From pjmanney at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 00:32:14 2007
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:32:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Media and memes, was: "Animal-monitoring modules"?
Message-ID: <29666bf30709301732t5cd0982epd1b7b4ed2a0ec13e@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/29/07, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I read once that the xenophobic meme phase seems to coincide with
> escapist fatasy being a popular entertainment genre.  When there is
> less fear, science fiction becomes more prevalent in entertainment.
> With that in mind (without rigorous proