosper in a free market. I say put these kind of contracts up on BID. There are many construction contractors that are perfectly capable of building whatever you want them to build especially if they are not in a war-zone. What's next, is Halliburton gonna muscle in on the home-improvement market? 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Sep 3 08:37:41 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:37:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/3/05 12:58 AM, "The Avantguardian" wrote: > > I think the lady's point is that Halliburton should > not be (and probably isn't when I think about it) the > ONLY company that can do it. Then please, start your own company that can compete with them. There are several large companies that routinely get the business of the government because they have no realistic competitors in a number of sectors of expertise for large scale projects. Halliburton is one of those companies. Lockheed-Martin is another. You and I don't have to like it, that is just the way it is. And when they do have competitors, it is usually some other "evil" company that is synonymous with conspiracy theories anyway. As I've pointed out in the past, it is not just the US government that uses Halliburton. A good number of the world's governments have hired Halliburton at one time or another to do what they do. They have competitors, but none that have the ability to handle really large projects to the extent Halliburton can. I really don't give a crap if Halliburton gets another contract, nor do I think they are a particularly excellent company. I just think it is ludicrous that everyone questions the selection of Halliburton for contracts when there are no other viable competitors in the field more often than not. Don't whine about it, offer a genuinely viable alternative. If you think you can do better, there is a mountain of gold in them thar hills to be had. Armchair quarterbacking and all that. J. Andrew Rogers From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 08:41:26 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:41:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/3/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > I think the lady's point is that Halliburton should > not be (and probably isn't when I think about it) the > ONLY company that can do it. There is this thing > called monopoly that gums up the gears of a freemarket > economy and I don't need my tin-foil hat to figure out > that monopoly needs a collusion between the government > and A COMPANY in order to prosper in a free market. I > say put these kind of contracts up on BID. There are > many construction contractors that are perfectly > capable of building whatever you want them to build > especially if they are not in a war-zone. What's next, > is Halliburton gonna muscle in on the home-improvement > market? > Heh! :) I guess you haven't dealt with government bureaucrats much. Here in UK (and I doubt if the US is much different) if the gov put a contract out for public tender you are talking about at least six months before a contract is issued. They have to prepare a requirements document, send it out, wait a few months to give the companies time to prepare proposals, then these have to be reviewed by committees to get down to a short list. Then the shortlist get into negotiations with the bureaucrats and eventually a contract will be issued. I think the US Navy might be in a bit of a hurry to get their stuff working again. :) The only way to do this is to cut the gov out of the process. The US Navy probably know Haliburton is not the cheapest quote, but they expect results, *fast*. BillK From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 10:30:39 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 05:30:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902165649.GI2249@leitl.org> References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5366105b05090209315abc91f1@mail.gmail.com> <20050902165649.GI2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5366105b0509030330bb31ae3@mail.gmail.com> [snip] > This sounds very interesting, for a space propulsion point of view. > Please give us any references you come across (assuming, you're not > talking about Vigilant Eagle > > http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_010483.pdf > That's the one. I don't know if this might have spin-on to beamed power for powersats, elevator climbers, or high-energy laser lift. The AvWeek article has a few more details, but the press release sums it up pretty nicely. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From eugen at leitl.org Sat Sep 3 11:38:12 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:38:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> References: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050903113811.GG2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 06:50:45PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, he > really did mean *never*. He was most likely already wrong at the time he spoke: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010601eo1.html http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/0009/VS0014.html http://www.wtec.org/loyola/ar93_94/scst.htm -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 13:35:46 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 06:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903133546.98134.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > > I really don't give a crap if Halliburton gets > another contract, nor do I > think they are a particularly excellent company. I > just think it is > ludicrous that everyone questions the selection of > Halliburton for contracts > when there are no other viable competitors in the > field more often than not. > Don't whine about it, offer a genuinely viable > alternative. If you think > you can do better, there is a mountain of gold in > them thar hills to be had. > Armchair quarterbacking and all that. Well I consider myself less like an armchair quarterback and more like a fan that bought a ticket to see a football game played and instead had Halliburton win because the other team forfeited by not showing up. But if I were to pick up your gauntlet and take the field myself, I think I would have to try to take on Lockheed-Martin because jet fighters are so much cooler than plumbing and electrical. ;) 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 14:04:45 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903140445.92508.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Hal Finney wrote: > > > If you were an insider and knew that oil was going > to be worth that much > > in a few years, why would you be pumping for all > you were worth and > > selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't > make sense. > > If you were a 60 year old CEO, would you try to > maximise > profits today and keep shareholders happy, or would > you > gamble that prices will be higher 15 years in the > future > and hope you can string the shareholders along for > that > time ? Precisely. From your 60 yr old CEO's point of view, it would be most advantageous to keep your investors thinking that the oil was plentiful and that everything was going smoothly. Even if you were in reality pumping the dregs of your wells. After all, if you are waiting to see if you die before you go out of business, you might as well make every buck you can while you can. 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 14:40:43 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <3ad827f3050902193190705c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050903144043.51250.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- justin corwin wrote: > On 9/2/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 05:46 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Mike wrote: > > > > >I thought it was "any culture is two meals from revolution". > > > > No, no, that's "any bicycle is two wheels from revolution". > > I think you're remembering an old adage electric motor makers have, > "a revolution at the axle, is worth two in the brush(es)" No, I think you are remembering the Bush family motto: "A revolution in the Axis is worth two more Bushes." Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 15:10:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <200509030302.j8332Gw32018@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050903151016.57935.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > ... > > > > He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > > would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, > > he really did mean *never*. > > Surely your friend forgot about the Iridium constellation. We > build 73 of those. And someone like Davids friend would point out that Iridium was a 'failure' (though ignoring that it is still functioning and turning a profit for the corporation that bought the assets of the original company (and the only way for people to communicate in the mess of New Orleans, currently)). As he is an astronomer, it is understandable that he only pays attention to orbiting observatories. You only need one of each type in orbit at a time of these sorts, he is right there, provided each can provide sufficient observation time to each of the worlds astronomers that needs it. Thing is, the more observatories there are, the more market there is for astronomers... Of course, he is likely not aware of the plans for the Darwin Space Interferometer Terrestrial Planet Finding Project, which would consist of 6 separate spacecraft capable of resolving terrestrial planets, within their primary's habitable zomes, within 25 parsecs from Earth. The Mark 2 version of Darwin, which would be used to actually observe terrestrial planetary surfaces and detect trace amounts of methane, would have a similar constellation, though moving up from a 1.5 meter mirror size to 7.5 meter mirror size for each spacecraft. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 15:17:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <004401c5b035$e4fb0ae0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What? That KBR, a private company, is more trusted to repair hurricane damaged facilities than FEMA? That it is good at its job? If you want to make a believable case of any sort of malfeasance, Olga, you are going to have to dive into KBR's contract record and show that KBR has gotten more contracts since 2000 than before it. And if it is, is there anything wrong with KBR cashing in on its former relationship to a current vice president than isn't equally wrong for a former first lady to cash in on her relationship to a former president in order to win a seat in the US Senate? For a drunk philandering killer to cash in on the legacy of his older brothers in the white house to get a seat in the Senate? --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? ... > Halliburton gets Katrina contract, hires former FEMA director > 1 Sept. 2005 > WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- The US Navy asked > Halliburton to repair naval facilities damaged by Hurricane Katrina, > the Houston Chronicle reported today. The work was assigned to > Halliburton's KBR subsidiary under the Navy's $500 million CONCAP > contract awarded to KBR in 2001 and renewed in 2004. The repairs will > take place in Louisiana and Mississippi. > > KBR has not been asked to repair the levees destroyed in New > Orleans which became the primary cause of most of the damage. > > Since 1989, governments worldwide have awarded $3 billion in > contracts to KBR's Government and Infrastructure Division to clean up > damage caused by natural and man-made disasters. > > Earlier this year, the Navy awarded $350 million in contracts to > KBR and three other companies to repair naval facilities in northwest > Florida damaged by Hurricane Ivan, which struck in September 2004. > The ongoing repair work involves aircraft support facilities, medium > industrial buildings, marine construction, mechanical and electrical > improvements, civil construction, and family housing renovation. > > In March, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management > Agency (FEMA), which is tasked with responding to hurricane > disasters, became a lobbyist for KBR. Joe Allbaugh was director of > FEMA during the first two years of the Bush administration. > > Today, FEMA is widely criticized for its slow response to the > victims of Hurricane Katrina. > > Allbaugh managed Bush's campaign for Texas governor in 1994, served > as Gov. Bush's chief of staff and was the national campaign manager > for the Bush campaign in 2000. Along with Karen Hughes and Karl Rove, > Allbaugh was one of Bush's closest advisers. > > "This is a perfect example of someone cashing in on a cozy > political relationship," said Scott Amey, general counsel at the > Project on Government Oversight, a Washington watchdog group. > "Allbaugh's former placement as a senior government official and his > new lobbying position with KBR strengthens the company's already > tight ties to the administration, and I hope that contractor > accountability is not lost as a result." > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 3 15:47:45 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:47:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <20050903072153.45552.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003c01c5b09e$d5089d00$0100a8c0@kevin> You are forgetting the most probable reason this was bumbled. Incompetence. I am starting to get the idea that everyone thought someone else was doing things while no one was aware of just how big ght problem was. The whole mess has been an information nightmare. The FEME people apaprently weren't watching TV. No one thought "Hey, lets grope some troops on the ground and assess the situation" Or "Let's follow the TV news crews - they always know where to go". I am willing to bet that the communications infrastructure of the news companies is superior to anything FEMA has which is why everyone except FEMA seemed to know what was going on. Had they just watched the news they could have tackled that issue. ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:21 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > > Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to > > believe this is a > > cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind > > of stuff and can borrow > > damn near without limits. > > I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was > merely hypothesizing why the federal government would > sit idly by and watch one of its oldest and most > historic cities become a third-world-country over > night and then let it sit that way for days before > doing anything. My assumption was that it was a cash > flow problem as even loans take time to process but if > you are right and cash flow/logistic problems are not > to blame, then I was being overly charitable to the > government. > > If the snafu was not logistical, then it was > intentional. If the federal govern COULDN'T provide > immediate disaster relief, that would be one thing. > But if it COULD then apparently, it was just reluctant > to do so and that opens a whole new can of worms. > Because then one is left with the question of why the > federal government didn't want to? Was it because the > victims were blacks? Was it because New Orleans voted > democrat last time around? Or maybe all the FEMA guys > were waiting for Bush to get back from vacation so > that he could tell them what to do? If it was Miami, > Dubya would have had check in Jeb's hand before the > hurricane hit. > > I don't think it's a state jurisdiction issue either > as the federal government has made it crystal clear to > California that it will come in and step all over > state's jurisdiction when it WANTS to. > > Lets face it. In this administration, if you live in a > blue state (or a blue county in a red state) you might > was well be in Somalia. > > > 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 spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 15:44:05 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:44:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031544.j83FiBw04646@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J. Andrew Rogers > ... Halliburton is one of those companies. > Lockheed-Martin is another. You and I don't have to like it... I like it. {8-] > ... And when they do have competitors, it is usually some other > "evil" company that is synonymous with conspiracy theories anyway... ... > J. Andrew Rogers ... Such as Booeing. And it isn't just a theory, they really was a conspiracy. They got caught this time. See number two on this list: http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03december/dec03corp1.html The odd part is that thru it all, Booeing stock soared, while the main competitor, Lockheeed Martin, is the same price now that it was five years ago. {8-[ Don't seem right. Halliburton seems like a legitimate outfit. I haven't seen anything by them that seems too out of line. Being big doesn't mean evil necessarily. I don't see who the heck else is set up to do the kinds of jobs they do. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 3 15:52:29 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:52:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> Is there a company out there that is more capable and better at handling the job and is willing to do it for less? Is this information readily available? No doubt they should have spent a little more time shopping for various companies and accepting bids on such projects . That way the work could get started several months after the disasters happen. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 16:23:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <20050903072153.45552.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > > Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to > > believe this is a > > cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind > > of stuff and can borrow > > damn near without limits. > > I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was > merely hypothesizing why the federal government would > sit idly by and watch one of its oldest and most > historic cities become a third-world-country over > night and then let it sit that way for days before > doing anything. Your improper assumption was that New Orleans wasn't a third world country before this disaster. I don't know how many times I've heard that people like to go there specifically because it has third world country characteristics without having to leave the US. > My assumption was that it was a cash > flow problem as even loans take time to process but if > you are right and cash flow/logistic problems are not > to blame, then I was being overly charitable to the > government. > > If the snafu was not logistical, then it was > intentional. If the federal govern COULDN'T provide > immediate disaster relief, that would be one thing. > But if it COULD then apparently, it was just reluctant > to do so and that opens a whole new can of worms. Generally speaking the Federal Government is not the rescuer of first resort with natural disasters on US soil, the states are. If anybody has been laying down on the job, it is the state governments and people of LA and MS who seem to have surrendered and can only point fingers at this point. There are a lot more people in both states than those living near the coast, and looking at the unemployment rates in both states, there are a lot of people down there sitting around with nothing to do but help with rescue efforts. > Because then one is left with the question of why the > federal government didn't want to? Was it because the > victims were blacks? Was it because New Orleans voted > democrat last time around? Or maybe all the FEMA guys > were waiting for Bush to get back from vacation so > that he could tell them what to do? If it was Miami, > Dubya would have had check in Jeb's hand before the > hurricane hit. I will note that, from my recollections of media appearances, Jeb has always been well prepared ahead of time for hurricanes headed toward his state. I cannot say the same for the leadership of LA and MS. > > I don't think it's a state jurisdiction issue either > as the federal government has made it crystal clear to > California that it will come in and step all over > state's jurisdiction when it WANTS to. > > Lets face it. In this administration, if you live in a > blue state (or a blue county in a red state) you might > was well be in Somalia. The problem with this statement is that both Louisiana and Mississippi were red states. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ An examination of red and blue parishes in Louisiana shows that while Orleans and St. John the Baptist parishes are blue, all others hardest hit by Katrina are red parishes. (Here you need to select the right election and race: http://69.2.40.145/sosmaps/dynamicmapping.aspx In Mississippi, the situation is similar, though the Secty of States website seems down at the moment, possibly due to the disaster... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sat Sep 3 16:39:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <003c01c5b09e$d5089d00$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050903163952.49445.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It readily exposes how dependent the emergency infrastructure is on a non-robust communications network. If all your cops, ambulances, and others are trying to communicate with a cellphone and landline system that isn't working, how do you expect to accomplish anything? And, once again, FEMA also expected people to follow the mandatory evacuation order. For those complaining about all the stranded being black, perhaps that is more a commentary on those who chose to stay for various reasons, good or bad, than on the system. --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > You are forgetting the most probable reason this was bumbled. > Incompetence. > I am starting to get the idea that everyone thought someone else was > doing > things while no one was aware of just how big ght problem was. The > whole > mess has been an information nightmare. The FEME people apaprently > weren't > watching TV. No one thought "Hey, lets grope some troops on the > ground and > assess the situation" Or "Let's follow the TV news crews - they > always know > where to go". I am willing to bet that the communications > infrastructure of > the news companies is superior to anything FEMA has which is why > everyone > except FEMA seemed to know what was going on. Had they just watched > the news > they could have tackled that issue. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Avantguardian" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:21 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > > > > > > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > > > > Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to > > > believe this is a > > > cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind > > > of stuff and can borrow > > > damn near without limits. > > > > I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was > > merely hypothesizing why the federal government would > > sit idly by and watch one of its oldest and most > > historic cities become a third-world-country over > > night and then let it sit that way for days before > > doing anything. My assumption was that it was a cash > > flow problem as even loans take time to process but if > > you are right and cash flow/logistic problems are not > > to blame, then I was being overly charitable to the > > government. > > > > If the snafu was not logistical, then it was > > intentional. If the federal govern COULDN'T provide > > immediate disaster relief, that would be one thing. > > But if it COULD then apparently, it was just reluctant > > to do so and that opens a whole new can of worms. > > Because then one is left with the question of why the > > federal government didn't want to? Was it because the > > victims were blacks? Was it because New Orleans voted > > democrat last time around? Or maybe all the FEMA guys > > were waiting for Bush to get back from vacation so > > that he could tell them what to do? If it was Miami, > > Dubya would have had check in Jeb's hand before the > > hurricane hit. > > > > I don't think it's a state jurisdiction issue either > > as the federal government has made it crystal clear to > > California that it will come in and step all over > > state's jurisdiction when it WANTS to. > > > > Lets face it. In this administration, if you live in a > > blue state (or a blue county in a red state) you might > > was well be in Somalia. > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Sep 3 17:16:08 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:16:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <20050903113811.GG2249@leitl.org> References: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> <20050903113811.GG2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903104728.05517b78@unreasonable.com> I wrote: > He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that > it would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, > friends, he really did mean *never*. Eugen replied: >He was most likely already wrong at the time he spoke: > >http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010601eo1.html >http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/0009/VS0014.html >http://www.wtec.org/loyola/ar93_94/scst.htm I most often encounter this in public or broadcast discussions of science, medicine, and technology. Someone will declare that X will not achieved for decades or centuries, or perhaps ever, when I know that it in fact was already done years ago. The remark usually stands unchallenged. -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 17:20:17 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:20:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need (such as dope) In-Reply-To: <20050903163952.49445.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509031720.j83HKJw14061@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey ... > And, once again, FEMA also expected people to follow the mandatory > evacuation order...perhaps that is more a commentary on those who chose to stay for > various reasons, good or bad, than on the system... > Mike Lorrey I had a random idea, not too closely related to Mike's comment, but here goes: I will define addiction broadly as any behavior which leads people to do irrational things to satisfy the addiction. (Of course by that definition we are all addicted to sex, but let us set that one aside for the moment.) Let us focus on chemical addictions, to include tobacco, some recreational drugs, and alcohol, but exclude necessities such as food, water and sex. We have likely seen heavy smokers get in a sitch where they had no access to tobacco. I went backpacking with a smoker whose cigs were ruined by water. He hiked out on the second day, perfect weather, terrific conditions, no tobacco, he was outta there. {8^D How much more crazy would he have acted had he been addicted to heroin or crack or something? Now imagine a place where a larger than usual percentage of the proles were addicted to something, and they were acting irrationally to satisfy the urge. That wouldn't be a pleasant sitch. Now recall that they interviewed a bunch of the New Orleans people, asking why they didn't flee the storm. A very large percentage said they couldn't: they didn't have a car, couldn't afford to, lived paycheck to paycheck, etc. Simple line of reasoning: addictions of any kind will contribute to poverty. Many addictions will cause people to be unfit for working a 9 to 5, and of course they are expensive. A heavy smoker will often burn more money on tobacco than on food. So addictions may have contributed to poverty which contributed to non-fleeing, which certainly now contributed to poverty and suffering, which may contribute to addiction. Oy freeking vey! To make matters worse, imagine living in a neighborhood where addictions are common, where the supply of *everything* is suddenly cut off: not just no food, no water, no power, no medicine (which would be bad enough) but now addicts with no tobacco, no alcohol, no crack, no heroine, no meth, acting even more crazy than before, because the FEMA and Red Cross don't bring them smokes, alcohol or recreational drugs! Did anyone take that into account? Wonder if we could hire the dope smugglers to carry in emergency food and medical supplies, then pay them the wages to which they are so fondly accustomed? spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Sep 3 17:17:24 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:17:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <20050903151016.57935.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200509030302.j8332Gw32018@tick.javien.com> <20050903151016.57935.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> I wrote: >> He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it >> would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, >> he really did mean *never*. Mike Lorrey replied to Spike: >And someone like Davids friend While I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends who are apparent idiots, this person was not a friend, just someone I chatted with once. >As he is an astronomer, it is understandable that he only pays >attention to orbiting observatories. You only need one of each type in >orbit at a time of these sorts, he is right there We were not talking about observatories in Earth orbit. The context was missions like Stardust or Genesis. -- David Lubkin. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 17:48:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:48:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509031748.j83Hmkw16849@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration > spaceflight? > > I wrote: > > >> He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > >> would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, > >> he really did mean *never*. ... > > >And someone like Davids friend > > While I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends > who are apparent idiots, this person was not a friend, just someone I > chatted with once... > > > -- David Lubkin... David if you see your astronomer acquaintance, do point out that altho the Iridium satellite constellation was an *business* failure, the Lockheeed-Martin-built satellites were a smashing success from a spacecraft reliability point of view. We knew when we were building them that they would not come: the handsets were a couple thousand bucks and needed a heavy battery that had to be carried in a small briefcase. Cell phones were already available by then and getting cheap, so Iridium didn't sell. Well duh! The Motorola board of directors were smoking crack if they ever believed otherwise. But the 66 Iridium birds worked, and they still do. If you are traveling in Antarctica and need to call the office, it is the way to go. Otherwise, cell phones: lighter, a tenth the price, a bunch of companies competing for your business. {8-] spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 3 18:18:47 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:18:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract References: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005a01c5b0b3$ede32c90$0100a8c0@kevin> Um. Didn't I just make that same remark - but with sarcasm? These kinds of things need immediate work, not a months lonog bid process. There has been no end run around the free market. It is there. Just start your own company, do a better job quicker and do it for less and I am sure you will get all the business. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:58 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract > > > --- "J. Andrew Rogers" > wrote: > > > On 9/2/05 8:16 PM, "Olga Bourlin" > > wrote: > > > Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? > > ... > > > > > > Well, duh. Who else could do it? This the kind of > > thing they *specialize* > > in. No matter what kind of contract Halliburton > > gets, it MUST be a sinister > > conspiracy of some type. It is written into their > > corporate charter doncha > > know. > > I think the lady's point is that Halliburton should > not be (and probably isn't when I think about it) the > ONLY company that can do it. There is this thing > called monopoly that gums up the gears of a freemarket > economy and I don't need my tin-foil hat to figure out > that monopoly needs a collusion between the government > and A COMPANY in order to prosper in a free market. I > say put these kind of contracts up on BID. There are > many construction contractors that are perfectly > capable of building whatever you want them to build > especially if they are not in a war-zone. What's next, > is Halliburton gonna muscle in on the home-improvement > market? > > 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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 3 18:33:27 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:33:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? References: <20050903140445.92508.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008601c5b0b5$fa526480$0100a8c0@kevin> > > --- Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Hal Finney wrote: > > > > > If you were an insider and knew that oil was going > > to be worth that much > > > in a few years, why would you be pumping for all > > you were worth and > > > selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't > > make sense. > > > > If you were a 60 year old CEO, would you try to > > maximise > > profits today and keep shareholders happy, or would > > you > > gamble that prices will be higher 15 years in the > > future > > and hope you can string the shareholders along for > > that > > time ? > > Precisely. From your 60 yr old CEO's point of view, it > would be most advantageous to keep your investors > thinking that the oil was plentiful and that > everything was going smoothly. Even if you were in > reality pumping the dregs of your wells. After all, if > you are waiting to see if you die before you go out of > business, you might as well make every buck you can > while you can. > > If I were 60 and CEO, I would make the world think I was about out of oil and charge 3 times as much for it so I could make a ton more money and spend it before I die. The investors, seeing that prices were soon to go way up would hang onto and maybe even buy more stock. They could always get out later just before the oil ran out, and would in fact stay in till the last minute to maximize the profits. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Sep 3 18:43:24 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:43:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) An Anniversary Message-ID: <4319EECC.20604@mindspring.com> While we have been watching the fiasco unfold in NOLA, the anniversary of another disastrous storm passed quietly and without much notice in the Press. On September 2, 1935-70 years ago, the most intense hurricane to ever strike the US slammed into the Florida Keys. This was the infamous Labor Day Hurricane. It was a very compact storm that bombed into a Cat 5 storm in a short time. The pressure in the storm as it passed over Matacumbe Key was 892mb-the lowest pressure ever measured in the US and was to stand as the lowest pressure measure in an Atlantic Basin Storm until Gilbert's 888mb reading in 1988. The winds in the storm were estimated to have been as high as 200mph sustained. Not until Camille in 1969 was a Cat 5 to visit our shores. Now for Katrina, not a Cat 5 at landfall but it has sadly verified all predictions as to what could happen in NOLA in such a situation. It's quickly becoming obvious that this will become the greatest natural disaster ever in the history of the US with a death toll usually reserved for less develop countries. Also obvious that all levels of Government have failed abysmally in their response. This is most disturbing for now Al Qaida knows how weak we are. I can imagine that the people in NHC have to be sad and angry at what has happened for they did an outstanding job of forecasting the track of the storm and of putting out the warnings only to have the idiots in NOLA crap it all away. We have one last (and minor) period of monsoonal moisture and flow in here now for some shower and boomer activity through the weekend and then we will probably shut the monsoon down for another year. Typhoon Nabi has weakened a bit to 120kt and is expected to pass NE of Okinawa and then head for Korea. Steve -- "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 mac.com Sat Sep 3 19:10:07 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:10:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A41AC68-0D1A-4D05-8FAB-60015A572972@mac.com> Thanks for the poison pen enlightenment. Really. -s On Sep 3, 2005, at 12:43 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On 9/2/05 8:16 PM, "Olga Bourlin" wrote: > >> Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? ... >> > > > Well, duh. Who else could do it? This the kind of thing they > *specialize* > in. No matter what kind of contract Halliburton gets, it MUST be a > sinister > conspiracy of some type. It is written into their corporate > charter doncha > know. > > Recycle that aluminum foil please, when you are done wearing it on > your > head. Proof positive that knee-jerk tribalism and their kook > fringe friends > are alive and well... > > > J. Andrew Rogers > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 19:30:36 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:30:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) An Anniversary In-Reply-To: <4319EECC.20604@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200509031930.j83JUdw26793@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 11:43 AM > To: skeptic at listproc.hcf.jhu.edu; ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) An Anniversary > > ... On September 2, 1935-70 years ago, the most intense hurricane > to ever strike the US slammed into the Florida Keys... Impossible! That was before global warming. > > ...NHC have to be sad and angry at what has happened for they > did an outstanding job of forecasting the track of the storm and of > putting out the warnings only to have the idiots in NOLA crap it all away... > Steve There was a NOVA program a few months ago where they talked about what would happen should a hurricane hit near New Orleans. I only saw part of it, but what I saw was stunningly prescient. The guy had a pole 18 feet long, down in the French sector, talking about how the water would go this high after the levy failed somewhere near Lake Ponchartrain, filled the basin, and it would happen most likely *after* the eye of the storm was well inland, since the storm would carry moisture up the river, drop rain, water would back up, over it goes, wash away the support for the levy, low basin fills in, loss of life and property difficult to imagine. Right, right, right and right. Did anyone else see that program? Wasn't it on just a few months ago? Has it already been mentioned here? spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Sep 3 19:46:26 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:46:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) An Anniversary In-Reply-To: <4319EECC.20604@mindspring.com> References: <4319EECC.20604@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903152642.056de008@unreasonable.com> Terry W. Colvin wrote: >It's quickly becoming obvious that this will become the greatest >natural disaster ever in the history of the US with a death toll >usually reserved for less develop countries. Also obvious that all >levels of Government have failed abysmally in their response. This >is most disturbing for now Al Qaida knows how weak we are. Watching the analysis of how the flooding of New Orleans resulted from two small breaks, it struck me that a group opposed to us might pick ordinary stress points in our system and attack them at times of peak stress. Wouldn't causing those breaks be a lot simpler than orchestrating 9/11? Yet the human and economic ripples are comparable or greater. No particular PR value, but there are other goals an enemy might have, and some foes might want to hurt us without exposure. It also might be a great first blow in a one-two punch. Divert our attention while they can get their main mission in place. -- David Lubkin. From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sat Sep 3 21:23:34 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:23:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> References: <200509030302.j8332Gw32018@tick.javien.com> <20050903151016.57935.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <22a515912957cd7edfe6e944516f06d9@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Sep 3, 2005, at 1:17 PM, David Lubkin wrote: > [...] I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends who > are apparent idiots [....] (Camera zooms in on Harv's face while we hear his thoughts audibly on the soundtrack.) Hm. I wonder which group I'm in. On the one hand, I like to think that I am one of David's friends. But on the other hand, I'm no astronomer. (pause) That would mean.... (thinking.... thinking... thinking...) (almost a look of recognition, then a blank look) No, wait. I've lost it. (Shrugs) (Camera zooms out to normal position. Regular conversation resumes.) -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 22:03:11 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:03:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > I cannot find the exact quote or attribution. I remember the quote as: > "Any city is three days away from barbarism." > Does anyone know the actual quote? I could only find one reference, a comment piece about the New Orleans flood. Friday, September 02, 2005 Hurricane Katrina: Granting a Grim Insight into the American Society of Excuses It's not pretty, it's pretty grim. American society is only three days from barbarism. Today we are seeing heroism and villainy in New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina is giving us a rare view into the psyche of our people. It is a view of sacrifice, voluntarism, charity, helpful neighbors, and tireless rescuers. But it is also a view of looting, assault, killing, anger, hatred, and, ultimately, anarchy. Today we see what happens when this "thin veneer of civilization" is stripped away from our society. --------------- But the "three days" thing seems to be almost a built-in assumption in many of the disaster planning articles, so I wouldn't be surprised to find many similar quotes using slightly different words. e.g. Most city households have three days supplies of food and water. If there is a permanent power blackout, after three days everything stops. If a city section riots, the police generally wait three days for the rioters to calm down, get hungry and thirsty, then they move in to clean up. BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 22:30:11 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050903223011.41481.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > I wrote: > > >> He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > >> would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, > >> he really did mean *never*. > > Mike Lorrey replied to Spike: > > >And someone like Davids friend > > While I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends > who are apparent idiots, this person was not a friend, just someone I > > chatted with once. > > >As he is an astronomer, it is understandable that he only pays > >attention to orbiting observatories. You only need one of each type > in > >orbit at a time of these sorts, he is right there > > We were not talking about observatories in Earth orbit. The context > was missions like Stardust or Genesis. Ah, probes. You are of course correct that having lots of probes exploring lots of areas of the solar system would be great and really expand knowledge, there are points to be made that each probe mission calls for a specific mix of instruments, power systems, etc. However, there is no reason that, say, a dozen different classes of probe with modularized equipment could not be designed and mass produced to be sent out in quanitites to explore lots of things. The tough problem is that when you are mass producing something, you are doing so in order to earn a profit by doing so. Making space science pay for itself, such as geological assays and surveys do, is the key to doing what you want. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From dgc at cox.net Sat Sep 3 22:46:43 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:46:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: <431A27D3.9090300@cox.net> BillK wrote: >On 9/2/05, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >>I cannot find the exact quote or attribution. I remember the quote as: >> "Any city is three days away from barbarism." >>Does anyone know the actual quote? >> >> > > >I could only find one reference, a comment piece about the New Orleans flood. > > >Friday, September 02, 2005 >Hurricane Katrina: Granting a Grim Insight into the American Society of Excuses > >It's not pretty, it's pretty grim. American society is only three days >from barbarism. > > Sorry. I initially started asking my co-workers about this quote on Wednesday. I remember it form a decade or more ago. I do not think american society is 3 days away from barbarism, Th effect results from a cutoff of essential inputs from an ares hat cannot produce the inputs itself. That can happen to a city, but not to the US as a whole. A catastrophe affecting the US as a whole would have a different dynamic. Depending on the catastrophe, the effect might be even more horrific, but would likely take more than three days. Essentially any group of people will revert to barbarism when truly essential supplies are suddenly completely unavailable. The "three days" is approximately the reserve for potable water in a city. Note that a barbaric society will still contain majority of individuals that exhibit heroism, altruism, and all the other laudable human qualities, but when your baby or your grandparent need water to live and there is not enough water to go around, you are likely to act decisively to secure water. This is true whether you are rich or poor, educated or uneducated, smart or stupid, black or white, homo or hetero, religious or atheist. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 3 23:54:48 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:54:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Manhattan vs. New Orleans In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050903185319.01c4d090@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:53 AM 9/2/2005 -0400, David L wrote: >(3) What explains the differences between these two portrayed responses? >The causes of the events? The composition of the populace? Here's a perhaps unexpected reply, from novelist Anne Rice (perhaps it will be dismissed as romanticism): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/opinion/04rice.html?ei=5090&en=ce2f33f8719dba9c&ex=1283486400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print September 4, 2005 Do You Know What It Means to Lose New Orleans? By ANNE RICE La Jolla, Calif. WHAT do people really know about New Orleans? Do they take away with them an awareness that it has always been not only a great white metropolis but also a great black city, a city where African-Americans have come together again and again to form the strongest African-American culture in the land? The first literary magazine ever published in Louisiana was the work of black men, French-speaking poets and writers who brought together their work in three issues of a little book called L'Album Litt?raire. That was in the 1840's, and by that time the city had a prosperous class of free black artisans, sculptors, businessmen, property owners, skilled laborers in all fields. Thousands of slaves lived on their own in the city, too, making a living at various jobs, and sending home a few dollars to their owners in the country at the end of the month. This is not to diminish the horror of the slave market in the middle of the famous St. Louis Hotel, or the injustice of the slave labor on plantations from one end of the state to the other. It is merely to say that it was never all "have or have not" in this strange and beautiful city. Later in the 19th century, as the Irish immigrants poured in by the thousands, filling the holds of ships that had emptied their cargoes of cotton in Liverpool, and as the German and Italian immigrants soon followed, a vital and complex culture emerged. Huge churches went up to serve the great faith of the city's European-born Catholics; convents and schools and orphanages were built for the newly arrived and the struggling; the city expanded in all directions with new neighborhoods of large, graceful houses, or areas of more humble cottages, even the smallest of which, with their floor-length shutters and deep-pitched roofs, possessed an undeniable Caribbean charm. Through this all, black culture never declined in Louisiana. In fact, New Orleans became home to blacks in a way, perhaps, that few other American cities have ever been. Dillard University and Xavier University became two of the most outstanding black colleges in America; and once the battles of desegregation had been won, black New Orleanians entered all levels of life, building a visible middle class that is absent in far too many Western and Northern American cities to this day. The influence of blacks on the music of the city and the nation is too immense and too well known to be described. It was black musicians coming down to New Orleans for work who nicknamed the city "the Big Easy" because it was a place where they could always find a job. But it's not fair to the nature of New Orleans to think of jazz and the blues as the poor man's music, or the music of the oppressed. Something else was going on in New Orleans. The living was good there. The clock ticked more slowly; people laughed more easily; people kissed; people loved; there was joy. Which is why so many New Orleanians, black and white, never went north. They didn't want to leave a place where they felt at home in neighborhoods that dated back centuries; they didn't want to leave families whose rounds of weddings, births and funerals had become the fabric of their lives. They didn't want to leave a city where tolerance had always been able to outweigh prejudice, where patience had always been able to outweigh rage. They didn't want to leave a place that was theirs. And so New Orleans prospered, slowly, unevenly, but surely - home to Protestants and Catholics, including the Irish parading through the old neighborhood on St. Patrick's Day as they hand out cabbages and potatoes and onions to the eager crowds; including the Italians, with their lavish St. Joseph's altars spread out with cakes and cookies in homes and restaurants and churches every March; including the uptown traditionalists who seek to preserve the peace and beauty of the Garden District; including the Germans with their clubs and traditions; including the black population playing an ever increasing role in the city's civic affairs. Now nature has done what the Civil War couldn't do. Nature has done what the labor riots of the 1920's couldn't do. Nature had done what "modern life" with its relentless pursuit of efficiency couldn't do. It has done what racism couldn't do, and what segregation couldn't do either. Nature has laid the city waste - with a scope that brings to mind the end of Pompeii. ? I share this history for a reason - and to answer questions that have arisen these last few days. Almost as soon as the cameras began panning over the rooftops, and the helicopters began chopping free those trapped in their attics, a chorus of voices rose. "Why didn't they leave?" people asked both on and off camera. "Why did they stay there when they knew a storm was coming?" One reporter even asked me, "Why do people live in such a place?" Then as conditions became unbearable, the looters took to the streets. Windows were smashed, jewelry snatched, stores broken open, water and food and televisions carried out by fierce and uninhibited crowds. Now the voices grew even louder. How could these thieves loot and pillage in a time of such crisis? How could people shoot one another? Because the faces of those drowning and the faces of those looting were largely black faces, race came into the picture. What kind of people are these, the people of New Orleans, who stay in a city about to be flooded, and then turn on one another? Well, here's an answer. Thousands didn't leave New Orleans because they couldn't leave. They didn't have the money. They didn't have the vehicles. They didn't have any place to go. They are the poor, black and white, who dwell in any city in great numbers; and they did what they felt they could do - they huddled together in the strongest houses they could find. There was no way to up and leave and check into the nearest Ramada Inn. What's more, thousands more who could have left stayed behind to help others. They went out in the helicopters and pulled the survivors off rooftops; they went through the flooded streets in their boats trying to gather those they could find. Meanwhile, city officials tried desperately to alleviate the worsening conditions in the Superdome, while makeshift shelters and hotels and hospitals struggled. And where was everyone else during all this? Oh, help is coming, New Orleans was told. We are a rich country. Congress is acting. Someone will come to stop the looting and care for the refugees. And it's true: eventually, help did come. But how many times did Gov. Kathleen Blanco have to say that the situation was desperate? How many times did Mayor Ray Nagin have to call for aid? Why did America ask a city cherished by millions and excoriated by some, but ignored by no one, to fight for its own life for so long? That's my question. I know that New Orleans will win its fight in the end. I was born in the city and lived there for many years. It shaped who and what I am. Never have I experienced a place where people knew more about love, about family, about loyalty and about getting along than the people of New Orleans. It is perhaps their very gentleness that gives them their endurance. They will rebuild as they have after storms of the past; and they will stay in New Orleans because it is where they have always lived, where their mothers and their fathers lived, where their churches were built by their ancestors, where their family graves carry names that go back 200 years. They will stay in New Orleans where they can enjoy a sweetness of family life that other communities lost long ago. But to my country I want to say this: During this crisis you failed us. You looked down on us; you dismissed our victims; you dismissed us. You want our Jazz Fest, you want our Mardi Gras, you want our cooking and our music. Then when you saw us in real trouble, when you saw a tiny minority preying on the weak among us, you called us "Sin City," and turned your backs. Well, we are a lot more than all that. And though we may seem the most exotic, the most atmospheric and, at times, the most downtrodden part of this land, we are still part of it. We are Americans. We are you. From hal at finney.org Sat Sep 3 23:32:18 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050903233218.1925F57EF5@finney.org> Here are a few more thoughts about Peak Oil. For those who have not run into it, although there are many variants, the most virally virulent version of Peak Oil says that we are within two or three years of the fall of Western civilization. This may seem absurd on its face but I will lay out the argument briefly. It is suggested that we are reaching a peak in oil production such that no reasonable amount of money, or perhaps no amount of money whatsoever, can increase production levels. While the world's oil wells still have lots of oil, it is becoming harder and harder to extract. Existing technologies to increase the rate of extraction work for a few years but then the fields "die" and the rate of production begins to fall by 10 to 20 percent per year, and no known technology can change that. There is nothing, in this view, that can increase the rate of production of oil to overcome the declines that are appearing in more and more countries around the world. Only Saudi Arabia claims to have the ability to increase production, but Peak Oilers generally believe that Saudi Arabia is lying. Oil analyst Matt Simmons published a book this year, Twilight in the Desert, analyzing Saudi oil fields in detail and arguing that they are near their own peak. This supposedly inexorable decline in oil production levels runs head-on into rapidly growing world demand for oil. China in particular, but also other countries like India, are expanding their oil consumption at a rapid rate. And of course Western countries, especially the U.S., are also continuing to use more and more oil every year. Although the West has improved its oil efficiency in many ways, the current economy is fundamentally dependent on oil for growth, and in the present situation, economic growth will be impossible without increasing the supply of oil. The collision of these two trends will, it is claimed, produce catastrophe. Oil prices will skyrocket to unheard-of levels, hundreds of dollars per barrel. Most people will simply be unable to afford gasoline or heating oil. Airlines and other forms of transport will go bankrupt and business failures will be widespread. The economy will enter a permanent state of decline that will make the Great Depression look mild. Worse, even essentials like food and pharmaceuticals are highly dependent on oil, and with the explosion in the price of this crucial commodity, the world will see a rapid spread of famine and disease. This produces what Peak Oilers call the "great die-off" and many of them expect it within a few years. Once things stabilize, in a decade or so, we will have a permanently poor world, reduced to an early 19th century level of technology and productivity, subsistence farming without the benefit of modern fertilizers or equipment. This may seem like an astonishingly implausible scenario, but it is widely believed among the Peak Oil community. See sites such as dieoff.org or lifeaftertheoilcrash.net for more details about the impending disaster. BTW, Matt Savinar, author of the latter web site, will be on the Coast to Coast AM radio show tonight, syndicated in many cities across the U.S. He's one of the most extreme Peak Oilers and a big supporter of this apocalyptic scenario. Of course, not everyone concerned with Peak Oil buys into this whole picture. There are a range of beliefs. Some see this scenario playing out, but not for a decade or more. Others think that the impact will be limited to a permanent state of economic depression, and don't accept the great die-off. People also disagree about just when the peak will occur. Some see it as 10 to 15 years off, others out 5 years or 2 years, and yet others think it's already happened and we are beginning to feel the first effects. Needless to say, this is not a very Extropian image of the future! And if you look closely you can see some inconsistencies and flaws in the assumptions that this scenario is based on. Nevertheless the Peak Oil community devotes enormous efforts to analyzing every scrap of news about oil supply and demand levels all over the world, and in fact their predictions do hold up pretty well against recent trends. As oil reaches each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as vindication and confirmation of their views. There was a time when $50 oil was unimaginable. Then $60 oil was unimaginable, then $70. Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. What will we be saying by the end of this year? I will write more about this soon... Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 00:56:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050903233218.1925F57EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050904005650.9929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote:> > As oil reaches each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as > vindication and confirmation of their views. There was a time when > $50 oil was unimaginable. Then $60 oil was unimaginable, then $70. > Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. What will we be saying by the > end of this year? What do they say about the fact that once you take into account price shifts solely due to changes in the value of the dollar caused by banking policy, oil prices of $56/bbl today are essentially no different from $40/bbl prices two years ago. Todays spot price of $69 is equal to $49/bbl prices two years ago, when prices were $30/bbl. So it appears that half of the present high prices vs. two years ago is solely due to fluctuations in the dollar markets due to banking policy. The other half can be attributed to multiple things: middle east instability, the current Katrina crisis, as well as growth in Chinese demand. It all depends on what currency you value the oil by. How has the price of oil in Euros changed over the last several years? Not nearly as much. While the Chinese Yuan price for oil has followed the dollar up until last month, it is currently dropping. Looking at oil and gasoline futures on Bloomberg today, prices are all headed down by significant percentages, primarily due to this: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10001099&sid=arESneY6CKik&refer=energy The US has 700 million barrels in its Strategic Oil Reserve and can tap it at 4.4 million barrels per day (giving a 154 day supply at the maximum rate). It is currently going to sell about a million barrels a day of it as part of the IEA action described above. Given this action, prices should be back below $60/bbl within a month or two. I should also note that President Bush ordered the Reserve filled to capacity shortly after 9/11, when oil prices shot up from the mid $25 range to the $35-38 range on the spot markets. Depending on what prices it obtained these reserves at, the gov't could realize a significant windfall on these sales. Assuming they sell a million a day for two months, they should see profits of about $1.5 billion, which should help offset some of the $10.5 billion being authorized by Congress for the Katrina recovery efforts. As this oil is oil that has already been purchased from the originating nations and put into old salt mines, or domestic wells that have been mothballed for the reserve, this effort should also bring world oil prices down by creating a bit of a glut, especially considering the short term lack of refinery facitilies in operation here in the US. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Sep 4 00:59:22 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:59:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050903233218.1925F57EF5@finney.org> References: <20050903233218.1925F57EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <41B4557E-0042-4712-9ABA-5319C438ED7F@mac.com> On Sep 3, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > Here are a few more thoughts about Peak Oil. > > For those who have not run into it, although there are many variants, > the most virally virulent version of Peak Oil says that we are within > two or three years of the fall of Western civilization. This may seem > absurd on its face but I will lay out the argument briefly. > > It is suggested that we are reaching a peak in oil production such > that > no reasonable amount of money, or perhaps no amount of money > whatsoever, > can increase production levels. While the world's oil wells still > have > lots of oil, it is becoming harder and harder to extract. Existing > technologies to increase the rate of extraction work for a few years > but then the fields "die" and the rate of production begins to fall > by 10 to 20 percent per year, and no known technology can change that. > There is nothing, in this view, that can increase the rate of > production > of oil to overcome the declines that are appearing in more and more > countries around the world. Only Saudi Arabia claims to have the > ability > to increase production, but Peak Oilers generally believe that Saudi > Arabia is lying. Oil analyst Matt Simmons published a book this year, > Twilight in the Desert, analyzing Saudi oil fields in detail and > arguing > that they are near their own peak. As I used to work in (or at least on the outskirts of) the industry I can attest that this is more or less correct. There are no known technologies that can significantly increase the productivity of a field without shortening its productive lifetime or prevent its eventual decline in production. Some of this is simple common sense. It is not a "view". What is a view is the notions portrayed of what the consequences of world wide oil demand outstripping supply will likely be. But that demand will outstrip supply is incontestable. > > This supposedly inexorable decline in oil production levels runs > head-on > into rapidly growing world demand for oil. China in particular, but > also other countries like India, are expanding their oil > consumption at > a rapid rate. And of course Western countries, especially the U.S., > are also continuing to use more and more oil every year. Although the > West has improved its oil efficiency in many ways, the current > economy is > fundamentally dependent on oil for growth, and in the present > situation, > economic growth will be impossible without increasing the supply of > oil. > > The collision of these two trends will, it is claimed, produce > catastrophe. Oil prices will skyrocket to unheard-of levels, > hundreds of > dollars per barrel. Most people will simply be unable to afford > gasoline > or heating oil. Airlines and other forms of transport will go > bankrupt > and business failures will be widespread. The economy will enter a > permanent state of decline that will make the Great Depression look > mild. I don't know about hundreds of dollars per barrel but as it stands we are certainly headed for a very real energy crisis. There are many factors that lead me to belief that we are also in for an exceedingly dangerous and painful economic crisis other than peak oil. > > Worse, even essentials like food and pharmaceuticals are highly > dependent > on oil, and with the explosion in the price of this crucial commodity, > the world will see a rapid spread of famine and disease. This > produces > what Peak Oilers call the "great die-off" and many of them expect it > within a few years. You are talking about one particular fringe group of people who believe peak oil is real. Implying that all people who believe Peak Oil is real have the same beliefs is dishonest. Let us see and address the real problem instead of disowning it. > > This may seem like an astonishingly implausible scenario, but it is > widely > believed among the Peak Oil community. Not really. > > Of course, not everyone concerned with Peak Oil buys into this whole > picture. There are a range of beliefs. Some see this scenario > playing > out, but not for a decade or more. Others think that the impact > will be > limited to a permanent state of economic depression, and don't > accept the > great die-off. Others including myself believe that new technolgies will take up the slack. Unfortunately the deniers of the problem and the real inertia of how long it takes to bring alternatives fully online means there will be some harsh consequences before the problem is sufficiently addressed. > People also disagree about just when the peak will occur. > Some see it as 10 to 15 years off, others out 5 years or 2 years, and > yet others think it's already happened and we are beginning to feel > the > first effects. It is difficult to say without much more impartial and complete data on the state of existing fields. But my guess would be no more than 5 years. My suspicion is that it has already begun among those in power who see it coming. > > Needless to say, this is not a very Extropian image of the future! Being Extropian does not include living in denial of real problems! Extropianism is not simply wearing high tech rose-colored glasses. > And if you look closely you can see some inconsistencies and flaws in > the assumptions that this scenario is based on. Nevertheless the Peak > Oil community devotes enormous efforts to analyzing every scrap of > news > about oil supply and demand levels all over the world, and in fact > their > predictions do hold up pretty well against recent trends. Yes. > As oil reaches > each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as vindication and > confirmation > of their views. There was a time when $50 oil was unimaginable. > Then $60 > oil was unimaginable, then $70. Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. Non-fringe major financial sources have talked about spikes to $100 per barrel. When that happens will you believe the problem is real? What would constitute enough evidence to convince you that we face a very real problem? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Sep 4 01:02:10 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:02:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <20050903223011.41481.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> <20050903223011.41481.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >The tough problem is that when you are mass producing something, you >are doing so in order to earn a profit by doing so. Making space >science pay for itself, such as geological assays and surveys do, is >the key to doing what you want. Part of that answer could be communications-relay spacecraft. There's a group that's adapting the Internet protocols for the specific characteristics involved with an environment where even a ping will take hours and an aging host may have too little remaining power to waste resending mangled packets. Perhaps they should look at (if they aren't already) adapting the routing protocols and building a space-worthy router that can become a standard module included in every spacecraft, manned or unmanned, regardless of mission. I'd also love to see more standards for describing and merging sensor data, so that we can gradually build a grid of multi-purpose buoys-cum-lighthouses throughout the system and then extending beyond, perhaps one every light-hour for starters. (The standards are, in part, to make it easy to combine data from different generations of buoys, so the grid can be upgraded piecewise or have better equipment in the areas we care more about.) -- David. From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Sep 4 01:39:45 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:39:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTICLE: French magazine looking for scientists/tech for article Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050903202416.04a5d3e0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Request from french magazine regarding science, scientific research and technology questions about human augmentation French journalist is looking for experts, preferably affiliated with universities,: "... interested especially in "enhancement technologies". I mean, technologies for better ear, eye, muscles, brain...betterhuman to sum up. We would need to talk with University scientists who work on that kind of project and could explain us their theory and experiments. Scientist who has futuristic and ethical reflexion about that research, also." "Added to that we are very interested by work on cryopreservation." The journalist would like to interview experts located in France, Belgium and/or Switzerland; although the US would be good as well, but most likely as a second choice. If you are interested or can suggest experts, please send information to me at your earliest convenience. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Studies of the Future, University of Houston Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 03:45:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <41B4557E-0042-4712-9ABA-5319C438ED7F@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050904034514.4011.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > As I used to work in (or at least on the outskirts of) the industry I > can attest that this is more or less correct. There are no known > technologies that can significantly increase the productivity of a > field without shortening its productive lifetime or prevent its > eventual decline in production. Some of this is simple common > sense. It is not a "view". Not quite. We recover an amazingly small percent of oil from any given field. It used to max out at about 10% of what was in the ground. Today its about 30% if the drillers drill out multiple holes from the wellhead and turn them to parallel the surface to capture more of the area of the field. Newer technologies to get more oil out of the ground won't reduce the fields useful life, because the extra oil was never gotten before. What is more, new technologies to extract more oil from a given field means that older fields that were assumed to be spent under old technology can be reopened and drilled with newer technologies to extract oil that could not be gotten before. Furthermore, your 'view' also ignores utterly the well documented phenomenon of reservoir refilling. A wildcatter friend of mine makes lots of money opening up old spent wells to find a lot more oil there than the engineers once said was there. It is percolating up from deep deep reserves and likely from inorganic sources, as the Russian inorganic oil theory is gaining more ground and acceptance (the Vietnamese Tiger fields would not function if inorganic oil was not a reality). > What is a view is the notions portrayed > of what the consequences of world wide oil demand outstripping supply > will likely be. But that demand will outstrip supply is > incontestable. If it is assumed that technology is not going to advance and lead to more efficient consumption (as happened in the 80's). Thinking otherwise is also unextropic. > > > > > Needless to say, this is not a very Extropian image of the future! > > Being Extropian does not include living in denial of real problems! > Extropianism is not simply wearing high tech rose-colored glasses. Extropianism also does not deny that technology increases resource utilization efficiency and that resources always get cheaper over time. It doesn't take rose colored glasses to be optimistic, only a lack of denial about future technological advances. > Non-fringe major financial sources have talked about spikes to $100 > per barrel. When that happens will you believe the problem is real? > What would constitute enough evidence to convince you that we face a > very real problem? Considering in real dollars the 1979 prices were over $80/bbl in current dollars, it would have to be significantly more. $80/bbl prices today would trigger a market backlash as was seen in the 1980's of econoboxes and hybrid/electric/fuelcell technologies. That price level will also attract the capital to bring tar sand derived oil and gas to market. Once the capital is invested in that infrastructure, prices will remain stable for another century at a minimum. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 04:33:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050904043333.74280.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >The tough problem is that when you are mass producing something, you > >are doing so in order to earn a profit by doing so. Making space > >science pay for itself, such as geological assays and surveys do, is > >the key to doing what you want. > > Part of that answer could be communications-relay spacecraft. > > There's a group that's adapting the Internet protocols for the > specific characteristics involved with an environment where even a > ping will take hours and an aging host may have too little remaining > power to waste resending mangled packets. > > Perhaps they should look at (if they aren't already) adapting the > routing protocols and building a space-worthy router that can become > a standard module included in every spacecraft, manned or unmanned, > regardless of mission. Well, spin-off technologies is nice, but I'm talking about space science making its data valuable to the market. Discovering whether a compound is present somewhere is nice, but doing an assay of how much of it is there and exactly where and in what form is a long way to doing a business case for recovering that compound for economic use for industry, colonists, etc. For example, figuring out how much He3 is on the moon is great info, except while theoretically its a great fusion fuel, there is no fusion industry as yet, or even proven fusion technology. However, figuring out how much water there is on the moon, and where, or on Mars, is of immense economic value. The latest Mars probe being sent of last week or so is going to generate data of immense economic value: a global survey of the presence of water to a significant depth using radar. That data is going to decide the feasibility of colonizing and even terraforming Mars. Probes surveying asteroids and comets for water, potential rocket fuels, iron, etc will also be of immense value, but the probes must be designed by a group intent on surveying them as if they were planning on mining the object. Right now probe design is dictated by those who are not industrially oriented. > > I'd also love to see more standards for describing and merging sensor > data, so that we can gradually build a grid of multi-purpose > buoys-cum-lighthouses throughout the system and then extending > beyond, perhaps one every light-hour for starters. With miniaturization, putting out hundreds or thousands of nano-probes operating in a network should be as expensive as launching one big probe like Cassini. However, more than the computers need to be miniaturized. Thrusters (this is happening), reaction wheels less than 3" dia. (haven't seen mini-sized ones yet), and instruments, like spectrometers, etc. that are hand held or smaller. Ideally you want to pack a dozen instruments, a supercomputer, a solar electric propulsion system, tracking, guidance, maneuvering systems, and communications into a volume of less than a cubic foot at launch, weighing less than 30 lbs. If you want to mass produce them, they need to be VCR sized made of similar scale components. You want to launch them and disperse them in space just like cluster bombs disperse anti-personnel weapons. Taking a Proton launcher as an example, which has a 26 foot long by 12 foot dia payload fairing, should be able to fit 2600 of such probes in it, though its load limit is 44,100 lbs to LEO, that would limit us to about 1470 30 lb probes. As the Proton costs an estimated $30 million per launch, the per probe share of launch costs would be merely $20,048.00. If we could reduce probe mass to under 16.8 lbs, the maximum volume could be used to launch all 2600 probes for a per probe launch cost of just over $11,538.00. If probe volume can be reduced to a 6 inch cube (w/ proportionate mass reduction), per probe launch cost would be under $1460.00. Then the question becomes how costly would the probes be to make? A production run of thousands is significantly less than what PC or router makers are used to. All components would need to be standardized units off the shelf, like PC components, yet be space-ratable. I'm thinking of a PC maker I know of that sells industrial and EMI shielded PC systems and components. His prices are typically two to four times the prices of consumer grade units. On a rough guestimate, I'd say each probe would cost no less than $10k each and no more than $50k each. Know any angels that want to help out with such a project? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 4 05:22:50 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:22:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904034514.4011.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509040523.j845N1w24524@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 8:45 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game > theorystandpoint ? > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > As I used to work in (or at least on the outskirts of) the industry I > > can attest that this is more or less correct. There are no known > > technologies that can significantly increase the productivity of a > > field without shortening its productive lifetime ... > > Not quite. We recover an amazingly small percent of oil from any given > field. It used to max out at about 10% of what was in the ground... This whole discussion of peak oil seems too focused on the production side and not enough on reduced demand. To cite just one example, there is the use of the term hybrid in transportation. Current hybrids are all parallel hybrids, which means that the IC engine and the electric motors run in parallel. But this isn't much more efficient than IC only. Car makers decided the hybrids would be introduced with no performance compromises, perhaps to encourage their acceptance. Series hybrids work like a Diesel train: the IC engine turns a generator which powers the electric motors at the wheels. This has the potential of enormously higher efficiency, but at the cost of performance. They are slower, both in acceleration and in top speed. We can survive that. My own vision of the next three to five decades does not include starvation or overly dire consequences, but it is slower, with less transportation of humans. We compensate by smarter use of communications, more working at home, probably some downscaling in some areas, perhaps less meat eating for instance, fewer big entertainment events such as football games and New Years Eve bashes in Times Square, that kinda stuff. We will live. Poor people will suffer, as they always have, but even they get something out of the deal: motorhomes, campers and travel trailers would be converted into low cost housing, very low cost, nearly free. My extropian view of the future is one that is way cool still, even if it takes a little longer to get places. spike From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 4 06:39:40 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:39:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Golly References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com><20050903223011.41481.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <009801c5b11b$746cfc20$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello everyone, perhaps you will like this one... it's 50s style comic strip... http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/golly.htm 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 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 robgobblin at aol.com Sun Sep 4 08:14:08 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:14:08 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904005650.9929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050904005650.9929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2fb1c191ab708e25f7cc011f20412322@aol.com> On Sep 3, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- Hal Finney wrote:> >> As oil reaches each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as >> vindication and confirmation of their views. There was a time when >> $50 oil was unimaginable. Then $60 oil was unimaginable, then $70. >> Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. What will we be saying by the >> end of this year? > > What do they say about the fact that once you take into account price > shifts solely due to changes in the value of the dollar caused by > banking policy, oil prices of $56/bbl today are essentially no > different from $40/bbl prices two years ago. Todays spot price of $69 > is equal to $49/bbl prices two years ago, when prices were $30/bbl. So > it appears that half of the present high prices vs. two years ago is > solely due to fluctuations in the dollar markets due to banking policy. > The other half can be attributed to multiple things: middle east > instability, the current Katrina crisis, as well as growth in Chinese > demand. I'd say your scenario contradicts itself since you say below: > I should also note that President Bush ordered the Reserve filled to > capacity shortly after 9/11, when oil prices shot up from the mid $25 > range to the $35-38 range on the spot markets. Depending on what prices > it obtained these reserves at, the gov't could realize a significant > windfall on these sales. Assuming they sell a million a day for two > months, they should see profits of about $1.5 billion, which should > help offset some of the $10.5 billion being authorized by Congress for > the Katrina recovery efforts. Well, how much is it? Anyway, at two years at 5% inflation, from $49, you get $54, not $56 and the prices are not $56. Anyway, this is mostly irrelevant since the underlying theory is obvious and simple: There are no new sources of fossil fuels. We have already tapped the "easy to get to" ones (for the most part, I've heard recently that Vietnam has a major reserve but I'm not aware of the reliability of the source...) and the easy-to-get-to portions of the easy-to-get-to ones. This leaves the harder to get to ones dwindling down to the impossible to get to ones and finally to the no more left scenario. The alternative - that the core of the earth is filled with nothing but fossil fuels and we'll be able to run on unleaded gasoline for the next 100 years at our current rate of consumptive growth is absurd. Consequently the obvious conclusion for those with half-a-brain-left is that it's just a matter of time - 10 years, 2 years, 50 years, 100 years. In any case, the US economy in particular will have to undergo a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day. Robbie Lindauer From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 09:27:00 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:27:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTICLE: French magazine looking for scientists/tech for article In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050903202416.04a5d3e0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050903202416.04a5d3e0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/4/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Request from french magazine regarding science, > scientific research and technology questions > about human augmentation > > Scientist who has futuristic and ethical reflexion > about that research, also." > The french word 'reflexion' means 'considered thoughts or speculations' A better translation might be: Researchers who have futuristic and ethical speculations about human augmentation also. BillK From benboc at lineone.net Sun Sep 4 09:38:03 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:38:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 24, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: <200509040523.j845NNw24575@tick.javien.com> References: <200509040523.j845NNw24575@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <431AC07B.9020408@lineone.net> David Lubkin wrote: "Watching the analysis of how the flooding of New Orleans resulted from two small breaks, it struck me that a group opposed to *us* might pick ordinary stress points in *our* system and attack them at times of peak stress. Wouldn't causing those breaks be a lot simpler than orchestrating 9/11? Yet the human and economic ripples are comparable or greater. No particular PR value, but there are other goals an enemy might have, and some foes might want to hurt *us* without exposure. It also might be a great first blow in a one-two punch. Divert *our* attention while they can get their main mission in place." [emphasis is mine] Hmm, interesting. So just what are the ordinary stress points in the worldwide community of Transhumanists' systems? Or have i strayed onto the wrong list? ben From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 12:00:14 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 05:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <200509040523.j845N1w24524@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050904120014.8869.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > My own vision of the next three to five decades does > > not include starvation or overly dire consequences, > but > it is slower, with less transportation of humans. > We > compensate by smarter use of communications, more > working at home, probably some downscaling in some > areas, perhaps less meat eating for instance, fewer > big entertainment events such as football games and > New Years Eve bashes in Times Square, that kinda > stuff. We will live. I don't know, Spike. My vision is pretty nice. Our economy goes nuke/hydrogen. We build a bunch of really enlightened nuclear power plants with multiply redundant safety-systems to generate electricy and hydrogen. We use electric and matrix absorption-desorption hydrogen fuel cell cars to go as fast as we do now and a lot quieter too for those who live on busy streets. We use fission as a crutch till we get fusion in a bottle. Then we have our own miniture suns to power stuff. Its not unbelievable, just unpopular, because people are afraid of the N word. http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/hydrogen/points.html 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 extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Sep 4 13:48:32 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 09:48:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <20050904043333.74280.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> <20050904043333.74280.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050904093107.073ed528@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- David Lubkin wrote: > > > Part of that answer could be communications-relay spacecraft. > > > > There's a group that's adapting the Internet protocols for the > > specific characteristics involved with an environment where even a > > ping will take hours and an aging host may have too little remaining > > power to waste resending mangled packets. > > > > Perhaps they should look at (if they aren't already) adapting the > > routing protocols and building a space-worthy router that can become > > a standard module included in every spacecraft, manned or unmanned, > > regardless of mission. > >Well, spin-off technologies is nice, but I'm talking about space >science making its data valuable to the market. > > > I'd also love to see more standards for describing and merging sensor > > data, so that we can gradually build a grid of multi-purpose > > buoys-cum-lighthouses throughout the system and then extending > > beyond, perhaps one every light-hour for starters. > >With miniaturization, putting out hundreds or thousands of nano-probes >operating in a network How do you think that network would work without the routing protocols and hardware I'm talking about? Command and data relay is not a spin-off. I'm not talking about earth-orbit. I'm saying that any mission anywhere, manned or unmanned, is going to need command and data relay. Whether it's that asteroid retrieval, your nano-probe network, or a manned Mars-or-Bust, every craft needs it and every craft can provide it for others. And your nano-probe network becomes even more economically justifiable if, beyond its data acquisition mission, its packet relay mission improves the reliability and performance of everything else we do in space. -- David. From riel at surriel.com Sun Sep 4 14:03:41 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Your improper assumption was that New Orleans wasn't a third world > country before this disaster. I don't know how many times I've heard > that people like to go there specifically because it has third world > country characteristics without having to leave the US. When making our way from the New Orleans airport to the city center (earlier this year), my wife and I had exactly that feeling. New Orleans looks and feels like a poorer city in Brazil. Richer cities in Brazil appear to be better off than New Orleans was before Katrina. -- "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 Sun Sep 4 14:16:51 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:16:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > Is there a company out there that is more capable and better at handling > the job and is willing to do it for less? Also, would you want disaster recovery work done by companies that cut corners in order to be cheaper than competitors ? -- "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 megao at sasktel.net Sun Sep 4 13:25:57 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:25:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] very large distance array In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050904093107.073ed528@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> <20050904043333.74280.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050904093107.073ed528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <431AF5E5.4020903@sasktel.net> such a system might also function as a very large distance array "telescope" if each sensor had a continuous gps like way of correcting data for relative position/and movement. From megao at sasktel.net Sun Sep 4 13:41:02 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:41:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton and world-scale operations In-Reply-To: References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <431AF96E.100@sasktel.net> Rik van Riel wrote: >On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > >>Is there a company out there that is more capable and better at handling >>the job and is willing to do it for less? >> >> > >Also, would you want disaster recovery work done by companies >that cut corners in order to be cheaper than competitors ? > > > The question is how do you determine when value for money spent has been achieved and when has a service been over compensated, not precisely who is delivering it. So long as there is a way to benchmark this the function of a competitive bid system has been duplicated. The problem is that there is a lack of world scale operators. China or other nations are lacking in this world scale enterprise I am assuming. The only world scale enterprises outside the USA might only be military in nature which makes their bidding on USA domestic contracts unthinkable for the world-view of North America. The answer would be for the military forces of countries to have a commerical activities function. Perhaps a new role for a consortium of multinational forces? Will we soon become mature enough as a species to think this way? It seems evident to me that expending resources on conflict-wars etc is dragging down the potential of humanity to make the singularity a reality. The core question is: Does conflict serve any useful purpose in a technologically advanced society or is is merely a disease lingering from more primative times? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Sep 4 14:39:25 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:39:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Your improper assumption was that New Orleans wasn't a third world > > country before this disaster. I don't know how many times I've heard > > that people like to go there specifically because it has third world > > country characteristics without having to leave the US. > > When making our way from the New Orleans airport to the > city center (earlier this year), my wife and I had exactly > that feeling. > > New Orleans looks and feels like a poorer city in Brazil. > Richer cities in Brazil appear to be better off than New > Orleans was before Katrina. > > A friend of mine visited NO in 1999. He got turned around somehow while out walking/sightseeing and found himself off the main track. He is not a small or easily intimidated person, but he was *very* glad to get back to "civilization". A young man who worked near me said, after his trip to NO some years ago, that he would never go there again... he'd never seen such behaviour anywhere in his life before and was glad to leave. I do not recall whether he was there for MardiGras or not; that could certainly explain his reaction though, IMHO! :))) As I'm not a party animal or heavy drinker, NO has had no attraction for me; good seafood is available other places! There was a website at one time: http://www.acadiacom.net/nopd/tips.htm "NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT "Street Smart" Tips for Working, Living & Playing Downtown" The safety suggestions there were not unusual, but it seemed odd to be sent to such a site as a tourist... Somewhat disconcerting. Regards, MB From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 15:32:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <2fb1c191ab708e25f7cc011f20412322@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > On Sep 3, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > --- Hal Finney wrote:> > >> As oil reaches each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as > >> vindication and confirmation of their views. There was a time > when > >> $50 oil was unimaginable. Then $60 oil was unimaginable, then $70. > >> Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. What will we be saying by > the > >> end of this year? > > > > What do they say about the fact that once you take into account > price > > shifts solely due to changes in the value of the dollar caused by > > banking policy, oil prices of $56/bbl today are essentially no > > different from $40/bbl prices two years ago. Todays spot price of > $69 > > is equal to $49/bbl prices two years ago, when prices were $30/bbl. > So > > it appears that half of the present high prices vs. two years ago > is > > solely due to fluctuations in the dollar markets due to banking > policy. > > The other half can be attributed to multiple things: middle east > > instability, the current Katrina crisis, as well as growth in > Chinese > > demand. > > I'd say your scenario contradicts itself since you say below: > > > I should also note that President Bush ordered the Reserve filled > to > > capacity shortly after 9/11, when oil prices shot up from the mid > $25 > > range to the $35-38 range on the spot markets. Depending on what > prices > > it obtained these reserves at, the gov't could realize a > significant > > windfall on these sales. Assuming they sell a million a day for two > > months, they should see profits of about $1.5 billion, which should > > help offset some of the $10.5 billion being authorized by Congress > for > > the Katrina recovery efforts. > > Well, how much is it? > > Anyway, at two years at 5% inflation, from $49, you get $54, not $56 > and the prices are not $56. Inflation is not the change in the international value of the dollar. The dollar has dropped in value by about 40% over the last two years, compared to other currencies. That is not reflected in our CPI because only a small percent of our overall economic activity is priced on foreign currencies. So, no, you are the one that is wrong. > > Anyway, this is mostly irrelevant since the underlying theory is > obvious and simple: > > There are no new sources of fossil fuels. We have already tapped the > "easy to get to" ones (for the most part, I've heard recently that > Vietnam has a major reserve but I'm not aware of the reliability of > the source...) and the easy-to-get-to portions of the easy-to-get-to > ones. The Vietnamese reserve you speak of is actually a proven inorganic oil source. The "White Tiger" field offshore was drilled by Russian teams from Yukos after American oil companies declared the field to be non-existent and abandoned the area. The Russians drilled 17,000 feet deep into and through basaltic layers for each well, producing 6,000 bbl/day/well. http://reactor-core.org/peak-oil.html The Vietnamese resources would not exist under your malthusian paradigm of limited resources. According to the biotic oil 'experts', oil doesn't exist that deep, and doesn't exist under the continental basalt. The biotic theory is that it is a sedimentary deposit of biological material. If so, it can only exist above the continental basaltic bedrock. Once again, it is you who are wrong. > This leaves the harder to get to ones dwindling down to the > impossible to get to ones and finally to the no more left scenario. And as each is exploited, new technologies will be developed that will be able to get at them easier and cheaper. At the same time, energy conserving technologies will enter the market and help reduce demand per dollar of GDP. > > The alternative - that the core of the earth is filled with nothing > but fossil fuels and we'll be able to run on unleaded gasoline for the > next 100 years at our current rate of consumptive growth is absurd. On the contrary, the Athabascan oil tar sands of Alberta has enough oil for centuries of consumption. http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1mhi35m1go3h3?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Athabasca+Oil+Sands&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01a&linktext=Athabasca%20Tar%20Sands "Although not proven, and not even considered within the oil industry, according to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the Athabasca tar sands is the largest oil deposit in the world, with a claimed estimation of 1.6 trillion barrels (254 km?) of oil, of which at most 315 billion barrels (50 km?) are claimed to be recoverable by the oil companies given current technology. Syncrude (http://www.syncrude.com/who_we_are/01_06.html), one of the oil companies involved in mining the tar sands, states that the entire tar sand deposit is twice the size of Lake Ontario. It is estimated the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands deposit is slightly larger than Athabasca (see tar sands article). See [1] (http://www.energybulletin.net/4385.html) for more accurate estimations of about 174.5 billion barrels (28 km?)." So, at current technology and global consumption rates, if all the rest of the oil in the world ended in the near future, the Athabascan sands could supply about ten years of total global oil consumption. With advances in technology, the sands could potentially supply 50 years or more of global oil needs. The Orinoco tar sands have similar capacity. The Athabascan deposits equal 1/3 of all global reserves. > > Consequently the obvious conclusion for those with half-a-brain-left > is that it's just a matter of time - 10 years, 2 years, 50 years, 100 > years. In any case, the US economy in particular will have to > undergo > a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy > source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier > rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day. On the contrary, the market will signal when the need occurs. As with articles previously cited by Hal, it is clear that the oil oligopolists won't pass up expensive prices tomorrow for cheap prices today. Instead, they will drive up current day prices by delaying exploitation of unused reserves or other means of expanding production beyond current capacity. In a market of rising demand, simply delaying expansion of production drives up prices automatically to send the price signals that will trigger consumer conservation. Your abject lack of faith in the market explains a lot why you are not a libertarian. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sun Sep 4 15:44:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050904093107.073ed528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050904154433.22290.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >--- David Lubkin wrote: > > > > > Part of that answer could be communications-relay spacecraft. > > > > > > There's a group that's adapting the Internet protocols for the > > > specific characteristics involved with an environment where even > a > > > ping will take hours and an aging host may have too little > remaining > > > power to waste resending mangled packets. > > > > > > Perhaps they should look at (if they aren't already) adapting the > > > routing protocols and building a space-worthy router that can > become > > > a standard module included in every spacecraft, manned or > unmanned, > > > regardless of mission. > > > >Well, spin-off technologies is nice, but I'm talking about space > >science making its data valuable to the market. > > > > > I'd also love to see more standards for describing and merging > sensor > > > data, so that we can gradually build a grid of multi-purpose > > > buoys-cum-lighthouses throughout the system and then extending > > > beyond, perhaps one every light-hour for starters. > > > >With miniaturization, putting out hundreds or thousands of > nano-probes > >operating in a network > > How do you think that network would work without the routing > protocols and hardware I'm talking about? I don't, but I don't consider income from spinning such technology off to the Earth market to be the major value-adder that justifies mass production of space probes. What the probes produce themselves (science data) must be of marketable value to justify mass producing them. > Command and data relay is not a spin-off. I'm not talking about > earth-orbit. I'm saying that any mission anywhere, manned or > unmanned, is going to need command and data relay. Whether it's that > asteroid retrieval, your nano-probe network, or a manned > Mars-or-Bust, every craft needs it and every craft can provide it for > others. > > And your nano-probe network becomes even more economically > justifiable if, beyond its data acquisition mission, its packet relay > mission improves the reliability and performance of everything else > we do in space. Ah, so you want it to operate as a backbone for other spacecraft and installations, as a space ISP? Okay, I get it, though in this you are competing against a zero priced competitor: all the radio dishes that are routinely used to directly receive data from probes. There is also the problem of signal strength. Even with thousands of probes in solar system space, the average space between probes will, at minimum, be in the hundreds of thousands of miles if not millions of miles. Receiving signals at that distance requires directional dishes of significant size that will take up a large part of the mass of any such probe, if not be in excess of total probe mass, even if you use a phased array. What dispersion distance are you expecting to be reasonable? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From outlawpoet at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 17:09:34 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:09:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <2fb1c191ab708e25f7cc011f20412322@aol.com> <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f305090410091633345@mail.gmail.com> Sorry for the levity, my serious friends, but listening to you two argue about this has a faint tinge of the ridiculous. On 9/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > In any case, the US economy in particular will have to > > undergo a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy > > source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier > > rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day. > > Your abject lack of faith in the market explains a lot why you are not a libertarian. MIKELORREY: I find your lack of faith... disturbing. ROBERTLINDAUER: (his eyes go wide, and he scrabbles at his throat as the Invisible Hand closes around him) -- apologies to Adam Smith. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 17:35:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050904173501.38861.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html Wired had this article last year. Furthermore, it turns out that the Athabascan sands are only one oil sand deposit in Alberta: http://www.osern.rr.ualberta.ca//Images/old/AOSD_Full.gif In total, Albertan oil sands amount to over 2.54 trillion barrels. At a 10% recovery factor, thats 254 billion barrels, or about nine years of total global oil supply (at an 84 million bbl/day rate of production). With current technology, 30% should be feasible, giving 27 years, and with nanotechnology to be developed in the next 27 years, recovery percentage should grow to over 70% or more. Now, lets look at its exploitation from a more realistice point of view. Lets say oil companies invest enough to create a daily output of 6 million bbl/day. The US imports 13.12 million bbl/day from 15 countries. Of these, I'd say we'd want to keep importing oil from eight or nine of them, representing 42-46% of our oil imports. Ending imports from all African nations, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, possibly Iraq, would free us from terrorism profiting on oil prices. 6 million bbl/day from Alberta would replace all of our imports from troublesome nations. Currently, according to Syncrude, its recovery costs for the heavy crude they get out of their extraction process, is $10/bbl, far less than what they used to be, and there are technologies for reducing this more. One alone will drop it by $1.50/bbl. So lets assume $8.50/bbl within a few years. While its 4.5 times more than Saudi's $2/bbl recovery costs, its still eight times less than the current spot price, which should give ample room for refineries to refine even this heavy crude instead of lighter crudes from foreign sources. At a 6 million bbl/day production rate in Alberta, the oil sands would last 42333 days of production at a constant rate and recovering only 10% of the bitumen. That is 115 years of freedom from muslim extremist oil per 10% of bitumen deposits extracted from Albertan oil sands at a current dollar cost of $8.50/bbl. If we were to make an assumption that each additional 10% would cost 50% more to extract than the previous 10%, the 70th percentile would cost $96.00/bbl to extract. The 80th would cost $145.00, the 90th would be $217.00, and the last percentile would cost $326 in current year dollars. The last percentile would be extracted in 1150 years, assuming a constant rate of extraction. With a 3% average inflation rate and a 4% average growth rate, the real cost of this oil in 1150 years should be about $0.32/bbl relative to the current cost of living. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:02:18 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:02:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050904173501.38861.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050904173501.38861.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Now, lets look at its exploitation from a more realistice point of > view. Lets say oil companies invest enough to create a daily output of > 6 million bbl/day. > > The US imports 13.12 million bbl/day from 15 countries. Of these, I'd > say we'd want to keep importing oil from eight or nine of them, > representing 42-46% of our oil imports. Ending imports from all African > nations, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, possibly Iraq, would free us from > terrorism profiting on oil prices. > > 6 million bbl/day from Alberta would replace all of our imports from > troublesome nations. Currently, according to Syncrude, its recovery > costs for the heavy crude they get out of their extraction process, is > $10/bbl, far less than what they used to be, and there are technologies > for reducing this more. One alone will drop it by $1.50/bbl. So lets > assume $8.50/bbl within a few years. While its 4.5 times more than > Saudi's $2/bbl recovery costs, its still eight times less than the > current spot price, which should give ample room for refineries to > refine even this heavy crude instead of lighter crudes from foreign > sources. > Latest news is that 6 million bbl/day from Alberta is not expected until 2030. Current production is around 1 million bbl/day and even by 2012 they only expect 1.6 million bbl/day. Quote: A 15-year-long decline in oil reserves and crude-oil prices of more than $70 a barrel are pushing companies such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. to spend $76 billion in the next decade to boost supplies of oil from tar sands and diesel fuel from Qatari natural gas. Output at the Alberta fields, which cover an area about the size of Belgium, will probably approach 1.6 million barrels a day in 2012 and 2.8 million barrels by 2016, Drzymala said. Production costs will fall to about $7 a barrel from $11 in the next five years because of new technological developments, he said. ------------------------------- I would recommend economising on your oil usage. BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 4 18:13:20 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:13:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <3ad827f305090410091633345@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200509041813.j84IDMw07177@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of justin corwin > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game > theorystandpoint ? > > Sorry for the levity, my serious friends, but listening to you two > argue about this has a faint tinge of the ridiculous. > ... > > MIKELORREY: I find your lack of faith... disturbing. > > ROBERTLINDAUER: (his eyes go wide, and he scrabbles at his throat as > the Invisible Hand closes around him) > > -- > > apologies to Adam Smith. > > -- > Justin Corwin Let them say their piece Justin. I have learned a lot by listening to this particular debate. Here's an ethical question for you guys. Suppose I am a skeptic regarding the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it was the cause of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, that it makes more and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the genitals of the children of outer Mongolia to mature at the age of four, whatever. Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype. Would that be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the silliness, but rather take advantage of that which is already out there, entirely thru free market reaction. Do you see anything wrong with that? I don't. I put it in the same category as farm subsidies: I oppose them on principle, but will cheerfully collect them if I qualify, without a hint of shame. Why not? My substantial tax bill helped pay for them, right? Besides, global warming *might* contribute to hurricanes, a century or two from now, so my profiting in reducing that today is OK, right? spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of justin corwin > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:10 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game > theorystandpoint ? > > Sorry for the levity, my serious friends, but listening to you two > argue about this has a faint tinge of the ridiculous. > ... > > MIKELORREY: I find your lack of faith... disturbing. > > ROBERTLINDAUER: (his eyes go wide, and he scrabbles at his throat as > the Invisible Hand closes around him) > > -- > > apologies to Adam Smith. > > -- > Justin Corwin From eugen at leitl.org Sun Sep 4 19:17:10 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:17:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <200509041813.j84IDMw07177@tick.javien.com> References: <3ad827f305090410091633345@mail.gmail.com> <200509041813.j84IDMw07177@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050904191710.GE2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:13:20AM -0700, spike wrote: > Besides, global warming *might* contribute to > hurricanes, a century or two from now, so my > profiting in reducing that today is OK, right? While I'm not sufficiently interested in global warming theory and modelling to have an informed opinion whether we're only seeing random fluctuations (the climate has been known to have extreme excursions, ranging from Iceball Earth to steaming global jungle and desert) it could very well be that the recorded water surface warming is driving the peak wind velocities in the hurricane, and that that surface water warming is anthropogenic. Meaning, we're already reaping the storm we sow, paying for the damage in human lives and cold hard cash. It's immaterial either way, however: we now abundantly know that climate nonlinearities are the norm, and have been a major contributor to extinctions of multiple past high cultures. As a precaution, we need to minimize the amount of climate forcing (reduce anthropogenic aerosols/greenhouse gase emission), build better climate models and sensor networks, and prepare for potential unpleasantness (drought/flooding, loss of crop and large scale starvation, infrastructure damage and loss of life through catastrophic damage events). Would this be expensive? Probably. But the potential damage would be far more expensive, and it's not that we don't have the cash, given the amount of frivolous wars and other stupid pasttimes we've been lately engaging in. To do none of the above would be foolish, suicidally so. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina? Warm ocean temperatures are a key ingredient for monster hurricanes, prompting some scientists to believe that global warming is exacerbating our storm troubles By JEFFREY KLUGER SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Posted Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 The people of New Orleans are surely not thinking about wind vortices, the coriolis effect or the dampness of the troposphere as they hunker down during hurricane Katrina this morning. They.re mostly thinking about the savage rains and 140 mph winds that have driven them from their homes. But it.s that meteorological arcana that.s made such a mess of the bayou, and to hear a lot of people tell it, we have only ourselves.and our global-warming ways.to blame. One thing.s for sure: hurricanes were around a long, long time before human beings began chopping down rainforests and fouling the atmosphere. To get such a tempest going, you don.t need much more than ocean temperatures above 80 degrees Fahrenheit; a cool, wet atmosphere above and a warm, wet one near the surface; and a preexisting weather disturbance with a bit of spin to it far enough from the equator (at least 300 miles) so that the rotation of the Earth amplifies the rotation of the storm. The more intense the storm becomes, the more the temperature of its core climbs, accelerating the spin, exacerbating the storm, and leading to the meteorological violence we call a hurricane. And violent it can be: The heat released in an average hurricane can equal the electricity produced by the U.S. in a single year. So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes.or at least they seem to if you live in the U.S. From 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and that doesn.t include 1992.s horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars worth of damage. More-frequent hurricanes are part of most global warming models, and as mean temperatures rise worldwide, it.s hard not to make a connection between the two. But hurricane-scale storms occur all over the world, and in some places.including the North Indian ocean and the region near Australia.the number has actually fallen. Even in the U.S., the period from 1991 to 1994 was a time of record hurricane quietude, with the dramatic exception of Andrew. Just why some areas of the world get hit harder than others at different times is impossible to say. Everything from random atmospheric fluctuations to the periodic warming of the Pacific Ocean known as El Nino can be responsible. But even if all these variables have combined to keep the number of hurricanes worldwide about the same, the storms do appear to be more intense. One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, would be more than sufficient to do that. While the people of New Orleans may not see another hurricane for years, the next one they do see could make even Katrina look mild. NOAA National Hurricane Center New Orleans Web Cams New Orleans Hurricane Impact Study Area BACK TO TOP PRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Related Stories From The TIME ARCHIVE * HURRICANE ONSLAUGHT THE WORST STORM SEASON SINCE 1933 COULD BE THE START OF A DANGEROUS TREND [9/11/1995] * The Great Whirlwind The weathermen first spotted the hurricane when it towered up off the West Indies, at about lat. 16? N., long. 60? W. It was a monstrous specimen.a spinning funnel of black storm with... [9/25/1944] * Wait Till Next Time If a little heated water in the Atlantic can create Floyd, what storms will global warming bring? [9/27/1999] 14.10.2004 A Reinsurer's "Master of Disaster" Paying out hundreds of millions in insurance claims after natural disasters each year, German reinsurer Munich Re relies on a scientist to help monitor climate and prepare the company for the future. The "Master of Disaster" is not the name of a heavyweight wrestler: It's the unofficial title of Gerd Berz, who heads the geo-risk research department at German insuring giant Munich Re, the world's largest. For 30 years, Berz's job has been to study meteorological and environmental climate changes for the world's largest reinsurer. His research helps Munich Re decide how to react in the marketplace. While hurricanes, tropical storms and heat waves are known to the masses by charming names like "Isabel", "Queenie" or "Michaela", in the insurance industry they are simply referred to as "basic damage events." Such weather-related natural catastrophes have caused $333 billion (.271 billion) in damage in the past 10 years -- six times more than 50 years ago. And costs for insured damages have risen tenfold in the same time. One reason for the increase in natural catastrophes is global warming, which has led to a rise in weather-related catastrophes, according to scientists. Global warming is thought to be caused by increased greenhouse emissions. According to a UN report on global warming, by the end of this century the mean global temperature will have risen by somewhere between 1.5 and 6 degrees centigrade. "That means, we'll have temperatures on the earth that mankind has never experienced, combined with a strong increase in extreme temperatures," Berz told Deutsche Welle. Mankind to blame? But climate change isn't the only thing responsible for the increase in damages -- mankind has had a hand in the affair as well. A disaster today tends to hit more people because of overall greater population. The world population has more than doubled in the past fifty years and most people now live in cities -- which are not only more densely populated, but also more spread out, Berz said. So when a "basic damage event" strikes, "the probability of it hitting a big town is getting greater and greater," he said. "In addition, many cities are particularly exposed -- think of the coastal areas. And this trend goes worldwide." And because our society has become so reliant on infrastructure we are particularly vulnerable, Berz added. "We are on a 24-hour drip of functioning infrastructure," Berz said. "A disturbance like a natural catastrophe, means necessities like gas, electricity or oil are disturbed, as well as traffic and communication. All these things are necessary for the economy to function, and individuals as well." Big business About one fifth of all weather-related damages are paid for by insurance. Some 6,000 primary insurers are then re-insured by Munich Re. As a business, then, Munich Re says it has to take the current trend of global warming into account. One way to do this is to passing some of the risk on to the customer. "Premiums will have to be increased relatively," Berz said. "And we have to let our customers know that we, as reinsurer, also have to take more big catastrophes into account, and thus need greater cash reserves. That is our main problem." Not only do the reinsurers take measures to gird their wallets, they also work on the prevention angle. In order to keep damages low, Munich Re is involved in initiatives in areas from infrastructure to city planning. The company would for instance try to influence decisions on things like building codes in earthquake areas, or land-use regulations in flood zones. Local initiatives important Risk-analyst Berz said local initiatives are key in these areas, which can be influenced by individual cities and countries. But local action is less relevant when it comes to a world-wide issue like the weather. A global phenomenon requires global climate protection, Berz said. If industrial nations cut their greenhouse emissions, then developing nations will be able to expand theirs without causing an overall further imbalance. "The industrial nations have done most of the development to this point, and have also gained the most from it," he said. "So in my opinion, we should have the responsibility of doing everything in our power not to increase development, but to stabilize it." Author DW staff (jen) http://www.dw-world.de ? Deutsche Welle -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun Sep 4 19:27:54 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:27:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] "Dream Elementals" (toxic mold, ASP, lucid dreaming) Message-ID: <431B4ABA.9070205@mindspring.com> Leslie Ellen Jones wrote: > Don't know about the poltergeist thing, but I can say that the period > of my life when I was having the most vivid dreams (not ASP, but > extremely lucid) was when I was living in Oregon in a house where the > landlady had used cheap paint in the bathroom and there was mold I > just couldn't get rid of, even with bleach (mostly because I couldn't > get up to get it on the ceiling without the bleach coming straight > back down into my face). I kept pestering her to repaint the bathroom > because I'm allergic to mold and mildew and in addition to the dreams, > I was having constant, debilitating sinus headaches, and when she > finally did, the headaches abated and the dreams got less intense. So > I definitely think there's a relationship between mold and dream > states. Hey Leslie! Like you, I was always a dreamer and had some normal ASP episodes but it wasn't until I worked in that government building that the ASP went to new and horrific levels. At the time, I wondered if it was my apartment, you know, that it was haunted. During the time I worked there I had one cold after another and so did everybody who worked there. It was awful. And they weren't ordinary colds. I can remember once phoning in sick because I had such a bad cold. I used a box of kleenex in two hours. When I look back on my dream journals of that time - I used to write about ASP then trying to figure out what was going on - I now see that often wrote: "I've got a headache". Also, I remember going to my doctor because I figured out I had a sinus infection in the sinus cavity in the forehead - I had had a dull headache for months. She agreed and gave me antibiotics, which interestingly helped the ASP subside. I figure that I transferred the mold from the office to my apartment, although I never saw mold in my apartment. Two things happened at once - I moved out of my apartment and I left working in that building and the ASP dramatically stopped. At the time I thought it was because my apartment was somehow haunted. But in retrospect, I think it was because I got away from the mold in that office building. It was years later that I read about mold and how it can make a person sick with sinus infections and cold-like symptoms that aren't really a cold but an allergic reaction to mold. So, maybe I was stoned on an LSD-type mold for those three years. I remember a workman coming into my office one day and he took the top off of the heating/cooling system and stuck his arm down and when he pulled it up his arm was covered in pure black slime to his elbow. I was only thinking about colds at the time, and I said: "No wonder I've been sick!" He told me that there were *mushrooms* growing throughout the air conditioning/heating system. At that time, I don't think the powers that be really knew the effect of toxic mold on people. I've sorta been piecing this story together for years now. Because I could never figure out why I hit with such intense ASP dreams for a three-year period. I thought there must be some environmental reason, whether that be electromagnetism or even a virus that caused hyper-dreaming, as I call it. < %>< > But, on the bright side, Leslie, maybe we've solved the ASP/lucid dreaming mystery! Kelly -- "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 Sun Sep 4 19:29:06 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:29:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (TLC-Brotherhood) Disaster Aid [a military perspective] Message-ID: <431B4B02.1000508@mindspring.com> Forwarding from another list... Terry I live in the Florida panhandle and we were the bulls-eye early on (again). The refined prediction (12 hours out) was almost correct. Had Katrina hit as predicted (just to the west of NO with the winds blowing due north at the peak and falling off to westerly) it would have been less destructive because the winds would have blown the Lake P waters away from NO instead of towards it and probably not broken the levies. A sudden sidestep caused Katrina to hit just east of NO, allowing the winds to push Lake P water over and break the levies. Had forces been positioned close, they could have been clobbered and been part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Remember that the hurricane force winds extended out a long way. Mobile was flattened too. Hurricanes, like women, go where they will, and do what they want. Hind-sight is always 20/20. Speed of Response - Let's look at the time line here: Sunday - Katrina hits late Sunday evening. Monday and the winds are still strong and nobody (even the Weather Channel and FOX) has a handle on just how bad the situation is. People are looking and trying to assess the scope of the problem - At some point the levies break. Tuesday - the size is becoming apparent and the order goes to a National Guard unit (pick any unit) to activate. This is sent to 3 or 4 technicians who are the only full time people at the local Armory. They activate the call roster which requires a 24 hour response. Depending on the time - the technicians also start the loading or positioning of equipment for loading. Wednesday - troops begin to report. They find that the loading or positioning of equipment is underway and get involved while also accomplishing the activation paperwork required. At best they are dead tired by now but loaded and ready to go. Thursday - a convoy pulls out and heads to the stricken area. Time of arrival will depend on distance to be covered but most will do it in a day. Otherwise they would probably be deployed on aircraft. However, not all units have aircraft available and some will be on the road for more than one day. Friday - boots on the ground and relief efforts underway. Supplies and more troops will be arriving with more following the next few days. Obviously air assets can move much more quickly but still require ground support, fuel, maintenance troops, spare parts and a secure landing strip. Their time line looks much the same - only difference is their "boots on the ground" is Thursday instead of Friday. Unreasonable? IMHO, no. I'd rather see everyone (on both sides) quit trying to blame someone and realize that this thing is bigger than anyone (right or left) ever thought it would be. This is real life, not some 2 hour disaster movie where the hero wins through in the end. We should be encouraging the survivors and working to get them cared for, not nit-picking or trying to cast blame. Using a National natural disaster as an excuse to bash someone of either party is incredibly small minded and I'm ashamed that we have "leaders" that think it's the best thing to do. Dusty, Jim Henthorn 21st S.O.S. Nov. '67 - May '69 Knife/Dusty NKP RTAFB -- "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 hal at finney.org Sun Sep 4 20:56:36 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 13:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? Message-ID: <20050904205636.2E08657EF5@finney.org> Spike asks: > Here's an ethical question for you guys. Suppose I am a skeptic regarding > the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it was the cause > of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, that it makes more > and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the genitals of the children of > outer Mongolia to mature at the age of four, whatever. > > Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype. Would that > be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the silliness, but > rather take advantage of that which is already out there, entirely thru > free market reaction. Do you see anything wrong with that? I think the main ethical question would be whether your actions cause harm, from your perspective. If you don't agree with this theory about global warming, yet you are, say, selling products that tie into the theory somehow, then your actions would arguably increase belief in what you view as a false idea. So I think that would be ethically wrong. If your product or service, on the other hand, somehow would show or demonstrate to people the falsehood of their beliefs, then your actions would be more likely to be ethical. Suppose your product were useless. Suppose it was a ghost repellant and you sold it to people who foolishly believe in ghosts. Then you might argue that you are implicitly punishing a false belief and indirectly rewarding people who believe correctly. However I would say that you are doing harm to people who already suffer from their false beliefs, without really doing anything to lead them to the truth. So this would in my opinion be unethical. Do you have a specific idea in mind to make money off global warming hype? Hal From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 23:00:00 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902141024.25653.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902141024.25653.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote:> > > Well, the 100kW aint it. > > I've worked on lasers putting out 1kW onto 10 mm square carbon fibre > > mat and it does zilch. Dry hardwood is almost as good. > > Now work out the power density of the 100kW laser compared to beam > > size on target. > > 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave oven is > different from a radar gun. > > The power density is identical between what I tested and a 100kW beam with a width of approx 12cm No new phenomena. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 23:27:55 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:27:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (TLC-Brotherhood) Disaster Aid [a military perspective] In-Reply-To: <431B4B02.1000508@mindspring.com> References: <431B4B02.1000508@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 9/4/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > Forwarding from another list... > > Terry > > Thursday - a convoy pulls out and heads to the stricken area. Time of > arrival will depend on distance to be covered but most will do it in a > day. > Otherwise they would probably be deployed on aircraft. However, not all > units have aircraft available and some will be on the road for more than > one > day. > > Friday - boots on the ground and relief efforts underway. Supplies and > more troops will be arriving with more following the next few days. > > Obviously air assets can move much more quickly but still require ground > support, fuel, maintenance troops, spare parts and a secure landing strip. > Their time line looks much the same - only difference is their "boots on > the > ground" is Thursday instead of Friday. > > Unreasonable? IMHO, no. > > > In Britain we have at least one air-mobile brigade on 24 hr standby to go anywhere in the world. Why couldn't the US have dropped one into NO the day after the storm? The stadium would have been the prime choice. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 23:44:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904205636.2E08657EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050904234456.44619.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Spike asks: > > > Here's an ethical question for you guys. Suppose I am a skeptic > > regarding the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it > > was the cause of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, > > that it makes more and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the > > genitals of the children of outer Mongolia to mature at the age > > of four, whatever. > > > > Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype. Would > > that be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the > > silliness, but rather take advantage of that which is already > > out there, entirely thru > > free market reaction. Do you see anything wrong with that? > > I think the main ethical question would be whether your actions cause > harm, from your perspective. If you don't agree with this theory > about global warming, yet you are, say, selling products that tie > into the theory somehow, then your actions would arguably increase > belief in what you view as a false idea. So I think that would be > ethically wrong. On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them put their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saing evolution is unethical? > If your product or service, on the other hand, somehow would show or > demonstrate to people the falsehood of their beliefs, then your > actions would be more likely to be ethical. > > Suppose your product were useless. Suppose it was a ghost repellant > and you sold it to people who foolishly believe in ghosts. Then you > might argue that you are implicitly punishing a false belief and > indirectly rewarding people who believe correctly. However I would > say that you are doing harm to people who already suffer from their > false beliefs, without really doing anything to lead them to the > truth. So this would in my opinion be unethical. I recall a Dr. Suess tale that resembles this remark, about a society of two sorts of people, with attendant strife between them, and an entrepreneur that sold one group a machine to make them look like the other group, and sold the other group a machine to make them look like the first group. Everybody got in a tizzy going from machine to machine, changing back and forth, until they were all broke (except for the entrepreneur), suffered the cognitive shock I've occasionally spoken of, and realized it didn't matter what people looked like. I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine, but an education. There are some lessons that people have to learn the hard way. > > Do you have a specific idea in mind to make money off global warming > hype? Selling appalachian backwoods land at 200 meters altitude as future ocean front property... selling Canadian tundra as future prairie farmland... selling solar power panels with an ROI of 25 years... selling electric cars that produce more toxic waste in batteries than a normal car does in CO2.... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sun Sep 4 23:47:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050904234709.29811.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave > > oven is different from a radar gun. > > > The power density is identical between what I tested and a 100kW > beam with a width of approx 12cm > No new phenomena. What makes you think the beam width of the weapon is 12 cm? You are fudging the numbers to make yourself right. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 00:08:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904191710.GE2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050905000851.73811.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The problem with this is that the record does NOT show that the atlantic hurricane pattern has been impacted by any alleged global warming. In fact, quite the contrary, the period from 1930 to 1960 had 50% more hurricane activity than the next 30 years. The North Atlantic Occillation is the predominant weather pattern of atlantic hurricanes. According to alleged global warming 'experts', the period after 1970 has seen the most warming, yet it was this period that saw the fewest hurricanes since the 1920's. http://www.bbsr.edu/rpi/meetpart/092195summary/MJfig4.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4830071 In this link, Dr. Chris Landsea of NOAA does a good job of debunking some of the unsupported claims of Kerry Emanuel who is the main proponent of linking severe hurricanes with alleged global warming in his book "Divine Wind". --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:13:20AM -0700, spike wrote: > > > Besides, global warming *might* contribute to > > hurricanes, a century or two from now, so my > > profiting in reducing that today is OK, right? > > While I'm not sufficiently interested in global > warming theory and modelling to have an informed opinion > whether we're only seeing random fluctuations (the climate has > been known to have extreme excursions, ranging from Iceball Earth > to steaming global jungle and desert) it could very well > be that the recorded water surface warming is driving > the peak wind velocities in the hurricane, and that that surface > water > warming is anthropogenic. Meaning, we're already reaping the > storm we sow, paying for the damage in human lives > and cold hard cash. > > It's immaterial either way, however: we now abundantly know > that climate nonlinearities are the norm, and have been > a major contributor to extinctions of multiple past > high cultures. As a precaution, we need to minimize > the amount of climate forcing (reduce anthropogenic > aerosols/greenhouse gase emission), build better climate > models and sensor networks, and prepare for potential unpleasantness > (drought/flooding, loss of crop and large scale starvation, > infrastructure damage and loss of life through catastrophic > damage events). > > Would this be expensive? Probably. But the potential damage > would be far more expensive, and it's not that we don't have > the cash, given the amount of frivolous wars and other stupid > pasttimes we've been lately engaging in. > > To do none of the above would be foolish, suicidally so. > > http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html > > Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina? > Warm ocean temperatures are a key ingredient for monster hurricanes, > prompting some scientists to believe that global warming is > exacerbating our storm troubles > > By JEFFREY KLUGER > SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR > > Posted Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 > The people of New Orleans are surely not thinking about wind > vortices, the coriolis effect or the dampness of the troposphere as > they hunker down during hurricane Katrina this morning. They.re > mostly thinking about the savage rains and 140 mph winds that have > driven them from their homes. But it.s that meteorological arcana > that.s made such a mess of the bayou, and to hear a lot of people > tell it, we have only ourselves.and our global-warming ways.to blame. > > One thing.s for sure: hurricanes were around a long, long time before > human beings began chopping down rainforests and fouling the > atmosphere. To get such a tempest going, you don.t need much more > than ocean temperatures above 80 degrees Fahrenheit; a cool, wet > atmosphere above and a warm, wet one near the surface; and a > preexisting weather disturbance with a bit of spin to it far enough > from the equator (at least 300 miles) so that the rotation of the > Earth amplifies the rotation of the storm. The more intense the storm > becomes, the more the temperature of its core climbs, accelerating > the spin, exacerbating the storm, and leading to the meteorological > violence we call a hurricane. And violent it can be: The heat > released in an average hurricane can equal the electricity produced > by the U.S. in a single year. > > So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the > numbers say yes.or at least they seem to if you live in the U.S. From > 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and > that doesn.t include 1992.s horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed > its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars > worth of damage. More-frequent hurricanes are part of most global > warming models, and as mean temperatures rise worldwide, it.s hard > not to make a connection between the two. But hurricane-scale storms > occur all over the world, and in some places.including the North > Indian ocean and the region near Australia.the number has actually > fallen. Even in the U.S., the period from 1991 to 1994 was a time of > record hurricane quietude, with the dramatic exception of Andrew. > > Just why some areas of the world get hit harder than others at > different times is impossible to say. Everything from random > atmospheric fluctuations to the periodic warming of the Pacific Ocean > known as El Nino can be responsible. But even if all these variables > have combined to keep the number of hurricanes worldwide about the > same, the storms do appear to be more intense. One especially > sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found > that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 > years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in > hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could > get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, > would be more than sufficient to do that. While the people of New > Orleans may not see another hurricane for years, the next one they do > see could make even Katrina look mild. > > NOAA National Hurricane Center > > New Orleans Web Cams > > New Orleans Hurricane Impact Study Area > > BACK TO TOP PRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR > Related Stories From The TIME ARCHIVE > > * HURRICANE ONSLAUGHT THE WORST STORM SEASON SINCE 1933 COULD BE > THE START OF A DANGEROUS TREND [9/11/1995] > * The Great Whirlwind The weathermen first spotted the hurricane > when it towered up off the West Indies, at about lat. 16? N., long. > 60? W. It was a monstrous specimen.a spinning funnel of black storm > with... [9/25/1944] > * Wait Till Next Time If a little heated water in the Atlantic > can create Floyd, what storms will global warming bring? [9/27/1999] > > > 14.10.2004 > A Reinsurer's "Master of Disaster" > Paying out hundreds of millions in insurance claims after natural > disasters each year, German reinsurer Munich Re relies on a scientist > to help monitor climate and prepare the company for the future. > > > > > The "Master of Disaster" is not the name of a heavyweight wrestler: > It's the unofficial title of Gerd Berz, who heads the geo-risk > research department at German insuring giant Munich Re, the world's > largest. > > For 30 years, Berz's job has been to study meteorological and > environmental climate changes for the world's largest reinsurer. His > research helps Munich Re decide how to react in the marketplace. > > While hurricanes, tropical storms and heat waves are known to the > masses by charming names like "Isabel", "Queenie" or "Michaela", in > the insurance industry they are simply referred to as "basic damage > events." > > Such weather-related natural catastrophes have caused $333 billion > (.271 billion) in damage in the past 10 years -- six times more than > 50 years ago. And costs for insured damages have risen tenfold in the > same time. > > One reason for the increase in natural catastrophes is global > warming, which has led to a rise in weather-related catastrophes, > according to scientists. Global warming is thought to be caused by > increased greenhouse emissions. According to a UN report on global > warming, by the end of this century the mean global temperature will > have risen by somewhere between 1.5 and 6 degrees centigrade. > > "That means, we'll have temperatures on the earth that mankind has > never experienced, combined with a strong increase in extreme > temperatures," Berz told Deutsche Welle. > > Mankind to blame? > > But climate change isn't the only thing responsible for the increase > in damages -- mankind has had a hand in the affair as well. > > A disaster today tends to hit more people because of overall greater > population. The world population has more than doubled in the past > fifty years and most people now live in cities -- which are not only > more densely populated, but also more spread out, Berz said. > > So when a "basic damage event" strikes, "the probability of it > hitting a big town is getting greater and greater," he said. "In > addition, many cities are particularly exposed -- think of the > coastal areas. And this trend goes worldwide." > > And because our society has become so reliant on infrastructure we > are particularly vulnerable, Berz added. > > "We are on a 24-hour drip of functioning infrastructure," Berz said. > "A disturbance like a natural catastrophe, means necessities like > gas, electricity or oil are disturbed, as well as traffic and > communication. All these things are necessary for the economy to > function, and individuals as well." > > Big business > > About one fifth of all weather-related damages are paid for by > insurance. Some 6,000 primary insurers are then re-insured by Munich > Re. > > As a business, then, Munich Re says it has to take the current trend > of global warming into account. One way to do this is to passing some > of the risk on to the customer. > > "Premiums will have to be increased relatively," Berz said. "And we > have to let our customers know that we, as reinsurer, also have to > take more big catastrophes into account, and thus need greater cash > reserves. That is our main problem." > > Not only do the reinsurers take measures to gird their wallets, they > also work on the prevention angle. In order to keep damages low, > Munich Re is involved in initiatives in areas from infrastructure to > city planning. The company would for instance try to influence > decisions on things like building codes in earthquake areas, or > land-use regulations in flood zones. > > Local initiatives important > > Risk-analyst Berz said local initiatives are key in these areas, > which can be influenced by individual cities and countries. But local > action is less relevant when it comes to a world-wide issue like the > weather. > > A global phenomenon requires global climate protection, Berz said. > > If industrial nations cut their greenhouse emissions, then developing > nations will be able to expand theirs without causing an overall > further imbalance. > "The industrial nations have done most of the development to this > point, and have also gained the most from it," he said. "So in my > opinion, we should have the responsibility of doing everything in our > power not to increase development, but to stabilize it." > > Author DW staff (jen) > http://www.dw-world.de ? Deutsche Welle > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 00:21:45 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:21:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050904234709.29811.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050904234709.29811.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave > > > oven is different from a radar gun. > > > > > The power density is identical between what I tested and a 100kW > > beam with a width of approx 12cm > > No new phenomena. > > What makes you think the beam width of the weapon is 12 cm? You are > fudging the numbers to make yourself right. > > I'm being very generous. The real beam dia is almost certainly larger http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/fog01/ Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 00:48:40 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:48:40 -0400 Subject: Ethics and evolution/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? References: <20050904234456.44619.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004701c5b1b3$8fdfd340$87893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:44 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote: > > > Here's an ethical question for you guys. Suppose I am a skeptic > > > regarding the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it > > > was the cause of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, > > > that it makes more and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the > > > genitals of the children of outer Mongolia to mature at the age > > > of four, whatever. > > > > > > Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype. Would > > > that be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the > > > silliness, but rather take advantage of that which is already > > > out there, entirely thru > > > free market reaction. Do you see anything wrong with that? > > > > I think the main ethical question would be whether your actions cause > > harm, from your perspective. If you don't agree with this theory > > about global warming, yet you are, say, selling products that tie > > into the theory somehow, then your actions would arguably increase > > belief in what you view as a false idea. So I think that would be > > ethically wrong. > > On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them put > their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the > consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saing > evolution is unethical? Evolution is not ethical; it just is. Ethics only comes in when there's a choice made and an agent can be held to that choice. Evolution is just the way the world is. It furnishes ethical beings with a context in which to make choices. Evolution gave you a brain and a set of hands, but it's up to you to use them ethically. To say, of anything, that it's "evolution in action" is no different than allowing anything to be justified -- theft, murder, lying, rape, whatever, or their opposites. In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not Spike be bringing a lot of bad consequences on himself? After all, if he reinforces wrong views and then these same people, e.g., support bad policies doesn't that, ultimately, hurt him? Yes, he might make a quick buck now, but what about the wider implications. The world has enough foolish ideas in it already, why add to the mess?:) Regards, Dan See "Family, Social Order, and Government" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/FamilySOG.html From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 01:56:27 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:56:27 -0700 Subject: Ethics and evolution/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debateframed from a gametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <004701c5b1b3$8fdfd340$87893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence ... > > In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not Spike be bringing a > lot of bad consequences on himself? After all, if he reinforces wrong > views and then these same people, e.g., support bad policies doesn't > that, ultimately, hurt him? Yes, he might make a quick buck now, but > what about the wider implications. The world has enough foolish ideas > in it already, why add to the mess?:) > > Regards, > > Dan Hmmm, this seems a little extreme. What I had in mind is to put some farm land to work producing fuel crops, stuff that can be converted to ethanol or biodiesel. To make it pay, I would need to collect subsidies on it, or at least take full advantage of the tax breaks that may be available. I don't feel that subsidizing that kind of stuff is a good idea, but hey, I could be wrong. I might have been wrong about freon: they tell me the ozone hole is decreasing. I never did see how human use of freon could have that much impact, but perhaps it did. I had a job in the early 90s phasing out freon in aerospace manufacturing processes, so in that sense I was cashing in on something I thought was bogus. But perhaps it wasn't so I suppose farming fuel crops today is analogous. spike From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 5 02:13:04 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:13:04 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <2ea613c8c5c2a8d032655811dfe92a07@aol.com> That clinches it. Thank God there are people available to take advantage of the misfortunes of others effectively and expensively. Robbie Lindauer PS - there was a time, pre FEMA, when disaster relief was performed in the US usually by a combination of the national guard and red cross, both of which were NON PROFIT organizations very effective at doing what they do. On Sep 4, 2005, at 4:16 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > >> Is there a company out there that is more capable and better at >> handling >> the job and is willing to do it for less? > > Also, would you want disaster recovery work done by companies > that cut corners in order to be cheaper than competitors ? > > -- > "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 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From megao at sasktel.net Mon Sep 5 01:51:21 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:51:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism In-Reply-To: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> References: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <431BA499.6050805@sasktel.net> That is like when the options trader phones as the BSE was first anounced and me going out and putting 100,000 into options on the down side of beef so I could be 400,000 richer in a week, Ethically I know that the market will be drained of liquidity for the producer and that the consumer will probably never benefit from the beef market crash and I will know that in some small way I have contributed to both these things by taking a quick rake from someone else's disaster. Ditto with options trading on heating oil futures, natural gas futures , unleaded gasoline futures the day of the hurricane. Frankly the ethical thing for Bush would have been to freeze the options markets on those commodities and put a 1/2 to 1 cent ceiling on moves for the month afterward. Not the free market thing to do but the ethical thing to do. The farming subsidy game is just that a game. Farm subsidies are more like farm welfare. USA farmers make as much by farming the program in net terms as farming the farm some years, for some crops. Where ethics comes in is if a large group of farmers secretly conspire to raise or not raise a particular crop and deliberately bid the opposite side of the market with a bait and switch approach leaving non-farming speculators holding the bag. Of course , one of the merits of the farm programs is that they prevent that very thing from happening by making farmers more predictable. I still see options and derivatives markets as more parasitic (in their everyday use) than enhancing the true market valuation of goods(as is the commonly purported purpose for their existance). spike wrote: >>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence >> >> >... > > >>In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not Spike be bringing a >>lot of bad consequences on himself? After all, if he reinforces wrong >>views and then these same people, e.g., support bad policies doesn't >>that, ultimately, hurt him? Yes, he might make a quick buck now, but >>what about the wider implications. The world has enough foolish ideas >>in it already, why add to the mess?:) >> >>Regards, >> >>Dan >> >> > >Hmmm, this seems a little extreme. What I had in mind >is to put some farm land to work producing fuel crops, >stuff that can be converted to ethanol or biodiesel. To >make it pay, I would need to collect subsidies on it, or >at least take full advantage of the tax breaks that may >be available. > >I don't feel that subsidizing that kind of stuff is a >good idea, but hey, I could be wrong. I might have been >wrong about freon: they tell me the ozone hole is >decreasing. I never did see how human use of freon >could have that much impact, but perhaps it did. I >had a job in the early 90s phasing out freon in >aerospace manufacturing processes, so in that sense >I was cashing in on something I thought was bogus. But >perhaps it wasn't so I suppose farming fuel crops today >is analogous. > >spike > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 5 02:49:38 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:49:38 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sep 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> I'd say your scenario contradicts itself since you say below: >> ... >> Well, how much is it? >> >> Anyway, at two years at 5% inflation, from $49, you get $54, not $56 >> and the prices are not $56. > > Inflation is not the change in the international value of the dollar. In what drug-induced hallucination did you hear that it was? I just corrected your "new math". > The dollar has dropped in value by about 40% over the last two years, > compared to other currencies. Duh, I wonder why THAT might be. > That is not reflected in our CPI because > only a small percent of our overall economic activity is priced on > foreign currencies. So, no, you are the one that is wrong. Economics are for people able to read with comprehension. I believe they still have adult literacy courses in most states, although for you to attend one you'd probably have a lot of pride to swallow about them being socialist drains on our economy. > The Vietnamese reserve you speak of is actually a proven inorganic oil > source. Great. > The Vietnamese resources would not exist under your malthusian paradigm > of limited resources. According to the biotic oil 'experts', oil > doesn't exist that deep, and doesn't exist under the continental > basalt. The biotic theory is that it is a sedimentary deposit of > biological material. If so, it can only exist above the continental > basaltic bedrock. Once again, it is you who are wrong. Sure, if you completely ignore what I said - which is again - that unless the core of the earth is filled surprisingly with easy-to-get-to oil in unlimited supply, the peak oil problem is a question of time not a question of whether. That is, by the way, what I said, whatever you might imagine I said during one of your psychotic episodes. >> This leaves the harder to get to ones dwindling down to the >> impossible to get to ones and finally to the no more left scenario. > > And as each is exploited, new technologies will be developed that will > be able to get at them easier and cheaper. At the same time, energy > conserving technologies will enter the market and help reduce demand > per dollar of GDP. Including renewable clean energy sources, like alcohol. >> The alternative - that the core of the earth is filled with nothing >> but fossil fuels and we'll be able to run on unleaded gasoline for > the >> next 100 years at our current rate of consumptive growth is absurd. > > On the contrary, the Athabascan oil tar sands of Alberta has enough oil > for centuries of consumption. .... > the Athabascan sands > could supply about ten years of total global oil consumption. With > advances in technology, the sands could potentially supply 50 years or > more of global oil needs. The Orinoco tar sands have similar capacity. > The Athabascan deposits equal 1/3 of all global reserves. Okay, so as I SAID, at our current rate of CONSUMPTIVE GROWTH, the idea that there's 100 years of easy-to-get oil is ridiculous even with your incredible unproved oil reserve. Also, you contradicted yourself again. I let you figure out how. >> Consequently the obvious conclusion for those with half-a-brain-left >> is that it's just a matter of time - 10 years, 2 years, 50 years, 100 > >> years. In any case, the US economy in particular will have to >> undergo >> a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy >> source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier >> rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day. > > On the contrary, the market will signal when the need occurs. Like, uh, now. > As with > articles previously cited by Hal, it is clear that the oil oligopolists > won't pass up expensive prices tomorrow for cheap prices today. > Instead, they will drive up current day prices by delaying exploitation > of unused reserves or other means of expanding production beyond > current capacity. In a market of rising demand, simply delaying > expansion of production drives up prices automatically to send the > price signals that will trigger consumer conservation. Your abject lack > of faith in the market explains a lot why you are not a libertarian. Faith in "the market" is less forthcoming than faith in God since at least for God reasons (however absurd to some) can be adduced for belief. Faith in a third-order metapoesis to provide good and well-being for the majority of people in a predatory adversarial setting is exactly like believing that Ivan Boesky wouldn't sell junk bonds to retirees without full disclosure or accepting his word that he won't do it again. But that's not the reason I'm not a Libertarian. I actually do believe that -if- there were a free market people would be able and inclined to defend themselves from predatory forces in the market and that it would consequently and miraculously work itself out serendipitously (in particular what we currently call "the market" just wouldn't exist - no stock market, no money market, no commodities market, etc., there'd just be the farmer's market on wednesday and sundays). What I don't believe is that there is or could be a poltically-caused free market. Really free markets are natural outgrowths of human interaction wherein one person has something that someone else wants and is willing to trade to their mutual benefit. They are not subsidized by 401k plans, taxation, social engineering and zoning restrictions. -----Begin RANT--------- The -real- reason I'm not a Libertarian is that the Libertarian Leadership is full of esteemed politicians like yourself, unable to get a vote that matters to save their lives because on top of cow-towing to they that should be their opponents on every issue that might actually promote freedom and justice in this country, they've got the combined political savvy of the ferrets whose freedom to climb up someone's @ss they so desperately want to preserve. For starters, they should stop running Druids in primarily Christian/Catholic/Jewish areas, stop backing the NAMBLA crowd and perhaps cut their fingernails occasionally between D&D rounds (no offense meant to the D&D crowd or people with long fingernails or Druids for associating them with Libertarian scum, they've leached on to your coolness, rock on dudes and dudettes, but face facts the Libertarians are not suddenly going to make Druidism the state religion NOR turn D&D into the national game and suddenly make women appear naked at your doors in abundance). -------End RANT---------- If Libertarians were -real- they'd call for the simple dissolution of the IRS and national standing armed forces and be working with the rest of the progressives to put an end to the current despotic regime of war-profiteering criminal federalists instead of applauding and saluting every time Bush leaves a steamer on Condoleeza's chest. Robbie Lindauer From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 5 02:49:32 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:49:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com><004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> <2ea613c8c5c2a8d032655811dfe92a07@aol.com> Message-ID: <016c01c5b1c4$722634a0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Robert Lindauer" > > Thank God there are people available to take advantage of the misfortunes > of others effectively and expensively. > > PS - there was a time, pre FEMA, when disaster relief was performed in > the US usually by a combination of the national guard and red cross, both > of which were NON PROFIT organizations very effective at doing what they > do. Ah, yes ... I remember it well. But, hey, it's not every day that we get such an experienced ... er, ousted ... er, "czar" of sorts ... of, er ... Arabian horses handling things there at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, no sir.: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/12554958.htm Posted on Sat, Sep. 03, 2005 Head of FEMA has an unlikely background BY MATT STEARNS AND SETH BORENSTEIN Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - (KRT) - From failed Republican congressional candidate to ousted "czar" of an Arabian horse association, there was little in Michael D. Brown's background to prepare him for the fury of Hurricane Katrina. But as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brown now faces furious criticism of the federal response to the disaster that wiped out New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast. He provoked some of it himself when he conceded that FEMA didn't know that thousands of refugees were trapped at New Orleans' convention center without food or water until officials heard it on the news. "He's done a hell of a job, because I'm not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm," said Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief. "The world that this man operated in and the focus of this work does not in any way translate to this. He does not have the experience." Brown ran for Congress in 1988 and won 27 percent of the vote against Democratic incumbent Glenn English. He spent the 1990s as judges and stewards commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to ensure that horse-show judges followed the rules and to investigate allegations against those suspected of cheating. "I wouldn't have regarded his position in the horse industry as a platform to where he is now," said Tom Connelly, a former association president. Brown's ticket to FEMA was Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's 2000 campaign manager and an old friend of Brown's in Oklahoma. When Bush ran for president in 2000, Brown was ending a rocky tenure at the horse association. Brown told several association officials that if Bush were elected, he'd be in line for a good job. When Allbaugh, who managed Bush's campaign, took over FEMA in 2001, he took Brown with him as general counsel. "He's known Joe Allbaugh for quite some time," said Andrew Lester, an Oklahoma lawyer who's been a friend of Brown's for more than 20 years. "I think they know each other from school days. I think they did some debate type of things against each other, and worked on some Republican politics together." Brown practiced law in Enid, Okla., a city of about 45,000, during the 1980s and was counsel to a group of businesses run by a well-known Enid family. Before that, he worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., and was an aide in the state legislature. From 1991 until 2000, Brown earned about $100,000 a year as the chief rules enforcer of the Arabian horse association. He was known as "The Czar" for the breadth of his power and the enthusiasm with which he wielded it, said Mary Anne Grimmell, a former association president. The suspensions Brown delivered to those suspected of cheating resulted in several lawsuits. Although the association won the suits, they were expensive to defend, and Brown became a controversial figure. "It was positive controversy," Connelly said. "It got word out that we were serious about enforcing our rules." But he said Brown could be "abrasive." Others were less charitable. "He just wouldn't follow instruction," said Bill Pennington, another former association president. "Mike was bullheaded and he was gonna do it his way. Period." At FEMA, Brown rose from general counsel to deputy director within a year. Bush named him to succeed Allbaugh in February 2003. With FEMA now part of the Department of Homeland Security, Brown's title is undersecretary for emergency preparedness and response. Brown's old friend Lester said the progression from horse shows to hurricanes was natural. "A lot of what he had to do was stand in the breach in difficult, controversial situations," Lester said. "Which I think would well prepare him for his work at FEMA." Despite the withering criticism and a promised congressional investigation of FEMA's performance, Brown still has the support of his most important constituent. In Mobile, Ala., on Friday, Bush said the response to Katrina was unsatisfactory. But he had nothing but praise for his FEMA director. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," the president said. --- (Stearns reports from Washington for The Kansas City Star.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: spacer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Sep 5 02:56:21 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> Samantha asks a good question: what would it take to persuade me, as a skeptic, of the truth of the Peak Oil theory? And for that matter, why am I skeptical? The first thing I can say is, it's a complicated issue. I have spent probably hundreds of hours in the past few months reading and thinking about Peak Oil. I've read two books about it, one pro and one con, many web pages, and I closely follow such web sites as theoildrum.com and energybulletin.net. But I honestly can't say that I have a good understanding of the matter even after that much study. When will the peak happen? And what will be the consequences? There are an enormous number of unknowns. Probably the biggest question mark is the state of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. The Saudis are quite secretive about their oil situation, but publicly they claim that they can pump oil and increase the quantity as much as the world needs, for many years to come. Some experts are skeptical, but no one has access to the details necessary to get a firm answer to the question. That fact alone, in my opinion, renders any firm statements about when any peak will occur nonsensical. There is simply not enough public information to make a well founded judgement of the potential oil supply over the next decade or two. There are other complications as well. Chinese demand has grown incredibly fast the past few years, but this year its growth has fallen off precipitously. What will happen in the future? The Peak Oil situation is highly sensitive to what happens in the Chinese economy the next few years. How on earth can a layman claim to have expertise in such an esoteric subject? The Chinese government is another secretive and opaque institution; again there are no strong grounds for making firm predictions about what will happen there. As I have written before in other contexts, I don't believe it is practical or feasible for the lay person to come up with a well founded judgement on such difficult matters, where even the experts can't agree. My approach is not to try to learn all the details of a difficult subject and try to become enough of an "instant expert" to make a judgement myself. Instead, I look elsewhere and try to learn from the expertise of others. The best institution for such purposes, in my opinion, is academia. It has a good track record of success and strong institutional incentives to seek out and correct errors. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to determine an academic consensus on the Peak Oil situation. There doesn't seem to be much study of the issue. It combines aspects of geology, international finance, economic modelling, and other fields in a complex way. Cross disciplinary questions like these seem to be difficult for academics to handle. There are a few professors who have published opinions that generally favor the Peak Oil scenario, but most of them are elderly and/or retired. In my experience, retired professors are less reliable as a source of informed opinion than ones who are still actively engaged in the intellectual life of their academic communities. We can also look at other institutions, those more directly involved in the oil business, such as oil companies and the governments that regulate and in many cases nationalize them. Generally, these groups downplay Peak Oil scenarios. Their public statements recognize that there are challenges ahead in meeting the growth in oil demand but express confidence that these challenges can be met. Unfortunately these assurances seem in some cases to be largely a matter of public relations. Internally these organizations are quite opaque and it is hard to know if they are being frank in their actions. The U.S. government does publish a number of analyses and predictions of oil supply and demand issues, and they generally forecast adequate supplies for at least the next several years. As far as I can tell, these are good faith estimates, but ultimately they rely on public sources of information which, as I noted above, are highly unreliable. I do put considerable faith in one other institution, which is the market. When people are putting their own money behind what they say I am much more inclined to listen and believe them than when they are making empty statements. Fortunately we have a number of commodities markets in the energy field, including crude oil of different grades, gasoline, natural gas and heating oil. The crude oil market goes out six years or so and is in my opinion the best source of unbiased information about the beliefs of the "smart money" as to the future course of oil supply and demand. If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is easy to move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so we would expect high future prices to drag up present-day prices. This is actually one of the great services of commodity markets, that they make the high prices of future shortages felt in the present day, encouraging conservation and searches for alternatives well in advance of an actual supply/demand mismatch. But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. Rather, future prices three to six years ahead have consistantly lagged. Those future prices are being dragged up by high present-day prices, rather than vice versa. This is exactly the opposite of what we would expect to see in a Peak Oil scenario. Another great feature of futures markets is that they encourage insiders to bet on the basis of their private information. This rewards them with healthy profits while informing the marketplace indirectly of their information through its effects on prices. Even if such insiders as oil companies, or the Saudi and other national governments, were forced for P.R. reasons to put on a happy face about a future oil supply problem, they would be able to make enormous profits in the commodity markets by betting (through proxies if necessary) on the high prices they would know were ahead. This would drive up those future prices and we would see the phenomenon I described above, the situation futures traders call "contango" where future prices are higher than present day ones. To sum up, the answer to Samantha's question is that I am skeptical about Peak Oil because none of these institutions seem to show the signs of an impending shortage. There is no academic consensus on the issue; industry and government seem to be downplaying the problem even when it would seemingly be to their advantage to make people see that there is a good reason for high prices; and market prices don't have the structure we would expect if insiders knew about a shortage ahead. And I would become more convinced of the reality of the Peak Oil scenario if these various institutions started showing the signs I have outlined. There are of course limitations to this analysis; for one thing, the commodities markets only go out six years or so. While the markets are forward looking and they will anticipate shortages even beyond that time frame, to some degree, the effect is somewhat weak. The current data can't rule out a significant Peak Oil scenario much past the 2010 to 2015 time frame. Of course the further out we go, the more the chances that some kind of wild card will appear, a new technology or some such, that could change the nature of the situation we face. Hal From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 03:56:43 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:56:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:56 PM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote: >> In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not >> Spike be bringing a lot of bad consequences on >> himself? After all, if he reinforces wrong views >> and then these same people, e.g., support bad >> policies doesn't that, ultimately, hurt him? Yes, >> he might make a quick buck now, but what about >> the wider implications. The world has enough >> foolish ideas in it already, why add to the mess?:) > > Hmmm, this seems a little extreme. Just giving you my opinion on the matter. How are you going to make the world a better place? > What I had in mind is to put some farm land to work > producing fuel crops, stuff that can be converted to > ethanol or biodiesel. To make it pay, I would need > to collect subsidies on it, or at least take full > advantage of the tax breaks that may be available. Subsidies would be a form of theft, no? > I don't feel that subsidizing that kind of stuff is a > good idea, but hey, I could be wrong. I might have > been wrong about freon: they tell me the ozone hole > is decreasing. I never did see how human use of freon > could have that much impact, but perhaps it did. I > had a job in the early 90s phasing out freon in > aerospace manufacturing processes, so in that sense > I was cashing in on something I thought was bogus. But > perhaps it wasn't so I suppose farming fuel crops today > is analogous. I've heard about that too, but the data on the ozone hole seems ambiguous. However, in that case, were you knowingly lying to people about it or just saying, "Well, they pay me to convert these systems, but I really think it's a crock."? Regards, Dan See "Family, Social Order, and Government" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/FamilySOG.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 04:04:30 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:04:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism References: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> <431BA499.6050805@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <004b01c5b1ce$eb5199a0$5b893cd1@pavilion> I disagree. I see derivatives, including options, as ways of dealing with risk and there's nothing parasitic about that in my eyes. Yes, some people are deluded and are basically giving their money away, but, used correctly, I see nothing unethical about them. In fact, in a sense, this is no different from how many people accept a job as an employee for a salary versus going into business for themselves. The latter involves much more risk, but the rewards are often much higher. The former involves much less risk, but at the cost of lower pay. (Perhaps what's being left out here is ex ante psychic profit -- using "psychic" to mean "of the mind" rather than some spooky mumbo jumbo. People who take the lower risk when they know they'll get less pay are still obtaining a psychic profit in terms of lowered risk.) Regards, Dan From: Lifespan Pharma Inc. To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:51 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism I still see options and derivatives markets as more parasitic (in their everyday use) than enhancing the true market valuation of goods(as is the commonly purported purpose for their existance). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 04:29:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905042942.80406.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, which is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not have an aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is something that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard equipment on US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other wing root. A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar dimensions, thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between .50-1.50", or 12-37mm are what the application would call for. If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the vulcan cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being some add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave > > > > oven is different from a radar gun. > > > > > > > The power density is identical between what I tested and a 100kW > > > beam with a width of approx 12cm > > > No new phenomena. > > > > What makes you think the beam width of the weapon is 12 cm? You are > > fudging the numbers to make yourself right. > > > > > I'm being very generous. > The real beam dia is almost certainly larger > http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/fog01/ > > Dirk > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 5 06:11:58 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:11:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Week of Horror Message-ID: <021a01c5b1e0$b9d0d9b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> The whole world was watching. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05herbert.html Is it possible we still have Bush apologists on this list ...? Olga From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 06:40:31 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:40:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence ... > > I've heard about that too, but the data on the ozone hole seems > ambiguous. However, in that case, were you knowingly lying to people > about it or just saying, "Well, they pay me to convert these systems, > but I really think it's a crock."? In our case, we were losing access to freon, since they were halting production. So regardless of its effect on the ozone or my opinion of it, we faced a very real-life situation where we needed to redo a buuuunch of industrial processes. No one was arguing that we needed to find new ways to do old tasks. We all realized, regardless of our attitude toward ozone depleting chemicals, that freon is great stuff. Most of the replacements never worked as well as freon, which is a terrific solvent, clean, non toxic, predictable, good stuff. Remember cars from years about 1988 to 1991? The paint didn't stick right for those years. Many of the American cars from then have needed repainting. Here is the punchline: freon was used in the insulation on the space shuttle external tank. There have been rumblings that the foam has been peeling off to a greater extent since freon was phased out of the process. It is possible that phasing out freon is what caused the loss of Columbia. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 5 07:37:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:37:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:39 AM, MB wrote: > > > As I'm not a party animal or heavy drinker, NO has had no attraction > for me; good seafood is available other places! > I loved it for the music, the food (certainly not limited to seafood!), its many out of the way shops containing things I've seen nowhere else. I didn't care for Bourbon Street except for the music. Some things were so tawdry that I remarked to my companion that only certain Baptist could make "sin" s tawdry and utterly banal. :-) I thought the jazz send-offs at funerals were utterly wonderful. But what is the point? Are we trying to lessen what has happened by denigrating the city and its people? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 08:34:20 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:34:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them put > their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the > consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saying > evolution is unethical? Yes. Evolution is the cruelest, most savage method of improving species ever devised. Heard of 'nature red in tooth and claw'? We can do better. > I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine, but an > education. There are some lessons that people have to learn the hard > way. This is why Libertarians have little concern with the billions of dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free market system and the resulting misery and unhappiness for millions of people. Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even break' types. And 'They deserve all they get' is common also. If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable as a Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 5 09:16:36 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 02:16:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: > > This is why Libertarians have little concern with the billions of > dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free market system and the > resulting misery and unhappiness for millions of people. > Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even break' types. > And 'They deserve all they get' is common also. > Where is this blatant and unjustified attack coming from? Libertarians stand firmly against fraud. Fraud is not a natural by product of the free market (that we don't remotely have). Do you believe that aur Big Government is causing no "misery and unhappiness of millions of people"? You silly characterization may come across any old way you constructed it to come across. So what? > If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable as a > Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is needed. - s From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon Sep 5 10:40:19 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:40:19 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: > >> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable as a >> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. > > The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is needed. Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the same doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 or less and no education worth its name, when the available grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value is less and less? How can he afford a private health insurance? Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, but relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too much an evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), and suffer a lot if you aren't. Alfio From megao at sasktel.net Mon Sep 5 11:47:56 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:47:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism In-Reply-To: <004b01c5b1ce$eb5199a0$5b893cd1@pavilion> References: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> <431BA499.6050805@sasktel.net> <004b01c5b1ce$eb5199a0$5b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <431C306C.4050407@sasktel.net> What I mean is that there are times when options can act so fast to arbitrage such large values of price change that they can act not as a risk managment tool but push the market to extremes of high or low. The beef market experienced this at the time of BSE announcements. I have not checked the exact timing of options moves in relation to the combination of rigs offline, refinery shutdown and general chaos surrounding the New Orleans hurricane but that case would be a good test to see if these risk management tools manage risk in a responsible way or act to gouge value from the market. I can tell you the telemarketers for brokers who market the options sure sell them as ambulance chasing moneymakers even at the best of times. Technotranscendence wrote: > I disagree. I see derivatives, including options, as ways of dealing > with risk and there's nothing parasitic about that in my eyes. Yes, > some people are deluded and are basically giving their money away, > but, used correctly, I see nothing unethical about them. In fact, in > a sense, this is no different from how many people accept a job as an > employee for a salary versus going into business for themselves. The > latter involves much more risk, but the rewards are often much > higher. The former involves much less risk, but at the cost of lower > pay. (Perhaps what's being left out here is ex ante psychic profit -- > using "psychic" to mean "of the mind" rather than some spooky mumbo > jumbo. People who take the lower risk when they know they'll get less > pay are still obtaining a psychic profit in terms of lowered risk.) > > Regards, > > Dan > > From: Lifespan Pharma Inc. > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:51 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism > > I still see options and derivatives markets as more parasitic (in > their everyday use) than enhancing the true market valuation of > goods(as is the commonly purported purpose for their existance). > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 12:45:18 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:45:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050905042942.80406.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905042942.80406.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, which > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not have an > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is something > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard equipment on > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other wing root. > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar dimensions, > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between .50-1.50", or > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the vulcan > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being some > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. It's not internal. Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Sep 5 12:53:53 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:53:53 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:39 AM, MB wrote: > > > > > > As I'm not a party animal or heavy drinker, NO has had no attraction > > for me; good seafood is available other places! > > [...] > > But what is the point? Are we trying to lessen what has happened by > denigrating the city and its people? > In no way. This whole situation is horrific. Merely that NO has had, for many years, a reputation for lawless behaviour, so why is it shocking now to see, in this crisis, lawless behaviour in those who had been left behind? I wish I had a love for the music, but jazz music is associated personally with a long bad sad time in my life. The funeral musical send-off meme is a fine one. Regards, MB From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 13:24:46 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:24:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 4:34 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: >> On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, >> having them put their money where their minds are, >> and gaining or suffering the consequences as a >> result, is evolution in action. Are you saying >> evolution is unethical? > > Yes. Evolution is the cruelest, most savage method > of improving species ever devised. Heard of 'nature > red in tooth and claw'? We can do better. I don't think it's "the cruelest, most savage method of improving the species..." There are far worse methods and I'm not sure that would improve the species -- unless one can show that there's a genetic basis for holding wrong opinions. Also, elsewhere, I've tried to point out that evolution is not ethical -- meaning it's ethically neutral. It just is. Saying it's ethical (or unethical) is just like claiming that the law of physics are ethical (or unethical). >> I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine, >> but an education. There are some lessons that >> people have to learn the hard way. > > This is why Libertarians have little concern with the > billions of dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free > market system and the resulting misery and > unhappiness for millions of people. This is a broad generalization. First off, not all libertarians or even Libertarians agree with Mike here. I certainly don't. Second, fraud is considered a crime -- a property rights violation, to be specific -- by most forms of libertarianism. As such, it is an initiation of force and can be, within the ambit of libertarian rights theory, retaliated against. Third, it's not the free market system per se, but human cupidity and stupidity that causes these problems. (The free market is, after all, just a way of people interacting with each other. There really are only two basic ways for people to interact: through free choice or through some form of command.) > Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even > break' types. And 'They deserve all they get' is > common also. While true, this is not necessarily a libertarian view. The real problem is what to do in cases of human stupidity. It's immoral to take advantage of it, but it's not always easy to prove that any seeming case of taking advantage of it is actually one. There's also the problem that people should just have common sense and we can't expect the state to hold everyone's hand through life. In that case, it's not a matter of letting fools come to harm, but letting people learn from their mistakes -- as opposed to creating a state that can try to prevent bad things from happening but gets out of control and starts regulating everything AND creates incentives not to learn. > If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit > and capable as a Lib then '**ck you, you're on > your own'. Nope. There's private charity and people helping each other out. These are, too, widespread tendencies and any libertarian society I'd care to live in would be people by individuals who are decent and looking to create wealth rather than take wealth from the ignorant or the stupid. (Quite a few libertarians I know including yours truly, for example, donated money to relief efforts for the victims of Katrina.) But this should be true of any society and people typically develop, when given the chance, ways of spotting the charlatans. E.g., word of mouth works wonders when it comes to auto mechanics. Why is that? It's not an example of the state coming in or of anti-fraud activists. It's just people naturally not wanting to be cheated and also realizing that everyone is not an automotive genius, yet finding ways to spread information in a spontaneous fashion. Regards, Dan See "Comments on Pancritical Rationalism" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/PCR.html From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 13:28:44 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:28:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in > New Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out this > morning that thousands of people were at the convention center and 8 hours > later the best they could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with bottled > water. This is 4 days after this event. I am certain there are supplies all > around that area just waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s > flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and > control center? > > You missed the best bit - where Bush has asked for aid from the EU and NATO. A truly Third World response. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 13:31:11 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:31:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <005901c5b21e$15585280$7b893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 5:16 AM Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com wrote: >> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, >> fit and capable as a Lib then '**ck you, you're >> on your own'. > > The strength of your argument stands alone. No > further comment is needed. Actually, further comment is almost always necessary. In order to correct misconceptions, one of the worst strategies is to ignore them, especially when one believes the people holding them are ignorant (no offense, Bill, but you are making sweeping generalizations). Instead, imagine this as a case of someone who believes in Aristotelean physics or that the Earth is flat -- and someone you want to help, if not come to the correct view, at least move away from the wrong view. Regards, Dan See "A Dialogue On Happiness" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/Dialogue.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 13:58:07 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:58:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <007601c5b221$d8b2f980$7b893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 6:40 AM Alfio Puglisi puglisi at arcetri.astro.it wrote: >> The strength of your argument stands alone. No >> further comment is needed. > > Actually, further comments are needed, because I > often have the same doubts as Bill. For example, > how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 or less > and no education worth its name, when the available > grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value > is less and less? How can he afford a private health > insurance? Well, that's a made up scenario because there are plenty of "available grunt jobs" still available. Also, there's the law of association. It's almost always of benefit for people to associate with people who overall have less skills or talents. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated this in _Human Action_ with his subchapter on "The Ricardian Law of Association," which is online at: http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap8sec4.asp (In fact, the whole book is online for those who want to read it. It's long, so it might be better to just dip into it instead.) > Charitable organizations would probably exists in > a libertarian environment like they exist in the > current, mostly socialist one, but relying on those > for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. Two points here. First, private charity, whether individual or collective, predates current welfare states. So, it's not like it has to be rediscovered in a libertarian society. It seems a near universal human tendency. Second, there is more to profit than just money. Elsewhere I brought up the concept of psychic profit -- meaning not telepathy or stuff like that, but the benefits derived which are purely mental, such as feeling good about something. This has a huge impact on human behavior. After all, some people will choose to work in a lower paying job if it provides psychic benefits. This is why, e.g., someone might work in an art gallery over becoming a corporate lawyer. It's also why people volunteer to help others. I don't see why the scope of this wouldn't be wide enough to cover all the problem cases. In fact, me guess is, were people allowed to freely choose in the first place, they would create more wealth to begin with and probably give more away. Of course, it's anyone's guess what will happen, but my guess lines up more with economic theory and the history of societies with a wider latitude for free interaction. This higher level of wealth creation generally drives down costs, so health insurance and the like will, all other things being equal, become better, more efficient, and less costly. It's actually state intervention that has driven up health costs in modern societies. If you want to talk about free markets, let's have a free market in this one important area, which is too vital, IMHO, to leave to the whims of bureaucrats or legislatures. > Pure libertarian free-market environments to my > eyes resemble too much an evolution-like "survival > of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if you are > good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), > and suffer a lot if you aren't. The problem is thinking that the welfare state and socialism somehow escape evolution. They don't. On a pure free market, people freely interact to choose what they believe are most profitable means and ends. This goes for everyone, low or high IQ; low skill or highly talented; impoverished or richly endowed. In a welfare state or under socialism, it's still survival of the fittest, but it's just a different way of interacting. Now, political usefulness and political connections become much more important. Those with the connections or with the usefulness get the loot. Those without them get marginalized. Notably, under welfare states and under socialism, overall productivity is lower (and more production moves to a black market), so less people overall can be supported at as a high a standard of living. All sorts of bad behaviors are encouraged because few people feel the full costs of their bad activities and each person begins to see other people are either victims or predators. Envy reigns supreme and more activity overall gets devoted to taking wealth than to making it. Regards, Dan See "Freedom Above or Tyranny Below" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 15:31:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:31:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509051531.j85FVuw18002@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... But what is the point? Are we trying to lessen what has happened by denigrating the city and its people? - samantha No, we are trying to figure out where we are going to put that city's replacement. Surely calmer heads will realize we cannot have an entire city that can be destroyed by either a hurricane or a single truck filled with fertilizer. Especially not one that enjoys its sin as much as we do. spike From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon Sep 5 15:41:43 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:41:43 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <007601c5b221$d8b2f980$7b893cd1@pavilion> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <007601c5b221$d8b2f980$7b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Technotranscendence wrote: > On Monday, September 05, 2005 6:40 AM Alfio Puglisi > puglisi at arcetri.astro.it wrote: >> >> Actually, further comments are needed, because I >> often have the same doubts as Bill. For example, >> how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 or less >> and no education worth its name, when the available >> grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value >> is less and less? How can he afford a private health >> insurance? > > Well, that's a made up scenario because there are plenty of "available > grunt jobs" still available. Also, there's the law of association. > It's almost always of benefit for people to associate with people who > overall have less skills or talents. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated this > in _Human Action_ with his subchapter on "The Ricardian Law of > Association," which is online at: > > http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap8sec4.asp > Thanks, I'll read it. > Two points here. First, private charity, whether individual or > collective, predates current welfare states. So, it's not like it has > to be rediscovered in a libertarian society. It seems a near universal > human tendency. Second, there is more to profit than just money. > Elsewhere I brought up the concept of psychic profit -- meaning not > telepathy or stuff like that, but the benefits derived which are purely > mental, such as feeling good about something. This has a huge impact on > human behavior. After all, some people will choose to work in a lower > paying job if it provides psychic benefits. This is why, e.g., someone > might work in an art gallery over becoming a corporate lawyer. It's > also why people volunteer to help others. I would extend it further, it's also why some people choose to purchase a more expensive product instead of cheaper one, on the basis that, e.g., the first one wasn't produced by enslaving children and the second was. Or, that the first one was produced in a less polluting way than the second. That's a meaning of "value" that goes beyond the pure material value of the product. Still, I've heard people complaining that choosing products in such a way would make an "inefficent" market because it's not optimizing for prices. I would instead say that it's simply a different meaning of "value", and that a consumer can choose whatever definition of "value" he wants. > I don't see why the scope of this wouldn't be wide enough to cover all > the problem cases. In fact, me guess is, were people allowed to freely > choose in the first place, they would create more wealth to begin with > and probably give more away. Of course, it's anyone's guess what will > happen, but my guess lines up more with economic theory and the history > of societies with a wider latitude for free interaction. Communism (the economic system) fails largely because it relies on human altruism. Capitalism works because it relies on human greediness. While the previous two sentences are oversimplifications, they tell something about which human tendence can be relied upon :-) > This higher level of wealth creation generally drives down costs, so > health insurance and the like will, all other things being equal, become > better, more efficient, and less costly. It's actually state > intervention that has driven up health costs in modern societies. If > you want to talk about free markets, let's have a free market in this > one important area, which is too vital, IMHO, to leave to the whims of > bureaucrats or legislatures. There aren't too many data points on what happens with state intervention in health care. But there are some. The OECD Health Data (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf, first table) shows that the United States has the highest percentage of GDP (about 13%) spent on health care of all the Western world. Traditional socialized health-care nations like Germany and Switzerland only spend 10%, and I believe that the health care is of comparable quality. All OECD nations show a slow rising of the GDP % spent on health care. The second table in the paper shows that the American and German government spend about the same amount per capita, but American citizens need to spend a much larger amount for additional private health care. The wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared looks at the differences in detail, and notes that only 9.5% of Canadian GDP is spent on health care. So the availble data suggests that socialized health care is 30% cheaper than the US model, which I consider more marketized given the prevalence of private insurance. Of course this data should be corrected for the quality of health care, life styles, etc. but I believe the countries are similar enough. >> Pure libertarian free-market environments to my >> eyes resemble too much an evolution-like "survival >> of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if you are >> good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), >> and suffer a lot if you aren't. > > The problem is thinking that the welfare state and socialism somehow > escape evolution. They don't. On a pure free market, people freely > interact to choose what they believe are most profitable means and ends. > This goes for everyone, low or high IQ; low skill or highly talented; > impoverished or richly endowed. > > In a welfare state or under socialism, it's still survival of the > fittest, but it's just a different way of interacting. Now, political > usefulness and political connections become much more important. With this reason of thinking, everything is survival of the fittest. Which could be true in a sense :-) But each system can direct evolution towards its goal. Markets are probably more flexible, because they can adapt quickly to changes and different wills, but there's the question of how long they'll take to optimize things, how much they oscillate around the equilibrium, and how stable is the point of equilibrium itself. Alfio From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 15:56:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905155653.21309.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them > put > > their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the > > consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saying > > evolution is unethical? > > Yes. Evolution is the cruelest, most savage method of improving > species ever devised. Heard of 'nature red in tooth and claw'? We can > do better. > > > I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine, but an > > education. There are some lessons that people have to learn the > > hard way. > > This is why Libertarians have little concern with the billions of > dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free market system and the > resulting misery and unhappiness for millions of people. > Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even break' types. > And 'They deserve all they get' is common also. > On the contrary, Libertarians are against all forms of fraud on principle. Problem is that the population has conditional ethics toward fraud. Fraud is okay in the form of social security, income taxes, "election reform", flouridated drinking water, public sale of coal plant fly ash and 'ground based radon', "global warming", "peak oil", whole math, outcome based public education and school district property taxes, among other things from the large to the mundane. Like, for instance, that expensive wart removal patch sold at drug stores: the active ingredient is a fraction of a cent's worth of aspirin. Based on the above frauds which are occuring daily everywhere, what is the difference between fraud for the sake of profit versus fraud for the sake of a true education? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sep 5 16:03:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905160332.62366.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is > needed. > > Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the same > doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 > or less and no education worth its name, when the available grunt jobs > are automated away, and his market value is less and less? How can he > afford a private health insurance? > > Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian > environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, but > relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. > Actually, charitable organizations would be much larger, well funded, and staffed by cheerful volunteer do-gooders who are much more effective than career do-gooders who are more interested in their public service jobs than the public. > Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too > much an evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll > do great if you are good (or better, if you have marketable > skills/assets), and suffer a lot if you aren't. And those who are properly compensated for their skills will have a lot more disposable income with which to put toward truly charitable work by groups that operate with volunteer staff. Charities typically spend 5-15% of their money on overhead, the rest going to the people who need it. Welfare bureaucracies waste 40-45% of their money, at a minimum, on civil servant positions that are wasteful, unnecessary make-work that are claimed to be necessary to make sure that money isn't wasted or defrauded. Wasting money to prevent waste? A private person who keeps their income can do twice as much good through private charities as through government welfare systems with the same amount of money. Government creates poverty. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:05:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905160528.56829.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, > which > > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not > have an > > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is something > > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard equipment > on > > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other wing > root. > > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar dimensions, > > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between .50-1.50", > or > > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the > vulcan > > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being some > > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. Sources, please. > It's not internal. > Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm Miracl was a large 10-20 year old technology. Your assumptions are groundless. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:09:48 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905160948.94055.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- MB wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:39 AM, MB wrote: > > > > > > > > > As I'm not a party animal or heavy drinker, NO has had no > attraction > > > for me; good seafood is available other places! > > > > [...] > > > > But what is the point? Are we trying to lessen what has happened > by > > denigrating the city and its people? > > > > In no way. This whole situation is horrific. > > Merely that NO has had, for many years, a reputation for lawless > behaviour, so why is it shocking now to see, in this crisis, lawless > behaviour in those who had been left behind? Moreover, when we see that those police 'guarding' stores from looters were only doing so while tv cameras were there, and then joined in the looting themselves (if they were not already before the cameras arrived), when we see NO police firing on US Army Corps of Engineers people who were armed, simply because they were armed? FEMA does not operate in a mode of sweeping into a location and replacing all the locals there. While it is obvious the current leadership is incompetent, FEMAs job is to come in to coordinate the efforts of locals with help coming in from other states. When local police are too busy looting to give good information, it is no wonder FEMA doesn't know what is going on. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:17:57 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20050905161757.66333.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > On Monday, September 05, 2005 4:34 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > > > Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even > > break' types. And 'They deserve all they get' is > > common also. > > While true, this is not necessarily a libertarian view. The real > problem is what to do in cases of human stupidity. It's immoral to > take advantage of it, but it's not always easy to prove that any > seeming case of taking advantage of it is actually one. There's > also the problem that people should just have common sense and we > can't expect the state to hold everyone's hand through life. Don't people have a right to stupidity? To eat fat laden burgers, drink too much alcohol, take too much drugs, not exercise, smoke cigars, chew tobacco, have casual sex? By BillK's ethics, selling sugar laden lemonade at a street corner, or couches and wide screen televisions, is not morally different from selling anti-ghost pills or land along the east side of the San Andreas fault. It is not your place to judge what other people want to buy and consume. It isn't the place of the state to stop them. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:27:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905162720.65220.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > There aren't too many data points on what happens with state > intervention in health care. But there are some. The OECD Health Data > (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf, first table) shows > that the United States has the highest percentage of GDP (about 13%) > spent on health care of all the Western world. Traditional socialized > health-care nations like Germany and Switzerland only spend 10%, and > I believe that the health care is of comparable quality. All OECD > nations show a slow rising of the GDP % spent on health care. Reasons for this are as follows: 1) The US is experiencing its health care baby boom crisis first. 2) Socialized nations are exporting their most expensive patients to the US. They do this by rationing expensive procedures with waiting lists that are longer than the life expectancy of the patients on the lists. This drives patients to travel to the US to buy the procedures with their own money, while at the same time driving up demand for the procedures here, and thus driving up price with demand as the free market laws dictate. 3) Free health care given to millions of illegals who do not pay for their services, skip on the bills, etc and don't even pay taxes because they are paid under the table. Literally billions of dollars nationwide are spent on this, which would not be tolerated in Germany or Switzerland. 4) To be fair the US is not doing enough to protect US workers from corporations defrauding their retirees of their health plans they already paid for, especially by abusing bankruptcy law to do so. > > The second table in the paper shows that the American and German > government spend about the same amount per capita, but American > citizens > need to spend a much larger amount for additional private health > care. > > The wikipedia article > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared > looks at the differences in detail, and notes that only 9.5% of > Canadian > GDP is spent on health care. > > So the availble data suggests that socialized health care is 30% > cheaper > than the US model, which I consider more marketized given the > prevalence of private insurance. Of course this data should be > corrected > for the quality of health care, life styles, etc. but I believe the > countries are similar enough. > > >> Pure libertarian free-market environments to my > >> eyes resemble too much an evolution-like "survival > >> of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if you are > >> good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), > >> and suffer a lot if you aren't. > > > > The problem is thinking that the welfare state and socialism > somehow > > escape evolution. They don't. On a pure free market, people > freely > > interact to choose what they believe are most profitable means and > ends. > > This goes for everyone, low or high IQ; low skill or highly > talented; > > impoverished or richly endowed. > > > > In a welfare state or under socialism, it's still survival of the > > fittest, but it's just a different way of interacting. Now, > political > > usefulness and political connections become much more important. > > With this reason of thinking, everything is survival of the fittest. > Which > could be true in a sense :-) But each system can direct evolution > towards > its goal. Markets are probably more flexible, because they can adapt > quickly to changes and different wills, but there's the question of > how > long they'll take to optimize things, how much they oscillate around > the > equilibrium, and how stable is the point of equilibrium itself. > > Alfio > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 5 16:44:40 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:44:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> Technotranscendence wrote: >But this should be true of any society and people typically develop, >when given the chance, ways of spotting the charlatans. E.g., word >of mouth works wonders when it comes to auto mechanics. Why is >that? It's not an example of the state coming in or of anti-fraud >activists. It's just people naturally not wanting to be cheated and >also realizing that everyone is not an automotive genius, yet >finding ways to spread information in a spontaneous fashion. Gas prices have soared. The government response was (in part) to decry "price-gouging," and encourage people to report "artificially inflated" gas prices at http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . This is an evil concept. Government should stay out of prices. Government attempts to manage prices don't work and are inherently immoral. In a free market, "inflated" prices are self-correcting. On the other hand, some clever mind devised and rapidly implemented http://www.gasbuddy.com/ , which is a simple and effective way of accelerating price-correction. -- David Lubkin. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 16:51:40 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:51:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050905160528.56829.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905160528.56829.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > > > > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, > > which > > > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not > > have an > > > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > > > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is something > > > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard equipment > > on > > > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other wing > > root. > > > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar dimensions, > > > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between .50-1.50", > > or > > > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > > > > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the > > vulcan > > > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being some > > > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > > > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > > > > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. > > Sources, please. > > > It's not internal. > > Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system > > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm > > Miracl was a large 10-20 year old technology. Your assumptions are > groundless. > > Well, here's some up to date stuff http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=163 "The beam is only a few inches in diameter" http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html "The beam itself is only a few inches in diameter" Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon Sep 5 16:57:02 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:57:02 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <20050905162720.65220.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905162720.65220.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: >> >> There aren't too many data points on what happens with state >> intervention in health care. But there are some. The OECD Health Data > >> (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf, first table) shows >> that the United States has the highest percentage of GDP (about 13%) >> spent on health care of all the Western world. Traditional socialized >> health-care nations like Germany and Switzerland only spend 10%, and >> I believe that the health care is of comparable quality. All OECD >> nations show a slow rising of the GDP % spent on health care. > > Reasons for this are as follows: > 1) The US is experiencing its health care baby boom crisis first. If I understand correctly what a "baby boom crisis" is, this is not true. European nations have on average older populations, so that health care and pension costs are higher. For example a full 19% of Italy's pupulation is over 65 years old, compared to only 12.5% of the US. > 2) Socialized nations are exporting their most expensive patients to > the US. They do this by rationing expensive procedures with waiting > lists that are longer than the life expectancy of the patients on the > lists. This drives patients to travel to the US to buy the procedures > with their own money, while at the same time driving up demand for the > procedures here, and thus driving up price with demand as the free > market laws dictate. > 3) Free health care given to millions of illegals who do not pay for > their services, skip on the bills, etc and don't even pay taxes because > they are paid under the table. Literally billions of dollars nationwide > are spent on this, which would not be tolerated in Germany or > Switzerland. Fair points, but they should be quantified to see how relevant they are. Point 3) is partially true for european nations too, albeit much smaller. > 4) To be fair the US is not doing enough to protect US workers from > corporations defrauding their retirees of their health plans they > already paid for, especially by abusing bankruptcy law to do so. >> >> Alfio >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political 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 Mon Sep 5 17:09:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905170914.22470.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > > > > > > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, > > > which > > > > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not > > > have an > > > > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > > > > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is > something > > > > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard > equipment > > > on > > > > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other > wing > > > root. > > > > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar > dimensions, > > > > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between > .50-1.50", > > > or > > > > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > > > > > > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the > > > vulcan > > > > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being > some > > > > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > > > > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > > > > > > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. > > > > Sources, please. > > > > > It's not internal. > > > Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system > > > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm > > > > Miracl was a large 10-20 year old technology. Your assumptions are > > groundless. > > > > Well, here's some up to date stuff > http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=163 > > "The beam is only a few inches in diameter" > > http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html > > "The beam itself is only a few inches in diameter" Okay, 1) MIRACL was vastly larger system than the current MTHEL system. 2) you've got two quotes there saying "a few inches" NOT "twelve inches". "A few" is taken as two or three in colloquial US english, which is far closer to my estimate than to yours. 3) the THEL system is significantly larger than what is intended for HELLADS. THEL takes up three trailers of equipment, while HELLADS is intended to be carried by a tactical fighter aircraft or UCAV, which would be at least two orders of magnitude reduction in equipment volume. 4) the THEL technology is a deuterium fluoride laser technology, while HELLADS uses diode pumping of an optical fluid, a completely different technology. It therefore follows that if THEL, a three trailer technology, has a beam of 'a few inches', a HELLADS system for tactical fighters that is two orders of magnitude smaller would produce a beam even smaller than that, likely within the range I've specified, if not smaller. Now that we've disposed with that objection, lets do some realistic calculations of the effects of 150 kW hitting a missile casing in an area of less than 20 mm radius. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 17:28:27 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:28:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050905170914.22470.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905170914.22470.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, > > > > which > > > > > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not > > > > have an > > > > > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > > > > > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is > > something > > > > > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard > > equipment > > > > on > > > > > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other > > wing > > > > root. > > > > > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar > > dimensions, > > > > > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between > > .50-1.50", > > > > or > > > > > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > > > > > > > > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the > > > > vulcan > > > > > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being > > some > > > > > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > > > > > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > > > > > > > > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. > > > > > > Sources, please. > > > > > > > It's not internal. > > > > Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system > > > > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm > > > > > > Miracl was a large 10-20 year old technology. Your assumptions are > > > groundless. > > > > > > Well, here's some up to date stuff > > http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=163 > > > > "The beam is only a few inches in diameter" > > > > http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html > > > > "The beam itself is only a few inches in diameter" > > Okay, > 1) MIRACL was vastly larger system than the current MTHEL system. > 2) you've got two quotes there saying "a few inches" NOT "twelve > inches". "A few" is taken as two or three in colloquial US english, > which is far closer to my estimate than to yours. Or as I said, 12cm ie around 4 inches. Still, the figures would apply even if it were only 3 inches. And since we're being picky the power density I was working with was 1320W per sq cm. Now that we've disposed with that objection, lets do some realistic > calculations of the effects of 150 kW hitting a missile casing in an > area of less than 20 mm radius. > > No, let's do a realistic calculation of a power density of 1kW per sq cm. Oh... I've already done it. A coat of carbon fibre matt on a katyusha warhead will effectively prevent the laser from shooting it down before it impacts. That's my claim. *http://tinyurl.com/7rdzp* Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 5 18:02:40 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:02:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? ----- Original Message ----- From: Dirk Bruere To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need On 9/2/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in New Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out this morning that thousands of people were at the convention center and 8 hours later the best they could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with bottled water. This is 4 days after this event. I am certain there are supplies all around that area just waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? You missed the best bit - where Bush has asked for aid from the EU and NATO. A truly Third World response. Dirk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 5 18:06:39 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:06:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> You are assuming a great leap forward on automation where robots can roof houses, pour concrete, and hang siding. There's lots of "grunt" jobs out there that will not be replaced for a long time. Of course, that day will come, but when it does, I would like to think we will also have the ability to "cure" such IQ problems with a cost small enough to justify making the person a productive member of society. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfio Puglisi" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:40 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: > > > >> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable as a > >> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. > > > > The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is needed. > > Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the same > doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 or > less and no education worth its name, when the available grunt jobs are > automated away, and his market value is less and less? How can he afford > a private health insurance? > > Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian > environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, but > relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. > > Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too much an > evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if > you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), and suffer > a lot if you aren't. > > Alfio > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 18:14:28 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:14:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. > WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? > The fact that you shouldn't need it? Is there a big blanket shortage in the US? Out of water trucks? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 5 18:29:18 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:29:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905142115.057e9fd0@unreasonable.com> kevinfreels wrote: >You are assuming a great leap forward on automation where robots can roof >houses, pour concrete, and hang siding. There's lots of "grunt" jobs out >there that will not be replaced for a long time. Of course, that day will >come, but when it does, I would like to think we will also have the ability >to "cure" such IQ problems with a cost small enough to justify making the >person a productive member of society. Ah, but the goalposts keep moving. The nootropic technology to move someone from IQ 70 to 100 can also move everyone who's already farther up the bell curve. Indeed, I'd expect that the SD of the IQ curve will increase, not decrease, as enabling technologies appear, until we approach ultimate limits on per-entity cognition. -- David Lubkin. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 19:18:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905191850.47136.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > Okay, > > 1) MIRACL was vastly larger system than the current MTHEL system. > > 2) you've got two quotes there saying "a few inches" NOT "twelve > > inches". "A few" is taken as two or three in colloquial US english, > > which is far closer to my estimate than to yours. > > > Or as I said, 12cm ie around 4 inches. > Still, the figures would apply even if it were only 3 inches. > And since we're being picky the power density I was working with was > 1320W per sq cm. Sorry, I thought you had said 12 inches, not 12 cm. However, you still need to scale your 12 cm by one to two orders of magnitude downward for a fighter portable unit, which should be 12 mm or less. > > > Now that we've disposed with that objection, lets do some realistic > > calculations of the effects of 150 kW hitting a missile casing in > > an area of less than 20 mm radius. > > > > No, let's do a realistic calculation of a power density of 1kW per > > sq cm. Once again, you are cooking the books and spreading the butter thin. Firstly, you are ignoring the fact that the HELLADS system is said to be utilizing dynamic focusing technology, and applying THEL scaling to a device two orders of magnitude smaller. A 12 mm beam would be a power density of 1326 kW/ sq mm, not centimeter. Another issue is pulse length. Watts measures beam power in Joules/second. However beam pulses are generally fractions of seconds. If, for example, the laser is 150 kW with a pulse time of 0.1 sec, the energy is delivered at a rate of 1500 kJ/s. The determinant of ballistic effect of a laser is more properly expressed by its Joules/sec rating. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 19:38:28 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:38:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050905191850.47136.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905191850.47136.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > Okay, > > > 1) MIRACL was vastly larger system than the current MTHEL system. > > > 2) you've got two quotes there saying "a few inches" NOT "twelve > > > inches". "A few" is taken as two or three in colloquial US english, > > > which is far closer to my estimate than to yours. > > > > > > Or as I said, 12cm ie around 4 inches. > > Still, the figures would apply even if it were only 3 inches. > > And since we're being picky the power density I was working with was > > 1320W per sq cm. > > Sorry, I thought you had said 12 inches, not 12 cm. However, you still > need to scale your 12 cm by one to two orders of magnitude downward for > a fighter portable unit, which should be 12 mm or less. That's not possible. I can't be bothered to list all the problems involved so you'll have to wait for some official statement on beam dia. > > > > Now that we've disposed with that objection, lets do some realistic > > > calculations of the effects of 150 kW hitting a missile casing in > > > an area of less than 20 mm radius. > > > > > > No, let's do a realistic calculation of a power density of 1kW per > > > sq cm. > > Once again, you are cooking the books and spreading the butter thin. > Firstly, you are ignoring the fact that the HELLADS system is said to > be utilizing dynamic focusing technology, and applying THEL scaling to > a device two orders of magnitude smaller. A 12 mm beam would be a power > density of 1326 kW/ sq mm, not centimeter. Again, very unlikely. There are fundamental problems with the optics at that power density. Another issue is pulse length. Watts measures beam power in > Joules/second. However beam pulses are generally fractions of seconds. > If, for example, the laser is 150 kW with a pulse time of 0.1 sec, the > energy is delivered at a rate of 1500 kJ/s. The determinant of > ballistic effect of a laser is more properly expressed by its > Joules/sec rating. You need to pulse at much higher power densities than that to get an explosive ablation effect. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 20:35:02 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:35:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <20050905161757.66333.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001f01c5b259$4b9952a0$d1893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 12:17 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote: >>> Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even >>> break' types. And 'They deserve all they get' is >>> common also. >> >> While true, this is not necessarily a libertarian view. >> The real problem is what to do in cases of human >> stupidity. It's immoral to take advantage of it, but >> it's not always easy to prove that any seeming case >> of taking advantage of it is actually one. There's >> also the problem that people should just have >> common sense and we can't expect the state to >> hold everyone's hand through life. > > Don't people have a right to stupidity? You're confusing morality with legal rights. Also, in this case, yes, people have right to stupidity, but that does not make it _right_ -- in moral, not legal sense -- to take advantage of their stupidity. It's also not wrong, either morally or legally, to criticize people for being stupid -- i.e., to point out their stupidity and try to help them to overcome it. (To disarm you in advance, I'm not saying there's an obligation to do so or that those engaging in activities you disagree with or think stupid -- after all, they might get more enjoyment out of them than you would -- don't have the right to ignore you.) > To eat fat laden burgers, drink too much alcohol, take > too much drugs, not exercise, smoke cigars, chew > tobacco, have casual sex? But are these examples of human stupidity or just differences in values? Maybe some people just like to eat burgers, get drunk, get high, have a good time, and do things you would disapprove of. So? My point was more about when you lie to other people for gain because they are too ignorant or stupid to see through the lie. That's far different than disagreeing with their preferences. > By BillK's ethics, selling sugar laden lemonade at a > street corner, or couches and wide screen televisions, is > not morally different from selling anti-ghost pills or > land along the east side of the San Andreas fault. I don't know enough about BillK to say... The difference, of course, is that selling lemonade, couches, and wide screen TV sets is not done, anywhere that I've seen, by appealing to their health values. In fact, I doubt anyone who tried to sell them based on that would get very far on that. Yes, people will still buy them, but not because they actually believe they're healthy. > It is not your place to judge what other people want > to buy and consume. It isn't the place of the state to > stop them. Actually, I can judge whatever I want. The libertarian position is not one against judgment but against forcing people to adhere to my (or anyone else's) judgment. I can judge as I please and remain a libertarian -- just as you made judgments above about people engaging in certain activities being stupid -- as long as I don't violate anyone else's rights. In fact, freedom of expression includes the right to express disapproval. To put this into a concrete case, if you were selling bona fide snake oil I'd find nothing wrong with telling people that, in fact, your folk remedy is just snake oil. Now, I'm sure you wouldn't disapprove of this. One of the problems I find, too, is that many people who want the state to step in work under the assumption that most people are either too stupid to figure out this stupid or too callous to care enough to help others out. At the same time, they seem to assume that while most people suffer in this fashion, the members of the state have somehow managed to transcend these cognitive and moral failings. The truth seems to be this. If society were really chocked full of those people a powerful regulatory state would be even less likely to help them out because its members would come from the same mass of stupid or morally depraved individuals. Thus, unless they can show that somehow the state can get above this -- exactly how is never stated -- it's merely wishful thinking and common sense would be not to give one group of people (which is what the state is: one group of people) more power than the rest of society. (I'm not even talking about libertarianism here or rights theory and all that -- just plain good sense. Hopefully, people don't need to become full-fledged libertarians to have that in this one small area.) Regards, Dan See "Freedom Above or Tyranny Below" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 20:59:18 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:59:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com><002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <005a01c5b25c$af1743c0$d1893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 12:44 PM David Lubkin extropy at unreasonable.com wrote: >> But this should be true of any society and people >> typically develop, when given the chance, ways of >> spotting the charlatans. E.g., word of mouth works >> wonders when it comes to auto mechanics. Why is >> that? It's not an example of the state coming in or >> of anti-fraud activists. It's just people naturally not >> wanting to be cheated and also realizing that >> everyone is not an automotive genius, yet finding >> ways to spread information in a spontaneous fashion. > > Gas prices have soared. Yes, they have. Why this is so is a matter for speculation. Partly, it has to do with inflation finally catching up with oil prices. (The Fed has been extensively devaluing the dollar over the last several years as the increases in the money supply itself shows. However, such increases do not lead to uniform increases in prices across the board. Were they to do that, no one would ever inflation the money supply as it would reap no gains for anyone.) Partly, it has to do with increased demand for oil overall. And partly, in the US, it has to do with government interference in the energy industry ranging from extensive regulations on building new refineries, pipelines, and exploiting oil resources to taxes on gas at the pump. > The government response was (in part) to decry > "price-gouging," and encourage people to report >"artificially inflated" gas prices at > http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . > > This is an evil concept. Government should stay out > of prices. Government attempts to manage prices > don't work and are inherently immoral. In a free market, > "inflated" prices are self-correcting. The problem is getting people to see that it's not evil businesses per se but the overall economic situation that gives rise to these increases. That's hard to see because it involves thinking beyond, "Hey, gas is up ten cents over yesterday!" Most people are, sadly, unwilling to make that jump and many people seem to love price controls. In this case, though, I don't think the price rises are a local phenomenon or due to gouging. I think they are a systemic problem and one caused partly by devaluing the dollar. That can only be corrected, in a sense, by either allowing market prices to adjust (i.e., rise) or by stopping the devaluation (e.g., by abolishing the Fed and getting government out of the money supply). Gas stations and oil companies are not really behind that. > On the other hand, some clever mind devised and > rapidly implemented http://www.gasbuddy.com/ , > which is a simple and effective way of > accelerating price-correction. That's a good idea. Other things that are possible too are for people to just economize more -- make fewer unnecessary trips, use A/C less, carpool where possible, and walk if it's a short trip. Regards, Dan See "Freedom Above or Tyranny Below" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 21:08:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:08:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] culture shock in the big difficult In-Reply-To: <001f01c5b259$4b9952a0$d1893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509052108.j85L86f24838@tick.javien.com> The floods in Fargo North Dakota in 1997 resulted in a number of housing areas that had to be ceded back to the river. In New Orleans, we can see that most likely there will be some sections that can never be rebuilt, not only because they are prone to natural disaster but also because they will remain ever vulnerable to terrorists. A couple cases of dynamite can take out a city that many on the fringe have never liked: the muslim extremists see the drinking and sin going on there, the local Baptists have never been comfortable with the frequency in which the head deacon goes down to Bourbon Street to minister to the harlots, etc. If large sections of the poorest areas of New Orleans cannot be rebuilt, then the people there must go somewhere else. But once they leave the Big Easy, everywhere else is by comparison the Big Difficult. Looking around the Silicon Valley, I realized this is the Biggest Difficultest, for so many reasons. Even rich people are poor here, since there is almost no low-income housing and there is little prospect of any being built in this century. The powerful environmental lobby would need to be defeated, which would be quite a task in itself. But for sheer culture shock to displaced Big Easiers, the Silicon Valley is unsurpassed. Just try to imagine it: the whole go-go attitude here, the work your ass off in hopes of one day owning a tract shack mindset, the suspicious looks for anyone who is actually home on a working day, the whole package, I just don't think it would work to bring poor displaced Louisianans here. So where will they go? spike From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 5 21:17:02 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:17:02 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Week of Horror In-Reply-To: <021a01c5b1e0$b9d0d9b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <021a01c5b1e0$b9d0d9b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <26ad9c8d88dc4de479816d064545d939@aol.com> Sorry to bring it up, but it is a major piece of good luck for the bush administration that they no longer have to deal with the Rove scandal as a result of this utter nincomposity. On Sep 4, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > The whole world was watching. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05herbert.html > > Is it possible we still have Bush apologists on this list ...? > Olga > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 23:57:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:57:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] whales discover new technology: fishing for birds In-Reply-To: <001f01c5b259$4b9952a0$d1893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509052357.j85Nvrf10237@tick.javien.com> Check this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168456,00.html From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 00:24:57 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for longduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <200509010601.j8161kw31304@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050906002457.64049.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > "Terry W. Colvin" fnarded: > > Designing for absolute minimum weight aerospace vehicles is fraught > > with problems... > > Granted, however we are discussing only *scaling* as a function > of the needs of the astronaut. This exercise is not about shaving > close to the margin; the margin is the same for the smaller > vehicle as it is for the larger. Actually, considering how small a fraction makes up the crew and crew support - the "payload" - of any manned space vehicle to date...yes, we are talking about shaving close to the margin. Relative to, say, making a more efficient propulsion method so we don't have to cram the payload and vehicle structure into a few percent of the total vehicle weight. > My notion is that under these extreme conditions, Getting to orbit already requires fairly extreme performance from the rocket. How 'bout we pursue technologies, like laser launch or mass drivers (for cargo only) or nuclear engines (the ones with nonradioactive exhaust, please) and so forth, that mitigate that requirement instead? > > ... While a measure of weight as saved, it made the vehicle > > so difficult to manufacture that the cost increases by far > outweighed > > any operational savings... > > Of course, but manufacturing constraints in aircraft, > where you are making many, are not directly comparable > to manufacturing constraints in spacecraft where you > are making one or two. If we're to make space access affordable, then spacecraft will likely have to become at least as mass-produced as aircraft. (Granted, 777s don't have nearly the production volume of most things coming out of a Ford plant, but the processes used to make the two - including the existence of practical cost controls - are far similar than the practices used to make most spacecraft today.) Besides, even in a one-off/unique craft, there are redundant components that can themselves be set up for bulk manufacture if the craft is designed right, thus saving much cost of the overall craft. (Imagine, for example, the cost savings if the Shuttle's thermal tiles could be swapped around with each other as needed. Most of them are apparently specially shaped for their particular location, though.) > Ja I should have defined this mission more carefully. That's another problem: trying to do extreme engineering for just one scenario of limited appeal (no landing? Habitat design suitable for a very small number of people?), rather than trying to find ways to save money for everyone. Refusing to reuse what's out there, and insisting that your performance needs mean you can't design stuff for any other mission, will itself make your mission far more unaffordable - and wasteful. The cost savings of commodity hardware - which other people pay for the design and much of the manufacture of - trump almost *ANY* cost savings you can get from any degree of specialty engineering when it comes to missions like this. Which means that, while you might be right that you would get cost savings on some element of your project, that doesn't mean that it would be the overall ideal way to accomplish even that specific mission. From dgc at cox.net Tue Sep 6 00:23:51 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:23:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> What would the logistics be to just fill New Orleans in with gravel and build on top? Get the level higher than the maximum level of Lake Ponchartrain. Gravel would ship by barge from the entire Mississippi basin. The max depth is quoted at 20 feet. The city was 80% flooded to an average depth of 6 feet I think. Is that more volume or less volume than the Hoover Dam? Yes this approach would require writing off the existing infrastructure in most of New Orleans (roads, sewers, utilities.) But it's often cheaper to start from scratch than it is to repair old infrastructure. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Sep 6 00:37:18 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:37:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050905193606.01db6a20@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:23 PM 9/5/2005 -0400, Dan C wrote: >What would the logistics be to just fill New Orleans in with gravel and >build on top? Get the level higher than the maximum level of Lake >Ponchartrain. Gravel would ship by barge from the entire Mississippi basin. Cf. David Brin's blog suggestions (sorry for the code tags): =============== On my "Modernism" blog http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/ we're discussing this. Here's an excerpt. How best to rebuild after a long-awaited disaster... part I Last time I wrote: What is the most practical and beneficial way to help the people and the great city of New Orleans? ... What should be done with a below-sea-level isthmus of soggy, termite-ridden ground that lies between a Gulf bay called Lake Pontchartrain and a river that's become its worst enemy? As at 9/11 Ground Zero, this needs some pondering of alternatives. And yet... how can we not rebuild a city that was so grand and wonderful and fun... . Well, first off, something must happen, and fast, for our fellow citizens. All of the displaced residents must receive generous help from their countrymen, to rebuild their lives and livelihoods. And to enter decent homes. To rebuild jobs and savings. Moreover, the cultural gift that was New Orleans should be saved for us all. And then? The city itself? Suggestion #1: Use the same zone to rebuild a smaller urban center. Certain parts of NoLA can be restored for historical cultural and tourist reasons. With new INTERNAL dike systems to protect what's rebuilt. Some other areas can be raised, as they did with Galveston after a similar disaster. But much could also be turned into low-lying parkland. As for the dispossessed, remake whole neighborhoods in more suitable areas above flood level. Do it well. Really well. So well that they'll be happy. Suggestion #2: Listen to Nature and accept her adamant plan. Read EARTH, where I describe how desperately the Mississippi wants to change its course. Every year, it strains harder against the Army Corps of Engineers' magnificent - but someday doomed - Achafalaya Control Dam. Look at a map and ponder. Is it possible that NOW may be the right time to let the river go? Think. There have always been benefits and drawbacks to this idea, with the political balance deciding to leave things as they were, spending hundreds of millions to keep forcing Ol' Miss down its old channel, which continues silting and rising. (Today, the river's BOTTOM now lies above the second floor of some NoLa buildings.) This obstinacy has had huge, expensive and destructive effects. For example, artificially lengthening the one official channel, hampering shipping and robbing the barrier islands and swamps of silt, until Louisiana's delta is almost gone... the old natural hurricane barrier that might have saved the city from Katrina. Benefits of opening the gates: a new, straight and fast channel to the Gulf - especially if it were prepared and then water-scoured - would require little in the way of ongoing dredging or levees. Carried swiftly to the Gulf, silt would spread wide, rebuilding wetlands and islands, recreating the natural storm barriers. After an adjustment period, river commerce should be more efficient. And finally, the prospect may partly be paid off by nongovernmental money, attracted to an entirely new rivermouth zone. Drawbacks: This would require finally buying out a chain of farms - and some villages - that have long known the river would someday come a-calling. Some will kick and scream while others will relish new riverfront views. But the real opposition has come from NoLa itself, which took pride and identity from being America's greatest River City. Only now it may be ready to accept a different role. Please, I am not offering this suggestion in order to kick New Orleans while it's down. Indeed, this may be a very good idea, helping make it possible to rebuild ALL of this great town... and more. For example, if the Mississipi moves away, NoLa will remain a GULF city, with Pontchartrain right next door. Its port could stay valuable, though much traffic would be diverted to new trans-shipment facilities at the new Achafalaya outlet. In any event, this would cut in HALF the number of dikes that New New Orleans will have to maintain. That savings, alone, might pay for the diversion. And picture this. Today's riverbed would then become this lovely raised plateau, winding through town. A perfect place to build view-rich housing for many of the displaced, so high that even a future break in the Ponchartrain dikes would never touch them. And the sogginess that rots every beam and timber... presumably that would decline, as well. Indeed, this may be the one way to ensure that even old neighborhoods can be rebuilt, without the nation worrying that it's all for nothing. Seriously, with a year's warning, the Achafalaya valley could be warned and a new path for the Mississippi prepared (the one it wants to take and WILL take, sooner or later). If done carefully, the new river will be healthier, better for commerce, and the whole region ecologically improved. What's more, it's probably much cheaper than any other plan, as well. The alternative? Spend billions restoring then maintaining an impossible situation... and keep chaining up an adamant river that pushes harder every year against the artificial bonds that enslave it to our shortsighted will... until the Dam eventually does give way, releasing ther Father of Waters to come sweeping down upon unprepared farms and villages... ...leaving NoLa high and dry anyway. . PS. Again here's my standard warning. Especially for any angry riverfolk. I am paid to be interesting. I am not paid to be right. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Sep 6 00:56:31 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:56:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 5, 2005, at 3:40 AM, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: >> >> >>> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable >>> as a >>> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. >>> >> >> The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is >> needed. >> > > Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the > same doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ > of 80 or less and no education worth its name, when the available > grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value is less and > less? How can he afford a private health insurance? I myself have made the same argument. But an irrational attack on libertarians on the basis of a near complete straw man will not answer such questions, > > Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian > environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, > but relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good > strategy. Long term the fix requires moving to an abundance economy not just economically but psycohologically and sociologicically as well. I don't know yet out to get there. But technically we should arrive at a world, at least post MNT, where it is trivial to supply everyone with the necessities of life at nearly no cost. Medical nanotech could conceivably make much of the health insurance question moot. There are possible technological and social solutions that are possible without big government or government violating the rights of the people. > > Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too > much an evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll > do great if you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/ > assets), and suffer a lot if you aren't. This has been exploded so many times that I haven't the patience to deal with it again. - samantha From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 01:02:54 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Yes this approach would require writing off the > existing > infrastructure in most of New Orleans (roads, sewers, utilities.) But > it's often cheaper to start from scratch than it is to repair old > infrastructure. Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While the government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a hard time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market price). From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Sep 6 01:06:31 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:06:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: Concrete is not poured by hand but by skilled machine operators. Roofers and hangers of siding are not considered grunt labor either. There are not "lots of such jobs" for everyone displaced. The continued insistence that there are and always will be is cruel and false. Also in many parts of the country it is increasingly difficult to survive on true grunt labor wages. You may like to think a lot of things are so as do I. But we can't just assume that what we would like to believe is true. - s On Sep 5, 2005, at 11:06 AM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > You are assuming a great leap forward on automation where robots > can roof > houses, pour concrete, and hang siding. There's lots of "grunt" > jobs out > there that will not be replaced for a long time. Of course, that > day will > come, but when it does, I would like to think we will also have the > ability > to "cure" such IQ problems with a cost small enough to justify > making the > person a productive member of society. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alfio Puglisi" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:40 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution > > > >> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: >>> >>> >>>> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable >>>> as a >>>> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. >>>> >>> >>> The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is >>> > needed. > >> >> Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the same >> doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ of >> 80 or >> less and no education worth its name, when the available grunt >> jobs are >> automated away, and his market value is less and less? How can he >> afford >> a private health insurance? >> >> Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian >> environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, but >> relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. >> >> Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too >> much an >> evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll do >> great if >> you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), >> and suffer >> a lot if you aren't. >> >> Alfio >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 02:01:07 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:31:07 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <710b78fc050905190111007e86@mail.gmail.com> On 06/09/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > You are assuming a great leap forward on automation where robots can roof > houses, pour concrete, and hang siding. There's lots of "grunt" jobs out > there that will not be replaced for a long time. Of course, that day will > come, but when it does, I would like to think we will also have the ability > to "cure" such IQ problems with a cost small enough to justify making the > person a productive member of society. This is a bit old, but check it out: http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-05/features/whole-house-machine/ "With a soft whir, the contour crafter's head lays down inch-high extrusions of viscous concrete, one atop another, as a pie-shaped trowel smooths the surface. The head moves at 5 inches per second, which would create a 2,000-square-foot house in 24 hours. " etc -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 02:29:32 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:29:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin ... > > Gas prices have soared. > > The government response was (in part) to decry "price-gouging," and > encourage people to report "artificially inflated" gas prices at > http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . -- David Lubkin. Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices are raised by an AI? I would argue: these prices are not artificially inflated. The human who runs the gas station did it. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 02:34:51 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:34:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] labor day In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509060243.j862hDf27522@tick.javien.com> In the states we have a holiday which we observed today called Labor Day. The term once meant jobs that required muscle: hoist and tote. Few of those exist any more. Our labor unions have been in decline for 40 years. Just this past year several of them have come apart, with breakaway subgroups, unions striking with no sympathetic strikes anywhere else, etc. I wonder what we will call Labor Day when most people get no closer to labor than the Jetsons. spike From neptune at superlink.net Tue Sep 6 02:46:40 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:46:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <007901c5b28d$35d7dfc0$5f893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 10:29 PM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote: >> Gas prices have soared. >> >> The government response was (in part) to decry "price-gouging," and >> encourage people to report "artificially inflated" gas prices at >> http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . -- David Lubkin. > > Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices are > raised by an AI? I would argue: these prices are > not artificially inflated. The human who runs the > gas station did it. I think it's better not to call prices "inflated." Prices rise or fall and usually not together. In this case, though, the important thing to ask is why did the human raise the price? It's not usually based on caprice -- and were it based on that, we'd expect to see people raising prices all the time for the heck of it. Regards, Dan From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 6 02:57:55 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:57:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin><004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <004a01c5b28e$c83d2e00$0100a8c0@kevin> No. But they cost money. And I know we have given plenty to the UN and EU in the past. The fact is that this is going to cost a LOT and there's nothing wrong with calling on some people to return some favors. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dirk Bruere To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need On 9/5/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? The fact that you shouldn't need it? Is there a big blanket shortage in the US? Out of water trucks? Dirk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 6 02:52:36 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:52:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905224133.05510100@unreasonable.com> spike wrote: >Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices are >raised by an AI? I would argue: these prices are >not artificially inflated. The human who runs the >gas station did it. Not my expression. Still -- artifice: a clever trick or stratagem. Cunning; ingenuity; guile; craftiness. Although up here it doesn't seem very clever. Twenty feet after a gas station is another that's charging thirty cents a gallon more. A driver can see both stations' signs with sufficient time to choose the cheaper alternative. -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 04:01:01 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:01:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <007901c5b28d$35d7dfc0$5f893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509060401.j8640xf01832@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence ... > > I think it's better not to call prices "inflated." Prices rise or fall > and usually not together. In this case, though, the important thing to > ask is why did the human raise the price? ... In order to make more money. I expect every businesshuman to work towards maximizing profits. >... It's not usually based on > caprice -- and were it based on that, we'd expect to see people raising > prices all the time for the heck of it. > > Regards, > > Dan They would raise prices if they were not afraid of losing sales to competitors. The gas stations are speculating that they will sell every drop, even with inflated prices. I see no foul in that. I am always wary of any suggestion that excess profit is somehow unethical or unreasonable, unless there are actual lives at stake. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 04:07:25 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:07:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905224133.05510100@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509060407.j8647Of02511@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:53 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution > > spike wrote: > > >Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices are > >raised by an AI? ... > > artifice: a clever trick or stratagem. Cunning; ingenuity; guile; > craftiness. > > Although up here it doesn't seem very clever. Twenty feet after a gas > station is another that's charging thirty cents a gallon more. A > driver can see both stations' signs with sufficient time to choose > the cheaper alternative. > > > -- David They price raisers also run the risk of driving away clientele permanently. I saw this when a station went to 3 bucks a gallon the day the shock and awe campaign started. I was out of fuel and needed to buy some there, but fortunately I was on a motorcycle so I bought only half a gallon, drove twenty miles on that and filled up. The locals wouldn't buy gas there anymore. All pricing is a calculated risk. I don't criticize the business owner, I just take my trade elsewhere. Gasoline is not different than other consumables. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 05:16:13 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050906051613.54830.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > The government response was (in part) to decry > "price-gouging," and > > encourage people to report "artificially inflated" > gas prices at > > http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . -- David Lubkin. > > > Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices > are > raised by an AI? I would argue: these prices are > not artificially inflated. The human who runs the > gas station did it. Don't be silly, Spike. They mean artificial as opposed to natural. Naturally occuring gas stations always charge much less for gas. After all, no grizzly bear in its right mind would ever pay 3 bucks a gallon for regular. ;) 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 ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 05:47:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:47:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906002457.64049.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509060547.j865l1f12971@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better > forlongduration spaceflight?] > ... > > Actually, considering how small a fraction makes up the crew and crew > support - the "payload" - of any manned space vehicle to date...yes, we > are talking about shaving close to the margin... Ja, ok I see now where is the disconnect. Assume the surface-landing manufacturing machinery is launched separately, sent on ahead. It can go with slow, highly efficient ion drives, all the tricky stuff, since it has no consumables. The hab module is in a hurry, so it will likely use chemical rockets on a Hohmann transfer orbit. All the astronaut does is to inject into Mars synchronous orbit for a couple years in order to guide the machine real time. The design exercise is now just the human hab module. In that scenario, I imagine the vehicle as a spherical shell about 4 times her height. The propulsion system scales with the mass of that shell, which scales as the cube of the diameter. The heating system scales approximately as the square of the diameter, since heat loss is a function of surface area. The antenna that sends signals to the surface of Mars and to Earth does not scale with the size of the orbit vehicle. The system needed to deal with waste processing scales linearly with the amount of food and water she devours. Given these things, try to determine what is the function of weight as a function of the astronaut's height. Assume a minimum crew, one person. I have pointed out the mass of the shell and the mass of the air inside scale as the cube, heater as the square, waste processing some unknown function and communications gear no scaling. Does the weight scale approximately as the 2.4 power of the height of the astronaut? How much? I kinda jumped into this assuming the participants were up on the previous, more detailed treatment we did on this about 4 or 5 yrs ago. We messed up this time by not defining the mission up front, so everyone was going on different initial assumptions. I think I have a scenario where one human could go to Mars orbit and return with a single heavy launch, plus another heavy launch to carry the landing machinery. That wouldn't break the bank. spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 06:46:08 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 23:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <200509060547.j865l1f12971@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050906064608.92290.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > Actually, considering how small a fraction makes up the crew and > crew > > support - the "payload" - of any manned space vehicle to > date...yes, we > > are talking about shaving close to the margin... > > Ja, ok I see now where is the disconnect. Assume the > surface-landing manufacturing machinery is launched > separately, sent on ahead. It can go with slow, highly > efficient ion drives, all the tricky stuff, since it > has no consumables. The hab module is in a hurry, so > it will likely use chemical rockets on a Hohmann > transfer orbit. Doesn't help enough. Even if we're just talking a one-person spacecraft to Mars and back, the constant thrust of a nuclear rocket would beat out the higher ISP but lower total thrust of chemical rockets. > The design exercise is now just the human > hab module. In that scenario, I imagine the > vehicle as a spherical shell about 4 times her height. > The propulsion system scales with the mass of that shell, > which scales as the cube of the diameter. The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much rocket you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on hydrazine. Then calculate how much you would need for nuclear propulsion. But you're still missing the non-physics objection: the economics and practicality of finding and training that one perfect (by your guidelines) person, not to mention the cost of specializing habitat manufacture (which would ordinarily be partially borne by other missions hoping to send their own people up, but could not because your habitat rules out the people they wish to send), would seem to impose costs that at first would grossly outweigh the savings you'd gain by slightly reducing the mass. Physics is not the only determiner of economics, but economics is quite often the determiner of whether you can or can not pull off a project of this nature. Remember: *practical* optimism! ;) From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 07:11:44 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:11:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/6/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While the > government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent > eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a hard > time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so > little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market > price). > What's fair market value for land under six foot of water? The other factor that I haven't seen mentioned is that so far the discussions assume that Nature is going to play fair. That could very well not happen. There is no rule that says natural disasters must happen five or ten years apart. There will be more hurricanes this season and more again in following years. NO could well be hit again soon, maybe with a cat 5 this time. Or Florida might be hit as well. San Francisco and LA could be hit by a bigger than usual quake, Mount St. Helens is still rumbling and might blow again, or the Yellowstone volcano might blow. There might be a string of floods, tornadoes or other disasters that would leave little available to rebuild NO. Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept of Homeland Security and only spends about 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and recovery. As more people are now living in places 'in the way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent disaster recovery army which moves on from one site to the next. BillK From megao at sasktel.net Tue Sep 6 06:52:50 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:52:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] fill it in pave it over..... In-Reply-To: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> Message-ID: <431D3CC2.90403@sasktel.net> We were talking about this tonight and I said that there should be zoning to only allow large structures that could withstand flooding, wind and other natural catastrophes No single family residential housing, put retail space on the ground floors. Redesign the entire city from scratch. This would be the opportunity to build a 21st century city. Some parts of the city will be suited to become a memorial/museum but most would have to be a piece of history. I am speaking out of some ignorance never being there in person and not having nostalgic or emotional ties to the cultural aspects either. From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 10:01:28 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:01:28 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906064608.92290.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200509060547.j865l1f12971@tick.javien.com> <20050906064608.92290.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050906100128.GR2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 11:46:08PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Doesn't help enough. Even if we're just talking a one-person > spacecraft to Mars and back, the constant thrust of a nuclear rocket > would beat out the higher ISP but lower total thrust of chemical > rockets. Nuclear power in space is a very hard sell politically. The technology doesn't exist yet in the first place, and needs to be developed and tested. It would be probably easier to put the reactor on a long boom, with some staggered shields for the crew module. Some water interim would shield, too. Nuke-powered ion/plasma drive would be probably an optimal combination even for manned flight. It would be easier to assemble and fuel up the craft in orbit, and go chemical all the way, with a minimum-mass crew module (with robots sent ahead preparing the habitat, and the fuel still) by remote control. > The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the > difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much rocket > you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on hydrazine. What is wrong with using cryogenic fuel, e.g. methane/oxygen? > Then calculate how much you would need for nuclear propulsion. > > But you're still missing the non-physics objection: the economics and > practicality of finding and training that one perfect (by your > guidelines) person, not to mention the cost of specializing habitat > manufacture (which would ordinarily be partially borne by other > missions hoping to send their own people up, but could not because your > habitat rules out the people they wish to send), would seem to impose > costs that at first would grossly outweigh the savings you'd gain by > slightly reducing the mass. Physics is not the only determiner of > economics, but economics is quite often the determiner of whether you > can or can not pull off a project of this nature. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Sep 6 10:42:47 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 06:42:47 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509060407.j8647Of02511@tick.javien.com> References: <200509060407.j8647Of02511@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, spike wrote: > > > They price raisers also run the risk of driving > away clientele permanently. I saw this when a > station went to 3 bucks a gallon the day the > shock and awe campaign started. I was out of > fuel and needed to buy some there, but fortunately > I was on a motorcycle so I bought only half a > gallon, drove twenty miles on that and filled > up. The locals wouldn't buy gas there anymore. > Ha! We have that here - one station went up $1 more than all the others. I heard over and over from local folks that *those* people had lost their business - one even told the person at the station. > All pricing is a calculated risk. I don't criticize > the business owner, I just take my trade elsewhere. > Gasoline is not different than other consumables. > I'm never quite sure how much it is the owner - it may be the oil company prices were different? Say, Exxon charges the station more than Chevron does, so the prices at the pump are quite different? No matter, the place that went so high was next to the interstate - and a national brand - it will catch the tourists. Fine. Let them have the tourists. The locals, year-in year-out regulars, the bread-and-butter of any business, will go elsewhere. :) Regards, MB From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 10:41:12 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:41:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509060401.j8640xf01832@tick.javien.com> References: <007901c5b28d$35d7dfc0$5f893cd1@pavilion> <200509060401.j8640xf01832@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050906104112.GV2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 09:01:01PM -0700, spike wrote: > They would raise prices if they were not afraid of > losing sales to competitors. The gas stations are They won't lose sales if the competition doesn't do the same. Mandatory algorithms used by station operators (not owners) compute their prices to adapt to their competitors. The delay is usually a day, or less. Most people cannot skip refuelling, and most won't go broke over the increase, so they keep buying. > speculating that they will sell every drop, even > with inflated prices. I see no foul in that. I Do you think monopolies are good for customer? The market has an intrinsic drive to favour monopolies. > am always wary of any suggestion that excess profit > is somehow unethical or unreasonable, unless there > are actual lives at stake. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From maxm at mail.tele.dk Tue Sep 6 10:53:32 2005 From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:53:32 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <431D752C.5050306@mail.tele.dk> Dirk Bruere wrote: >On 9/5/05, kevinfreels.com >wrote: > > >>I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. >>WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? >> >> >> > >The fact that you shouldn't need it? >Is there a big blanket shortage in the US? >Out of water trucks? > From what I could see, you did need help. But it might be better to let the victims die for the pride? Getting help in an emergency is not a shame. For every country to have all the resources to cover any disaster is a waste of resources. In international rapid response force makes far more sense. -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science From neptune at superlink.net Tue Sep 6 11:20:24 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:20:24 -0400 Subject: FEMA/was Re: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over References: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net><20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:11 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept > of Homeland Security and only spends about > 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and > recovery. FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from the past on them: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate and, especially, here: http://www.mises.org/story/227 > As more people are now living in places 'in the > way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent > disaster recovery army which moves on from one > site to the next. Part of the reason this is so is because the costs of living in these places have been made artificially low by government intervention. Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only increase such incentives. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 12:22:43 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 05:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906064608.92290.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050906122243.40052.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- spike wrote: > > > Actually, considering how small a fraction makes up the crew and > > crew > > > support - the "payload" - of any manned space vehicle to > > date...yes, we > > > are talking about shaving close to the margin... > > > > Ja, ok I see now where is the disconnect. Assume the > > surface-landing manufacturing machinery is launched > > separately, sent on ahead. It can go with slow, highly > > efficient ion drives, all the tricky stuff, since it > > has no consumables. The hab module is in a hurry, so > > it will likely use chemical rockets on a Hohmann > > transfer orbit. > > Doesn't help enough. Even if we're just talking a one-person > spacecraft to Mars and back, the constant thrust of a nuclear rocket > would beat out the higher ISP but lower total thrust of chemical > rockets. You are backwards here. Chem doesn't have higher Isp, it has lower. LH2/LOX is typically 400-450 sec, nuke is typically 600-800 sec, ion/plasma ranges from 1500 to 10000 sec. Nor would a nuclear rocket have constant thrust the whole trip, they'd thrust for the first couple weeks or less of the trip, then thrust again at orbital insertion. Only with Ion would constant thrusting be used. > > > The design exercise is now just the human > > hab module. In that scenario, I imagine the > > vehicle as a spherical shell about 4 times her height. > > The propulsion system scales with the mass of that shell, > > which scales as the cube of the diameter. > > The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the > difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much > rocket you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on > hydrazine. > Then calculate how much you would need for nuclear propulsion. And how long each takes will tell you how much supplies, oxygen, etc you need. You trade off hab space for fuel bulk or vice versa one way or the other. > > But you're still missing the non-physics objection: the economics and > practicality of finding and training that one perfect (by your > guidelines) person, not to mention the cost of specializing habitat > manufacture (which would ordinarily be partially borne by other > missions hoping to send their own people up, but could not because > your > habitat rules out the people they wish to send), would seem to impose > costs that at first would grossly outweigh the savings you'd gain by > slightly reducing the mass. Physics is not the only determiner of > economics, but economics is quite often the determiner of whether you > can or can not pull off a project of this nature. Astronaut selection and training is ALREADY this way: they seek perfect physical specimins with the requisite education and training. Spike is looking for a specific type of *imperfect* specimin. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue Sep 6 12:30:07 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:30:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity In-Reply-To: <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20050906123007.80645.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> the recent new orleans disaster must be considered as an alrm bell of things to come during this century. natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and others re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. Katrina , beyond the tragedy and loss of people's life, is giving us the big opportunity to rethink and rebuild human habitas, cities and all other buildings, must be designed and built with new concepts that will allow: -independence from land situation and changes (ie at a controlled height) -completely connected by transportation networks utilizing energy locally generated from renewable and clean sources -multistory structures for separate activities in controlled environmental conditions -maximum respect for the natural ecosystem with conservation of natural landscape nd animal life -optimizing human activities with minimum space utilization, waste recycling, energy conservation concepts the cities of the future design concepts, must be addressed today. Let's not forget that our cities reflect the after the cave technology for human beings, they need a complete replanning and consideration to be in sinthony wity the new human and technological requiremets since roman times nothing has really changed in city planning and architecture Is about time that also this sector is addressed with the new attitude that has allowed the advances in biotechnology, information and communication systems. the rebuilding of new orleans , while necessary and urgent, should be an opportunity to rethink our citie and our relationship wit the environment, utilizing new technologies, new concep. You would not dressed like an ancient roman, why are you still living in a similar habitat?ts and new approaches let not waste it --- Technotranscendence ha scritto: > On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:11 AM BillK > pharos at gmail.com wrote: > > Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept > > of Homeland Security and only spends about > > 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and > > recovery. > > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from > the past on them: > > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > and, especially, here: > > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > > As more people are now living in places 'in the > > way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent > > disaster recovery army which moves on from one > > site to the next. > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs > of living in these > places have been made artificially low by government > intervention. > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only > increase such incentives. > > Regards, > > Dan > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 12:54:04 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:54:04 +0100 Subject: FEMA/was Re: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> References: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 9/6/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from the past on them: > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > and, especially, here: > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs of living in these > places have been made artificially low by government intervention. > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only increase such incentives. > Mises have the luxury of being able to criticize everything as they don't actually have to do the job. As all opposition parties well know. The vote-catching slogans soon change if they get voted into power. I am no great supporter of FEMA, but they do seem to have been virtually crippled by Bush since 9/11. (An action mises would presumably have supported??). See: September 5, 2005 KATRINA'S AFTERMATH Why FEMA Was Missing in Action # Most of the agency's preparedness budget and focus are related to terrorism, not disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency once speedily delivered food, water, shelter and medical care to disaster areas, and paid to quickly rebuild damaged roads and schools and get businesses and people back on their feet. Like a commercial insurance firm setting safety standards to prevent future problems, it also underwrote efforts to get cities and states to reduce risks ahead of time and plan for what they would do if calamity struck. But in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, FEMA lost its Cabinet-level status as it was folded into the giant new Department of Homeland Security. And in recent years it has suffered budget cuts, the elimination or reduction of key programs and an exodus of experienced staffers. etc...... BillK From megao at sasktel.net Tue Sep 6 15:48:40 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:48:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] katrina opportunity Message-ID: <431DBA58.1060105@sasktel.net> Maybe this would be a consulting opportunity. There might be a similar rebuilding grand scheme similar to 9-11 to come out of all this. If the USA wants to build a model city from scratch in a location that historically supported a city this would be a golden opportunity. If there are 280 square miles of affected city that is way past a Donald Trump development scale and a global mega-city potential and it is able to start from a clean slate. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:30:07 +0200 (CEST) From: giorgio gaviraghi Reply-To: ExI chat list To: ExI chat list the recent new orleans disaster must be considered as an alrm bell of things to come during this century. natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and others re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. Katrina , beyond the tragedy and loss of people's life, is giving us the big opportunity to rethink and rebuild human habitas, cities and all other buildings, must be designed and built with new concepts that will allow: -independence from land situation and changes (ie at a controlled height) -completely connected by transportation networks utilizing energy locally generated from renewable and clean sources -multistory structures for separate activities in controlled environmental conditions -maximum respect for the natural ecosystem with conservation of natural landscape nd animal life -optimizing human activities with minimum space utilization, waste recycling, energy conservation concepts the cities of the future design concepts, must be addressed today. Let's not forget that our cities reflect the after the cave technology for human beings, they need a complete replanning and consideration to be in sinthony wity the new human and technological requiremets since roman times nothing has really changed in city planning and architecture Is about time that also this sector is addressed with the new attitude that has allowed the advances in biotechnology, information and communication systems. the rebuilding of new orleans , while necessary and urgent, should be an opportunity to rethink our citie and our relationship wit the environment, utilizing new technologies, new concep. You would not dressed like an ancient roman, why are you still living in a similar habitat?ts and new approaches let not waste it --- Technotranscendence ha scritto: > On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:11 AM BillK > pharos at gmail.com wrote: > > Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept > > of Homeland Security and only spends about > > 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and > > recovery. > > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from > the past on them: > > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > and, especially, here: > > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > > As more people are now living in places 'in the > > way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent > > disaster recovery army which moves on from one > > site to the next. > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs > of living in these > places have been made artificially low by government > intervention. > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only > increase such incentives. > > Regards, > > Dan > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it _______________________________________________ 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: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue Sep 6 17:45:15 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:45:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] katrina opportunity In-Reply-To: <431DBA58.1060105@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050906174515.67178.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> the opportunity is more historical and of major magnitude than the 9\11 there it was only a few blocks here we may have a new global city with advanced design, technology and environmental related concepts that could be built and bring wealth as well as renovation to an entire region I hope that this opportunity don't get wasted with quick and non planned fixes, but the problem , while addressed urgently, can follow a long range step by step plan that can take care of most issues. An international ideas competition could be the beginning --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." ha scritto: > Maybe this would be a consulting opportunity. > There might be a similar rebuilding grand scheme > similar to 9-11 to come > out of all this. > If the USA wants to build a model city from scratch > in a location that > historically supported a city > this would be a golden opportunity. > > If there are 280 square miles of affected city that > is way past a Donald > Trump development scale > and a global mega-city potential and it is able to > start from a clean slate. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity > Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:30:07 +0200 (CEST) > From: giorgio gaviraghi > Reply-To: ExI chat list > > To: ExI chat list > > > > the recent new orleans disaster must be considered > as > an alrm bell of things to come during this century. > natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, > tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and others > re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. > Katrina , beyond the tragedy and loss of people's > life, is giving us the big opportunity to rethink > and > rebuild human habitas, cities and all other > buildings, > must be designed and built with new concepts that > will > allow: > -independence from land situation and changes (ie at > a > controlled height) > -completely connected by transportation networks > utilizing energy locally generated from renewable > and > clean sources > -multistory structures for separate activities > in controlled environmental conditions > -maximum respect for the natural ecosystem with > conservation of natural landscape nd animal life > -optimizing human activities with minimum space > utilization, waste recycling, energy conservation > concepts > the cities of the future design concepts, must be > addressed today. > Let's not forget that our cities reflect the after > the cave technology for human beings, they need a > complete replanning and consideration to be in > sinthony wity the new human and technological > requiremets > since roman times nothing has really changed in city > planning and architecture > Is about time that also this sector is addressed > with > the new attitude that has allowed the advances in > biotechnology, information and communication > systems. > the rebuilding of new orleans , while necessary and > urgent, should be an opportunity to rethink our > citie > and our relationship wit the environment, utilizing > new technologies, new concep. > You would not dressed like an ancient roman, why > are > you still living in a similar habitat?ts and new > approaches > let not waste it > --- Technotranscendence ha > scritto: > > > On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:11 AM BillK > > pharos at gmail.com wrote: > > > Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept > > > of Homeland Security and only spends about > > > 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and > > > recovery. > > > > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from > > the past on them: > > > > > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > > > and, especially, here: > > > > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > > > > As more people are now living in places 'in the > > > way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent > > > disaster recovery army which moves on from one > > > site to the next. > > > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs > > of living in these > > places have been made artificially low by > government > > intervention. > > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only > > increase such incentives. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da > 10MB > http://mail.yahoo.it > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - > Release Date: 4/25/05 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com From ml at gondwanaland.com Tue Sep 6 18:01:42 2005 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:01:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050906180142.GC39652@or.pair.com> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 07:56:21PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Probably the biggest question mark > is the state of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. [...] > The Peak Oil > situation is highly sensitive to what happens in the Chinese economy the > next few years. [...] > Of course the further out we go, the more the chances > that some kind of wild card will appear, a new technology or some such, > that could change the nature of the situation we face. Nice summary of three big unknowns. I suspect that radical peak oilers will claim that the first two don't really matter, as they only change the date of the doomsday scenario, and the third is irrelevant, as technology can't save us, can't make up for the depletion of our free energy endowment built up over billions of years, and wouldn't be allowed by the oil company conspiracy anyway. It will be interesting to see if and how quickly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-conventional_oil sources ramp up (an interesting idea future claim might be whether each of these produce some level of oil-barrel-equivalent output by some year) and how quickly hybrid and other drastic oil-conserving technologies are deployed (another interesting claim may be something about % of new cars sold in some year that use one of these). However, the reason I'm writing here is this: > If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, > we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. > For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price > differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is easy to > move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so we would expect > high future prices to drag up present-day prices. This is actually > one of the great services of commodity markets, that they make the > high prices of future shortages felt in the present day, encouraging > conservation and searches for alternatives well in advance of an actual > supply/demand mismatch. I'm not sure I understand how deliveries are moved backwards and forwards and how this affects present day prices. Put another way, if futures markets have a levelling effect on prices over time, I don't grok the mechanism. Anyone have a brief explanation or pointer to a non-brief explanation? My guess is that a change in future prices changes the expected return on holding on to current deliveries and selling at a later date, increasing or decreasing current supply if future prices are lower or higher than current prices respectively. -- Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/ml/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Sep 6 18:09:32 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:09:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Cramer on dark energy stars Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050906130909.01cad318@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.analogsf.com/0510/altview.shtml From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Sep 6 20:03:42 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:03:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TV: "Fantastic Plastic: A Future Near Your" Message-ID: <380-2200592620342609@M2W110.mail2web.com> The "Back to the Future" script offered one key word to remember - "Plastics." Today plastics is getting a makeover. It's new applications are entering the industry of body replacement parts, as well as other futuristic transhuman applications. "Fantastic Plastic: A Future Near Your" aired yesterday on National Geographics TV progam. I highly recommend watching this program later this month. (It also airs in October.) Here is a short blurb: "Plastics were once considered cheap and tacky, but these magic molecules are now pushing back the boundaries of science to reveal amazing possibilities few could have imagined. From aviation to military warfare and medicine to space exploration, these extraordinary synthetic materials are playing an ever-increasing role in shaping our future. But what does the remarkable world of plastics have in store for us? Find out when Fantastic Plastic investigates the potential new territories waiting to be explore" Air dates: Monday, September 26, 9:00A Monday, October 24, 9:00A Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 21:23:24 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: FEMA/was Re: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050906212324.96018.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One thing to consider is that FEMA has been successfully dealing with a large number of hurricanes in other parts of the country all year. Why is it that the one that hits NOLA is blamed on FEMA? Might as well blame it on HAARP, as some of the bunkertarian black helicopter nutters are doing. --- BillK wrote: > On 9/6/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from the past on them: > > > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > > > and, especially, here: > > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs of living in > these > > places have been made artificially low by government intervention. > > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only increase such > incentives. > > > > Mises have the luxury of being able to criticize everything as they > don't actually have to do the job. As all opposition parties well > know. The vote-catching slogans soon change if they get voted into > power. > > I am no great supporter of FEMA, but they do seem to have been > virtually crippled by Bush since 9/11. (An action mises would > presumably have supported??). > > See: > > > September 5, 2005 > KATRINA'S AFTERMATH > Why FEMA Was Missing in Action > # Most of the agency's preparedness budget and focus are related to > terrorism, not disasters. > > The Federal Emergency Management Agency once speedily delivered food, > water, shelter and medical care to disaster areas, and paid to > quickly > rebuild damaged roads and schools and get businesses and people back > on their feet. Like a commercial insurance firm setting safety > standards to prevent future problems, it also underwrote efforts to > get cities and states to reduce risks ahead of time and plan for what > they would do if calamity struck. > > But in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, FEMA lost its > Cabinet-level status as it was folded into the giant new Department > of > Homeland Security. And in recent years it has suffered budget cuts, > the elimination or reduction of key programs and an exodus of > experienced staffers. > > etc...... > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Tue Sep 6 21:27:23 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906100128.GR2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050906212724.1028.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > Nuclear power in space is a very hard sell politically. Not as hard as selling a dwarf-only mission. > The technology doesn't exist yet in the first place, and needs > to be developed and tested. Development and testing are needed, but it does exist. Then again, dev & test are needed for this mission anyway: there does not presently exist a rocket capable of sustaining one human life, even a dwarf's, while going to Mars and returning under its own power. > Nuke-powered ion/plasma drive would be probably an optimal > combination even for manned flight. It would be easier to > assemble and fuel up the craft in orbit, and go chemical > all the way, with a minimum-mass crew module (with robots > sent ahead preparing the habitat, and the fuel still) by > remote control. Easier in some respects, harder in others. The more money and resources a project requires, the harder it inherently is: you have to spend effort to gain said money and resources. I suspect this may be part of what you overlooked. > > The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the > > difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much > rocket > > you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on > hydrazine. > > What is wrong with using cryogenic fuel, e.g. methane/oxygen? *shrugs* Nothing, for the sake of this discussion. Just pick a fuel so you can work the numbers. Nuclear/ion propulsion beats any chemcal fuel by a sufficiently large margin that focusing the finite dev/test resources on that, rather than spending effort on minimizing the crew (and taking the resulting benefits), will achieve optimal payoffs. (Remember, any mission always has a finite budget. Some potentially marginally beneficial ideas almost always have to tossed to the side in order to focus on the best paying off ideas. The marginal and very mission-specific payoffs from the dwarf proposal would seem to be an example of this.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 21:32:08 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050906213208.2398.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On 9/6/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While > the > > government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent > > eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a > hard > > time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so > > little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market > > price). > > What's fair market value for land under six foot of water? Potentially pretty good, if there's a general assumption that the water will soon be pumped out - which does exist, and I don't think it can be shaken unless the levees collapse much furthre, beyond all hope of repair. > There will be more hurricanes this season and more again in following > years. NO could well be hit again soon, maybe with a cat 5 this time. It would probably take something along those lines to do it. Which means that cloud (no pun intended) would have a definite silver lining. From hal at finney.org Tue Sep 6 20:42:34 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050906204234.BEAE657EF5@finney.org> Mike Linksvayer writes: > I'm not sure I understand how deliveries are moved backwards and > forwards and how this affects present day prices. Put another way, > if futures markets have a levelling effect on prices over time, I > don't grok the mechanism. Anyone have a brief explanation or pointer > to a non-brief explanation? My guess is that a change in future > prices changes the expected return on holding on to current deliveries > and selling at a later date, increasing or decreasing current supply > if future prices are lower or higher than current prices respectively. Econbrowser has an explanation of the effect at http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/06/contango_backwa_1.html which may help. Briefly, if prices for future delivery are much higher than the present day, you could buy oil today on the spot market and store it, locking in the future price by selling a futures contract. That would increase today's prices (by increasing demand) and moderate future prices (by increasing selling pressure in the futures market). In the other direction, if people thought the future value of a commodity was going to be much less than today, purchasers would postpone consumption and use temporary substitutes while waiting for prices to go down. Meanwhile there are always people who hold stores of oil to deal with temporary changes in demand, and these would be drawn down as well to protect against future price drops. All these tend to drive down prices in the present. The first effect is stronger and is more relevant for evaluating the Peak Oil scenario. As described in this and the other Econbrowser postings I pointed to, an expectation of future high prices would drive up today's prices. And that's exactly what you would hope to happen, as it would cushion the impact of a future shortage, get people to start conserving ahead of time, and encourage investment in alternatives. The bottom line is that for a storable commodity like oil, price is not just a function of present-day supply and demand. Rather, the market extrapolates future supply and demand, and those effects show up in present day prices. It's a clever system, and the fact that it happens automatically is always amazing to me. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 21:38:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] PEAK OIL: Alternate laptop fuel for you buffalo tech-nomads....(Spike, this means you) Message-ID: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2005/09/it_might_not_be.html >From GOOD MORNING SILICON VALLEY: "Next generation laptop features slot-loading cow-pie tray: It might not be the most aromatic of approaches, but scientists at Ohio State University say the cow manure fuel cell they've developed proves there are ways to generate renewable electricity that are both cheap and plentiful. Apparently, some of the microorganisms found in cow dung are quite proficient at generating electricity while they break down the cellulose that forms a large portion of the cow's diet. Throw some cow dung in a makeshift fuel cell and presto: electricity. Not a lot, mind you, but something. "The students put a few of these cells together and were able to fuel their rechargeable batteries over and over again," researcher Ann Christy explained. "We've run some of these trials well over 30 days without a decrease in the voltage output. The study suggests that cow waste is a promising fuel source. It's cheap and plentiful, and it may someday be a useful source of sustainable energy in developing parts of the world." http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050901_cow_battery.html Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 21:55:14 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:55:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] PEAK OIL: Alternate laptop fuel for you buffalo tech-nomads....(Spike, this means you) In-Reply-To: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/6/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2005/09/it_might_not_be.html > > >From GOOD MORNING SILICON VALLEY: > "Next generation laptop features slot-loading cow-pie tray: It might > not be the most aromatic of approaches, but scientists at Ohio State > University say the cow manure fuel cell they've developed proves there > are ways to generate renewable electricity that are both cheap and > plentiful. Apparently, some of the microorganisms found in cow dung are > quite proficient at generating electricity while they break down the > cellulose that forms a large portion of the cow's diet. Throw some cow > dung in a makeshift fuel cell and presto: electricity. Not a lot, mind > you, but something. "The students put a few of these cells together and > were able to fuel their rechargeable batteries over and over again," > researcher Ann Christy explained. "We've run some of these trials well > over 30 days without a decrease in the voltage output. The study > suggests that cow waste is a promising fuel source. It's cheap and > plentiful, and it may someday be a useful source of sustainable energy > in developing parts of the world." > http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050901_cow_battery.html > > Brings back memories. I tried to do that when I was a kid following exactly the same 'breakthrough'. That was 40yrs ago. There's certainly money to be made in recycling... Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 22:12:27 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 23:12:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] PEAK OIL: Alternate laptop fuel for you buffalo tech-nomads....(Spike, this means you) In-Reply-To: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/6/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > "The students put a few of these cells together and > were able to fuel their rechargeable batteries over and over again," > researcher Ann Christy explained. "We've run some of these trials well > over 30 days without a decrease in the voltage output. The study > suggests that cow waste is a promising fuel source. It's cheap and > plentiful, and it may someday be a useful source of sustainable energy > in developing parts of the world." Peter Ash of Lawford, Somerset invented a hamster-powered mobile phone charger, as part of his GCSE science project. The boy attached a generator to his pet's exercise wheel and connected it to his phone charger. While Elvis the hamster does the legwork, Peter charges his phone according to all environmental and economical laws. "I thought the wheel could be made to do something useful so I connected a system of gears and a turbine", Peter said. "Every two minutes Elvis spends on his wheel gives me about thirty minutes talk time on my phone", he proudly explained. BillK From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 6 23:23:17 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:23:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> <431D752C.5050306@mail.tele.dk> Message-ID: <04c501c5b339$f6c96a30$0100a8c0@kevin> Yes! THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO!!!!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max M" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:53 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >On 9/5/05, kevinfreels.com > >wrote: > > > > > >>I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. > >>WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? > >> > >> > >> > > > >The fact that you shouldn't need it? > >Is there a big blanket shortage in the US? > >Out of water trucks? > > > > From what I could see, you did need help. But it might be better to let > the victims die for the pride? > > Getting help in an emergency is not a shame. > > For every country to have all the resources to cover any disaster is a > waste of resources. In international rapid response force makes far more > sense. > > -- > > hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark > > http://www.mxm.dk/ > IT's Mad Science > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dgc at cox.net Tue Sep 6 23:39:50 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:39:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431E28C6.9040204@cox.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >>Yes this approach would require writing off the >>existing >>infrastructure in most of New Orleans (roads, sewers, utilities.) But >>it's often cheaper to start from scratch than it is to repair old >>infrastructure. >> >> > >Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While the >government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent >eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a hard >time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so >little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market >price). > > No need to buy out anything. title for each parcel remains with each property holder. The government just piles somewhere between three and twenty feet of gravel on top. You lose the value of your improvements, but in a great many cases you already lost most of the value due to flood damage. The really big buildings will lose the lower floor. Most residences will be destroyed and rebuilt on top of the gravel. In a few cases, it will be cost-effective to jack a house up and fill under it. In a few other cases, it will be cost-effective for a home owner to build a private 3-foot levee and run a private pump: this would be a decision made by the owner and the owner's insurer. But the government would be out of the business of maintaining pumps and levees. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 7 00:02:34 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <431E28C6.9040204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While > the > >government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent > >eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a > hard > >time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so > >little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market > >price). > > > No need to buy out anything. title for each parcel remains with each > property holder. > The government just piles somewhere between three and twenty feet of > gravel on top. > You lose the value of your improvements, but in a great many cases > you > already lost > most of the value due to flood damage. Altering property without the property owners' permission seems even more legally objectionable. Which is not to say it wouldn't otherwise be a good idea; I'm just worried it might be rejected by the courts (and liability for it would prevent the government from doing it). From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 00:44:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Applications for mass produced spacecraft In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050907004433.3014.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Continuing our earlier conversation on another thread, I have found an application which is pure science that really requires being mass produced, even more than the interferometer proposal. It is another terrestrial planet finder, the Kepler telescope, http://kepler.nasa.gov/sci/basis/fov.html which will use a massive photometer to stare at one patch of sky for several years looking for planetary transits across 100,000 stars at once. It promises to be very effective, but has a weakness: it looks at only one field of view, about 29 degrees across, its whole life. What is really needed with this sort of telescope, which would find candidates for the interferometer program to study in closer detail, are a large number of these to cover the entire night sky, particularly other areas of our own local neighborhood, the Orion Arm of the galaxy. Such a constellation would require somewhere about 82 Kepler-class telescopes to cover the entire sky, though we might exclude 12 that would cover the plane of the ecliptic, so about 70 ought to do the job, though putting the other 12 on high angle long duration cometary orbits would help them observe the stars in the plane of the ecliptic while avoiding the planets, the sun, and many KBOs. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sep 7 00:51:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050907005107.95036.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Altering property without the property owners' permission seems even > more legally objectionable. Which is not to say it wouldn't > otherwise > be a good idea; I'm just worried it might be rejected by the courts > (and liability for it would prevent the government from doing it). The way the eminent domain law is now in this country under Kelo v. New London, the entirety of the delta region can be classified as blighted and seized by the state and given away to any developer willing to bring it above sea level. I am hearing that FEMA is talking about paying people large sums to move elsewhere permanently in exchange for their destroyed property. I suspect that within a year we'll be seeing a federally funded public works and development project in the Big Soup that will make the Big Dig look like a minor highway ramp alteration, to remake NOLA into an amusement park of a city along the lines of Las Vegas, with embedded Big Brother technologies throughout, as the 'city of the future'. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Sep 7 02:54:56 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:54:56 -0400 Subject: FEMA/was Re: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050906212324.96018.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050906212324.96018.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8598564670124e045faa941b461971e0@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > One thing to consider is that FEMA has been successfully dealing with a > large number of hurricanes in other parts of the country all year. Why > is it that the one that hits NOLA is blamed on FEMA? Might as well > blame it on HAARP, as some of the bunkertarian black helicopter nutters > are doing. I don't know why you say FEMA has been successful in dealing with other hurricanes. I doubt anyone in Florida would say that, including our governor. Their service has been abismal. They still have not responded to 20% of the disaster requests from over a year ago! Many people still have no homes and have still gotten no response from FEMA. They have been greatly criticized for not being able to respond. They are understaffed and underfunded. They simply did not have any supplies, staff or plans with which to respond. They were created to respond mostly to hurricanes, but their funding and staff have been cut to a quarter of what it once was. Now they are burdened with Homeland Security responsibilities. There is no Federal Emergency Management ability left in this former agency. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 02:28:46 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:28:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050906213208.2398.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050906213208.2398.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431E505E.4010501@sasktel.net> I don't know Louisiana law but here in Saskatchewan anything under permanent water reverts back to the crown (province) so if it were Saskatchewan the levees are not rebuilt all the property rights revert back to the state. And the state would determine what it would settle with any previous owners prior to pumping out water or allowing any new rebuilding. Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- BillK wrote: > > >>On 9/6/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> >>>Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent >>>eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a >>> >>> >>hard >> >> >>>time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so >>>little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market >>>price). >>> >>> >>What's fair market value for land under six foot of water? >> >> > >Potentially pretty good, if there's a general assumption that the water >will soon be pumped out - which does exist, and I don't think it can be >shaken unless the levees collapse much furthre, beyond all hope of >repair. > > > >>There will be more hurricanes this season and more again in following >>years. NO could well be hit again soon, maybe with a cat 5 this time. >> >> > >It would probably take something along those lines to do it. Which >means that cloud (no pun intended) would have a definite silver lining. >_______________________________________________ >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 eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 06:43:49 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:43:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906212724.1028.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050906100128.GR2249@leitl.org> <20050906212724.1028.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050907064349.GI2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:27:23PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Nuclear power in space is a very hard sell politically. > > Not as hard as selling a dwarf-only mission. Who is selling a dwarf-only mission?! Has the thread gone nuts? > > The technology doesn't exist yet in the first place, and needs > > to be developed and tested. > > Development and testing are needed, but it does exist. Then again, Does http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c04rover.htm strike you as mature technology? Have you noticed that it has been never designed for nor tested in space, officially? Few people even ever operated nuclear reactors in space, on unmanned missions. Do you think you can resume such tests, today? Not in the current policitical climate. Not with current funding. > dev & test are needed for this mission anyway: there does not presently > exist a rocket capable of sustaining one human life, even a dwarf's, > while going to Mars and returning under its own power. Rockets don't sustain life. Rockets are there to move mass. The technology to sustain a couple of canned primates in space for more than a year exists. It is primitive, and it will a lot of mass for the crew module. Because larger Energiya and Ariane models capable of lifting 100 t to LEO have been scrapped because there's no market, you'll need a lot of missions, and docking in orbit to assemble the craft. > > Nuke-powered ion/plasma drive would be probably an optimal > > combination even for manned flight. It would be easier to > > assemble and fuel up the craft in orbit, and go chemical > > all the way, with a minimum-mass crew module (with robots > > sent ahead preparing the habitat, and the fuel still) by > > remote control. > > Easier in some respects, harder in others. The more money and Chemical all the way would not require any new technologies, with the exception of maybe a large lifter, to minimize the number of missions. But Russia and Ukraine have already the lowest LEO lift costs, and you probably can't beat that. > resources a project requires, the harder it inherently is: you have to > spend effort to gain said money and resources. I suspect this may be > part of what you overlooked. I personally think any funds allocated to a manned Mars mission are completely wasted. At this stage, even a manned Moon mission is quite premature. If I would be sending anything, that be a teleoperated polar factory. After the entire Luna is mapped thoroughly, and a 24/7/365 rotating mission control distributed across time zones, with a wide TCP/IP pipe to LLO has been established. > > > The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the > > > difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much > > rocket > > > you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on > > hydrazine. > > > > What is wrong with using cryogenic fuel, e.g. methane/oxygen? > > *shrugs* Nothing, for the sake of this discussion. Just pick a fuel I was just curious, why people were sticking to (tried and true, admittedly) assymetric dimethylhydrazine/NOx fuel. With a large mission, cryogenic fuels are not a problem. > so you can work the numbers. Nuclear/ion propulsion beats any chemcal > fuel by a sufficiently large margin that focusing the finite dev/test > resources on that, rather than spending effort on minimizing the crew > (and taking the resulting benefits), will achieve optimal payoffs. You can't minimize the crew. But if you could build a small-footprint closed-loop ecosystem to recycle waste and produce food, you could certainly minimize mass. (If it was unstable, that'd be one dangerous mission). > (Remember, any mission always has a finite budget. Some potentially > marginally beneficial ideas almost always have to tossed to the side in > order to focus on the best paying off ideas. The marginal and very > mission-specific payoffs from the dwarf proposal would seem to be an > example of this.) I did not realize there was such a thing as a dwarf proposal. The only way I could see it happen in an alternative universe, where technology can't develop further, and you have to rely on engineered people as prime factor in the expansion into deep space. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- 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 Sep 7 10:21:24 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 03:21:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > When will the peak happen? And what will be the consequences? > There are > an enormous number of unknowns. Probably the biggest question mark > is the state of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. The Saudis are quite > secretive about their oil situation, but publicly they claim that they > can pump oil and increase the quantity as much as the world needs, for > many years to come. Some experts are skeptical, but no one has access > to the details necessary to get a firm answer to the question. > Yep. Lately they seem to have toned down those claims a bit and the degree of skepticism and concern is rising in mainstream circles. > That fact alone, in my opinion, renders any firm statements about when > any peak will occur nonsensical. There is simply not enough public > information to make a well founded judgement of the potential oil > supply > over the next decade or two. It is a good bit more better than nonsensical. It is possible and desirable to make reasonable guesstimates. We do know how lod the main fields are and can extapolate a ballpark guess form other large fields worked in similar manner in the past. We also have some information on the likely reserves in new fields In light of what information we do have we can make a guesstimate without it being nonsensical. For decision on policy that take years to unfold it is mandatory that educated guesses of this kind are made. It is also prudent to do so when making many investment decisions. > > There are other complications as well. Chinese demand has grown > incredibly fast the past few years, but this year its growth has > fallen > off precipitously. What will happen in the future? The Peak Oil > situation is highly sensitive to what happens in the Chinese > economy the > next few years. China is not going to disappear. Even with zero growth demand will still outstrip supply, just less quickly. > How on earth can a layman claim to have expertise in > such an esoteric subject? The Chinese government is another secretive > and opaque institution; again there are no strong grounds for making > firm predictions about what will happen there. Considering its huge and growing manufacturing predominance and dependency on those goods by the US and many other countries it is pretty unlikely that China or its thirst for energy will go away. There are stronger grounds for expecting continued growth in demand from China than for the opposite expectation by quite a margin. > > As I have written before in other contexts, I don't believe it > is practical or feasible for the lay person to come up with a well > founded judgement on such difficult matters, where even the experts > can't agree. I don't believe being an expert is required to form an intelligent opinion. Nor do I believe that waiting for a consensus of experts before acting is prudent. The experts will be accused of being bought or having an agenda by this party or that. We will need more experts to sort out the charges. Recurse at will. When the smoke clears oil is through the roof and their is no time to create meaningful alternatives before we are in great trouble. > > The U.S. government does publish a number of analyses and predictions > of oil supply and demand issues, and they generally forecast adequate > supplies for at least the next several years. As far as I can tell, > these are good faith estimates, but ultimately they rely on public > sources of information which, as I noted above, are highly unreliable. > Since you have done the research I don't have to point out all the reasons that what the government says on the subject cannot be trusted at face value. > I do put considerable faith in one other institution, which is the > market. > When people are putting their own money behind what they say I am much > more inclined to listen and believe them than when they are making > empty > statements. Fortunately we have a number of commodities markets in > the > energy field, including crude oil of different grades, gasoline, > natural > gas and heating oil. The crude oil market goes out six years or so > and > is in my opinion the best source of unbiased information about the > beliefs > of the "smart money" as to the future course of oil supply and demand. > > If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, > we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. > For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price > differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is > easy to > move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so we would > expect > high future prices to drag up present-day prices. This is actually > one of the great services of commodity markets, that they make the > high prices of future shortages felt in the present day, encouraging > conservation and searches for alternatives well in advance of an > actual > supply/demand mismatch. > > But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily > for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. > Rather, future prices three to six years ahead have consistantly > lagged. > Those future prices are being dragged up by high present-day prices, > rather than vice versa. This is exactly the opposite of what we would > expect to see in a Peak Oil scenario. I am not sure that analysis is valid although I don't see an immediate flaw. But I do not find it a convincing arugmunt that Peak Oil is not at hand. Look back in time to how unanmiously rosy most of the market was right up to and even int the dot com bust. The Street can be fooled or its truthfulness seriously compromised. There is also evidence that many parts of the Market are grossly manipulated. See the Sprott report for some of this evidence at http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf > > To sum up, the answer to Samantha's question is that I am skeptical > about Peak Oil because none of these institutions seem to show the > signs > of an impending shortage. There is no academic consensus on the > issue; > industry and government seem to be downplaying the problem even > when it > would seemingly be to their advantage to make people see that there > is a > good reason for high prices; and market prices don't have the > structure > we would expect if insiders knew about a shortage ahead. And I would > become more convinced of the reality of the Peak Oil scenario if these > various institutions started showing the signs I have outlined. > I don't believe academia has enough data or real interest to fully decide such an issue. I expect government and industry to downplay the problem. I do not believe the Market is sufficiently free or accurate to make a tight analytical case regarding the extent of the problem based on current and futures prices. Thank you for your detailed answer. It does provide food for thought. I hope I am wrong. If I am right I will be in no mood to gloat in a few years. It will be rather sad. > There are of course limitations to this analysis; for one thing, the > commodities markets only go out six years or so. While the markets > are > forward looking and they will anticipate shortages even beyond that > time > frame, to some degree, the effect is somewhat weak. The current data > can't rule out a significant Peak Oil scenario much past the 2010 to > 2015 time frame. Of course the further out we go, the more the > chances > that some kind of wild card will appear, a new technology or some > such, > that could change the nature of the situation we face. > You said it in the beginning. We have no real idea of the state of the crucial Saudi fields. A fairly sudden decline could topple your argument immediately. The current dat can not rule out Peak Oil at all much less after 2010. -- samantha From maxm at mail.tele.dk Wed Sep 7 13:02:33 2005 From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:02:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> Message-ID: <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> Robert Lindauer wrote: > A green point here: > > If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > problem it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. It is big news today in Denmark that scientists has just finished patent procedures on safe and compacts hydrogen storage. The technology is working, and they have started a company to develope it further. http://www.amminex.com/ -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 13:21:02 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:21:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> Message-ID: <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 03:02:33PM +0200, Max M wrote: > Robert Lindauer wrote: > > >A green point here: > > > >If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > >problem it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. > > > It is big news today in Denmark that scientists has just finished patent > procedures on safe and compacts hydrogen storage. The technology is > working, and they have started a company to develope it further. > > > http://www.amminex.com/ That site is completely content-free. I see solid pellets, which is already bad. Is this reversible hydride storage? Temperature or pressure loading? Looks white, which could sodium borohydride or Lithium/aluminum hydrides, which would be useless. Can you provide additional details on the 'proprietary' material? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 7 13:35:56 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 06:35:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs betterforlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050907064349.GI2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200509071335.j87DZpf23549@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > > I was just curious, why people were sticking to (tried and true, > admittedly) > assymetric dimethylhydrazine/NOx fuel. With a large mission, cryogenic > fuels are not a problem. ... > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl I don't follow your reasoning here. To have fuel keep for seven months, use a little, then keep for another two years after that, hydrazine and NOx would be hard to beat. It isn't clear to me how you would store your LOX that long, even out there at 1.5 AU. The disadvantage of hydrazine and NOx, the lower specific impulse, is compensated by the fact that you don't need all that terribly much delta V to get out of Mars synchronous orbit to an earthbound Hohmann transfer orbit, then you might be able to use aerobraking to reenter. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 13:47:12 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:47:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] IFTF's Future Now: Michael Chorost on Cochlear Implants and Transhumanism Message-ID: <470a3c5205090706477a31a736@mail.gmail.com> It is true that technology cannot match biology yet for whole bodies, but give time to time - someday bionics may do better than "naturally" evolved biology. I think restoration is considered feasible already and enhancement is not, so "ordinary people" do not think of enhancement yet. However, this article is interesting: IFTF Future Now blog : On August 31st, Michael Chorost , author of Rebuilt : How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human, spoke at the Institute... [He] talked a bit about the transhumanist literature. He describes himself as trying to stake out a middle ground between enthusiasts like Kevin Warwick and critics like Francis Fukuyama; he sees his work emphasizing the complexity of the human body, and the necessity of soft approaches such as training and social infrastructure to gain maximum benefit from whatever technology is developed. (I thought he was the first transhumanist author to really emphasize the "human" over the "trans.") He's also more skeptical of claims that new technologies will transform humans. Almost all current technologies are used to restore senses or sensory capabilities, rather than extend or enhance. Restoration is the goal of most ordinary people, and is difficult enough: "I am skeptical of potential for enhancement via bionics," on the grounds that our natural sensory organs are fantastically sophisticated, and reproducing them-- or completely new things-- will be very hard to create. Further, in the pre-nanotech state of the art, "bionics is big and clunky: it works on the scale of millimeters. The body works at the level of nanometers. We're not even close" to matching the body's capabilities and scale. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 13:56:10 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs betterforlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <200509071335.j87DZpf23549@tick.javien.com> References: <20050907064349.GI2249@leitl.org> <200509071335.j87DZpf23549@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050907135610.GR2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:35:56AM -0700, spike wrote: > I don't follow your reasoning here. To have fuel keep > for seven months, use a little, then keep for another Wouldn't you want to minimize the transfer time for the crew module, which asks for a large rocket, if it's a chemical drive? If we assemble (dock) and refuel in orbit, we can have a pretty large rocket at the very least in one direction. I'm assuming we have sent an automatic facility ahead, which is preparing the fuel, both on ground, and in orbit (Phobos/Deimos), verifying it's enough before we commit the people. > two years after that, hydrazine and NOx would be hard > to beat. It isn't clear to me how you would store your > LOX that long, even out there at 1.5 AU. If we're making LOX/methane on Mars, we'll need a liquification plant and a cryogenic tank there. > The disadvantage of hydrazine and NOx, the lower > specific impulse, is compensated by the fact that > you don't need all that terribly much delta V to > get out of Mars synchronous orbit to an earthbound > Hohmann transfer orbit, then you might be able to > use aerobraking to reenter. You're not sending much ahead to Mars, are you? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 14:06:26 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:06:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 9/7/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > That site is completely content-free. I see solid pellets, > which is already bad. > > Is this reversible hydride storage? Temperature or pressure > loading? Looks white, which could sodium borohydride or > Lithium/aluminum hydrides, which would be useless. > > Can you provide additional details on the 'proprietary' material? > After keeping their project a secret for the past six months while waiting for international patent protection, the researchers plan to publicly reveal their invention at a scientific conference in Chicago, reports national daily Jyllands-Posten. The DTU team has worked for a year and a half to develop a method to store hydrogen, a lighter-than-air, inflammable gas, in a compact, solid form. 'Before, the amount of hydrogen needed to fuel a passenger vehicle for 500km occupied the same space as nine passenger vehicles. With our pill, the same amount of energy can be contained in a normal 50 litre tank,' said Christensen. BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 14:29:58 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > I don't believe being an expert is required to form > an intelligent > opinion. Nor do I believe that waiting for a > consensus of experts > before acting is prudent. The experts will be > accused of being > bought or having an agenda by this party or that. > We will need more > experts to sort out the charges. Recurse at will. > When the smoke > clears oil is through the roof and their is no time > to create > meaningful alternatives before we are in great > trouble. I have thinking a lot lately about the different forms of luddism and how they apply to situations like the "peak oil" controversy. There are generally two well recognized forms of luddism. The first is the conservative form of luddism typified by Kass et al. This form of luddism seems to be reliant on religious doctrine and makes the claim that there are certain technologies that infringe on "God's domain" or are otherwise "immoral". This is apparently the justification for luddite behavior that is the most popular amongst social conservatives. The second recognized form of ludditism is the liberal variety of luddism. This form of luddism, also called "green" luddism, centers on the belief that certain technologies pose a danger to the enviroment and should thus be banned. This brand of luddism exploits the left's concerns for the environment and an exagerated belief in the fragility of nature, to oppose certain technologies. This is apparently the rationale of choice for liberal luddites. But the actual historical record of luddism seems to follow economic patterns independantly of any political coloring or slant. Instead historical luddism seems to be primarily economic in nature and by extrapolation, it occured to me that all luddism seems to be economic in nature. Many are aware of the early history of luddism begining with Ned Ludd and his early industrial era saboteurs. Now the motive for these saboteurs, whatever their rhetoric, was definately economic in nature. The wool and cotton mills represented "competition" that threatened to undercut Ned and his gang's market niche of hand knitted fabrics. They therefore responded with drafting of manifestos, sabotage of the mill machinery, and attempts to dissuade the adoption of the milling technology. This sole instance would seem to implicate a correlation between populist movements and luddism, but other historic examples disprove this presumed association. The next example to consider is the luddism faced by Thomas Edison in his attempt to change the public street lighting from old-fashioned gas lamps to electric incandescent lighting. That there was much controversy ellicited by this and that "experts" lined up on both sides to both support and oppose the development of elctrical lighting is very telling. It firmly demonstrates that luddism is not always associated with populist movements. Indeed as the industrial revolution came into full force, luddism seemed far more often driven by one industry's defense of its market niche against the encroachment of new technolgies. The relevance of the foregoing to the peak-oil debate is that if historic models of this economically driven luddism are accurate, then clearly there is an incentive on the part of oil companies to keep the truth behind "peak oil", if there is any truth to it, under wraps. Not for purposes of price fixing, gouging, or other form of market abuse but instead, in simple defense of the oil industry's market niche against encroachment of alternative energy technologies. The oil companies would most likely underplay any perceived scarcity of oil the same way that the gas-light industry of Edison's time underplayed the diminishing reliability of gas-lighting at farther distances from the gas generating plants. Both industries would likely attempt to use "experts" to gloss over shortcomings of their respective technologies both performance-wise and supply-wise. Although I had originally thought about it terms of the peak-oil debate, now that I have glimpsed the economic forces underlying luddism, I am starting to see it everywhere. I even see the insidious tendrils of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I can explain why after so many billions of dollars spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, there is still no cure. Its because the current market emphasis and economic inertia is toward "treatment" and not cure. The drugs that turn HIV into a chronic condition that can be kept at bay with daily doses for the rest of ones life, are a firmly entrenched profitable niche-industry. One that competes for resources with vaccines and other potential "cures". So long as there is so much profit to be made by treating HIV, there is little incentive (at least in wealthy industrial countries) to actually cure it. Keep in mind that in none of these instances is there a "conspiracy" to suppress the threatening new technology, merely a great many independant players all making independent moves designed to protect their market niches. Thus one can see the hidden undercurrents of luddism are, more often than not, driven by self-interested competive market forces even though the propaganda espoused by luddites seems to be that of a "higher calling". 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 ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 15:19:13 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:19:13 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050907151913.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 03:06:26PM +0100, BillK wrote: > On 9/7/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > That site is completely content-free. I see solid pellets, > > which is already bad. > > > > Is this reversible hydride storage? Temperature or pressure > > loading? Looks white, which could sodium borohydride or > > Lithium/aluminum hydrides, which would be useless. > > > > Can you provide additional details on the 'proprietary' material? > > > > > > After keeping their project a secret for the past six months while > waiting for international patent protection, the researchers plan to > publicly reveal their invention at a scientific conference in Chicago, > reports national daily Jyllands-Posten. > > The DTU team has worked for a year and a half to develop a method to > store hydrogen, a lighter-than-air, inflammable gas, in a compact, > solid form. > > 'Before, the amount of hydrogen needed to fuel a passenger vehicle for > 500km occupied the same space as nine passenger vehicles. With our > pill, the same amount of energy can be contained in a normal 50 litre > tank,' said Christensen. This is still 100% content-free press babble. I've spent a few minutes with Google, and found references to metal amine (spelled ammine, maybe they do that in Denmark but it's sloppy) hydrogen complexes in Amminex context. I've worked with alane amines and metal hydrides for a couple months. Even if that stuff doesn't age with loading/unloading cycles, loading time with pressurized hydrogen will be in about hour range. They claim they can store ~9% of hydrogen by weight, or 13 MJ/l (if it's anything like magnesium hydride it will be about 1.5 the density of water). Hydrocarbon fuel is about 40-50 MJ/kg, and that's at density lower than water -- a familiar liquid at RT. Methanol is about 22 MJ/kg. Here's some overview article http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-1/p20.html All in all sounds about as practical as the PowerBalls guy. Overhyped at best, midly fraudulent at worst. We'll see. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Sep 7 15:36:31 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:36:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate Message-ID: <380-22005937153631984@M2W110.mail2web.com> From: The Avantguardian >Keep in mind that in none of these instances is there >a "conspiracy" to suppress the threatening new >technology, merely a great many independant players >all making independent moves designed to protect their >market niches. Thus one can see the hidden >undercurrents of luddism are, more often than not, >driven by self-interested competive market forces even >though the propaganda espoused by luddites seems to be >that of a "higher calling". I am reading Michael E. Porter's writing on strategic formulation and the barriers established by entities/enterprises that are established in the market to keep out newly formed entities/enterprises. This competitive strategy for protecting market nitches can be used anywhere. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 15:50:42 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:50:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> At 06:21 AM 9/7/2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: >>If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, >>we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. >>For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price >>differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is >>easy to move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so >>we would expect high future prices to drag up present-day prices. ... >>But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily >>for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. > >I am not sure that analysis is valid although I don't see an >immediate flaw. But I do not find it a convincing arugmunt that Peak >Oil is not at hand. Look back in time to how unanmiously rosy most >of the market was right up to and even int the dot com bust. The >Street can be fooled or its truthfulness seriously compromised. >There is also evidence that many parts of the Market are grossly >manipulated. See the Sprott report for some of this evidence at >http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Sep 7 16:24:17 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:24:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels--in the US Message-ID: <431F1431.7030709@mindspring.com> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 12:00 AM Study reveals huge U.S. oil-shale field By Jennifer Talhelm The Associated Press WASHINGTON - The United States has an oil reserve at least three times that of Saudi Arabia locked in oil-shale deposits beneath federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, according to a study released yesterday. But the researchers at the RAND think tank caution the federal government to go carefully, balancing the environmental and economic impacts with development pressure to prevent an oil-shale bust later. "We've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East," said James Bartis, RAND senior policy researcher and the report's lead author. He added, "If we go faster, there's a good chance we're going to end up at a dead end." For years, the industry and the government considered oil shale - a rock that produces petroleum when heated - too expensive to be a feasible source of oil. However, oil prices, which spiked above $70 a barrel this week, combined with advances in technology could soon make it possible to tap the estimated 500 billion to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels, the report found. The study, sponsored in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, comes about a month after the president signed a new energy policy dramatically reversing the nation's approach to oil shale and opening the door within a few years to companies that want to tap deposits on public lands. The report also says oil-shale mining, above-ground processing and disposing of spent shale cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Shell Oil is working on a process that would heat the oil shale in place, which could have less effect on the environment. -- "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 brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 7 16:27:28 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:27:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money > you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? > I'm sure there are plenty of "peak oilers" who are indeed already spending their own money on futures, although I bet they also are stocking up on gold and other end-of-the-world items. However, they seem to still be a small minority of the overall market. The key question in my mind is: how useful really is it to look to the current futures markets as key predictors of peak oil when it seems that the majority (or "big money") players seem to trade based on a six month or at most year out view? Looking at the stock markets, it is often said that they lead recessions by six to nine months. There are few players, and not enough to influence the overall level of the market, who buy and sell based on views much farther out. Sure they may say they are buying based on far future earnings in some cases such as during the bubble, but as soon as near-term real world data screws up those views then the majority players finally act. So are we going to see the majority of the futures market sit around and not really drive up prices until we are within 6 months or less of a real energy crunch? -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 16:44:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> Message-ID: <20050907164451.5141.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Max M wrote: > Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > A green point here: > > > > If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > > problem it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem > either. > > > It is big news today in Denmark that scientists has just finished > patent > procedures on safe and compacts hydrogen storage. The technology is > working, and they have started a company to develope it further. > > > http://www.amminex.com/ This is very interesting. Volumetric density of 0.11 is 50% higher than cryogenic storage as liquid H2. The energy density is 32% higher as well, at 13 MJ/l, vs 9.83 MJ/l for LH2. This looks like a great potential solid rocket fuel, perhaps to be used in a hybrid rocket engine. Is this some form of solid ammonia? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 16:54:31 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:54:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20050907165431.GG2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:50:42AM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: > So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money > you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? I'm one of those fools who think that gaming the market for personal gain, *while making the actual problem worse* is kinda unethical. Some sticky residuals of communist upbringing, no doubt. "Learn some real trade, son!". (It is also quite easy to be ethical, if one has no Monopoly money to play, of course). Still, if I did I'd invest in companies selling photovoltaics, aeolean, solar thermal, and the like. As far as I know these companies which have good products are doing very well. Now investing in fuel cell startups, and all kind of lunatic-fringe companies is far more hasardeur. Big potential payoff, big risk. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- 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 Wed Sep 7 17:03:15 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs betterforlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050907135610.GR2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050907170315.29920.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:35:56AM -0700, spike wrote: > > > two years after that, hydrazine and NOx would be hard > > to beat. It isn't clear to me how you would store your > > LOX that long, even out there at 1.5 AU. > > If we're making LOX/methane on Mars, we'll need a > liquification plant and a cryogenic tank there. > > > The disadvantage of hydrazine and NOx, the lower > > specific impulse, is compensated by the fact that > > you don't need all that terribly much delta V to > > get out of Mars synchronous orbit to an earthbound > > Hohmann transfer orbit, then you might be able to > > use aerobraking to reenter. > > You're not sending much ahead to Mars, are you? Actually, Zubrin's plan was to send landers with a full fuel load of boranes, and produce the oxidizer in situ. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 17:05:01 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:05:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907165431.GG2249@leitl.org> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <20050907165431.GG2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907130339.03068a80@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:54 PM 9/7/2005, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money > > you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? > >I'm one of those fools who think that gaming the market for personal >gain, *while making the actual problem worse* is kinda unethical. But as Hal explained, betting that oil prices will rise will raise oil prices, and higher oil prices is exactly what the world needs if in fact we will soon have less oil than we expect to have. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate 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 Sep 7 17:09:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907151913.GZ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050907170909.1360.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I've spent a few minutes with Google, and found references to metal > amine (spelled ammine, maybe they do that in Denmark but it's sloppy) > hydrogen complexes in Amminex context. > > I've worked with alane amines and metal hydrides for a couple months. > Even if that > stuff doesn't age with loading/unloading cycles, loading time > with pressurized hydrogen will be in about hour range. They > claim they can store ~9% of hydrogen by weight, or 13 MJ/l (if it's > anything like magnesium hydride it will be about 1.5 the density of > water). > Hydrocarbon fuel is about 40-50 MJ/kg, and that's at density lower > than water -- a familiar liquid at RT. Methanol is about 22 MJ/kg. > > Here's some overview article > http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-1/p20.html > > All in all sounds about as practical as the PowerBalls guy. > Overhyped at best, midly fraudulent at worst. We'll see. Pay attention to your units. The amminex appears to have a volumetric density of 0.11 kg/l, which is 55% higher than LH2. Given 13 MJ/l, this comes out to about 140 MJ/l, which is almost three times the other hydrocarbon fuels. This is a significant breakthrough. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 17:12:07 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:12:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907130339.03068a80@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <20050907165431.GG2249@leitl.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907130339.03068a80@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20050907171207.GI2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:05:01PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: > >I'm one of those fools who think that gaming the market for personal > >gain, *while making the actual problem worse* is kinda unethical. > > But as Hal explained, betting that oil prices will rise will raise oil > prices, and higher oil prices is exactly what the world needs if in fact > we will soon have less oil than we expect to have. Er. Disregard my last message, then. I was dumping straight from /dev/ass (What next? We should actually know about what we post? I thought this was the list for ad hominems and non-sequiturs...). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 17:14:12 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:14:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:27 PM 9/7/2005, Brian Atkins wrote: >>So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money >>you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? > >I'm sure there are plenty of "peak oilers" who are indeed already >spending their own money on futures, although I bet they also are >stocking up on gold and other end-of-the-world items. > >However, they seem to still be a small minority of the overall >market. The key question in my mind is: how useful really is it to >look to the current futures markets as key predictors of peak oil >when it seems that the majority (or "big money") players seem to >trade based on a six month or at most year out view? The percentage of traders who think about a certain issue is just not an indication of how well market prices reflect that issue. That is just not how these things work. All it takes is for a small minority to think about the issue, and for everyone else to have no opinion on the issue. Almost all relevant issues are only considered by a small fraction of traders. That is good - it allows a division of intellectual labor. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate 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 Sep 7 17:33:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907171207.GI2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050907173341.630.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > Er. Disregard my last message, then. I was dumping straight from > /dev/ass > > (What next? We should actually know about what we post? I thought > this was the list for ad hominems and non-sequiturs...). Don't forget all the other latin phrases (ad absurdum, non pariel, etc, et al, you name it). What next? Send a Digicash quarter to Hal and Robin, each, for the education. Then follow Suze Ormon's advice of paying yourself first, and put $10 a week into oil futures, betting whichever way you think the Peak Oil debate is going to play out. I see that Canada, in a fit of generosity, has released all production limits on its Alberta fields, to help keep the US supplied. Rather than worrying so much about Saudi oil, we should pay more attention to our good friends north of the border. They are, in fact, our largest oil suppliers, and given the price situation, and a little encouragement, they could become much larger with faster expansion of the tar sands deposits. On a related subject, smart strategists in the US gov't, or private groups concerned about US energy security, should be supporting efforts by existing groups in the western provinces to legislatively break Canada up and become states of the US..... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 at posthuman.com Wed Sep 7 18:02:09 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:02:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 12:27 PM 9/7/2005, Brian Atkins wrote: > >>> So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money >>> you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? >> >> >> I'm sure there are plenty of "peak oilers" who are indeed already >> spending their own money on futures, although I bet they also are >> stocking up on gold and other end-of-the-world items. >> >> However, they seem to still be a small minority of the overall market. >> The key question in my mind is: how useful really is it to look to the >> current futures markets as key predictors of peak oil when it seems >> that the majority (or "big money") players seem to trade based on a >> six month or at most year out view? > > > The percentage of traders who think about a certain issue is just not an > indication of how well market prices reflect that issue. That is just > not how these things work. All it takes is for a small minority to > think about the issue, and for everyone else to have no opinion on the > issue. Almost all relevant issues are only considered by a small > fraction of traders. That is good - it allows a division of > intellectual labor. > Well, my question was more like: I don't think everyone else is opinion-less; rather, I think they have an opinion based on current data and near term projections going out maybe a year, but after that they aren't using farther out guesses to significantly alter their current opinion/trading. Essentially, they have a strong opinion that they aren't interested in trying to trade based on guesstimates that are that far out in time. They may rightfully decide that information that far out in time (12 months+) is too unreliable to use for trading. Therefore the market may potentially "wait" until closer to an event before significantly pricing it in. Is there any economic research to support such a market hypothesis? If not, what causes the typical 6 to 9 month limitation on the stock/bond markets pricing in a recession? -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 18:12:14 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:12:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:02 PM 9/7/2005, Brian Atkins wrote: >>>>So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money >>>>you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? >>> >>>I'm sure there are plenty of "peak oilers" who are indeed already >>>spending their own money on futures, although I bet they also are >>>stocking up on gold and other end-of-the-world items. >>> >>>However, they seem to still be a small minority of the overall >>>market. The key question in my mind is: how useful really is it to >>>look to the current futures markets as key predictors of peak oil >>>when it seems that the majority (or "big money") players seem to >>>trade based on a six month or at most year out view? >> >>The percentage of traders who think about a certain issue is just >>not an indication of how well market prices reflect that >>issue. That is just not how these things work. All it takes is >>for a small minority to think about the issue, and for everyone >>else to have no opinion on the issue. Almost all relevant issues >>are only considered by a small fraction of traders. That is good - >>it allows a division of intellectual labor. > >Well, my question was more like: I don't think everyone else is >opinion-less; rather, I think they have an opinion based on current >data and near term projections going out maybe a year, but after >that they aren't using farther out guesses to significantly alter >their current opinion/trading. > >Essentially, they have a strong opinion that they aren't interested >in trying to trade based on guesstimates that are that far out in >time. They may rightfully decide that information that far out in >time (12 months+) is too unreliable to use for trading. Therefore >the market may potentially "wait" until closer to an event before >significantly pricing it in. Having an opinion that you aren't interested in trading on a topic is very different from having an opinion on a topic and choosing to trade on that opinion. >Is there any economic research to support such a market hypothesis? There are surely hundreds and probably thousands of paper on this topic. It is one of the favorite topics in finances for many decades. >If not, what causes the typical 6 to 9 month limitation on the >stock/bond markets pricing in a recession? I don't know what limitation you mean. You said before that stocks "lead recessions by six to nine months." Don't know why you think this is problematic. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Sep 7 18:26:05 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:26:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resveratrol oral effectiveness confirmed in animals In-Reply-To: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509071826.j87IQCf19062@tick.javien.com> >> SOURCE:International Journal Molecular Medicine 16:533-540, 2005 Dealcoholized red wine containing known amounts of resveratrol suppresses atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits without affecting plasma lipid levels. Wang Z, Zou J, Cao K, Hsieh TC, Huang Y, Wu JM. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, P.R. China. Moderate consumption of red wine is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). This phenomenon is based on data from epidemiological observations known as the French paradox, and has been attributed to CHD-protective phytochemicals, e.g. resveratrol in red wine. Since red wine also contains alcohol, it is conceivable that alcohol interacts with resveratrol to elicit the observed cardioprotective effects. >> Has anyone found any human trials published or underway? The supplement is a bit expensive and I don't want to be wasting money on the next magic bullet unless it has a good probability of being effective. I'd also like to see a study on animals/humans with existing blockage to see if there's any reversal. Sounds like a study on humans would be difficult ethically to run because you'd have to deprive the participents from statins which lower cholesterol or you'd contaminate the results. People like myself who have tried all the statins and were taken off due to danger indicators in the subsequent blood tests, could potentially benefit greatly from such a supplement. From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Sep 7 18:36:37 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:36:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907151913.GZ2249@leitl.org> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> <20050907151913.GZ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen Leitl writes: > Overhyped at best, midly fraudulent at worst. We'll see. There is a definite problem with scientific hype right now. A great number of companies are making announcements about various breakthroughs in AI, nanotech, biotech, computers, genetics, technology, etc. Many of them are just media hype meant to boost their stock to get money so they can really try to invent something. I wish there was a better way to really get the facts to evaluate all these new reports. It is almost to the point that I hesitate to read [>Htech] because I don't believe half of it. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From maxm at mail.tele.dk Wed Sep 7 18:54:36 2005 From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:54:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <431F376C.9040200@mail.tele.dk> Eugen Leitl wrote: >>http://www.amminex.com/ >> >> > >That site is completely content-free. I see solid pellets, >which is already bad. > >Is this reversible hydride storage? Temperature or pressure >loading? Looks white, which could sodium borohydride or >Lithium/aluminum hydrides, which would be useless. > > Just after I posted, it appeared on Slashdot. A bit more info there: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/07/1215256&tid=232 I should note however that DTU is a very respectable Danish University, so I don't expect it to be all hype. They don't expect it to be in cars anytime soon though. -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Sep 7 19:03:43 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:03:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity In-Reply-To: <20050906123007.80645.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> <20050906123007.80645.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050907190343.GA28427@ofb.net> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:30:07PM +0200, giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > the recent new orleans disaster must be considered as > an alrm bell of things to come during this century. > natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, > tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and others > re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. I've read this is more because more people are moving to disaster prone areas such as California and Florida and Seattle. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_sc/katrina_unsafe_planet In the 1970s, only 11 percent of earthquakes affected human settlements, researchers at Belgium's University of Louvain report. That soared to 31 percent in 1993-2003, including a quake in 2003 that killed 26,000 people in Iran, whose population has doubled since the '70s. The expanding U.S. population "has migrated to hazard-prone areas -- to Florida, the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, particularly barrier islands, to California," noted retired U.S. government seismologist Robert M. Hamilton, a disaster-prevention specialist. "Several decades ago we didn't have wall-to-wall houses down the coast as we do now." -xx- Damien X-) From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 18:19:23 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:19:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resveratrol oral effectiveness confirmed in animals In-Reply-To: <200509071826.j87IQCf19062@tick.javien.com> References: <200509071826.j87IQCf19062@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <431F2F2B.5020906@sasktel.net> You can buy grape tannin powder for about 20$/pound. Any idea about the resveratrol content of this material? If it is not desireable to consume the tannins wholus bolsus some simple extractive fractionation might do just the thing to create a resveratrol concentrate? I just mixed a teaspoon of grape tannins and a couple bags of green tea in some ginger ale to drink this afternoon. Gary Miller wrote: >>>SOURCE:International Journal Molecular Medicine 16:533-540, 2005 >>> >>> > >Dealcoholized red wine containing known amounts of resveratrol suppresses >atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits without affecting plasma >lipid levels. >Wang Z, Zou J, Cao K, Hsieh TC, Huang Y, Wu JM. > >Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical >University, Nanjing 210029, P.R. China. > >Moderate consumption of red wine is associated with a reduced risk of >coronary heart disease (CHD). This phenomenon is based on data from >epidemiological observations known as the French paradox, and has been >attributed to CHD-protective phytochemicals, e.g. resveratrol in red wine. >Since red wine also contains alcohol, it is conceivable that alcohol >interacts with resveratrol to elicit the observed cardioprotective effects. > > > >Has anyone found any human trials published or underway? > >The supplement is a bit expensive and I don't want to be wasting money on >the next magic bullet unless it has a good probability of being effective. > >I'd also like to see a study on animals/humans with existing blockage to see >if there's any reversal. > >Sounds like a study on humans would be difficult ethically to run because >you'd have to deprive the participents from statins which lower cholesterol >or you'd contaminate the results. > >People like myself who have tried all the statins and were taken off due to >danger indicators in the subsequent blood tests, could potentially benefit >greatly from such a supplement. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 7 19:24:30 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have any worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact that the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have jumped up closer to $60 when it started off? As recently as May of this year it was below $50, and back as late as June 2004 it was below $40. If the market is so intelligent, or moved by the opinionated, why didn't it forsee yet more worldwide demand, continuing strained supply etc.? And is Hal's analysis that we should look to the 2008-2011 future prices as proof of no upcoming oil price spike really worth considering? All I see from those two charts is a market dominated by shorter term analysis, perhaps as short as 3 months or less, with no significant deviation of the longer term contracts from the immediate consensus at any given time. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Sep 7 19:25:54 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:25:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050907192554.GB28427@ofb.net> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:29:58AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > see it everywhere. I even see the insidious tendrils > of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV > antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I > can explain why after so many billions of dollars > spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, > there is still no cure. Its because the current market You can't believe that the fastest evolving virus I've ever heard of, which targets the immune system directly, is a tough nut to crack? > So long as there is so much profit to be made by > treating HIV, there is little incentive (at least in > wealthy industrial countries) to actually cure it. How much of the relevant research is done by corps vs. academics? -xx- Damien X-) From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 19:36:41 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:36:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/7/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I even see the insidious tendrils > of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV > antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I > can explain why after so many billions of dollars > spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, > there is still no cure. Its because the current market > emphasis and economic inertia is toward "treatment" > and not cure. More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. You *really* think some people are deciding not to bother finding a cure because they can make a bit of money on the deal? I'm glad I don't live in your alternate universe. BillK From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 18:40:45 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:40:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <431F342D.5000106@sasktel.net> Brian Atkins wrote: > Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: > > If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have any > worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact that > the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): > > > > > essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: > > > > > If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have jumped > up closer to $60 when it started off? As recently as May of this year > it was below $50, and back as late as June 2004 it was below $40. If > the market is so intelligent, or moved by the opinionated, why didn't > it forsee yet more worldwide demand, continuing strained supply etc.? > And is Hal's analysis that we should look to the 2008-2011 future > prices as proof of no upcoming oil price spike really worth considering? > > All I see from those two charts is a market dominated by shorter term > analysis, perhaps as short as 3 months or less, with no significant > deviation of the longer term contracts from the immediate consensus at > any given time. Isn't that because the profit is taken by those willing to buy 90day options and bet on increases during that period. Risk and profit are in 90 day cycles. You have to keep investing in options and hedge them against spot prices to make or loose money. The market doesn't care what happens beyond that, right? From brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 7 19:53:50 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:53:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F342D.5000106@sasktel.net> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> <431F342D.5000106@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <431F454E.50008@posthuman.com> Well for starters, futures and options are two completely different things. We're talking about crude oil futures specifically here. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 7 20:15:50 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050907201550.23800.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. > AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. > > You *really* think some people are deciding not to bother finding a > cure because they can make a bit of money on the deal? Some people really are that callous. However, some people != all people. It's one thing to direct the research efforts of an individual company. It's quite another to make sure that all concerns, which otherwise would be capable of effectively coming up with a cure for AIDS, have callous individuals directing them. There do exist some organizations, especially private ones (where the lack of shareholders means far fewer owners), which make money despite having no executives or owners for whom moneymaking is the primary goal. From robgobblin at aol.com Wed Sep 7 20:17:24 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:17:24 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <431F4AD4.4090104@aol.com> Brian Atkins wrote: > Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: > > If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have any > worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact that > the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): > > > > > essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: > > > > > If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have jumped > up closer to $60 when it started off? Not necessarily. Your model of gambling intelligence is naive. People are smarter than that. Let's say I KNOW that prices are going up simply because cost of production is going up (that is to say, there are OBJECTIVE FACTORS affecting prices contrary to some models of pricing). Let's say I know that I'm not the only one who knows, some other people know. I also know that some other people have an inkling but don't actually KNOW and I know that some other people in the market have more money than I do and could affect the value of my investment in other ways. Now say I think - okay, I'll buy short term oil futures. So I start buying big time - some other conglomerate - say a purely financial concern - picks up on my buying behavior and starts shorting me. And then someone else sees them moving in and the market becomes chaotic. Then, say, lots of people pick up and start selling short or buying long, etc. In short, the only thing buying LOTS of a commodities futures is likely to do is to cause chaos. Smart investors know this and so try to buy indirectly into industries likey to profit from long-term oil price increases. But even here, moderation is always wise. There's simply too much information for a single bet to be a good idea and certainly it's never a good idea to play your hand. Robbie Lindauer From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 19:21:48 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:21:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431F3DCC.3090302@sasktel.net> I do have a good example of how this actually happens. We raise hemp in Canada Hemp is regarded much like marijuana in the USA for growing by farmers by USDA , DEA and FDA so is disallowed. DEA and FDA prevent USDA from letting farmers from growing hemp because it might be the thin edge of the wedge to break marijuana prohibition. So if you are a USA farmer you want both things relaxed so you can grow a profitable crop. (cure the disease) If you are an Canadian farmer you want the status quo because you can supply finished product of a type acceptable to export to the USA into a captive market, and continue to do so without domestic competition. (treat the disease) Similar with some disease drug development, you want to treat the disease so it does not kill but your efforts to simply give a one time treatment that forever cures and eliminates the long term market for a treatment that curbs but does not quickly cure has market disincentives built in. Investors won't spend 300 million to for example cure diabetes with a one time treatment when a drug that emeliorates 90% of the damage without reversing the disease is a wonderful investment. Wish human nature was more ethical but I really think money takes precedant over ethics in the marketplace which by its basic nature is sociopathic and not socialistic. BillK wrote: >On 9/7/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > >>I even see the insidious tendrils >>of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV >>antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I >>can explain why after so many billions of dollars >>spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, >>there is still no cure. Its because the current market >>emphasis and economic inertia is toward "treatment" >>and not cure. >> >> > >More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. >AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. > >You *really* think some people are deciding not to bother finding a >cure because they can make a bit of money on the deal? > >I'm glad I don't live in your alternate universe. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 21:14:09 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:14:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907170947.0311d3c8@mail.gmu.edu> At 03:24 PM 9/7/2005, Brian Atkins wrote: >Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: > >If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have >any worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact >that the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): > > > >essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: > > > >If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have >jumped up closer to $60 when it started off? Not necessarily, no. The futures prices may well have no *more* predictive power than spot prices. Even so, they could still be the best forecast available. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Sep 7 21:16:27 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:16:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7C5F900B-7255-4A79-8C3A-3EC54C5567D2@mac.com> The market is too irrational and likely highly manipulated in my opinion to risk much capital in it at this time. Also I do not have the requisite knowledge to responsibly engage in oil futures trading nor the time required to obtain it. That I am not so investing doesn't say anything at all about my position on the question except that I am unable to take advantage of it in this matter. However. I have gained 20% in the last few months simply by following my prediction that any dip in certain oil stocks will be more than regained in short order. Nothing spectacular or very sophisticated, just following the bouncing ball. - samantha On Sep 7, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 06:21 AM 9/7/2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >>> If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time >>> frame, >>> we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time >>> frame. >>> For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price >>> differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is >>> easy to move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so >>> we would expect high future prices to drag up present-day >>> prices. ... >>> But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily >>> for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. >>> >> >> I am not sure that analysis is valid although I don't see an >> immediate flaw. But I do not find it a convincing arugmunt that Peak >> Oil is not at hand. Look back in time to how unanmiously rosy most >> of the market was right up to and even int the dot com bust. The >> Street can be fooled or its truthfulness seriously compromised. >> There is also evidence that many parts of the Market are grossly >> manipulated. See the Sprott report for some of this evidence at >> http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf >> > > So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money > you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? > > > Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu > Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 22:11:34 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:11:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <431F3DCC.3090302@sasktel.net> References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <431F3DCC.3090302@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On 9/7/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > Similar with some disease drug development, you want to treat the disease > so it does not kill but your efforts to > simply give a one time treatment that forever cures and eliminates the long > term market for a treatment that > curbs but does not quickly cure has market disincentives built in. > Investors won't spend 300 million to for example > cure diabetes with a one time treatment when a drug that emeliorates 90% of > the damage without reversing > the disease is a wonderful investment. > > Wish human nature was more ethical but I really think money takes precedant > over ethics in the marketplace which > by its basic nature is sociopathic and not socialistic. > Hang on a minute! Are you and Adrian saying that businesses really do decide to harm people so they can make a profit?? I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) We'd better put a stop to this free market nonsense then! :) BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 22:17:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20050907221742.53671.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Atkins wrote: > Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: > > If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have any > worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact that > the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): > > > > essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: > > > > If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have > jumped up closer to $60 when it started off? As recently as May of > this year it was below $50, and back as late as June 2004 it was > below $40. The reason futures prices lag current spot prices is that a large percent of current prices is seen by much of the market as caused by crisis events, political instability, etc. The Iraq war, Afghanistan, WOT, the multiple severe hurricanes, the civil war in Nigeria, the political situation in Venezuela, terrorist attacks in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Mexico's oil problems, all add up to a very "interesting" year, particularly since November 04, when prices started going up significantly. Market experts likely believe that once all of these crises are past, and assuming no more crop up, that the price of oil will settle down. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sep 7 22:33:26 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050907192554.GB28427@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20050907223326.58010.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:29:58AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > see it everywhere. I even see the insidious tendrils > > of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV > > antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I > > can explain why after so many billions of dollars > > spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, > > there is still no cure. Its because the current market > > You can't believe that the fastest evolving virus I've ever heard of, > which targets the immune system directly, is a tough nut to crack? HIV is not the fastest evolving virus, the common cold is, followed by the flu virus. HIV is surprisingly fragile, as evinced by the fact that it cannot survive outside of blood. The hard part is killing it in the blood without killing its victim. Stopping it from spreading is easy, provided you can stick every drug addict and promiscuous person in a barrel, test them all, and isolate the infected ones. The victims are, for the most part, comparatively negligent in their own infection. > > So long as there is so much profit to be made by > > treating HIV, there is little incentive (at least in > > wealthy industrial countries) to actually cure it. > > How much of the relevant research is done by corps vs. academics? The problem is that most people who have it can't afford to be treated and generally are uninsured. If you were a for-profit you'd invest in illnesses that afflict a lot of wealthy or fully insured people. The market for HIV vaccines has not really hit that point yet, which is why per unit costs for most HIV treatments run in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per dose. Economies of scale for mass production are not feasible. You may justly complain that a lot of infected people live in countries with socialized medicine. You are right. The problem is that such countries socialized medical systems fix drug pricing and refuse to let drug companies amortize the cost of R&D&T, which dumps all those costs on the American patients and their insurance companies, which are wise to the game now, and since HIV patients wind up on medicaid or medicare pretty rapidly, the US Gov't is wise to it too... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sep 7 22:38:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050907223805.24294.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Hang on a minute! > Are you and Adrian saying that businesses really do decide to harm > people so they can make a profit?? > > I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) > > We'd better put a stop to this free market nonsense then! :) That is a strong statement to make. After all, you are against going to war to free people, so why should you make companies produce unprofitable drugs at gunpoint, or even pay them to do it with money taken at gunpoint from others? Its the same ethical situation. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Sep 7 22:44:11 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:44:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509072244.j87MiOf14214@tick.javien.com> Actually a vaccine that prevents the disease in the first place would be the bigger money maker and result in the least risk of the disease continuing it's spread. In that way you don't limit your customers to those who already have the disease but rather a much larger group of the general population that would have reason to fear accidently contracting the disease. More importantly the larger potential earnings serves as a larger financial incentive to the drug companies to perform research. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:12 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate On 9/7/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > Similar with some disease drug development, you want to treat the > disease so it does not kill but your efforts to simply give a one > time treatment that forever cures and eliminates the long term market > for a treatment that curbs but does not quickly cure has market > disincentives built in. > Investors won't spend 300 million to for example cure diabetes with a > one time treatment when a drug that emeliorates 90% of the damage > without reversing the disease is a wonderful investment. > > Wish human nature was more ethical but I really think money takes > precedant over ethics in the marketplace which by its basic nature is > sociopathic and not socialistic. > Hang on a minute! Are you and Adrian saying that businesses really do decide to harm people so they can make a profit?? I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) We'd better put a stop to this free market nonsense then! :) BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 21:57:52 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:57:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <200509072244.j87MiOf14214@tick.javien.com> References: <200509072244.j87MiOf14214@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <431F6260.4090006@sasktel.net> The profit per product is based upon the willingness and ability of the patient or the HMO to pay. So one would have to research the willingness of the bulk clients HMO's and National health plans to pay before deciding which is more profitable to develop or market on a specific product by product basis ... It is not quite as simple as make it then sell it as I see it. Gary Miller wrote: > >Actually a vaccine that prevents the disease in the first place would be the >bigger money maker and result in the least risk of the disease continuing >it's spread. > >In that way you don't limit your customers to those who already have the >disease but rather a much larger group of the general population that would >have reason to fear accidently contracting the disease. > >More importantly the larger potential earnings serves as a larger financial >incentive to the drug companies to perform research. > >-----Original Message----- >From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK >Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:12 PM >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate > >On 9/7/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > >> >> Similar with some disease drug development, you want to treat the >>disease so it does not kill but your efforts to simply give a one >>time treatment that forever cures and eliminates the long term market >>for a treatment that curbs but does not quickly cure has market >>disincentives built in. >>Investors won't spend 300 million to for example cure diabetes with a >>one time treatment when a drug that emeliorates 90% of the damage >>without reversing the disease is a wonderful investment. >> >> Wish human nature was more ethical but I really think money takes >>precedant over ethics in the marketplace which by its basic nature is >>sociopathic and not socialistic. >> >> >> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 7 23:32:59 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050907233259.79414.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Are you and Adrian saying that businesses really do decide to harm > people so they can make a profit?? Some less-ethical ones do. Not quite as many as certain genres of fiction imply, but there are unquestionably examples of them out there. > I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) No, this is the Extropian discussion list. Many libertarian principles are compatible with the Extropian ones, but they're far from identical. > We'd better put a stop to this free market nonsense then! :) Nah. No need to go to extremes in all cases. From dgc at cox.net Thu Sep 8 00:30:12 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:30:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431F8614.7070309@cox.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >>Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> >>>Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent >>>eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a >>> >>> >>hard >> >> >>>time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so >>>little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market >>>price). >>> >>> >>> >>No need to buy out anything. title for each parcel remains with each >>property holder. >>The government just piles somewhere between three and twenty feet of >>gravel on top. >>You lose the value of your improvements, but in a great many cases >>you >>already lost >>most of the value due to flood damage. >> >> > >Altering property without the property owners' permission seems even >more legally objectionable. Which is not to say it wouldn't otherwise >be a good idea; I'm just worried it might be rejected by the courts >(and liability for it would prevent the government from doing it). >_______________________________________________ > > Does the government have any legal obligation to turn the pumps back on? If not, then the property owner is free to use his submerged property as he wishes. At least at the seashore, after the ocean has permanently inundated your property, your property rights cease. It's not the government that "altered" your rights: it's mother nature. You can't have it both ways. If you want minimal government involvement, the pumps stop. If you want the pumps to keep running, you must agree to a role for government (or for some other collective with coercive powers,) Filling the place with gravel replaces active civil engineering (pumps) with passive civil engineering. Passive civil engineering, done correctly, can endure for thousands of years without maintanence, and is therefore a much better bet. From hal at finney.org Thu Sep 8 00:01:04 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050908000104.AEBC457EF5@finney.org> The problem with the predictive ability of futures markets isn't with the markets, it's with that darn future. It's just hard to predict. Right now, for example, who knows what oil prices will be, say, at the end of next year? The futures market estimates $65.65, about the same as today. By looking at options prices we can get an idea of the degree of uncertainty, and I have recently learned this art. The market sees about a 21% chance that it will be at 80 or above, and about a 22% chance that it will be 50 or below. That's a pretty broad range, with lots of uncertainty. The future is inherently uncertain, so we should not be surprised that that institution which specializes in extracting and consolidating all available information in the form of prices, also reflects this uncertainty. One way to think of it is that we live in one of many possible worlds. There is a world where oil will be $80 at the end of 2006. There is a world where oil will be $50 at that time. Which world are we in? We don't have enough information to know. Are we even in a specific world where that future price is effectively pre-ordained? Maybe our consciousness effectively spans multiple worlds, each with very different future prices of oil. In that case there is not even any meaning to the question of what the future price will be. We can only describe the future with a probability distribution. Well, that's just a personal speculation of my own. Brian Atkins points out that futures prices often mirror present day events. When Katrina hit, futures prices as far out as 2011 went up and then down just like spot prices did, although to a lesser degree. On the surface, this might seem irrational. How could Katrina affect what the price of oil would be six years from now? The effects will be long gone by that time. The way I would explain this is that this does not reflect the impact of Katrina on the coastline, but rather the impact of Katrina on people's minds. Futures prices reflect our best guesses at the future. Every experience that we have informs our minds and changes our opinions about the future. When Katrina hit and we saw that devastation, it made us realize how vulnerable our oil infrastructure is, and how easily it can be disrupted. This knowledge and realization caused us to revise upwards our estimates of a fair price for oil, as far out as the markets go. Then, a few days later, spot prices were back down, and so were futures prices. It was learned that despite the devastation, crude oil supplies were not badly impacted. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and similar reserves overseas, were available to make up a temporary shortfall. This calmed the markets and brought down spot prices. And it also provided new information which affected futures prices. Traders learned that even a devastating hurricane can have only moderate affects, that there are measures in place for remediation and cushioning the blow, and that these measures work. This caused them to revise downwards their estimates of the damage even a devastating hurricane like Katrina can cause, and so prices of 2011 oil come back down. It might seem strange that new facts like these, that come in on a day to day basis, can cause the markets to revise their opinion about the most likely future to a considerable degree. But that is just a reflection of the tremendous uncertainty inherent in the future. The markets continually aggregate all of the information that is available and extrapolate it forward. This process tends to cause future prices to move up and down in synchrony with present day prices. That is the explanation for the phenomenon Brian noticed. One final point: my skepticism about Peak Oil is not due to a belief that markets are always right. It is easy to find cases where markets are wrong. Rather, my point is that markets are more likely to be right than Peak Oil enthusiasts. One of the biggest marks against Peak Oilers is that they believe that their case is obvious. They tend not to say that the future is extremely uncertain and hard to predict, and that they merely see a certain risk of Peak Oil among other alternatives. Instead, most of them are quite certain that Peak Oil is a serious risk and that the evidence in favor of it is very plain and obvious. The often resort to conspiracy theories to explain the absence of wider support for what is to them an open and shut case. The government knows and is covering it up to prevent panic, or Big Oil is afraid to let people know that they will be out of business in a few years. But if Peak Oil were really that obvious, market traders would know about it. Further, insiders would know about it and that would be reflected in market prices. The links I provided earlier to the Econbrowser blog elaborate on this point. Whatever else Peak Oil may be, it is not obvious! The more specific point I made with regard to markets (which are, after all, up by a factor of two in the past year or so) is that the price structure you would expect for a Peak Oil driven price increase is different from what you see today. You would see future prices being higher than present day prices rather than vice versa. Instead, if you draw a graph of oil prices over time (I have never seen any such graph but it would be easy to draw one) you would see prices rise gradually until mid to late 2006 and then fall to considerably lower than present day prices. If market participants believed in a Peak Oil scenario, the consensus would not be that oil in 2010 is going to be cheaper than today. So I think it is clear that the futures markets, as they work to aggregate all available information about the possible course of future prices, are not considering the Peak Oil scenario as very likely. Hal Finney From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 00:57:55 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <431F8614.7070309@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050908005755.35051.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Does the government have any legal obligation to turn the pumps back > on? Maybe not, but it's a suicidal (career-wise) mayor who ignores the very vocal wishes of a majority of the city's voters. Or maybe the pumps are controlled by the county or state - either of whom has similar motivation to do so. > You can't have it both ways. If you want minimal government > involvement, > the pumps > stop. If you want the pumps to keep running, you must agree to a role > for government > (or for some other collective with coercive powers,) Few if any of us are New Orleans residents. Most of them don't want minimal government involvement - they might like lower taxes, but they *definitely* want the pumps running. Quite a few of them disagree with logic, too: they want stuff they don't have to pay for, and strongly resist any attempts to impose reality on their fantasy (and tend to suffer the consequences thereof, quite unwillingly). From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 01:13:37 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:13:37 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050908000104.AEBC457EF5@finney.org> References: <20050908000104.AEBC457EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <431F9041.3030203@aol.com> Hal Finney wrote: >The problem with the predictive ability of futures markets isn't with >the markets, it's with that darn future. It's just hard to predict. > > A future devoid of people is usually pretty easy to predict. It's when you have chaotic factors that it becomes near impossible, especially when greed, fear, stupidity, wisdom and force interact in the 'free market'. As a consequence, the only sure things are the things that everybody knows. All the people you just had to meet without your clothes... R From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 01:15:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050908005755.35051.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050908011540.62622.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > Does the government have any legal obligation to turn the pumps > back > > on? > > Maybe not, but it's a suicidal (career-wise) mayor who ignores the > very > vocal wishes of a majority of the city's voters. Or maybe the pumps > are controlled by the county or state - either of whom has similar > motivation to do so. > Ah, well, you are assuming that he still has a city to get reelected in, and that he isn't maneuvering for multiple tens of billions of dollars of federal reconstruction aid to be at his disposal to give contracts and jobs to anybody willing to support his candidacy. Can you say 'slush fund', or 'kick-back', or 'cronyism'? He's simply following the pattern established by dozens of third world thugs receiving foreign aid from Uncle Sugar. > > Few if any of us are New Orleans residents. Most of them don't want > minimal government involvement - they might like lower taxes, but > they *definitely* want the pumps running. Quite a few of them disagree > with > logic, too: they want stuff they don't have to pay for, and strongly > resist any attempts to impose reality on their fantasy (and tend to > suffer the consequences thereof, quite unwillingly). Particularly wrt the NOLA levee boards, which have a well established reputation of corruption, cronyism, nepotism, and other off political activities and little in the way of actual accomplishments. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 8 01:28:06 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:28:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <431F3DCC.3090302@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050907202554.04596c70@pop-server.austin.rr.com> >I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for those of us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians as any one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. Natasha Vita-More Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 02:33:18 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050907202554.04596c70@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) > > I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for > those of > us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians > as any > one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. He meant it in jest, but yeah. We do need to get the word out: "Extropian" is not a blanket synonym for "Libertarian". From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 03:29:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:29:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5C9BBC55-CD72-40DB-8F07-FA59B13DEA20@mac.com> And it sure as hell better not be a blanket synonym for anti- libertarian. -s On Sep 7, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >>> I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) >>> >> >> I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for >> those of >> us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians >> as any >> one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. >> > > He meant it in jest, but yeah. We do need to get the word out: > "Extropian" is not a blanket synonym for "Libertarian". > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Sep 8 04:17:53 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:17:53 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002601c5b42c$48842e30$0d98e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> >I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) >> >> I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for >> those of >> us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians >> as any >> one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. > > He meant it in jest, but yeah. We do need to get the word out: > "Extropian" is not a blanket synonym for "Libertarian". Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a particular problem than a person who was a libertarian. Once produced the worked example could then be pointed at. I'm not sure how either the philosophy of extropy or a libertarian world-view would actually stack up if they were applied to truly global problems, that is, to the actual real world. Both seem to me to be more about peoples (the worldview holders) commitments to certain values. How those different value sets (if they are different) would translate into policy differences in the real world I'm not sure. Two people can hold the same values in theory and yet act differently in practice because in practice values come into conflict with each other and people then prioritise differently between them. Brett Paatsch From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 06:10:51 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <002601c5b42c$48842e30$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, > when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be > produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of > extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a particular > problem than a person who was a libertarian. > > Once produced the worked example could then be pointed at. Ironically, the thing that sparked this part of the thread was one such example. It was pointed out that some corporations put their own profits far ahead of human life, and indicated that government regulation - like requiring practices that make honest business a lot easier than murder for hire - could be a more effective mediator against the negative effects of this than pure free markets and reputations. This is not the libertarian way, but it is compatible with extropian principles. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Sep 8 07:12:46 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:12:46 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, >> when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be >> produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of >> extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a particular >> problem than a person who was a libertarian. >> >> Once produced the worked example could then be pointed at. > > Ironically, the thing that sparked this part of the thread was one such > example. It was pointed out that some corporations put their own > profits far ahead of human life, and indicated that government > regulation - like requiring practices that make honest business a lot > easier than murder for hire - could be a more effective mediator > against the negative effects of this than pure free markets and > reputations. This is not the libertarian way, but it is compatible > with extropian principles. So you see using government to mitigate market forces as something a person that holds to the philosophy of extropy might support whereas a libertarian would not? That seems like a reasonable example of a difference. Forced to choose between a libertarian mindset that would have no government at all on high principle and another mindset that would accept the need for a government of some type, I'd tend to look at the second as being more realistic in 2005. All else being equal the charge of utopianism would seem easier to level at the first standpoint than the second. Brett Paatsch From hal at finney.org Thu Sep 8 06:26:00 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Message-ID: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> I know this is a controversial topic, and this may be an unwelcome contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say about various political systems. My reading of the principles of Open Society and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a libertarian approach to political life. What is it that distinguishes libertarianism from other political systems? As I use the term, I see it as that political system which minimizes the use of coercion and compulsion and allows individuals the maximum freedom to make their own decisions about their lives. In a libertarian society, people are free to make mutual volutary agreements about social and economic matters. For example, there is no minimum wage, because that prevents people from agreeing to work for less than a centrally-defined pay rate. People are not taxed to pay for social insurance or welfare systems, because again that interferes with people's freedom to make mutual agreements as they see fit. Now, I think we have a number of participants here who would object to the formation of a society organized around these principles. They would view such a society, without the economic protections which have become nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, as barbaric, primitive and unfair. They would, in particular, consider it inconsistent with the principles of Extropy. It is this question which I want to address. The current version of the Principles of Extropy at http://extropy.org/principles.htm is in my opinion a well written document that lays out an attractive philosophy which is highly appropriate for our fast changing world. Max More has done a great job at creating a framework for dealing with issues in a dynamic and flexible way, while holding to the concept of maximizing human potential which has always been the core of Extropian beliefs. Some readers have suggested that the Principles have been "watered down" or altered to minimize a supposed excessive degree of libertarianism, but I don't see that at all. In my reading the Principles are in fact strongly libertarian and amply demonstrate the commitment to freedom and voluntary, non-coercive arrangements that are the core of libertarianism. The Principles are long and I don't have room to take them apart sentence by sentence. I would invite those who disagree to look through the Principles and find support for minimum wage restrictions and welfare taxation, or other forms of social coercion and control. Here are a few quotes which demonstrate the libertarian flavor of the Principles, followed by my comments. From Open Society: "The freedom of expression of an open society is best protected by a social order characterized by voluntary relationships and exchanges." This is essentially the defining principle of libertarianism. "Within an open society individuals, through their voluntary consent, may choose to submit themselves to more restrictive arrangements in the form of clubs, private communities, or corporate entities. Open societies allow more rigidly organized social structures to exist so long as individuals are free to leave." Free to leave is the operative word here. Coercive government restrictions cannot be escaped. "Even where we find some of those choices mistaken or foolish, open societies affirm the value of a system that allows all ideas to be tried with the consent of those involved." A good example would be someone who chooses to work for less than what we think he should, or without the health and safety protections we think he should demand. The libertarian perspective endorsed here calls on us to restrain our tendency to enforce limits on people who choose to make what such foolish choices. "Extropic thinking conflicts with the technocratic idea of coercive central control by insular, self-proclaimed experts." And yet that is exactly what we have with economic regulations of the type I am discussing. The minimum wage is set on the basis of some economist's or sociologists ideas of what constitutes a just amount. It is set via coercive central control, exactly what Max warns against. "In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives." A perfect capsule summary of libertarianism. But let me quote the end of this paragraph, which strikes a different tone: "But for individuals and societies to flourish, liberty must come with personal responsibility. The demand for freedom without responsibility is an adolescent's demand for license." I certainly do not read this as an endorsement of coercive, centralized government control! That would be utterly inconsistent with the points which are made again and again throughout. Rather, Max is observing that philosophically, society will flourish when people behave responsibly. He is not saying therefore that society should force people to behave according to some centralized definition of responsible behavior. Now for some quotes from the discussion of Self-Direction: "Each individual should be free and responsible for deciding for themselves in what ways to change or to stay the same." While this does not directly address the economic issues above, it is a further reiteration of the libertarian goal of non-coercion. "It is extropic to take responsibility for the consequences of our choices, refusing to blame others for the results of our own free actions." Again this is a fundamental principle of libertarianism. When people make mistakes, they take responsibility for them, they do not look to a paternalistic government to fix the problem for them. "Personal responsibility and self-determination are incompatible with authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices and spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons." "Coercion of mature, sound minds outside the realm of self-protection, whether for the purported 'good of the whole' or for the paternalistic protection of the individual, is unacceptable." Again, two very strong statements of libertarian principles. The kinds of economic regulations I listed above are imposed for precisely these reasons, coercing people who are attempting to engage in voluntary relationships either for the good of the whole (as in welfare state taxation) or for paternalistic protection (as in the minimum wage). These comments perfectly exemplify the libertarianism which is implicit in these Principles. "We act benevolently not by acting under obligation to sacrifice personal interests; we embody benevolence when we have a disposition to help others." Taxation to help the poor is not a benevolent policy under this analysis. Forcing people to act under obligation to sacrifice their personal interests does not promote benevolence. Only voluntary giving, the personal disposition to help others, is true benevolence and a true value to society. I think these quotes are enough to make an initial case. Please, read the Principles yourself, especially these two, and see if you don't see the libertarianism which is present in virtually every part of the analysis and discussion. I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is somehow inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of non-coercion is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the foundations of Extropian thinking that it is hard to imagine how people could see it otherwise. Hal Finney From giogavir at yahoo.it Thu Sep 8 07:31:04 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:31:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity In-Reply-To: <20050907190343.GA28427@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20050908073105.72681.qmail@web26210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> wwe are all living in dangerous areas planet Earth an asteroid impact, which can happen at anytime can destry our civilization if only the expected 2029 close call deflects slightly from its trajectory we are doomed I don't see anything been done about that we have enough early warning to prepare a deflection or destruction system for such asteroid in case something gets out of control but nothing is been done --- Damien Sullivan ha scritto: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:30:07PM +0200, giorgio > gaviraghi wrote: > > the recent new orleans disaster must be considered > as > > an alrm bell of things to come during this > century. > > natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, > > tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and > others > > re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. > > I've read this is more because more people are > moving to disaster prone areas > such as California and Florida and Seattle. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_sc/katrina_unsafe_planet > > In the 1970s, only 11 percent of earthquakes > affected human settlements, > researchers at Belgium's University of Louvain > report. That soared to 31 > percent in 1993-2003, including a quake in 2003 > that killed 26,000 people > in Iran, whose population has doubled since the > '70s. > > The expanding U.S. population "has migrated to > hazard-prone areas -- to > Florida, the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, > particularly barrier islands, to > California," noted retired U.S. government > seismologist Robert M. > Hamilton, a disaster-prevention specialist. > "Several decades ago we didn't > have wall-to-wall houses down the coast as we do > now." > > -xx- Damien X-) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 07:39:55 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:39:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud and various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others would seem sufficient. So this is probably not a meaningful example. Is it just me or does the point seem rather strained in any case? - samantha On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:10 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, >> when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be >> produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of >> extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a particular >> problem than a person who was a libertarian. >> >> Once produced the worked example could then be pointed at. >> > > Ironically, the thing that sparked this part of the thread was one > such > example. It was pointed out that some corporations put their own > profits far ahead of human life, and indicated that government > regulation - like requiring practices that make honest business a lot > easier than murder for hire - could be a more effective mediator > against the negative effects of this than pure free markets and > reputations. This is not the libertarian way, but it is compatible > with extropian principles. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 07:42:34 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:42:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: Excuse me but libertarianism is compatible with various answers to how much government is useful. It is not a position of "no government" although one faction of libertarian thought does have that answer for the question. Please use labels responsibly or not at all. On Sep 8, 2005, at 12:12 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:10 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate > > > >> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >>> Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, >>> when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be >>> produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of >>> extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a >>> particular >>> problem than a person who was a libertarian. Once produced the >>> worked example could then be pointed at. >>> >> Ironically, the thing that sparked this part of the thread was one >> such >> example. It was pointed out that some corporations put their own >> profits far ahead of human life, and indicated that government >> regulation - like requiring practices that make honest business a lot >> easier than murder for hire - could be a more effective mediator >> against the negative effects of this than pure free markets and >> reputations. This is not the libertarian way, but it is compatible >> with extropian principles. >> > > So you see using government to mitigate market forces as something > a person that holds to the philosophy of extropy might support whereas > a libertarian would not? > That seems like a reasonable example of a difference. Forced to choose > between a libertarian mindset that would have no government at all on > high principle and another mindset that would accept the need for a > government of some type, I'd tend to look at the second as being > more realistic in 2005. > > All else being equal the charge of utopianism would seem easier to > level > at the first standpoint than the second. > Brett Paatsch > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Sep 8 08:32:29 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:32:29 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com><001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <004401c5b44f$d9a5e070$0d98e03c@homepc> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Excuse me but libertarianism is compatible with various answers to how > much government is useful. It is not a position of "no government" > although one faction of libertarian thought does have that answer for the > question. Please use labels responsibly or not at all. I don't know *how* :-) How, that is, to have a discussion about labels like libertarian and to be sure that I am doing so responsibly by all the possible meanings of the word others may have put on it. When I think of libertarian thought I think of the ideas of Bentham and James and John Stuart Mills (who wrote _On Liberty_) and a bunch of others that followed afterward. I think I could do a reasonable job of placing the idea (meme) into some sort of historical context and follow its development but I don't know that I can do much of a job at all of using the word responsibly when the point is really to find out what the word means to other people that identify with it. Its helpful for me to know what libertarianism means to individual people who identify with the term. Its also interesting to see why people identify with the Principles of Extropy. Wouldn't you be interested in hearing how people who do or do not identify with the term libertarian identify with the principles of extropy? Seems to me that there is unlikely to be a single correct answer but there might be a number of *interesting* answers. Brett Paatsch From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 10:53:20 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 03:53:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <004401c5b44f$d9a5e070$0d98e03c@homepc> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> <004401c5b44f$d9a5e070$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: You are much to erudite for me to believe that you are unaware that libertarianism is not defined by "no government at all on high principle" as you earlier this evening put it. I guess a poor libertarian minarchist like myself should go bond with socialists. :-) - samantha On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:32 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> Excuse me but libertarianism is compatible with various answers >> to how much government is useful. It is not a position of "no >> government" although one faction of libertarian thought does have >> that answer for the question. Please use labels responsibly or >> not at all. >> > > I don't know *how* :-) > > How, that is, to have a discussion about labels like libertarian > and to > be sure that I am doing so responsibly by all the possible meanings > of the word others may have put on it. > > When I think of libertarian thought I think of the ideas of Bentham > and > James and John Stuart Mills (who wrote _On Liberty_) and a bunch > of others that followed afterward. I think I could do a reasonable > job of > placing the idea (meme) into some sort of historical context and > follow its > development but I don't know that I can do much of a job at all of > using > the word responsibly when the point is really to find out what the > word > means to other people that identify with it. > > Its helpful for me to know what libertarianism means to individual > people who identify with the term. Its also interesting to see why > people identify with the Principles of Extropy. > > Wouldn't you be interested in hearing how people who do or do not > identify with the term libertarian identify with the principles of > extropy? > > Seems to me that there is unlikely to be a single correct answer but > there might be a number of *interesting* answers. > > Brett Paatsch > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 10:58:20 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:58:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520509080358787e868c@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Hal for this very good post which, I am sure, will be discussed a lot. I am one of those who "would view such a society, without the economic protections which have become nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, as barbaric, primitive and unfair." Why? First let me say that I am very keen of libertarianism as a lifestyle, and believe in live and let live: my sexual preferences are not your business, and your religious preferences are not my business. I think interfering in someone's private sphere should be tolerated, if at all, only in exceptional cases. The problem, of course, is that at times what you wish to consider as part of your private sphere can have an objective impact on my private sphere. Then I also become a stakeholder. Short of shooting each other and the winner takes all, we then need to find a mutually agreeable solution. I think the heart of the issue is, as you quote: "In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives." But the unfortunate thing is that, some people DO seek to rule others and to impose their views and ways on others. This is a fact. Someone who tries to rule me is also trying to prevent me from being in charge of my own life, so I will oppose him. In our world power is something that you buy with money. The more money you have, the more power you can buy. I have no lust power and no lust for more money than I can use. So I do not really envy those who have much more money than I - they are welcome to live their lives, as long as they let me live mine. But suppose all those with power (= money) decide to pool their power (= money) to control my life. Then I cannot live my life without accepting their rule. Please don't tell me that this is consistent with Extropy. Money and power can easily go into runaway mode: the more you have, the more you get. The result of this runaway process can be a world where a few feudal warlords have absolute power over the lives of "their" people. We may not like living under their rule, but they have all the money, all the power and all the guns. Is this consistent with Extropy? No. The only solution that I can see is fine-tuning the system to permit people living their life as they want to live it, while at the same time preventing power runaway. In other words, I want to live in a system where you are in complete control of your life, but *cannot* achieve control of mine. We have not found yet the ideal mechanism to achieve this objective, but it is difficult for me to imagine one which works without involving some kind of welfare state concept, some kind of safety nets and some kind of taxation. G. On 9/8/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I know this is a controversial topic, and this may be an unwelcome > contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate > to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say about > various political systems. My reading of the principles of Open Society > and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a libertarian > approach to political life. From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Thu Sep 8 20:08:10 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:08:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Samantha Atkins wrote: > There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with > fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud and > various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others > would seem sufficient. A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices and agression ? Who writes them? Who enforces them? -David. From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 8 12:14:20 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:14:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <5C9BBC55-CD72-40DB-8F07-FA59B13DEA20@mac.com> References: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> <5C9BBC55-CD72-40DB-8F07-FA59B13DEA20@mac.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050908071311.04506150@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Yes, I agree with Samantha. It better not be a blanket synonym for any one political viewpoint! In order for transhumanism to succeed we need to watch these types of political positioning and make sure that all the positive, extropic voices of transhumanism are heard! Think about our future! Natashas At 10:29 PM 9/7/2005, you wrote: >And it sure as hell better not be a blanket synonym for anti- libertarian. > >-s > >On Sep 7, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >>--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> >>>>I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) >>> >>>I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for >>>those of >>>us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians >>>as any >>>one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. >> >>He meant it in jest, but yeah. We do need to get the word out: >>"Extropian" is not a blanket synonym for "Libertarian". >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 8 12:17:06 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:17:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050908071524.04635d40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Okay, Hal. Let's see how Max answers. But for myself, the principles are in direct alignment with extropic thinking, critical thinking and rational optimism. NOT any political viewpoint. And that is my 2 cents. If you want to fire me, go ahead. But I will not change my course of thinking because I believe it is extropic, not bogged down by any one political. Natasha Vita-More At 01:26 AM 9/8/2005, you wrote: >I know this is a controversial topic, and this may be an unwelcome >contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate >to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say about >various political systems. My reading of the principles of Open Society >and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a libertarian >approach to political life. > >What is it that distinguishes libertarianism from other political systems? >As I use the term, I see it as that political system which minimizes the >use of coercion and compulsion and allows individuals the maximum freedom >to make their own decisions about their lives. In a libertarian society, >people are free to make mutual volutary agreements about social and >economic matters. For example, there is no minimum wage, because that >prevents people from agreeing to work for less than a centrally-defined >pay rate. People are not taxed to pay for social insurance or welfare >systems, because again that interferes with people's freedom to make >mutual agreements as they see fit. > >Now, I think we have a number of participants here who would object to >the formation of a society organized around these principles. They would >view such a society, without the economic protections which have become >nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, as barbaric, primitive and unfair. >They would, in particular, consider it inconsistent with the principles >of Extropy. It is this question which I want to address. > >The current version of the Principles of Extropy at >http://extropy.org/principles.htm is in my opinion a well written document >that lays out an attractive philosophy which is highly appropriate for >our fast changing world. Max More has done a great job at creating a >framework for dealing with issues in a dynamic and flexible way, while >holding to the concept of maximizing human potential which has always >been the core of Extropian beliefs. > >Some readers have suggested that the Principles have been "watered down" >or altered to minimize a supposed excessive degree of libertarianism, >but I don't see that at all. In my reading the Principles are in fact >strongly libertarian and amply demonstrate the commitment to freedom and >voluntary, non-coercive arrangements that are the core of libertarianism. > >The Principles are long and I don't have room to take them apart sentence >by sentence. I would invite those who disagree to look through the >Principles and find support for minimum wage restrictions and welfare >taxation, or other forms of social coercion and control. Here are a >few quotes which demonstrate the libertarian flavor of the Principles, >followed by my comments. From Open Society: > >"The freedom of expression of an open society is best protected by a >social order characterized by voluntary relationships and exchanges." > >This is essentially the defining principle of libertarianism. > >"Within an open society individuals, through their voluntary consent, >may choose to submit themselves to more restrictive arrangements in >the form of clubs, private communities, or corporate entities. Open >societies allow more rigidly organized social structures to exist so >long as individuals are free to leave." > >Free to leave is the operative word here. Coercive government >restrictions cannot be escaped. > >"Even where we find some of those choices mistaken or foolish, open >societies affirm the value of a system that allows all ideas to be tried >with the consent of those involved." > >A good example would be someone who chooses to work for less than what we >think he should, or without the health and safety protections we think >he should demand. The libertarian perspective endorsed here calls on >us to restrain our tendency to enforce limits on people who choose to >make what such foolish choices. > >"Extropic thinking conflicts with the technocratic idea of coercive >central control by insular, self-proclaimed experts." > >And yet that is exactly what we have with economic regulations of the >type I am discussing. The minimum wage is set on the basis of some >economist's or sociologists ideas of what constitutes a just amount. >It is set via coercive central control, exactly what Max warns against. > >"In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be >ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives." > >A perfect capsule summary of libertarianism. But let me quote the end >of this paragraph, which strikes a different tone: > >"But for individuals and societies to flourish, liberty must come with >personal responsibility. The demand for freedom without responsibility >is an adolescent's demand for license." > >I certainly do not read this as an endorsement of coercive, centralized >government control! That would be utterly inconsistent with the points >which are made again and again throughout. Rather, Max is observing that >philosophically, society will flourish when people behave responsibly. >He is not saying therefore that society should force people to behave >according to some centralized definition of responsible behavior. > >Now for some quotes from the discussion of Self-Direction: > >"Each individual should be free and responsible for deciding for >themselves in what ways to change or to stay the same." > >While this does not directly address the economic issues above, it is >a further reiteration of the libertarian goal of non-coercion. > >"It is extropic to take responsibility for the consequences of our >choices, refusing to blame others for the results of our own free >actions." > >Again this is a fundamental principle of libertarianism. When people >make mistakes, they take responsibility for them, they do not look to >a paternalistic government to fix the problem for them. > >"Personal responsibility and self-determination are incompatible >with authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices and >spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons." > >"Coercion of mature, sound minds outside the realm of self-protection, >whether for the purported 'good of the whole' or for the paternalistic >protection of the individual, is unacceptable." > >Again, two very strong statements of libertarian principles. The kinds >of economic regulations I listed above are imposed for precisely these >reasons, coercing people who are attempting to engage in voluntary >relationships either for the good of the whole (as in welfare state >taxation) or for paternalistic protection (as in the minimum wage). >These comments perfectly exemplify the libertarianism which is implicit >in these Principles. > >"We act benevolently not by acting under obligation to sacrifice personal >interests; we embody benevolence when we have a disposition to help >others." > >Taxation to help the poor is not a benevolent policy under this analysis. >Forcing people to act under obligation to sacrifice their personal >interests does not promote benevolence. Only voluntary giving, the >personal disposition to help others, is true benevolence and a true >value to society. > > >I think these quotes are enough to make an initial case. Please, read >the Principles yourself, especially these two, and see if you don't >see the libertarianism which is present in virtually every part of the >analysis and discussion. > >I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the >Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is somehow >inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of non-coercion >is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the foundations of Extropian >thinking that it is hard to imagine how people could see it otherwise. > >Hal Finney >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 12:18:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > > I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the > Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is > somehow inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of > non-coercion is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the > foundations of Extropian thinking that it is hard to imagine how > people could see it otherwise. The criticism is generally regarding a softening of terms and mealy mouthing. Getting rid of 'dynamic optimism' for 'pragmatic optimism', and the like. The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not hold to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies (such as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela). Such people forget that some policies we advocate were once advocated by socialist/centralist statists before, and as a result were totally discredited when those statists naturally were corrupted by power and committed greivous wrongs as a result. Technologies we advocate can only pass ethical muster if they are strictly in the control of individuals who use them for their own benefit, and not by states or other organizations. Furthermore, the claim to hold to the principles, which as you amply demonstrated are quite plainly libertarian in meaning and intent, which is contradicted by the weasle word denial of Extropy being libertarian in a mealy mouthed attempt to appeal to a broader base of membership among those with an aversion to liberty, is a 'watering down' that is semantically no different from the Klan claiming it is no longer racist, or various socialist parties claiming they are no longer pro-communist. You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe, stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists, socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with their entryist tactics. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sep 8 12:34:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <20050908123434.98255.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- david wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with > > fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud > and > > various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others > > would seem sufficient. > > > > > A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices and > agression ? > Who writes them? > Who enforces them? Ah, perhaps you have heard about a thing called Common Law. It is a set of legal precedent established over centuries of near-anarchical living in England prior to the conquest of William the Conqueror up to the present day. It was created by no government, it just happened. It is possibly the finest example of the paleo-extropian principle of Spontaneous Order (I prefer the older ExI principles myself). Common Law is 'written' by every judge who issues opinions in judgements in any common law system. Government is not necessary for this system to operate. Prior to the information age, government was deemed necessary to establish some form of final arbiter in the system of Common Law (and other legal systems, such as Civil Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty Law), because vetting persons wise enough to judge the judges and judge those who judge the judges was seen as of enough import to get right that a governmental system of consensus building (or simply martial ordering by divine right) and enforcement was thought necessary. Today, however, individual humans have far greater information processing capabilities than was once held by entire nations. For more thoughts on this, I'd point you to a few articles I've written at Neal Stephenson's Metaweb, http://www.metaweb.com, particularly on FOQNE's, the Common Economic Protocol, Protocol Enforcement, and Final Arbiters. I also suggest a look at ICA's implementation of the Common Economic Protocol: http://ica.citystateinc.com/library/CEP1_0.html, as well as the writings of David Friedman, such as his book "The Machinery of Freedom". Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 12:50:11 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <200509072244.j87MiOf14214@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gary Miller wrote: > > Actually a vaccine that prevents the disease in the > first place would be the > bigger money maker and result in the least risk of > the disease continuing > it's spread. > > In that way you don't limit your customers to those > who already have the > disease but rather a much larger group of the > general population that would > have reason to fear accidently contracting the > disease. > > More importantly the larger potential earnings > serves as a larger financial > incentive to the drug companies to perform research. > You would think so wouldn't you? The truth, however, from an insider's POV, is that nobody in the U.S. that I am aware of is working on a prophylactic vaccine. The vaccines which are out and being tested (none are that impressive) are all therapeutic vaccines for use with people who are already infected. There was a some buzz a few years ago about european vaccine that used an attenuated virus with a deleted nef gene, but apparently it was still capable of causing AIDS. But like I said, in the U.S., I am unaware of any at all. Aside from the economic luddism I metioned, I am not sure why this is the case. But another large factor has to do with the technical challenge of testing it. Apparently, the day that you can grab some kid at risk of infection off the street and test your experimental vaccine on him as Louis Pasteur did is long gone. 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 8 13:34:20 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:34:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Message-ID: <380-22005948133420240@M2W098.mail2web.com> Mike wrote: "The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not hold to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies (such as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela)." It is true that WTA intentionally tries to discredit ExI by positioning it politically in order to make itself appear to be more worthy of membership and support by making extropians to be libertarian and appear to not care about people and the world. And it is true that the anti-libertarian leadership of WTA has been public about discrediting ExI and extropians. But it is not true that all extropians are libertarian. To claim this, Mike, would be a disservice to other extropians and members of ExI who are not libertarian. This is the main reason why I think it is important not to push any one political viewpoint on extropians and ExI. I recognize your passion, and the passions of others. And I must be fair-minded. "You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe, stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists, socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with their entryist tactics." Yes, but I would not put so much emphasis on WTA. In fact, I think that WTA does not really matter. I?m not interested in what the Smiths gossip about. I care about what I am doing and the future. What does matter is thinking strategically and passionately about what we want to achieve, not what others are doing. I believe that too much reliance on a 21st Century political viewpoint is insufficient. And in this regard I will not wavier. My view about the future is not bogged down by political viewpoints which are intended to attack and discredit others who are working toward developing a future that is beneficial for humanity. I also value individuality and the right to freedom of choice too much. Just as the socialists try their best to make fools out of those who do not agree with them, libertarians often do the same. Your name calling is unacceptable and you have been asked in the past not to do this. I trust you can carry on a conversation and a debate on this topic without blaming and name calling. So, where do we stand? We need to develop a political mindset that is inclusive of critical thinking and progress. AND is intelligent enough to recognize the benefits diversity when diverse thinking adds to the substantiality of a mindset. There are many strategic models that ExI can use to develop the type of future we foresee as being of the highest potential for resolving conflicts of society in reaching our vision and goals. I hasten to add that unless and until we find this, transhumanity cannot succeed. Natasha Natasha Vita-More President, Extropy Institute -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 14:01:47 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050908140147.29421.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > > More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since > 1981. > AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. > > You *really* think some people are deciding not to > bother finding a > cure because they can make a bit of money on the > deal? Well, Bill, I wish I could think differently. I will tell you one thing for certain. Reverse transcriptase inhibitors like AZT were invented about 19 years ago, protease inhibitors like Sequinovir were invented 10 years ago. Since then about the most anyone has done is when David Ho figured out you can slow down the evolution of drug resitant virus within a patient by giving them both at once. Hardly a leap of genius but he got Time's "man of year " award and lots of grant funding out of it. Every couple of years, the pharmaceuticals tweak their RT and protease inhibitors a bit to overcome drug resistance and that's about it. HIV is just 9.8 kilobases of RNA that contains 8 genes that encode a little over a dozen protein products. Of those, only reverse transcriptase and protease, both of which operate AFTER infection takes place, have been targeted by drugs. The end result of these drugs is that the virus goes into latency, and hides in the patient's cells. It remains hidden away until the person stops taking the drug and voila out pops the virus, left unchecked will go on to kill the person. The AIDS patient is now hostage to his drugs. There are plenty of other HIV proteins that COULD be targeted with drugs. There are several inhibitors of the virus integrase protein in the pipeline, but apparently they have some bad side effects because they have been in the pipeline for about 5 yrs now and I don't know when or if they will ever become available. Integrase however is another example of a virus protein that operates AFTER the virus infects a cell. HIV makes a little over a dozen protein products (which is amazing considering that it is a single 9.8kb RNA, making it the most informationally dense organism that has been sequenced to date) including some that operate BEFORE or DURING infection. Yet nobody in the U.S. is trying to target any of these despite the fact that they would kill the virus BEFORE the virus can hijack the host cell. If these other proteins had been tried and failed due to technical problems that would be one thing, but nobody in the U.S. is apparently even curious about inhibiting any of these. I would not believe it myself except that for the last 7 yrs (essentially my entire career) I have been studying both HIV virology and immunology and I have a pretty thorough understanding of the virus. I think I have identified its Achilles` heel and have computer models of a potential inhibitor for an essential viral protein that not only allows the virus to get into cells, but also sows chaos and confusion amongst the antibodies and whiteblood cells that are supposed to kill the virus. Yet unbelievably, I have had several rejections from different university labs without the professor so much as wanting to see my model. That is when it hit me. You can't give hundreds of millions of dollars to a bunch of "experts" to poke and prod the virus and expect them to cure it because they know that if they do, the grant money stops. We've poked and prodded the virus for over 20 years now. We know every bit of its genome, we know what all its proteins are and what cellular proteins they interact with, we know its life cycle, we know how it evades the immune system, and we can even take the virus apart and reverse engineer the thing into a gene-therapy vector. We have over 1500 publications regarding mechanism for every gene the virus has, which is an order of magnitude more than we have for the genome of any other organism on earth. Yet amazingly we can't KILL this one piece of RNA? You do the math. I went into AIDS research hoping to cure the virus. Instead what I found is that wracking ones mind to figure out new and innovative ways to poke and prod at the virus are rewarded and sincere ideas aimed at just plain killing it are shunned. Its a lesson, I hope my career can recover from. 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 max at maxmore.com Thu Sep 8 14:39:46 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:39:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:18 AM 9/8/2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Hal Finney wrote: > > > > I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the > > Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is > > somehow inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of > > non-coercion is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the > > foundations of Extropian thinking that it is hard to imagine how > > people could see it otherwise. I'll reply to Hal's lengthy and thoughtful post later today. >The criticism is generally regarding a softening of terms and mealy >mouthing. Getting rid of 'dynamic optimism' for 'pragmatic optimism', >and the like. Explain how "pragmatic" is more mealy than "dynamic". I made the change (with encouragement from others who commented) precisely because it was thought that "dynamic" sounded New Agey and vague. "Pragmatic" isn't as *fun* as "dynamic", but how is it more mealy? >The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by >ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting >corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not hold >to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian >leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies (such >as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations >controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela). This is a confused paragraph. By saying "policies endorsed by ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups", you're not saying anything useful. What if I said "Murders committed by Mike Lorrey or other males called "Mike"? The issue is whether the Principles of Extropy have been "watered down" (whatever that means), not what other groups do. ExI has never supported "corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research", so don't suggest otherwise, then try to weasel out of it by saying "I only said ExI OR other groups." >Furthermore, the claim to hold to the principles, which as you amply >demonstrated are quite plainly libertarian in meaning and intent, which >is contradicted by the weasle word denial of Extropy being libertarian >in a mealy mouthed attempt to appeal to a broader base of membership >among those with an aversion to liberty, is a 'watering down' that is >semantically no different from the Klan claiming it is no longer >racist, or various socialist parties claiming they are no longer >pro-communist. It's hard to know how to respond when people like you thick-headed repeat the same stuff, failing to respond to my previous detailed explanations (as in the NeoFiles interview: http://www.life-enhancement.com/NeoFiles/default.asp?ID=39). Clearly the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are *restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It *might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). >You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe, >stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists, >socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with >their entryist tactics. I've already replied to this kind of slanderous rubbish when Perry Metzger blew a gasket. I'm not going to repeat myself. _______________________________________________________ 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 megao at sasktel.net Thu Sep 8 13:57:57 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:57:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite In-Reply-To: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43204365.2040704@sasktel.net> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Gary Miller wrote: > > > >> >>Actually a vaccine that prevents the disease in the >>first place would be the >>bigger money maker and result in the least risk of >>the disease continuing >>it's spread. >> >>In that way you don't limit your customers to those >>who already have the >>disease but rather a much larger group of the >>general population that would >>have reason to fear accidently contracting the >>disease. >> >>More importantly the larger potential earnings >>serves as a larger financial >>incentive to the drug companies to perform research. >> >> >> > >You would think so wouldn't you? The truth, however, >from an insider's POV, is that nobody in the U.S. that >I am aware of is working on a prophylactic vaccine. >The vaccines which are out and being tested (none are >that impressive) are all therapeutic vaccines for use >with people who are already infected. There was a some >buzz a few years ago about european vaccine that used >an attenuated virus with a deleted nef gene, but >apparently it was still capable of causing AIDS. But >like I said, in the U.S., I am unaware of any at all. > >Aside from the economic luddism I metioned, I am not >sure why this is the case. But another large factor >has to do with the technical challenge of testing it. >Apparently, the day that you can grab some kid at risk >of infection off the street and test your experimental >vaccine on him as Louis Pasteur did is long gone. > > In my business we are going about our way to commercialize 2 main nutraceutical ingredients. One has ethnobotanical history but no current usage in humans, excluding myself and current consumers of a minor use food product containing it. The other cannabis has had a hiatus of usage since 1930 in North America. Some of its components are back in use but most are not. How does one get large scale use to warrant human consumption but at a cost that is not one of 5-10 years of corporation subsidized trials? One goes to the animal nutrition/supplementation market and commercializes it. Thousands of horses, dogs and cats populate North America. Wellness in animals creates an affinity market over time in their owners. In the horse business there are lots of owners who sneak a scoop of their animals meds because they see that these things are cheap , effective and many times unavailable in the human market. After 5-10 years of this, a commercial market supported data package is ready to put to the herbal/natural health practitioner field. They utilize the loyalty and trust bond they have with customers to recommend things that may or may not be mainstream. So , you can get pretty close to the Louis Pasteur way. Of course the other way is to commercialize your wares in China or India where the marketplace is more willing to put novel science into full commercialization. ex- http://www.Sibiono.com 's GMO adenovirus grown on stem cell tissue cultures for cancer treatment. Yes , you must shun or pass by North America for its paternalistic protectionist system which wants to provide total risk free lives. No risk=no change. Hyperbaric hydrogen cancer treatment was killed 30 years ago for that very reason and noneother. Ethics say commercialize in North American humans first, reality is the disincentives law and economics make you say F**K it... its not worth the trouble. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Thu Sep 8 14:18:44 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:18:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite- risk and compliance/IT convergence Message-ID: <43204844.8060606@sasktel.net> On the other hand government through HIPPA and IT integration of the economic food chain is strangling risk taking such as I mentioned on my last post. Nigh to illegal in the formal med delivery system..... I was telemarketed by someone doing the 60million pre IPO raise for expansion of ( http://www.singlesourcetechnology.com ) a company whose software, computer service contracts and audit services will make an iron clad barrier to voluntary risk taking/off-label prescriptive practice by medical practitioners. Cut the money and tie non-compliance to law enforcement and you choke off the ability to even consider development of non-staus quo technologies. I think Stuart's points are well worth considering in this context: The Convergence of Risk and Compliance September 13, 2005 @ 4 p.m. Eastern/ 1 p.m. Pacific Duration: 45 minutes Register & Attend Online http://ct.eletters.eseminarslive.com/rd/cts?d=187-1087-1-1419-644019-19039-0-0-0-1 If you are unable to attend the live event you may still register and will receive an e-mail when the on-demand version becomes available. Event Overview: Many regulatory and governance factors influence business and IT department activities. Regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, Basel II, GLBA, HIPAA and others have raised the bar for accountability and credibility standards. The pressure is on executive management to conduct all aspects of the business efficiently and with complete transparency, and IT must supply the tools. As corporate officers and board members demand well-orchestrated operations, the process becomes more and more complex for IT. The areas of risk, compliance and governance are beginning to merge, and the burden rests on an IT manager's shoulders to leverage compliance efforts to reduce costs and provide valuable benefits to the business process owners. Do your executives have the necessary visibility into the business risks and performance measures? Do your executives have the information they need to prioritize business risks and make informed, intelligent decisions? To achieve these goals, several disciplines must work in concert. An integrated risk and compliance (IRC) platform enables an organization to respond to the needs for business efficiency and provide both management and IT with the tools and information they need to be successful. Join this live, interactive eSeminar, sponsored by Computer Associates, as our panel of experts discuss: * The challenges faced by both business and IT managers * Building and implementing an integrated risk and compliance strategy * Tools to help you leverage compliance efforts and help your organization excel in business and IT governance Featured Speakers: Margaret Brooks, Vice-President, Strategic Solutions, HQ Research - Computer Associates International, Inc. Michael Dortch , Principal Analyst - Robert Frances Group Frank Derfler, VP, Market Experts Group - Ziff Davis Media -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Thu Sep 8 16:58:12 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:58:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908140147.29421.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509081658.j88GwKf26869@tick.javien.com> I can see how the major drug companies who currently have anti aids drugs on the market may not have the management backing to pursue lines of research that may disrupt their lifetime cash cow but surely there must be other drug companies who currently do not have income from the protease inhibitors and reverse transcriptase inhibitors. If so then these companies would seem to be the logical entry point for your research. Also as these drugs begin to enter into the point of their patent process where they go begin to go generic most of the profit will be squeezed out by their generic competition if they don't have improved drugs waiting in the wings. I don't doubt what you're saying about the difficulty of getting neglected areas of research investigated. Sometimes it might require winning over a respected researcher in the field who has the credibility to champion your research and get it the attention it deserves. Also have you tried publishing a paper about your model? Even if you don't get published, just the process of going through the peer review process of publishing may help you shore up your arguments enough to get them considered seriously. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:02 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate --- BillK wrote: > > More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. > AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. > > You *really* think some people are deciding not to bother finding a > cure because they can make a bit of money on the deal? Well, Bill, I wish I could think differently. I will tell you one thing for certain. Reverse transcriptase inhibitors like AZT were invented about 19 years ago, protease inhibitors like Sequinovir were invented 10 years ago. Since then about the most anyone has done is when David Ho figured out you can slow down the evolution of drug resitant virus within a patient by giving them both at once. Hardly a leap of genius but he got Time's "man of year " award and lots of grant funding out of it. Every couple of years, the pharmaceuticals tweak their RT and protease inhibitors a bit to overcome drug resistance and that's about it. HIV is just 9.8 kilobases of RNA that contains 8 genes that encode a little over a dozen protein products. Of those, only reverse transcriptase and protease, both of which operate AFTER infection takes place, have been targeted by drugs. The end result of these drugs is that the virus goes into latency, and hides in the patient's cells. It remains hidden away until the person stops taking the drug and voila out pops the virus, left unchecked will go on to kill the person. The AIDS patient is now hostage to his drugs. There are plenty of other HIV proteins that COULD be targeted with drugs. There are several inhibitors of the virus integrase protein in the pipeline, but apparently they have some bad side effects because they have been in the pipeline for about 5 yrs now and I don't know when or if they will ever become available. Integrase however is another example of a virus protein that operates AFTER the virus infects a cell. HIV makes a little over a dozen protein products (which is amazing considering that it is a single 9.8kb RNA, making it the most informationally dense organism that has been sequenced to date) including some that operate BEFORE or DURING infection. Yet nobody in the U.S. is trying to target any of these despite the fact that they would kill the virus BEFORE the virus can hijack the host cell. If these other proteins had been tried and failed due to technical problems that would be one thing, but nobody in the U.S. is apparently even curious about inhibiting any of these. I would not believe it myself except that for the last 7 yrs (essentially my entire career) I have been studying both HIV virology and immunology and I have a pretty thorough understanding of the virus. I think I have identified its Achilles` heel and have computer models of a potential inhibitor for an essential viral protein that not only allows the virus to get into cells, but also sows chaos and confusion amongst the antibodies and whiteblood cells that are supposed to kill the virus. Yet unbelievably, I have had several rejections from different university labs without the professor so much as wanting to see my model. That is when it hit me. You can't give hundreds of millions of dollars to a bunch of "experts" to poke and prod the virus and expect them to cure it because they know that if they do, the grant money stops. We've poked and prodded the virus for over 20 years now. We know every bit of its genome, we know what all its proteins are and what cellular proteins they interact with, we know its life cycle, we know how it evades the immune system, and we can even take the virus apart and reverse engineer the thing into a gene-therapy vector. We have over 1500 publications regarding mechanism for every gene the virus has, which is an order of magnitude more than we have for the genome of any other organism on earth. Yet amazingly we can't KILL this one piece of RNA? You do the math. I went into AIDS research hoping to cure the virus. Instead what I found is that wracking ones mind to figure out new and innovative ways to poke and prod at the virus are rewarded and sincere ideas aimed at just plain killing it are shunned. Its a lesson, I hope my career can recover from. 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 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 17:24:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Max More wrote: > At 07:18 AM 9/8/2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >--- Hal Finney wrote: > > > > > > I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of > the > > > Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is > > > somehow inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy > of > > > non-coercion is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the > > > foundations of Extropian thinking that it is hard to imagine how > > > people could see it otherwise. > > I'll reply to Hal's lengthy and thoughtful post later today. > > > >The criticism is generally regarding a softening of terms and mealy > >mouthing. Getting rid of 'dynamic optimism' for 'pragmatic > optimism', > >and the like. > > Explain how "pragmatic" is more mealy than "dynamic". I made the > change (with encouragement from others who commented) precisely > because it was thought that "dynamic" sounded New Agey and vague. > "Pragmatic" isn't as *fun* as "dynamic", but how is it more mealy? Because it bows and surrenders to folks of limited vision and who have a tendency toward armchair do-nothingism. Dynamic optimism expects them to take action, to be proactive, to make the future they wish to see. Pragmatic optimism means they can sit around and yak about it ad nauseum until the issue isn't of consequence anymore, or it is too late to do anything effective about it. It is a neutering. > >The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by > >ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting > >corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not > hold > >to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian > >leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies > (such > >as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations > >controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela). > > This is a confused paragraph. By saying "policies endorsed by ExI or > advocated by other transhumanist groups", you're not saying anything > useful. What if I said "Murders committed by Mike Lorrey or other > males called "Mike"? The issue is whether the Principles of Extropy > have been "watered down" (whatever that means), not what other groups > do. ExI has never supported "corporate welfare subsidies for stem > cell research", so don't suggest otherwise, then try to weasel out of > it by saying "I only said ExI OR other groups." Okay, here is a point blank question: is ExI for or against President Bush's ban on federal funding of stem cell research beyond the limited number of cell lines he recognised in 2001? So far as I've been able to tell, I'm the only person here who backs Bush's stand, and I do so for solid libertarian reasons that also hew closest to the extropian principles. Forcing someone at gun point to pay for something they are morally opposed to, particularly if it has no bearing on their personal safety or risk, is against the extropian principles. Where does ExI stand on this issue, and if it opposes Bush's policy, how can it justify it in light of its own principles against coersion? > >Furthermore, the claim to hold to the principles, which as you amply > >demonstrated are quite plainly libertarian in meaning and intent, > which > >is contradicted by the weasle word denial of Extropy being > libertarian > >in a mealy mouthed attempt to appeal to a broader base of membership > >among those with an aversion to liberty, is a 'watering down' that > is > >semantically no different from the Klan claiming it is no longer > >racist, or various socialist parties claiming they are no longer > >pro-communist. > > It's hard to know how to respond when people like you thick-headed > repeat the same stuff, failing to respond to my previous detailed > explanations (as in the NeoFiles interview: > http://www.life-enhancement.com/NeoFiles/default.asp?ID=39). Clearly > the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian > view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable > viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are > *restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic > view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the > principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. I've run into this very problem with public questions about the stance of the FSP, which claims to be 'non-partisan' and is only interested in migrating people. The FSP only says that its principle is most compatible with libertarianism, but refuses to take a stand on anything for fear of limiting its potential member base. The public doesn't buy it, they can tell you are trying to snow them, and they want to know where you actually stand. There is a difference between being dogmatic and being principled. Dogma is rote theology of philosophy. Principled means applying a consistent principle to changing circumstances. It would be dogmatically extropian to insist upon stem cell research by any means necessary. It is principled to apply all the extropian principles, including the one against coersion, in limiting how one conducts and/or funds such research. > As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with > socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict > libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to > libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways > described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* > mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it > might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It > *might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as > might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with > extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). I am satisfied that the principle that allows for coercive organizations to exist so long as membership is voluntary covers this, but your stance here does not cover the right of individuals, under the principles, to not belong to coercive organizations, to not have their funds taken at gunpoint for research they don't like, or to engage in research that voluntary coercive organizations oppose. However, libertarian principles allow for such organizations to exist within a greater libertarian societal plenum under the same circumstances as the extropian principles do. Retorting that the principles are not libertarian is like saying, "The sky is not blue (because surveys show that most people don't like blue), it is azure." > > >You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe, > >stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists, > >socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with > >their entryist tactics. > > I've already replied to this kind of slanderous rubbish when Perry > Metzger blew a gasket. I'm not going to repeat myself. Perry takes a distinctly intolerant view toward libertarians tolerating POVs that are not absolutist bunkertarian do-it-now-or-I'm-going-home anarcho-capitalist. I differ distinctly from his view in that regard, but do not waver in insisting that ExI hold to its own principles, no matter what label it chooses to disguise them under for PR purposes. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From sentience at pobox.com Thu Sep 8 18:30:00 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:30:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> Personally, the part that turns me off is the attempt to insist that Extropianism *never was* libertarian. I've made mistakes, and I've publicly repudiated them and gotten on with my life. The difficulty would arise if I tried to insist that the Singularity Institute *never had* been in favor of just throwing together any AI system that worked without care for FAI. Everyone is allowed to change. No one can force you to go on believing what you believed five years ago. But part of that is coming out and publicly admitting that, yes, an actual disruptive update has occurred in your beliefs. If I refused to say, "By my present standards, Eliezer-1996 was a fool," if from pride I tried to avoid the appearance that my past self had made a mistake, then people would justly hold me to account for my past self's opinions. Maybe I'm wrong, and it really is the case that ExI never was a libertarian organization. But personally, I'd like to see ExI come out and say: "We used to be a libertarian organization. That was a mistake and we admit it. From now on we're going to be a transhumanism organization that is not explicitly tied to any political viewpoint except where it infringes on transhumanist issues, although our philosophy of self-reliance and distaste for coercion is highly compatible with libertarianism as philosophy." So far as I'm concerned, that would settle everything, and anyone who wanted to accuse the modern ExI of libertarianism would have to produce modern evidence. If you want to stand on principle, strongly and forthrightly, you must forthrightly announce changes in your principles *as changes*. Otherwise you'll try to simultaneously satisfy your old principles and your new principles, and in the process water down everything you say. That's what happens when people try to say things that satisfy multiple principles simultaneously. For the record: I used to be a libertarian. Now I am not a libertarian, but I'm readily recognizable as someone who's a heck of a lot closer to being a libertarian than to any other standard political position. In other words, my opinions actually changed from one time to another. Anyone who objects to my modern opinions can take it up with my modern self, and anyone who wants to argue with my past self is out of luck unless they invent a time machine. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 18:49:42 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050908184942.18749.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with > fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud and > various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others > would seem sufficient. ...? Laws = government. Regulations = government. A body that imposes laws and regulations upon others is a government, whether or not it is called one. (And regardless of its means of selection, in particular regardless of whether it's elected; whether it co-exists with something else that everyone calls "the government" and which does the same; et cetera. Consumer Reports and Underwriters' Laboratories are examples of these, focussing on ensuring product quality: these organizations can be and have been sued in the official government's courts over this, but their stamps of approval are theirs - not the official government's, nor anybody else's - to give or not, regardless of the fact that witholding it might in practice completely prevent someone from selling their wares.) Now, if you're saying that it is possible for a government to regulate against aggression and so forth without specifically regulating against harmful business practices, that I'll agree with. That would be a matter of artfully drafting the laws to regulate behaviors without explicitly mentioning (or even necessarily specifically anticipating) them. (Example: while there are no laws against file-sharing networks per se, existing laws can be applied against organizations that specifically advocate violating copyright, even if their primary means happens to be employing certain technologies towards that end. Of course, the state of the copyright laws themselves is a different matter, but if they are of net ill effect then they should be overturned on their own demerits.) But that's still a government of some form that's doing the regulation. From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 18:50:57 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:50:57 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> Message-ID: <43208811.9060909@aol.com> Hal: The Philosophy of Liberty is fundamental. People should be essentially free to choose their own actions - economic and otherwise. No one should use force to assert their will to coerce someone to do something that they don't want to do. In this sense, like I think most people, I am a libertarian. That is, in the abstract philosophical sense. That's "libertarian" with a small 'l'. Not "Libertarian" with a big "L". I was a Libertarian in the concrete political sense. I am no longer. Why? Because the Libertarian Party (which, BTW, is not the only party that has as a primary ideal personal and economic freedom) has significantly failed at even showing a good faith effort at promoting those ideals within the government. Instead it has become a repository for Reagan-style Randians interested only in reducing taxation for the rich while hawkishly protecting our foreign interests with imperialistic foreign wars and policies. Note that this program - reducing taxes for the rich and protecting our foreign interests with force - has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with Liberty for ALL. Let me clarify. If one was -really- interested in liberty for everyone and against violent political coersion, here's the natural stand one would take on a variety of issues: 1) You would be against a national military since (a) it is a political force mechanism used to enforce the political will of one group against another and (b) it necessitates taxation and bloated government which again are political force mechanisms used to enforce the poltical will of one group against another.. 2) You would be working to systematically disentangle the economic system from coercive political control - abolishing the IRS, the Federal Reserve System, etc. 3) You would be actively trying to remove all restrictions on personal use of land and property - including zoning restrictions, land-use policies, etc. 4) You would be actively working to stop American military presence in foreign countries as it necessitates large government and taxation,etc. 5) You would be working actively to promote openness in the government by demanding that every action of the government be As we've seen in this forum alone, the Libertarians (and by that I mean people who politically identify with the Libertarian Party - the Big-L people, not people who believe in Freedom) don't, in general, support these concrete positions, and instead act as status-quo appologists for a particularly viciously anti-freedom wing of the Republican Party. Finally, having lived in California for many years, I'm just tired of seeing the Libertarian Party run people who's platforms are Druidism, Ferret-ownership-freedom, NAMBLA and Marijuana freedom (all of which are just fine with me, to each their own!) while working nefariously in the background to undermine the Democratic Party and support the Republican Party. The combination of these two factors make the Libertarian Party (and not libertarianism) variously a joke and a sham, making true believers in liberty unable to support them. With kind regards as an ex-Political Libertarian and current libertarian, Robbie Lindauer PS - there seems to be some question as to whether I'm an extropian. I believe that human technology -could- one day conquer most of humanities problems ASSUMING political and economic problems can be solved but I am skeptical as to whether those political and economic problems can be solved in light of a small problem usually called "human nature" which includes "greed, stupidity, foolishness, foolhardiness, cowardice, etc." alongside "ingenuity, hope, bravery, wisdom, etc." Remembering that post-human nature will be mostly of human design, it's likely to carry over many flaws as well as many virtues. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Sep 8 19:01:45 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:01:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Comet Temple 1 Fragile and porous Message-ID: <01a001c5b4a7$c2785010$0100a8c0@kevin> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/08/deep.impact.reut/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Sep 8 18:58:23 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:58:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Everyone's a critic. Here is some material to work with: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 Note that they say this up front: < Warning: I'm about to link to a page that has a little "sfsocialists" logo in the upper left corner. If that makes you twitch, skip this post. You'll be doing yourself a disservice, though. The piece is descriptive. What the authors are writing about is what happened to them during the time they were stuck in the city after the storm passed. The authors, Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky, were attending a paramedics' conference in New Orleans, staying in the French Quarter, when the hurricane hit. Afterward, they were in the same situation as other survivors in the city: no food, no water, no transportation, and no help from the outside world > etc. Frightening and encouraging all at once (to this old anarcho-communitarian, anyway). Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 19:01:28 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050908190128.26038.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > That seems like a reasonable example of a difference. Forced to > choose > between a libertarian mindset that would have no government at all on > high principle and another mindset that would accept the need for a > government of some type, I'd tend to look at the second as being > more realistic in 2005. I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that the libertarian mindset would prefer no government at all - that is more strictly an anarchic mindset. But it is certainly the case that many (though not all) libertarians would argue against regulating for (and thus, when necessary, initiating force to compel) honest business practices, even if this did in effect - albeit quite a few steps removed - cause businesses to less often initiate force against people (because, in part, honest businesses are less inclined and less able to do so). An extropian mindset, however, might advocate said regulations (and enforcement of same) due to the eventual benefits (which, granted, would inherently be spread around to everyone: everyone personally benefits from not having force applied to them). From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 8 19:32:11 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:32:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Message-ID: <380-22005948193211531@M2W118.mail2web.com> Eli, There are three separate issues: 1. Extropy Institute 2. Extropians 3. Philosophy of Extropy No. 1 was never Libertarian; No. 2 was mostly Libertarian and libertarian in the 1990s, but not exclusively and it was never required of members; No. 3 was influenced by libertarian ideals (not necessarily American. In short, Extropy Institute is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization. As such, the IRS does not allow alignment with a political party. As a educational organization, its purpose is to network people and to pursue the education of the philosophy of Extropy and extropic thinking, not promote a political viewpoint or support a political party. Natasha Vita-More Original Message: ----------------- From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:30:00 -0700 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Personally, the part that turns me off is the attempt to insist that Extropianism *never was* libertarian. I've made mistakes, and I've publicly repudiated them and gotten on with my life. The difficulty would arise if I tried to insist that the Singularity Institute *never had* been in favor of just throwing together any AI system that worked without care for FAI. Everyone is allowed to change. No one can force you to go on believing what you believed five years ago. But part of that is coming out and publicly admitting that, yes, an actual disruptive update has occurred in your beliefs. If I refused to say, "By my present standards, Eliezer-1996 was a fool," if from pride I tried to avoid the appearance that my past self had made a mistake, then people would justly hold me to account for my past self's opinions. Maybe I'm wrong, and it really is the case that ExI never was a libertarian organization. But personally, I'd like to see ExI come out and say: "We used to be a libertarian organization. That was a mistake and we admit it. From now on we're going to be a transhumanism organization that is not explicitly tied to any political viewpoint except where it infringes on transhumanist issues, although our philosophy of self-reliance and distaste for coercion is highly compatible with libertarianism as philosophy." So far as I'm concerned, that would settle everything, and anyone who wanted to accuse the modern ExI of libertarianism would have to produce modern evidence. If you want to stand on principle, strongly and forthrightly, you must forthrightly announce changes in your principles *as changes*. Otherwise you'll try to simultaneously satisfy your old principles and your new principles, and in the process water down everything you say. That's what happens when people try to say things that satisfy multiple principles simultaneously. For the record: I used to be a libertarian. Now I am not a libertarian, but I'm readily recognizable as someone who's a heck of a lot closer to being a libertarian than to any other standard political position. In other words, my opinions actually changed from one time to another. Anyone who objects to my modern opinions can take it up with my modern self, and anyone who wants to argue with my past self is out of luck unless they invent a time machine. -- 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 8 19:56:01 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:56:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Message-ID: <380-2200594819561328@M2W110.mail2web.com> Eli wrote: >Maybe I'm wrong, and it really is the case that ExI never was a >libertarian organization. But personally, I'd like to see ExI come out >and say: "We used to be a libertarian organization. That was a mistake >and we admit it. From now on we're going to be a transhumanism >organization that is not explicitly tied to any political viewpoint You are mixing apples and oranges. ExI was always a transhumanist organization, thus "Extropy: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought" way back in the early 90s. Since Max defined transhumanism before it grew into the culture it is today, the philosophy of Extropy has always been transhumanist and a philosophy of transhumanism. >except where it infringes on transhumanist issues, although our >philosophy of self-reliance and distaste for coercion is highly >compatible with libertarianism as philosophy." So far as I'm concerned, >that would settle everything, and anyone who wanted to accuse the modern >ExI of libertarianism would have to produce modern evidence." The second part of this paragraph is more apt and applies nicely. We tried this years ago, but there are die-hards that insist that things cannot change and that if you once said something or did something that it is written in stone and can never change. It seems that there were many discussions about progressive ideas, but then there was that political essay that Hughes wrote which ignored the communications. The point is that if someone wants to position you they will not accept any explanation, no matter how articulately and honorably stated, and will refuse to provide the requested evidence. But, as I said previously, I am not interested in this type of antagonism. What we need to do is to establish what we are now and what we want to become. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 19:58:07 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:58:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Read more carefully. Remember that I am a minarchist. I believe there are some tasks best performed by government but that the set of such tasks is small. I am against government regulation of business. I am not against a government whose job it is to protect the rights of the people and formulate laws protecting the people from various forms of aggression on their rights. I am not against a government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? - s On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:08 PM, david wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with >> fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud >> and various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of >> others would seem sufficient. >> > > > > > A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices > and agression ? > Who writes them? > Who enforces them? > > > -David. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 20:02:09 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:02:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2005, at 5:50 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > You would think so wouldn't you? The truth, however, > from an insider's POV, is that nobody in the U.S. that > I am aware of is working on a prophylactic vaccine. > The vaccines which are out and being tested (none are > that impressive) are all therapeutic vaccines for use > with people who are already infected. There was a some > buzz a few years ago about european vaccine that used > an attenuated virus with a deleted nef gene, but > apparently it was still capable of causing AIDS. But > like I said, in the U.S., I am unaware of any at all. > > Aside from the economic luddism I metioned, I am not > sure why this is the case. But another large factor > has to do with the technical challenge of testing it. > Apparently, the day that you can grab some kid at risk > of infection off the street and test your experimental > vaccine on him as Louis Pasteur did is long gone. > I believe I can easily find more than a few people in high risk groups who would happily volunteer. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 20:17:38 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:17:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908190128.26038.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908190128.26038.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> That seems like a reasonable example of a difference. Forced to >> choose >> between a libertarian mindset that would have no government at all on >> high principle and another mindset that would accept the need for a >> government of some type, I'd tend to look at the second as being >> more realistic in 2005. >> > > I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that the libertarian mindset > would prefer no government at all - that is more strictly an anarchic > mindset. But it is certainly the case that many (though not all) > libertarians would argue against regulating for (and thus, when > necessary, initiating force to compel) honest business practices, even > if this did in effect - albeit quite a few steps removed - cause > businesses to less often initiate force against people (because, in > part, honest businesses are less inclined and less able to do so). Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked difference in a nutshell. > An > extropian mindset, however, might advocate said regulations (and > enforcement of same) due to the eventual benefits (which, granted, > would inherently be spread around to everyone: everyone personally > benefits from not having force applied to them). A mindset that doesn't understand the above difference might. But the initiation of force in the affairs of human beings to regulate everything that might harm or to regulate the economy can and historically often has very serious and dire unintended consequences. The assumption that ever larger and more vigilant government control is necessary to our well being is extremely pernicious to our well being and our extopian dreams. Remember please how government decisions and policies really are made and by what forces. Ask yourself honestly if you want your progress toward an extropic future under the thumb of that sort of process. Progress comes from the outliers and the small minority. It does not come from the democratic majority or out of a huge all-powerful bureaucracy. Choke of a critical level of freedom of that minority and only stagnation and decay will prevail. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 20:20:38 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:20:38 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <43209D16.6060200@aol.com> What about the freedom to use other forms of monetary exchange? What about taxation? I believe once you have control of a form of exchange and enable taxation, the rest of ills of statist society follow. You need a (self-serving) administration to enforce the taxation laws. You need a (self-serving) defense department to protect the economic interests of the country as a whole. You need a (self-serving) polity to govern the taxation and military groups. Remembering that (self-serving) individuals will, at a rate of at least 50%, abuse their positions of power to gain more of it, you're guaranteed to have more and more regulation and control concentrated at those positions which are the focus of the alienation of the power of the people to govern. Then you need an opposition party to watch the power-party. Then you need separate branches of government to watch each other. Then you need oversight and independant auditing (which the US doesn't have, but probably should given the rest of the stuff we already have). Pretty soon, you end up with laws regulating the presence of Elephants in bars enforced by the same county-sheriffs that steal cocaine from the evidence locker. In short, you need a government and for big countries like the US, you need a BIG Government. Robbie Lindauer Samantha Atkins wrote: > Read more carefully. Remember that I am a minarchist. I believe > there are some tasks best performed by government but that the set of > such tasks is small. I am against government regulation of > business. I am not against a government whose job it is to protect > the rights of the people and formulate laws protecting the people > from various forms of aggression on their rights. I am not against a > government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am > against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects > of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It > is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a > legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against > business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? > > - s > > On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:08 PM, david wrote: > >> Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> >>> There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with >>> fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud >>> and various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of >>> others would seem sufficient. >>> >> >> >> >> >> A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices and >> agression ? >> Who writes them? >> Who enforces them? >> >> >> -David. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 20:11:20 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:11:20 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <43209AE8.20103@aol.com> What about the freedom to use other forms of monetary exchange? What about taxation? I believe once you have control of a form of exchange and enable taxation, the rest of ills of statist society follow. You need a (self-serving) administration to enforce the taxation laws. You need a (self-serving) defense department to protect the economic interests of the country as a whole. You need a (self-serving) polity to govern the taxation and military groups. Remembering that (self-serving) individuals will, at a rate of at least 50%, abuse their positions of power to gain more of it, you're guaranteed to have more and more regulation and control concentrated at those positions which are the focus of the alienation of the power of the people to govern. Then you need an opposition party to watch the power-party. Then you need separate branches of government to watch each other. Then you need oversight and independant auditing (which the US doesn't have, but probably should given the rest of the stuff we already have). Pretty soon, you end up with laws regulating the presence of Elephants in bars enforced by the same county-sheriffs that steal cocaine from the evidence locker. In short, you need a government and for big countries like the US, you need a BIG Government. Robbie Lindauer Samantha Atkins wrote: > Read more carefully. Remember that I am a minarchist. I believe > there are some tasks best performed by government but that the set of > such tasks is small. I am against government regulation of > business. I am not against a government whose job it is to protect > the rights of the people and formulate laws protecting the people > from various forms of aggression on their rights. I am not against a > government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am > against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects > of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It > is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a > legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against > business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? > > - s > > On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:08 PM, david wrote: > >> Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> >>> There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with >>> fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud >>> and various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of >>> others would seem sufficient. >>> >> >> >> >> >> A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices and >> agression ? >> Who writes them? >> Who enforces them? >> >> >> -David. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 8 21:04:50 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:04:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Seminar Course: Smart Mobs - UC Berkeley Message-ID: <380-2200594821450713@M2W051.mail2web.com> >From Boing Boing 9/2/05 "Rheingold launches 'Smartmob Media 101' class at UC Berkeley Howard 'Smartmobs' Rheingold sez, 'The class schedule and syllabus are now available for the UC Berkeley SIMS course on 'Participatory Media and Collective Action' that I will be teaching with Xiao Qiang, every Tuesday evening, 7-9 PM (we'll make arrangements for pizza or other easy dinners) starting September 20. You can think of it as 'Smart Mob Media 101.'" http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/participatory_media_and_collective_action/parti cipatory_media_and_collective_action.cfm -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 22:38:48 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. > Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked difference > in a nutshell. Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when they think they are purchasing food? Is it force to make sure that customers have access to complete (or as complete as possible) information about a company before doing business with them? What if most companies view it in their self-interest not to give out information, such that mass refusal to do business with the secretive (the market's way of punishing this) is not a practical option? And if businesses then initiated force, but made sure the general public never knew about it, hiding it in the generally-accepted secrecy... This is the kind of situation we were discussing. From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Sep 8 22:51:56 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:51:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Damien Broderick wrote: >Everyone's a critic. Here is some material to work with: >http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason not to believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth of this story? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 23:23:36 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:23:36 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4320C7F8.4030403@aol.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. >>Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked difference >>in a nutshell. >> >> Samantha has never heard of the Protection Racket. Robbie From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 23:23:34 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:23:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43EA833C-0B97-4013-AA4B-A05D3537D29C@mac.com> On Sep 8, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. >> Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked difference >> in a nutshell. >> > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when they > think they are purchasing food? Yes. it is fraud. Which is illegal. Again. business has no mans of *legally* initiating force. That is the sole province of government. That is why it behooves us to carefully delimit government. > Is it force to make sure that > customers have access to complete (or as complete as possible) > information about a company before doing business with them? That depends on the type of informaiton and how it was gathered and is neither here no there for what I was attempting to communicate. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Sep 8 23:42:42 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:42:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:51 PM 9/8/2005 -0400, Robin wrote: >>http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 > >Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason not to >believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth of this story? If you go down through the comments under the Nielsen Hayden post, there's lots of corroborative material of that kind of thing happening. Watch this without crying: http://www.wafb.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?qu=charmaine+neville&x=13&y=10 Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 00:13:35 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <43EA833C-0B97-4013-AA4B-A05D3537D29C@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050909001335.12849.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Sep 8, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. > >> Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked > difference > >> in a nutshell. > > > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when > they > > think they are purchasing food? > > Yes. it is fraud. Which is illegal. Again. business has no mans of > *legally* initiating force. That is the sole province of > government. That is why it behooves us to carefully delimit > government. Businesses, and other entities, can still initiate force even if it's illegal. The question then becomes one of degree of enforcement. Can the government prosecute businesses for threatening to initiate force, in lieu of evidence of actual force? Some businesses get really good at hiding up any actual incidents. "Jimmy, ah, sleeps with da fishes. Yeah. Really unfortunate accident he had. We's selling insurance against accidents." What about prohibiting businesses from accumulating enough arms that they could initiate force against the government and win, even if they have not yet actually started? "Just because we have detailed maps of all your bases, artillery solutions including tomorrow's wind to neutralize all your armor, and friends with guns in strike positions doesn't mean we scrubthemission were going to conquer you, honest!" A government that failed to do that would soon cease to exist. And then there are incidents like Katrina, where the Earth itself initiates force against people...and then some people are in turn forced to initiate force against others to survive. "We need food and water! Sell it to us at prices we can afford - and we can't afford much - or we'll take it, legal or illegal. We're dead otherwise." One could argue that a government trying to maintain its monopoly on force has a vested interest in making sure that situation never arises - for example, by providing search and rescue, medical treatment, and other resources after a disaster, and by taking action to minimize or prevent damage from foreseeable disasters (and a Katrina-like problem in NO was foreseen way in advance). Said actions including maintaining the roads to allow emergency response teams quick access after a disaster, enforcing building codes, et cetera. Which is not to defend everything the government does. Just that quite a lot of its functions arguably stem from making sure no one else ever initiates force. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 02:01:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. > > Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked > difference > > in a nutshell. > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when they > think they are purchasing food? Poisoning is illegal. We are talking about LEGAL FORCE. Try another strawman. > Is it force to make sure that > customers have access to complete (or as complete as possible) > information about a company before doing business with them? Depends on what information you are trying to give them. If your claims about a company you make in disclosures to the public meet the legal definition of libel, slander, or contractual violation of confidentiality agreements, it is you who are illegally using force. > What if > most companies view it in their self-interest not to give out > information, such that mass refusal to do business with the secretive > (the market's way of punishing this) is not a practical option? Depends on what information you are looking for. If you are fishing for the intellectual property of a competitor, you have no standing to make demands, and any attempt to get their information is theft. > And > if businesses then initiated force, but made sure the general public > never knew about it, hiding it in the generally-accepted secrecy... If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing to pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed against him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the public about his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. Caveat emptor. > > This is the kind of situation we were discussing. You have yet to provide a convincing case. Try again. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Sep 9 02:05:55 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:05:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908220449.03008db8@mail.gmu.edu> At 07:42 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote: >At 06:51 PM 9/8/2005 -0400, Robin wrote: > >>>http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 >> >>Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason >>not to believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth >>of this story? > >If you go down through the comments under the Nielsen Hayden post, >there's lots of corroborative material of that kind of thing happening. > >Watch this without crying: > >http://www.wafb.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?qu=charmaine+neville&x=13&y=10 Or this: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/02.html#a4763 Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate 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 Fri Sep 9 02:11:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20050909021114.13163.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robin Hanson wrote: > At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Damien Broderick wrote: > >Everyone's a critic. Here is some material to work with: > >http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 > > Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason not > to believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth of > this story? Nope, as I expected, local government is responsible for the early screw-ups and callousness, FEMA made it worse by demanding people leave the city for help, that the sheriffs outside the city wouldn't let them leave, but none of the locals were likely telling FEMA they were keeping people in the city. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Sep 9 02:29:17 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:29:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] After New Orleans Message-ID: <4320F37D.2060205@mindspring.com> [What a twit! He sounds like a socialist gone mad. These artsy fartsy folks just don't get it. The best defense is a good offense. -Terry] [sorry for the crossposting of this one... since I have some fairly specific predictions towards the end, I wanted to get it out on record... /t] 1. the lead up Two EMS paramedics and their experiences in New Orleans. http://www.emsnetwork.org/artman/publish/article_18337.shtml Forwarded to me by many sources. There has been some independent fact checking on this story and it's all come up positive (the authors exist, are who they say they are, were in New Orleans and did write this story). Words fail me. This next video is very harsh. Ms. Neville is extremely intelligent and well-spoken and this really hurts. http://www.wafb.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?clipid1=516003&at1=News+%2D+Special+Coverage&vt1=v&h1=Charmaine+Neville%3A+New+Orleans+Evacuee&d1=363667&redirUrl=www.wafb.com&activePane=info&LaunchPageAdTag=homepage Charmaine Neville [windows media] is the daughter of Charles Neville of the Neville Bros. http://www.charmainenevilleband.com/ posted by quonsar 07 September | 12:45 I'm still crying with despair and pity and God help us all, shaking with helpless rage. (salon.com) 'That night, at the White House, Bush met with congressional leaders of both parties, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urged Bush to fire Brown. "Why would I do that?" the president replied. "Because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week," she explained. To which he answered, "What didn't go right?"' That these insane criminals rule the country is already beyond belief. That about half of all Americans apparently think Bush is doing a good job (but three quarters of them think he should be working on *lowering gas prices*) makes me feel I'm in a country filled with psychopaths. 2. predictions I fear the shit is really going to hit the fan, and soon. -- al Qaeda clearly wishes to strike again at some point. -- the resistance movement in Iraq is about ready for a "Tet offensive" to cause serious damage to the (distracted by mutinies!) US forces -- I'm less familiar with the war in Afghanistan but I'll bet they'd like to get some headlines too. -- China wishes to take Taiwan and doesn't care about headlines. -- there are many other evil forces that want to take on the United States now that it has moved to the dark side. and September 11 approaches. If I were one of these parties and I had a nefarious scheme hatched, I'd be racing to get it going just at the point where the US's resources are most tied up with disaster recovery -- Sunday, September 11. I'd hit people at a vacation center or some similar relaxation place -- they've already made people feel unsafe at work, why not make them feel unsafe at play? If I were bold I'd hit the Patriot Day parade in DC. (Did you know 9/11 is now called Patriot Day?) And once ONE of those fuckers pops off, it's a great time for another one to pop off too. Say there were another terrorist attack in the US. That'd be a perfect signal for a huge assault on demoralized, distracted US troops in Iraq -- what about suicide bombers with planes full of explosives onto barracks? Or, nerve gas? Why not, we know the US makes this shit and we know that they don't take good care of their stock of weapons of mass destruction (Hey, was anyone else surprised when the anthrax in the attack turned out to be US "weapons-grade" anthrax? Who knew we had "weapons-grade anthrax" just lying around? Use of germs as warfare is considered a "crime against humanity," y'know...) Or nerve gas could be used in the US. Spraying or otherwise putting a lot of nerve gas into a Six Flags Amusement Park or Disneyland/world could result in thousands of horrible fatalities and dreadful injuries -- think of the images, they'd be almost as memorable as the World Trade Center getting hit. Sprawled comic book figures lying beside dead children.... The 9/11 terrorists knew about nerve gas, they'd talked about renting crop dusters. (One of the amazing pieces of luck we've had so far is that in the current war against terror is that there hasn't been one really clever terrorist. There are SO many clever ways to do people in en masse, methods that would almost certainly wreak havoc the first time and still be hard to defend against the second time. I deleted a description of one really simple reliable plausible nerve gas delivery system using early 20th century technology, there are a thousand other possibilities. Be glad I'm on the good guys' side!) Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a very frightening position. There is a madman in the White House. In four years, he's managed to turn much of the rest of the world sour on the United States and made more than a few mortal enemies. As a direct consequence of his madness, Americans are dying right now in Afghanistan, Iraq and New Orleans. New Orleans showed America's enemies that our four years of "Homeland Security" buildup was a fraud -- that we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have on jackbooted thugs who aren't making honest Americans one whit safer. These enemies will feel empowered to strike, and soon. And each new attack makes the next attack more possible. The question is this -- would Bush, if pushed into a corner by multiple attackers, really push the button? But, is that not his dream, the Apocalypse? Isn't that what Christians ARE anticipating with great joy: the Rapture, Armageddon? Rice told her church to prepare for Christ's imminent arrival just a few days ago! Let us pray that reason will somehow ring out at the end of this, that perhaps our elected Representatives who wish their children to live will rise up, or that our senior Generals (who are career officers who have experienced war) would refuse the fatal commands from an obviously mad President. Or that Chaney has a heart attack and Bush's cognitive disorders get so bad that he can't speak in public any more and he has to retire in favour of some non-entity and we lose Taiwan and Iraq but it's OK, not EVERYONE dies, and there are trials and a lot of people go to jail and a reform President (Howard Dean!!!) is elected in 2008 and we can make peace in the world and start trying to adapt as best we can to a changing environment (and hopefully figure out ways to reverse the damage we are causing!) -- /t -- "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 robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 9 03:05:48 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:05:48 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4320FC0C.4020108@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing to >pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed against >him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the public about >his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its >legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. Caveat emptor. > > Why not just take revenge? The Legal process is slanted toward those who can afford to fight legal battles. Robbie From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Fri Sep 9 03:24:46 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:24:46 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search for meaning... Message-ID: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Hi, I'm Jack. I have been reading the posts to this forum for some time with somewhat mixed emotions regarding the political point-scoring. As I see it, the extropian viewpoint has no precise congruence with any political system - rather it subsumes them all (or should do so) with a philosophical view point which is flexible enough to allow for any kind of government - but should enshrine some core human values to dictate (or at least privede guidance benchmarks on) the way any government conducts its affairs. Some OED political definition should be enough to demonstrate that political words per se carry no stigma (I'm not denying the cultural/semantic baggage that sticks to buzzwords over time - I'm just trying to drill down to core meanings): 1. Socialism: a society in which things are held or used in common 2. Liberal: Free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, open-hearted. Originally, the distinctive epithet of those arts or sciences that were considered worthy of a free man; opposed to servile or mechanical. In later use, of condition, pursuits, occupations: Pertaining to or suitable to persons of superior social station; becoming a gentleman... 3. Libertarian: One who holds the doctrine of the freedom of the will, as opposed to that of necessity. These are ALL wonderful ideas - each born of the very best of motives - each idealistically promoted as a (often 'THE!") universal panacea. But ideology and actual practice are two wildly different things: Socialism often breeds apathy, wishy-washy liberalism inspires contempt, libertarian free markets are - at least potentially - just a playground for amoral rich kids... These comments are not meant to be offensive to the well-meaning proponents of these systems in their ideal forms. There is no such thing as a bad political system - there are only bad politicians. Capitalism is wonderful - if you control capital, or at least make it possible for someone of reasonable intelligence to 'make good'. It is just a form of slavery - with all mod-cons - for those perpetually in hock and struggling to survive. A benign dictatorship is probably the most effective political system - and the cheapest and most efficient as well... Problem is - the power ultimately devolves to the dictator's inbred off-spring - who have none of the original ideals, but all the egocentric rapacity of indulged privilege... I would like to submit the following brief critique of political doctrine in general: By way of explanation, I live currently in southeastern China, and my ideas are tinged somewhat with my interpretations of Daoist ideas of totality. True wisdom, Daoist style, means adopting the big picture view. This in turn means accepting that one must always take into account the limitations of conventional wisdom and its assumptions. 'Conventional wisdom' is used here as a generic term to include all the prevalent beliefs and ideas that motivate individuals, organisations and governments - all the 'isms'. Conventional wisdom is cyclic; it fosters 'theories' and 'solutions' (the 'isms') that gain widespread popular support and acceptance - for a while. Some of the propositions may be quite good and some quite bad. What differentiates and separates these passing conceptions from 'true' wisdom (and from the Daoist ideal of wholeness) is their ambit. Without exception the fashionable trends in 'conventional' thought fail to be holistic - they invariably propose action based on some innovative analysis of what is always only a subset of the available data. It is often fashionably trendy to speak of thinking 'laterally' and to consider 'innovative solutions - to have thoughts that are 'outside the square' and by inference 'big picture.' But it only takes a quick glance at governmental and corporate/organisational policies anywhere and everywhere throughout recorded history to see that shortsighted, Band-Aid solutions are - everywhere - generally the order of the day. It may be that we expect and hope that humanity will be around for millennia - but our forward planning rarely extends much further than the next local election. With rare exceptions (major natural disasters, well publicised tragedies...), 'caring' stops at a clearly defined local border, and few would argue that despite much talk of 'global community' the nations that make up that community represent a fragmented 'whole' that is a very long way from any reconciliation and always includes some elements in bitter opposition to each other. Measured against any philosophic/political vision of harmony and wholeness - we (humanity) suffer critical failures of community. The modern Daoist vision (ok my interpretation) is of an integrated vision of totality. And this totality is something that ALL conventional wisdom in practical application generally lacks the necessary scope to tackle. Conventional wisdom (aka a political system) is usually for the benefit of privileged interest groups - and is never fully comprehensive in tackling the real needs of the people. Like the medicine given to terminally ill patients, it eases the immediate pain - but provides no prospect of curing the malaise. In treating symptoms rather than causes, conventional wisdom is always eventually found lacking - there is short-term gain, but usually at someone else's expense - there is no integrated big picture solution, that addresses all the criteria of need. This sounds a little esoteric and woolly, so consider for a moment one contemporary example of the type of conventional wisdom that apparently offers big-picture solutions for society at large - the much-promoted and much-implemented cleverness of 'the market economy.' That is, regulation of society based wholly on considerations of market forces and driven by profit and loss forecasting. This model of capitalist society employs a limited subset of those attributes that make us human (ie: what is currently defined as logical/rational) - but then seeks to impose the 'economic' model on every aspect of our lives. The healing of the sick, the acquisition of knowledge, the dispensing of justice - all become contingent on considerations of profit. Could this kind of niche thinking really embody some universally applicable truth? I think that a good Daoist would frown, walk away quietly and have nothing further to do with this inferior idea. By deliberating excluding and denying the legitimacy of any other consideration of people's needs, wants and feelings - by packing everything into a box marked 'commerce' the bigger human picture is forever excluded and the whole thereby denied. There is no fulfillment for anyone for whom 'the economic model' has no particular resonance - and the Dao ideal remains unattainable... If we really want free trade - we don't need ANY government. Anyone could set up shop, do what they like - market forces rule, zero trade barriers... The true purpose of human is not commerce! This is something we do, not something we are... True community is surely not difficult to grasp. From time immemorial people have huddled together for protection. Safety in numbers. The community can temporarily compensate for an individuals inability to cope with sickness, childbirth, infirmity... Old age is not really a marketing opportunity. Disease is not a treasure chest for big pharma, the poor are not consumables to be forced to labor below the poverty line until they expire. We are not a market! We are a people! With this in mind shouldn't the first concern be to draft a manifesto of individual liberties which will admit of any kind of political system - but will curb the tendency of elite groups to gather all resources and prerogatives to themselves? Sorry this is such a long initial post! But I view governments the same way you might view AI - we create them, but we don't neccessarily control them. If they are unfriendly, they are powerful enough to destroy us or enslave us. A good first step might be to make politicians personally accountable for their errors... Jack Jack Parkinson EF - English First Qunzhong Donglu 35 Fuzhou, Peoples Republic of China. isthatyoujack at icqmail.com jack.parkinson at englishfirst.com.cn tel: fax: mobile: +86 591-83399808 (China) +86 591-83399908 (China) +86 13055419794 (China) Add me to your address book... Want a signature like this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:14:47 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <4320FC0C.4020108@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050909041447.4067.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing to > >pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed > against > >him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the public > about > >his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its > >legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. Caveat emptor. > > > > > > Why not just take revenge? The Legal process is slanted toward those > who can afford to fight legal battles. This is bull. If your claim were true, then lawyers would not feel the need to advertise with cheaply done ads on television in the wee hours of the evening. The lack of a loser pays standard here in the US actually puts the advantage in the court of those who are willing to take their chances with a contingency lawyer, as those with the money are always paying 'go away' money to frivolous suers... The only disadvantage is the mental reticence by so many against engaging in legal action. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 04:16:03 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909041603.86034.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when > they > > think they are purchasing food? > > Poisoning is illegal. I didn't ask if it was legal. > We are talking about LEGAL FORCE. No, we're talking about force. Assuming people don't do things if they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even the strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has achieved over any large group of people. Besides, history shows that if you try to screw over a body of people long enough, hard enough, they will start tending to ignore any laws you write for them. They will, inevitably, initiate force - and if your economy depends on exploiting their labor (as often happens in these situations), you will fall (once whatever stockpiles you have run out, without their production to renew said stockpiles), and everyone involved will suffer. It's happened again and again, and human nature has not changed in that regard. The government monopoly on force is supposed to prevent that, but of course that assumes the government is one that the people can stand. People can stand for a lot (see the crap that the USA is currently putting up with), but there is a limit. > > Is it force to make sure that > > customers have access to complete (or as complete as possible) > > information about a company before doing business with them? > > Depends on what information you are trying to give them. If your > claims > about a company you make in disclosures to the public meet the legal > definition of libel, slander, or contractual violation of > confidentiality agreements, it is you who are illegally using force. How about if companies don't allow, by contract, any agency with access to their food to call it poison? (Note that some companies are trying equivalent tactics today, using contracts to shut down any and all negative reviews of their products.) The only information available to anyone else is that the company's product is good and wholesome. > > What if > > most companies view it in their self-interest not to give out > > information, such that mass refusal to do business with the > secretive > > (the market's way of punishing this) is not a practical option? > > Depends on what information you are looking for. If you are fishing > for > the intellectual property of a competitor, you have no standing to > make > demands, and any attempt to get their information is theft. Who decides what is and what is not intellectual property? Certain companies would claim that all of your memories about them - or even the entire contents of any brain that has had any interaction with their products whatsoever (and thus been indelibly altered by the experience) - are their IP if they were the sole arbiter of what they could claim as their IP. > > And > > if businesses then initiated force, but made sure the general > public > > never knew about it, hiding it in the generally-accepted secrecy... > > If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing to > pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed > against > him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the public about > his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its > legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. And if they don't have a choice? From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 9 04:19:04 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:19:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfsbetterforlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050907135610.GR2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200509090418.j894Ivf22070@tick.javien.com> Eugen Leitl: ... > > You're not sending much ahead to Mars, are you? NOOOOO that's right, you are correct! Now I know why we kept talking past each other. I am looking at the absolute minimal Mars mission, where we have a few thousand kilogram manufacturing facility, very small, a bulldozer the size of an end table, a toy really. A very expensive sophisticated toy, but a small thing. The stuff it builds is small by the human scale. It is sent ahead, carried by one heavy lifter, Delta class. Then later the human is carried to Mars orbit with one heavy lifter. The whole minimal mission is accomplished with two heavies. We can afford that. This is the classic weights engineer approach to something like this: we intuitively look for the lightest and cheapest arrangement that will do the job. On another subject you wrote: > I was dumping straight from /dev/ass... {8^D Gene this comment made me laugh my /dev/ass off. {8^D spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:24:40 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search for meaning... In-Reply-To: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <20050909042440.15775.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > Hi, I'm Jack. > > I have been reading the posts to this forum for some > time with somewhat > mixed emotions regarding the political > point-scoring. As I see it, the > extropian viewpoint has no precise congruence with > any political system - > rather it subsumes them all (or should do so) with a > philosophical view > point which is flexible enough to allow for any kind > of government - but > should enshrine some core human values to dictate > (or at least privede > guidance benchmarks on) the way any government > conducts its affairs. Yes, Jack, this is precisely the point that Max, Natasha, and Spike have been trying so hard to make clear on the list and that is that Extropy, like Taoism or any other philosophy is larger than any single political system or movement. > Some OED political definition should be enough to > demonstrate that political > words per se carry no stigma (I'm not denying the > cultural/semantic > baggage that sticks to buzzwords over time - I'm > just trying to drill down > to core meanings): > 1. Socialism: a society in which things are held or > used in common > 2. Liberal: Free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, > open-hearted. > Originally, > the distinctive epithet of those arts or sciences > that were considered > worthy of a free man; opposed to servile or > mechanical. In later use, of > condition, pursuits, occupations: Pertaining to or > suitable to persons of > superior social station; becoming a gentleman... > 3. Libertarian: One who holds the doctrine of the > freedom of the will, as > opposed to that of necessity. > > These are ALL wonderful ideas - each born of the > very best of motives - each > idealistically promoted as a (often 'THE!") > universal panacea. But ideology > and actual practice are two wildly different things: > Socialism often breeds > apathy, wishy-washy liberalism inspires contempt, > libertarian free markets > are - at least potentially - just a playground for > amoral rich kids... Agreed. Most idealists fall short in practice of their ideals. > A benign dictatorship is probably the most effective > political system - > and the cheapest and most efficient as well... > Problem is - the power > ultimately devolves to the dictator's inbred > off-spring - who have none of > the original ideals, but all the egocentric rapacity > of indulged > privilege... Yes. A benevolent dictatorship is the most extropic (lowest entropy) government. Decisions are swift, rational, and efficient. The heriditary power thing, however, IS a problem. But it is a problem that applies to laissez-faire capitalist system as well. That is why I am proponent of meritocracy. There should be at the very least exams and other methods of testing that politicians should have to pass before being allowed to take high office. Much like there was in ancient China. I agree there are problems with an unrestrained free market that puts all considerations of humanity behind that of making a profit. It is precisely such a plutocratic ideal that the Ferenghi on Star Trek were supposed to parody. It is certainly not the best of all possible systems. It is just better than anything else that is currently understood and available. I for one am a poster child for Socialism. My father died when I was 8 and my mother when I was 12. If it wasn't for the social security checks that I was getting until I turned 18, I would probably be dead or in jail by now as there is no legal way for a 12 year old child to make a living in the U.S. Instead however, because of Roosevelt's liberal gesture, I have managed to go to college and have prospects for a respectable productive career ahead of me. Any ways, Jack, great first post. I look forward to reading more of them. 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 ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:47:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909041603.86034.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909044754.49853.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when > > they > > > think they are purchasing food? > > > > Poisoning is illegal. > > I didn't ask if it was legal. > > > We are talking about LEGAL FORCE. > > No, we're talking about force. Assuming people don't do things if > they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even > the > strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has > achieved over any large group of people. Incorrect. People tend to not do illegal things if there is a significant risk of it costing them more than they will gain. Criminals tend to stay out of jurisdictions that let their people walk around armed, for instance, preferring jurisdictions that don't, because police are far more effective in protecting criminals from the people than in protecting the people from the criminals. > > Besides, history shows that if you try to screw over a body of people > long enough, hard enough, they will start tending to ignore any laws > you write for them. They will, inevitably, initiate force - and if > your economy depends on exploiting their labor (as often happens in > these situations), you will fall (once whatever stockpiles you have > run out, without their production to renew said stockpiles), and > everyone involved will suffer. It's happened again and again, and > human nature has not changed in that regard. Well, no, this isn't true. This shibboleth that 'violence never solves anything' is a fake philosophy. The US revolution certainly solved something, and a lot of people were better off for it. I could name many others, but you get the point. You, and many others, have been taught by government schools and government teachers that violence never solves anything because the truth is that violence in the hands of the people tends to not solve things in the favor of governments and their leaders/controllers, who, as far as government teachers are concerned, are the only people who matter anyways. > > The government monopoly on force is supposed to prevent that, but of > course that assumes the government is one that the people can stand. > People can stand for a lot (see the crap that the USA is currently > putting up with), but there is a limit. Certainly, so long as they feel their own toast is getting buttered, why should they care how dry and stale it is for people, say, in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Waco, etc...? > > How about if companies don't allow, by contract, any agency with > access to their food to call it poison? If you as a consumer cannot take such a demand by any organization as a significant sign you should not do business with them, then that is your own fault. Stupid is as stupid does. > (Note that some companies are trying > equivalent tactics today, using contracts to shut down any and all > negative reviews of their products.) The only information available > to anyone else is that the company's product is good and wholesome. And anyone who lets themselves get sucked into that deserves what they get. > > Depends on what information you are looking for. If you are fishing > > for the intellectual property of a competitor, you have no standing > > to make demands, and any attempt to get their information is theft. > > Who decides what is and what is not intellectual property? Certain > companies would claim that all of your memories about them - or even > the entire contents of any brain that has had any interaction with > their products whatsoever (and thus been indelibly altered by the > experience) - are their IP if they were the sole arbiter of what they > could claim as their IP. They don't decide who their final arbiter is. If you'd read the articles I've pointed to, you'd understand this. > > > > If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing > > to pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed > > against him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the > > public about > > his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its > > legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. > > And if they don't have a choice? Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self discipline to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to accept the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sep 9 04:52:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search for meaning... In-Reply-To: <20050909042440.15775.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909045206.96942.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > I for one am a poster child for Socialism. My father > died when I was 8 and my mother when I was 12. If it > wasn't for the social security checks that I was > getting until I turned 18, I would probably be dead or > in jail by now as there is no legal way for a 12 year > old child to make a living in the U.S. Instead > however, because of Roosevelt's liberal gesture, I > have managed to go to college and have prospects for a > respectable productive career ahead of me. On the contrary, you have no idea who might have adopted you through private adoption. Given what I know about DCYF agencies, I dare say that a private orphanage could have found you better parents than the public foster care system today. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Sep 9 04:54:32 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:54:32 +1000 Subject: Common law without govt? Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908123434.98255.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <018201c5b4fa$91889c00$0d98e03c@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: > Common Law is 'written' by every judge who issues opinions in > judgements in any common law system. Government is not > necessary for this system to operate. But forms of government from monarchies to republics did produce the common law (by appointing judges). The notion of their being a common wealth, some common ground to which all had a minimal stake, minimal rights, goes back at least as far as Hobbes Leviathan. Without government of some form how would you maintain or further develop a common law system? Where would the judges come from and from where would their authority derive ? Brett Paatsch From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 9 05:25:25 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:25:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Common law without govt? In-Reply-To: <018201c5b4fa$91889c00$0d98e03c@homepc> References: <20050908123434.98255.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <018201c5b4fa$91889c00$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050909011449.0727dbd0@unreasonable.com> Brett wrote: >But forms of government from monarchies to republics did produce >the common law (by appointing judges). The notion of their being >a common wealth, some common ground to which all had a minimal >stake, minimal rights, goes back at least as far as Hobbes Leviathan. >Without government of some form how would you maintain or further >develop a common law system? Where would the judges come from >and from where would their authority derive ? The judges who began common law were not appointed, and existed independent of any government. They were chosen by the parties or by the community to judge disputes because of their personal reputations. Equivalents still exist today. The pattern has recurred throughout history. The Jews, for instance, would choose a wise and learned man to decide or to arbitrate. Even after a couple of thousand years, it is still the practice in some communities to go ask the rebbe. It is a spontaneous order. -- David. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 06:43:26 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:43:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050909064326.GC2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:42:42PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.wafb.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?qu=charmaine+neville&x=13&y=10 Does anyone have a direct URL to the video? Their web monkeys are incompetent. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- 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 Sep 9 11:11:25 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:11:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909041603.86034.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050909041603.86034.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909111125.GJ2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:16:03PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > No, we're talking about force. Assuming people don't do things if > they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even the > strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has > achieved over any large group of people. Fortunately. However, the situation has been changing quite noticeably. For one, we have potentially realtime automatic surveillance of subjects and communication channels, as well as data mining to identify potential trouble-makers (remote bugging of mobile phones is e.g. possible, and location services are subpoenable in realtime). Human forces will rebel if deployed against their own citizens, but automation (e.g. UAVs, military robotics) do not have compassion, or conscience. The Emergents could very well be our future. Let's try not going there. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 11:45:56 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 04:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search for meaning... In-Reply-To: <20050909045206.96942.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909114556.4169.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > > I for one am a poster child for Socialism. My > father > > died when I was 8 and my mother when I was 12. If > it > > wasn't for the social security checks that I was > > getting until I turned 18, I would probably be > dead or > > in jail by now as there is no legal way for a 12 > year > > old child to make a living in the U.S. Instead > > however, because of Roosevelt's liberal gesture, I > > have managed to go to college and have prospects > for a > > respectable productive career ahead of me. > > On the contrary, you have no idea who might have > adopted you through > private adoption. Given what I know about DCYF > agencies, I dare say > that a private orphanage could have found you better > parents than the > public foster care system today. Well those agencies should advertise better as there was period of time where my foster parents were seriously discussing sending me to South America to do missionary work converting the heathens of the rain forest. 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 mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Sep 9 12:42:23 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:42:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin Hanson writes: > At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Damien Broderick wrote: >> Everyone's a critic. Here is some material to work with: >> http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 > > Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason not to > believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth of this story? This matches reports I have been getting from all different sources. Sadly, these stories don't prove anything. Every political position will claim how this vindicated their viewpoint. Anti-Government types will point out the government failure. Pro-Government types will point out how cutting government didn't work. Privateers will point out that the private sector could do better. Anti-Privateers will point out that the private sector didn't solve the problems either. Socialists will say that the cooperative commune arrangements were working until the government dispersed them. Libertarians will say that individual efforts trumped groups. Pro-Gunners will point out why guns are needed for these occasions. Anti-Gunners will point out how guns were used to take pot shots at rescue workers and prevent supplies from being delivered. Nobody will change their position. No mutual conclusions will be observed. In the end, we are still a bunch of monkeys. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 14:01:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Common law without govt? Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <018201c5b4fa$91889c00$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050909140129.58427.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Common Law is 'written' by every judge who issues opinions in > > judgements in any common law system. Government is not > > necessary for this system to operate. > > But forms of government from monarchies to republics did produce > the common law (by appointing judges). The notion of their being > a common wealth, some common ground to which all had a minimal > stake, minimal rights, goes back at least as far as Hobbes Leviathan. Further back to the Danelaw. Kings appointing judges was an authority seized by the Conqueror in order to have control over judgements issued in cases brought against him. Look to medieval Iceland and its judge-priests for a good example that was stable for a few centuries. > Without government of some form how would you maintain or further > develop a common law system? Where would the judges come from > and from where would their authority derive ? Judges would come from the market. The private arbitration system is well developed here in the US, more law gets practiced outside of courtrooms than in them these days here. The courts call this "Alternate Dispute Resolution" and there are private arbitration organizations available. Like the UL, ETL, Consumer Reports, etc., each relies for its income upon its reputation in the market for fairness and objectivity. There are also some that do not, because they are tools of mercantilist corporations (like the banks, etc) and they get away with this because the federal government has distorted the market with its socialized justice system, such that most people are not aware of alternatives and don't look into alternatives because they figure they can go to the government courts if need be. By the time a consumer figures out they get screwed, because they didn't read the contract they signed, it is too late, but that is one more example of caveat emptor. In any event, in a non-distorted justice market, arbitrators would be rated by the parties involved, as well as by legal consumer reports issuers. Justices with higher ratings would be able to command higher fees to judge, AND would constitute higher courts than rulings by lower ranked justices, thus the market would create an automatic, and self regulating, system of appeals and final arbiter. The problem of access to justice for the poor would be solved by the fact that the best justices would be able to command the highest fees, they would have the financial wherewithal to do more pro-bono work than less qualified justices. Because the justices are not beholden to any political party, there would not be a limited supply of justices, and no judicial immunity from the market, any one justice would not be able to get away with giving bad rulings without a significant price being paid by them personally for their lack of wisdom. Such a justice system could be easily administered by an eBay-type system of reputation brokerage. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 9 15:17:51 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:17:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] law and Justice without govt? In-Reply-To: <20050909140129.58427.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909140129.58427.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4321A79F.50708@sasktel.net> The biggest hinderance to effective government and justice is secrecy. With complete transparancy no one could hide their activities and long after government and law and justice were done their thing the court of public opinion would continue on. Case in point#1- OJ Simpson- The law made a ruling the opinion of the public given widely public dissemination of the same facts before the court allowed each person to judge how to deal with and remember the actions of this individual. For so long as this person is alive he will be judged individually by each and every person he has to meet, irregardless of how any formal court event was settled. Contrast this with anyone who does his legal dealings behind doors , with layers of privacy and confidentiality held by multiple persons, and institutions. Full transparency is the best way to put honesty and integrity into society. Especially if you can't duck out by dying in a prison in 25 years but must answer to all who you come in contact with for perhaps hundreds of years or longer. In some cases that would translate to a true meaning for the term hell; to be accountable forever for everything you have ever done with full transparency of all your past life for anyone anywhere anytime to see. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 16:23:05 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909111125.GJ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > Human forces will rebel if deployed against their own citizens, but > automation (e.g. UAVs, military robotics) do not have compassion, or > conscience. They do, however, have controllers and programmers. The military is being *extremely* careful to make sure that a human commander can always stop a robot soldier from doing harm - and even with the video screen distancing effect, those commanders will still know who they're going against. Even if the military did come up with a SAI, the military's SAI would not be free to self-enhance or otherwise trigger the Singularity, at least at first. Ironically, they're one of the safer bets to come up with a Friendly AI eventually - if only out of paranoid self-interest. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 17:06:21 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909044754.49853.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909170621.35895.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > No, we're talking about force. Assuming people don't do things if > > they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even > > the > > strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has > > achieved over any large group of people. > > Incorrect. People tend to not do illegal things if there is a > significant risk of it costing them more than they will gain. "Tend to not do" and "do not do" are two different things. Some people do pursue the illegal path - and some of those suceed, gaining enough of an advantage to specialize and reduce their risk. Corruption happens when someone manages to reduce the risk to close enough to zero, and starts teaching others how to beat the system. > > Besides, history shows that if you try to screw over a body of > people > > long enough, hard enough, they will start tending to ignore any > laws > > you write for them. They will, inevitably, initiate force - and if > > your economy depends on exploiting their labor (as often happens in > > these situations), you will fall (once whatever stockpiles you have > > run out, without their production to renew said stockpiles), and > > everyone involved will suffer. It's happened again and again, and > > human nature has not changed in that regard. > > Well, no, this isn't true. This shibboleth that 'violence never > solves > anything' is a fake philosophy. The US revolution certainly solved > something, and a lot of people were better off for it. I could name > many others, but you get the point. Actually, we're in agreement here. My point is that violence will eventually be resorted to as a solution, if non-violent solutions do not work. > And anyone who lets themselves get sucked into that deserves what > they > get. I'm talking about situations where it's not a matter of choice. You need their product (to live, or just to be functional when practically everybody else is using an equivalent), and those are the only terms available. > Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self > discipline > to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a > settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to > accept > the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm. What if it's the only way to get food? What if all the food manufacturers require the same? You don't have to purchase food from them - except that you have to get your food somewhere, and not everyone can grow their own food. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 17:13:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] law and Justice without govt? In-Reply-To: <4321A79F.50708@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050909171349.15425.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > The biggest hinderance to effective government and justice is > secrecy. > With complete transparancy no one could hide their activities and > long after government and law and justice were > done their thing the court of public opinion would continue on. > > Case in point#1- OJ Simpson- The law made a ruling the opinion of the > public given widely public dissemination of the > same facts before the court allowed each person to judge how to deal > with and remember the actions of this individual. > For so long as this person is alive he will be judged individually by > each and every person he has to meet, irregardless > of how any formal court event was settled. Which is the problem. Did anyone judge Ito badly? No. How about the jurors? They are all hometown heroes to the people that matter to them. The public got a media distorted view of Mark Fuhrman, the prosecution, etc, and everybody who is white is sure OJ is guilty, while everybody who is black is sure he's innnocent, or deserved to get away with it. > > Contrast this with anyone who does his legal dealings behind doors , > with layers of privacy and confidentiality > held by multiple persons, and institutions. However, private justice does not mean secrecy of rulings. In fact, to contribute to the common law, caselaw must be public, and always has been, even when there were no governments choosing judges. Government control of judge selection came about so the aristocracy could gain the upper hand over the commoners in court. True democrats, liberals, or libertarians should thusly be opposed to the practice. In the sort of market-based justice system I've described, public openness of all rulings would be necessary for the system to work. I call it the Open Law Market. As a market, its openness is necessary to its function. Individuals are still free to settle their differences privately if they wish, their settlements do not become caselaw. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 17:27:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909170621.35895.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self > > discipline > > to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a > > settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to > > accept the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm. > > What if it's the only way to get food? What if all the food > manufacturers require the same? You don't have to purchase food from > them - except that you have to get your food somewhere, and not > everyone can grow their own food. It would be extremely stupid for ALL food makers to do that, because it automatically creates a market for non-secret food if consumers want it, and thus opens the door to competition. Everyone CAN grow their own food, if they so choose. There are, even in cities, many public spaces for gardeners to have their own personal plots. The question is whether they choose to grow their own food. There is not a lack of arable land in the world. Many countries have a surplus of it. If you choose to live someplace without such available, that is your choice. There are no laws preventing you from moving someplace else. Stop making excuses. Nor is there any monolithic soylent green corporation, nor is there any likelihood there will be. Commodity production industries tend to not conglomerate very well. There are limits. Monsanto, even, is limited to producing seed. If they went into business of buying up all farmland, they'd have to not just buy up all farmland currently in use, but all arable, unused land, AND not use the arable unused land WHILE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES ON IT, in order to keep that unused land out of use by others. The amount of land they'd have to buy would be in the tens of trillions of dollars in value. Even if Monsanto bought up all the seed companies in the world, new competitors would spring up every day, because seeds cannot be monopolized. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Sep 9 18:45:22 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:45:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Adrian Tymes writes: > They do, however, have controllers and programmers. The military is > being *extremely* careful to make sure that a human commander can > always stop a robot soldier from doing harm - and even with the video > screen distancing effect, those commanders will still know who they're > going against. I doubt this. We saw examples in the Iraq war where we would bomb far-away targets based on an anonymous tip only to find out that the tip was false and that we just bombed friendlies. I also doubt that any smarts will be given to a robot to keep it from disobeying a direct order to attack just because it thinks the targets are not the enemy. The military mindset is more on enforcing the chain of command than allowing every soldier to think for themselves. This will even be more so when humans are commanding machines. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 9 18:49:30 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:49:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909170621.35895.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050909144200.07559670@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >It would be extremely stupid for ALL food makers to do that, because it >automatically creates a market for non-secret food if consumers want >it, and thus opens the door to competition. Indeed, as we see with OPEC attempts to control the price of oil, this market makes it very attractive for cartel members to secretly break the cartel agreement. >Everyone CAN grow their own food, if they so choose. There are, even >in cities, many public spaces for gardeners to have their own personal plots. In the USSR, where all food production was ostensibly collectivized, many people grew food on their own, to eat or to sell, even in Moscow. As with many black markets, the government ignored this, because it was the only way to sustain the regime. -- David. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Sep 9 19:02:36 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:02:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <43208811.9060909@aol.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <43208811.9060909@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050909190236.GA5831@ofb.net> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:50:57AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > Why? Because the Libertarian Party (which, BTW, is not the only party > that has as a primary ideal personal and economic freedom) has > significantly failed at even showing a good faith effort at promoting > those ideals within the government. Instead it has become a repository > for Reagan-style Randians interested only in reducing taxation for the > rich while hawkishly protecting our foreign interests with imperialistic This may be true of many people calling themselves l/Libertarian; the official positions of the LP are different, I think. The Party had statements opposing the war on Iraq -- I checked, at a time when many net.libertarians were backing Bush to the hilt -- and the current platform, like all the other ones I've seen, calls for no intervention in other countries. As well as no nukes and no immigration restrictions. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml -xx- Damien X-) From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 19:11:04 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050909191104.59427.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote: > Adrian Tymes writes: > > They do, however, have controllers and programmers. The military > is > > being *extremely* careful to make sure that a human commander can > > always stop a robot soldier from doing harm - and even with the > video > > screen distancing effect, those commanders will still know who > they're > > going against. > > I doubt this. We saw examples in the Iraq war where we would bomb > far-away > targets based on an anonymous tip only to find out that the tip was > false > and that we just bombed friendlies. Not what I was talking about. It's one thing to bomb an Iraqi target and unintentionally wind up bombing friendlies. It's quite another to unleash bombs in the USA for any reason whatsoever (if you're US military, atl least). > I also doubt that any smarts > will be > given to a robot to keep it from disobeying a direct order to attack > just > because it thinks the targets are not the enemy. You're probably correct - but you miss the point. It'll be a human who gives the order, because the human will make judgements as to whether the targets are or are not the enemy. Humans do make mistakes, but they can also disobey, or at least complain (even if they are of a mindset to follow orders), if they think they are doing the wrong thing. Even in the modern US military, each soldier is personally responsible for not following obviously illegal orders. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Sep 9 19:12:48 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:12:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <20050909191248.GB5831@ofb.net> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 12:58:07PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am > against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects > of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It > is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a > legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against > business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? What if the regulating gov't ended up smaller than the pure enforcement gov't? E.g. some clever regulations which were easy to enforce and resulted in little faurd to police, vs. an expensive effort to hunt down and prosecute fraud or force after the fact? The first has a bit more intrusion, but the latter has more taxes. Or, perhaps, the taxes might be the same, but the latter gov't was less effective in its function, since it was using (in this hypothesis) less effective means. Would you still oppose the regulation, on principle? -xx- Damien X-) From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 9 18:19:43 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:19:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4321D23F.9050208@sasktel.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > >>>Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self >>>discipline >>>to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a >>>settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to >>>accept the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm. >>> >>> >>What if it's the only way to get food? What if all the food >>manufacturers require the same? You don't have to purchase food from >>them - except that you have to get your food somewhere, and not >>everyone can grow their own food. >> >> > >It would be extremely stupid for ALL food makers to do that, because it >automatically creates a market for non-secret food if consumers want >it, and thus opens the door to competition. > > Anybody who screws with the regulatory system risks proscecution, and seizure of commodities, or worse. I have had experience with this. I gave another farmer some lupin seed in 1984 and before the gov't was done with me it cost me 500$ and a day in court. >Everyone CAN grow their own food, if they so choose. There are, even in >cities, many public spaces for gardeners to have their own personal >plots. The question is whether they choose to grow their own food. >There is not a lack of arable land in the world. Many countries have a >surplus of it. If you choose to live someplace without such available, >that is your choice. There are no laws preventing you from moving >someplace else. Stop making excuses. > > > My opinion is that simple food will not cut it if you want to live beyond your 3 score and ten unless you have above average genes. Designer foods will not be public domain and you certainly will not be able to transport your seed from one jurasdiction to another without 3rd party permissions. >Nor is there any monolithic soylent green corporation, nor is there any >likelihood there will be. Commodity production industries tend to not >conglomerate very well. There are limits. Monsanto, even, is limited to >producing seed. If they went into business of buying up all farmland, >they'd have to not just buy up all farmland currently in use, but all >arable, unused land, AND not use the arable unused land WHILE PAYING >PROPERTY TAXES ON IT, in order to keep that unused land out of use by > > John Deere and others have systems onboard equipment that with a few minor alterations would like onstar keep a third party ever aware of where you were and exactly what use you are putting all your equipment to. Of course this is for nearly new stuff, but in time the old stuff will be gone and those new systems will be all anyone has to work with. >others. The amount of land they'd have to buy would be in the tens of >trillions of dollars in value. > >Even if Monsanto bought up all the seed companies in the world, new >competitors would spring up every day, because seeds cannot be monopolized. > > Not so, they are. Ever hear of plant breeder's rights.To grow hemp I need a police criminal records check, a multipage app form, GPSmaps, all signed and done to exacting specs. I must buy certified seed from a licenced, approved, inspected grower, I must pay for inspection and lab testing of my crop and by law I must grow no less than 10 acres of crop. Just plug that one into your backyard urban survival garden for size. Let me tell you, This year for one of my fields I had the crop seeded and cut down in swaths waiting for the combine before I got the actual permit to seed the crop into my hands, it's just that fussy. Seeds are becoming very closely held properties. Very soon you will need a licence and more to grow or even possess a lot of them. Agriculture is changing, and with recent radical move in energy costs will likely change dramatically over the next 48 months. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Sep 9 19:22:13 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:22:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:45:22PM -0400, mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote: > because it thinks the targets are not the enemy. The military mindset is > more on enforcing the chain of command than allowing every soldier to think > for themselves. This will even be more so when humans are commanding > machines. This contradicts a lot of what I've heard about the US military, where smart soldiers are allegedly an asset and have been for a long time. Not just not obeying illegal orders, but being innovative in the field. One of the SF newsgroups was talking about WWII recently, and a claim came up that the Germans were rather more dependent on a particular line of command, and the Americans better at regrouping, finding a new line, and going back into battle. -xx- Damien X-) From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 19:33:51 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 21:33:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909193351.GS2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:45:22PM -0400, mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote: > I doubt this. We saw examples in the Iraq war where we would bomb far-away > targets based on an anonymous tip only to find out that the tip was false > and that we just bombed friendlies. I also doubt that any smarts will be > given to a robot to keep it from disobeying a direct order to attack just I understand with best current systems (which are distinct from a mere waldo) there's still a human in the loop go give ACK/NACK to a fire request. (Do they have a fire-at-will mode already? I hope not). While it is easy enough to patch over, it is clear that the future brings more and more autonomy to military hardware. Ultimatively, the systems will actively seek out and terminate targets specified by the command. Without further checks and balances, whatever gets propagated down the chain (tree) of command will be executed (pun intended), no questions asked. From a certain point onwards, a fully automated state does no longer need the citizens. It is perhaps fortunate that the private sector has an edge in technology so that particular scenario is overwhelmingly improbable. Times change, though, when I discussed this 1987 while in the army, people thought I was on crack. > because it thinks the targets are not the enemy. The military mindset is > more on enforcing the chain of command than allowing every soldier to think > for themselves. This will even be more so when humans are commanding > machines. One thing the world doesn't need: executive automation. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 9 19:42:50 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:42:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050909152401.071ba8a8@unreasonable.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: >This contradicts a lot of what I've heard about the US military, where smart >soldiers are allegedly an asset and have been for a long time. Not just not >obeying illegal orders, but being innovative in the field. One of the SF >newsgroups was talking about WWII recently, and a claim came up that the >Germans were rather more dependent on a particular line of command, and the >Americans better at regrouping, finding a new line, and going back into >battle. It's certainly traditionally been true in Zahal. The Israeli presumption is that battles are fluid, and the commander in the field may have a better read on the situation than his superior officers. He may disobey his orders, but he'd better be right. This was Arik Sharon's trademark in his military career, similar to Patton but even more successful. He would tremendously exceed orders. Occasionally get smacked for it, but always called back again. As an admirer of his military genius, it's been interesting for me to watch his political career. It's not surprising to see how well he and Bush reportedly get along. They both like to take big risks. Neither are caretakers. They push the envelope. -- David Lubkin. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 19:47:44 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 21:47:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20050909194744.GV2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:22:13PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > This contradicts a lot of what I've heard about the US military, where smart > soldiers are allegedly an asset and have been for a long time. Not just not > obeying illegal orders, but being innovative in the field. One of the SF I am quite ready to believe that. The point of automation trying to get "the boys" out of harm's way has an unfortunate side effect of amplifying potential insanities up the chain of command. Ultimatively, at the root of the tree. Which might be quite rotten. Another side effect of teleoperation is that it's just like terminating non-player characters in Half Life. Plays great, less killing. Uh, disregard this fortune cookie. > newsgroups was talking about WWII recently, and a claim came up that the > Germans were rather more dependent on a particular line of command, and the > Americans better at regrouping, finding a new line, and going back into > battle. I am not sure we have much to learn from a conflict happened 60 years ago. Surgery may owe a lot to the Gatling (pace, Dr Requa) gun, but what will be our lesson? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 9 19:48:42 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:48:42 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909041447.4067.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909041447.4067.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4321E71A.9070807@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> >>> >>Why not just take revenge? The Legal process is slanted toward those >>who can afford to fight legal battles. >> >> > >This is bull. If your claim were true, then lawyers would not feel the >need to advertise with cheaply done ads on television in the wee hours >of the evening. > For instance. Recently Walmart prosecuted two retirees for "shoplifting" a bag of manure costing around $100. They had purchased the rest of the things in their cart and had apparently inadvertently forgotten the manure under the cart (it happens). The couple offered to pay for and/or return the items when it was discovered by walmart security. Walmart asked for criminal prosecution which they lost. Walmart filed a claim in civil court, asking for damages in excess of $10,000 bringing the matter out of the reach of small claims. The couple caved and settled with Walmart for $2000 because it would have cost them more to defend themselves than just settle, they didn't consider themselves competent to defend themselves - EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULD HAVE WON. > The lack of a loser pays standard here in the US >actually puts the advantage in the court of those who are willing to >take their chances with a contingency lawyer, > Oh good, so you want to punish people for even thinking about suing. As though there wasn't enough stopping them as it is. > as those with the money >are always paying 'go away' money to frivolous suers... > Actually, for the most part, people walk away from actionable causes because it takes too much time and money to pursue them. This is by far the majority of violent and illegal cases in the US where the idea of suing is simply too strenuous. The major causes are equipment failure, criminal negligence, fraud, false advertising. These cases are badly underpursued and that fact is capitalized on by large businesses to the detriment of consumers. On the other hand, businesses actively pursue shoplifting and theft cases often frivolously knowing that people will usually succumb knowing that defending themselves in court is too hard to pay for for someone unemployed or working at near subsistence levels. >The only >disadvantage is the mental reticence by so many against engaging in >legal action. > You're crazy. Thank God you'll never make it in politics. Robbie From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 20:04:43 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:04:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <4321E71A.9070807@aol.com> References: <20050909041447.4067.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4321E71A.9070807@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050909200443.GA2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:48:42AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > >The only > >disadvantage is the mental reticence by so many against engaging in > >legal action. > > > > You're crazy. Thank God you'll never make it in politics. I'm always still surprised that those people who don't have anything left to lose don't recourse to tit for tat shortcut through the legal jungle. (Enough milk of kindness to run a large dairy). What's a baseline legal insurance/month in a fairly litigious society such as e.g. the US, please? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 9 21:36:02 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:36:02 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050909190236.GA5831@ofb.net> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <43208811.9060909@aol.com> <20050909190236.GA5831@ofb.net> Message-ID: <43220042.8050805@aol.com> So what do you think of our resident Libertarian Party Chairman, then? R Damien Sullivan wrote: >On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:50:57AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >>Why? Because the Libertarian Party (which, BTW, is not the only party >>that has as a primary ideal personal and economic freedom) has >>significantly failed at even showing a good faith effort at promoting >>those ideals within the government. Instead it has become a repository >>for Reagan-style Randians interested only in reducing taxation for the >>rich while hawkishly protecting our foreign interests with imperialistic >> >> > >This may be true of many people calling themselves l/Libertarian; the official >positions of the LP are different, I think. The Party had statements opposing >the war on Iraq -- I checked, at a time when many net.libertarians were >backing Bush to the hilt -- and the current platform, like all the other ones >I've seen, calls for no intervention in other countries. As well as no nukes >and no immigration restrictions. > >http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml > >-xx- Damien X-) >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 9 21:53:32 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:53:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] law and Justice without govt? In-Reply-To: <4321A79F.50708@sasktel.net> References: <20050909140129.58427.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4321A79F.50708@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On Sep 9, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > The biggest hinderance to effective government and justice is secrecy. The biggest protection against draconian government power is secrecy. Lets have a bit of balance. Lack of secrecy/privacy enables full implementation of the horrific as well as the good. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 9 21:56:57 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:56:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909191248.GB5831@ofb.net> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> <20050909191248.GB5831@ofb.net> Message-ID: <905D570B-98F9-432A-95E4-9CEC5E73A93A@mac.com> On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 12:58:07PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am >> against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects >> of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It >> is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a >> legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against >> business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? >> > > What if the regulating gov't ended up smaller than the pure > enforcement gov't? What if pigs could fly? Historically this has never been the pattern. I see no reason to believe ti can be. - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 00:20:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <4321D23F.9050208@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050910002033.75300.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > > > >Even if Monsanto bought up all the seed companies in the world, new > >competitors would spring up every day, because seeds cannot be > monopolized. > > > > > > Not so, they are. Ever hear of plant breeder's rights.To grow hemp I > need a police criminal records check, > a multipage app form, GPSmaps, all signed and done to exacting specs. > I must buy certified seed from > a licenced, approved, inspected grower, I must pay for inspection and > lab testing of my crop and by law > I must grow no less than 10 acres of crop. Just plug that one into > your backyard urban survival garden for size. So glad to see you making my case for me even better than I can. My argument is that no government would be better, and you are proving my point: it is government that is protecting the power of the corporations over you with all its paperwork and background checks and GPS data, etc etc etc in triplicate, filed annually, on time if you please, sessir.... Without government, corporations have no power. They have no ability to tell you what you can grow or how or where you grow it. Now, if you feel you need the corporations IP in its seeds to live beyond your three score and ten, you either pay them and hold to your contract, or you find a competitor. Without a government patent office, there is nothing stopping anyone else from inventing the same invention. If the corps are smart, they'll not push the issue, else some well intentioned individual will launch an Open Seed Movement to spread seed technology far and wide, as it once was. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sat Sep 10 00:32:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909200443.GA2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050910003217.61858.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:48:42AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >The only > > >disadvantage is the mental reticence by so many against engaging > in > > >legal action. > > > > > > > You're crazy. Thank God you'll never make it in politics. > > I'm always still surprised that those people who don't have anything > left to lose don't recourse to tit for tat shortcut through > the legal jungle. > > (Enough milk of kindness to run a large dairy). > > What's a baseline legal insurance/month in a fairly > litigious society such as e.g. the US, please? You mean liability insurance? Automotive insurance varies from state to state, depending on whether your state requires you to be insured or not. Mandatory insurance states see much higher premiums. NH, where I live, does not mandate auto insurance, so premiums are lower. Last time I checked, straight liability and collision here was about $200/yr for an accident free educated non-smoking, non-drinking white male over 35 driving a non-sportscar. Don't know the split between the liability and collision parts. Other legal insurance is generally rolled up in a homeowners insurance policy, which I don't have so I can't tell you. What you might want to do is go to Progressive Insurance's website and enter some hypotheticals to get quotes from them and three other competitors. Note that states like CA, MA, and other socialist paradises have extremely high insurance rates. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political 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 Sat Sep 10 03:50:30 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 20:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909170621.35895.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050910035030.84259.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > "Tend to not do" and "do not do" are two different > things. Some people > do pursue the illegal path - and some of those > suceed, gaining enough > of an advantage to specialize and reduce their risk. > Corruption > happens when someone manages to reduce the risk to > close enough to > zero, and starts teaching others how to beat the > system. This is true, Adrian. The question we have to ask is why does the system portray itself as a "game" that must be beaten? Why are those that beat the system glorified by the media? The system is the very fabric of our continued existense and we continually try to beat it rather than maximizing the entire system of which we are part? Economics is so well-described by game-theory because it IS a game. Like all games the economy is defined by a set of rules, too many if you are a libertarian and too few if you are a socialist. But what one has to realize that we as free-willed beings have a choice as to what games we play. Thus we have choice of what rules we play by, if any. Therefore the definition of the game itself should change. We choose to play a zero sum game with each other, and the only rules that exist do so to firmly maintain the winners from the losers, when in reality we should be playing cooperative solitaire for survival points. To a large extent the economy exists solely in the minds of we the people, and on digital "paper" and does not change the orbits of heavenly bodies. Ironically, to stand any chance of SURVIVING for the long term, those very same people will have to develop an techno-economic system powerful enough to deflect asteroids and import resources at least inter-planetarily. We shouldn't play a game whose rules exist solely as an economic wedge to perpetuate the socioeconomic stratification of society. The easiest way to win such a game is to break the rules. What we should do is model the economy as a non-zerosum game whose end result is to maximize the stability of the economy itself. Instead of rewarding those who minumize individual risk at the expense of increasing aggregate risk to society, the rules should be such that those that lower aggregate risk to society should be rewarded the most. Since we get to CHOOSE the rules of games we CHOOSE to play, surely we should change the rules of the game to sustain the length of the game, like good old fashioned Space Invaders rather than a game on par Russian Roullete. To have no rules at all as the libertarians want to do would be for all of us to play the game based on rules that are defined by happenstance and at the whim of nature. Just because one believes that nature was not intelligently designed does not mean that one has to settle for spending ones whole life playing an economic game that was simililarly not intelligently designed. So what would be some good rules that would help accurate assessment of aggregate risk? 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 ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From fdck34 at yahoo.es Sat Sep 10 10:43:03 2005 From: fdck34 at yahoo.es (Alberto Juaristi Mendicute) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:43:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] chat's fellow introduction Message-ID: <20050910104303.3353.qmail@web26409.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Donostia-San sebasti?n, 10-09-2005 Hallo!: My name is Alberto Juaristi. I am from Donostia-San Sebast?an. I began in the worl of the transhumanism without to be conscious of it, while I wrote my novel "Twenty Fifty", an utopia about postbiological humanity and self-evolution systems. Later, by means of Internet, I knew the existance of transhumanist organizations, like Extropy Institute, Fastra, etc. I will begin reading your mail, and later, when I consider suitable, will take part in the chat. Best wishes Alberto Juaristi Pd.: I am sorry if some incorret use of the English. --------------------------------- Correo Yahoo! Comprueba qu? es nuevo, aqu? http://correo.yahoo.es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Sep 10 11:53:57 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:53:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/8/05, Max More wrote: > > Clearly > the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian > view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable > viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are > *restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic > view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the > principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. > > As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with > socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict > libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to > libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways > described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* > mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it > might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It > *might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as > might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with > extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). IMO ExI Principles are a matter of *interpretation*, only one such being Uber Libertarianism. If this is not so then you can kiss much future membership goodbye. As Transhumanism moves from the perceived lunatic fringe populated by fanatical True Believers into the cultural mainstream populated by people a lot less committed to any single political POV this is going to be even more apparent. Trying to maintain ideological purity is a recipe for internicene squabbling, witch hunts and heretic bashing reminiescent of the history of 'pure' Socialism with its petty factions and interminable cry of 'splitter!'. ExI, and its membership, must decide soon if it is going to be a bastion of purity or whether it is going to set itself up to attract mainstream support. We certainly know what the WTA has decided. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 10 13:22:53 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:22:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space Elevator Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082209.0291e4f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> http://www.elevator2010.org/site/index.html Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 10 13:31:25 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:31:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Dirk, I think it would be best if you respected the communications already sent to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. Thank you. Natasha Vita-More At 06:53 AM 9/10/2005, you wrote: >On 9/8/05, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote: > Clearly >the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian >view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable >viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are >*restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic >view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the >principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. > >As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with >socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict >libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to >libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways >described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* >mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it >might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It >*might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as >might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with >extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). > > >IMO ExI Principles are a matter of *interpretation*, only one such being >Uber Libertarianism. >If this is not so then you can kiss much future membership goodbye. > >As Transhumanism moves from the perceived lunatic fringe populated by >fanatical True Believers into the cultural mainstream populated by people >a lot less committed to any single political POV this is going to be even >more apparent. Trying to maintain ideological purity is a recipe for >internicene squabbling, witch hunts and heretic bashing reminiescent of >the history of 'pure' Socialism with its petty factions and interminable >cry of 'splitter!'. > >ExI, and its membership, must decide soon if it is going to be a bastion >of purity or whether it is going to set itself up to attract mainstream >support. We certainly know what the WTA has decided. > >Dirk > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Sat Sep 10 19:01:28 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:01:28 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <685f92032f2d7580f95799e34fe02e64@aol.com> On Sep 10, 2005, at 1:53 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Trying to maintain ideological purity is a recipe for internicene > squabbling,?witch hunts and heretic bashing reminiescent of the > history of 'pure' Socialism with its petty factions and interminable > cry of 'splitter!'. > Or, of course, modern day Conservatism. Robbie From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 11 00:27:23 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:27:23 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... References: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <032f01c5b667$947af520$0d98e03c@homepc> Jack Parkinson wrote: > ... shouldn't the first concern be to draft a manifesto > of individual liberties which will admit of any kind of political system > - but will curb the tendency of elite groups to gather all resources > and prerogatives to themselves? Are you suggesting a tranhumanist bill of rights? I think there is some merit in such a suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first draft of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and maybe giving feedback. I think it is possible to establish virtual countries on top of the existing countries by first getting right the concept of virtual citizenship. I'm not personally keen to make the running on a transhumanist bill of rights because although I have friends that think of themselves as transhumanists I don't think a virtual country needs people who understand the principles of good citizenship (reciprocosity) more than it needs people who just happen to call themselves transhumanists. Get the mix of rights and responsibilities right and there is no logical impassible barrier that I can see to founding a virtual country using contract law, on top of the legal infrastructure of existing countries. Its legally permissible to contract, to form associations, to trade (including internationally) and to minimise tax, and to share knowledge of local opportunities and conditions. > Sorry this is such a long initial post! But I view governments the > same way you might view AI - we create them, but we don't > neccessarily control them. Sorry this initial post didn't get a response earlier. > A good first step might be to make politicians personally > accountable for their errors... That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first step that is not operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a class accountable for their collective errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or indeed any one person. Because they don't operate as a class. They take individual oaths of office and to the extent that they can individually avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, then of course they will (on average) try to do just that. If you want to hold any one politician accountable and set an example of holding accountable to the others you have to go after the highest profile one. You have to make sure the US President, the highest profile politician in the world is held accountable. There is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral in holding a person accountable for upholding what they have promised to do. And if it turns out that you or I am mistaken in thinking that they haven't breached their oath or promise but we have sought to hold them to account only by lawful, honourable means, then nothing is lost. To harm is done. Another area where accountability might be considered is in the area of corporations. Are corporations doing more harm than good in 2005 by allowing human decision makers inside them to decouple anti-social (sometimes) individual actions from the social consequences of those individual actions? I don't know the answer to this. I haven't thought it through properly but perhaps whatever reasons there were for corporations historically are no longer as true today as they were when corporations were first formed. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 11 00:44:12 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:44:12 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... References: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer> <032f01c5b667$947af520$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <034a01c5b669$ede694a0$0d98e03c@homepc> Sorry some sloppy typing and lack of proofreading in my reply. I meant a virtual country would need people who understand the principles of reciprocality as citizens rather than people who just happen to think of themselves as transhumanist because the coupling of rights with responsibilities is crucial. There can be no rights given that are not matched by responsibilities accepted. Instead of "To harm is done", I meant "No harm is done". ----- Original Message ----- From: Brett Paatsch To: Jack Parkinson ; ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... Jack Parkinson wrote: > ... shouldn't the first concern be to draft a manifesto > of individual liberties which will admit of any kind of political system > - but will curb the tendency of elite groups to gather all resources > and prerogatives to themselves? Are you suggesting a tranhumanist bill of rights? I think there is some merit in such a suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first draft of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and maybe giving feedback. I think it is possible to establish virtual countries on top of the existing countries by first getting right the concept of virtual citizenship. I'm not personally keen to make the running on a transhumanist bill of rights because although I have friends that think of themselves as transhumanists I don't think a virtual country needs people who understand the principles of good citizenship (reciprocosity) more than it needs people who just happen to call themselves transhumanists. Get the mix of rights and responsibilities right and there is no logical impassible barrier that I can see to founding a virtual country using contract law, on top of the legal infrastructure of existing countries. Its legally permissible to contract, to form associations, to trade (including internationally) and to minimise tax, and to share knowledge of local opportunities and conditions. > Sorry this is such a long initial post! But I view governments the > same way you might view AI - we create them, but we don't > neccessarily control them. Sorry this initial post didn't get a response earlier. > A good first step might be to make politicians personally > accountable for their errors... That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first step that is not operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a class accountable for their collective errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or indeed any one person. Because they don't operate as a class. They take individual oaths of office and to the extent that they can individually avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, then of course they will (on average) try to do just that. If you want to hold any one politician accountable and set an example of holding accountable to the others you have to go after the highest profile one. You have to make sure the US President, the highest profile politician in the world is held accountable. There is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral in holding a person accountable for upholding what they have promised to do. And if it turns out that you or I am mistaken in thinking that they haven't breached their oath or promise but we have sought to hold them to account only by lawful, honourable means, then nothing is lost. To harm is done. Another area where accountability might be considered is in the area of corporations. Are corporations doing more harm than good in 2005 by allowing human decision makers inside them to decouple anti-social (sometimes) individual actions from the social consequences of those individual actions? I don't know the answer to this. I haven't thought it through properly but perhaps whatever reasons there were for corporations historically are no longer as true today as they were when corporations were first formed. Brett Paatsch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 01:49:58 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... In-Reply-To: <032f01c5b667$947af520$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050911014958.33720.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > A good first step might be to make politicians > personally > > accountable for their errors... > > That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first > step that is not > operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a > class accountable for > their collective errors isn't operationalisable for > you or me or indeed > any one person. Because they don't operate as a > class. They take > individual oaths of office and to the extent that > they can individually > avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, > then of course > they will (on average) try to do just that. How would one keep politicians accountable? California has recall elections as a provision and there is impeachment. As far as impeachment goes, I was amazed during the Clinton fiasco as to how time-consuming and expensive it is. It seems much more straight forward as it is described in the Constitution. It doesn't seem all that efficient a way to hold politicians accountable, at least in the manner it is practiced. The constitution does not mention expensive armies of lawyers on both sides. Most politicans ARE lawyers so they should not need lawyers, at least not more than one, to defend themselves against accusations. I wonder if a case could be made for politicans to be held accountable for broken campaign promises under contract law. Under commonlaw oral contracts are binding are they not? Moreover most politicans making their false promises do so on the record of the media, so there is ample evidence of the "oral contract". If a politician promises to do something for me on TV in exchange for my vote, but then fails to fulfill his end of the bargain, is that not breach of contract? Could someone file a civil lawsuit against a former holder of high office for breach of contract? > If you want to hold any one politician accountable > and set an example > of holding accountable to the others you have to go > after the highest > profile one. You have to make sure the US President, > the highest > profile politician in the world is held accountable. Well he WAS, if you are talking about Clinton. Apparently duplicitous warmongering is acceptable but duplicitous oral sex is not. 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 11 04:11:35 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:11:35 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... References: <20050911014958.33720.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <037101c5b686$e6a0add0$0d98e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >> > A good first step might be to make politicians >> personally >> > accountable for their errors... >> >> That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first >> step that is not >> operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a >> class accountable for >> their collective errors isn't operationalisable for >> you or me or indeed >> any one person. Because they don't operate as a >> class. They take >> individual oaths of office and to the extent that >> they can individually >> avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, >> then of course >> they will (on average) try to do just that. > > How would one keep politicians accountable? To answer your question. I think you can only keep them accountable one at a time. I think we have to make things personal. This is the same way we keep each other accountable. We don't take issue with the whole class of politicians we take issue with particular politicians one at a time. This is hard work. This costs us somethin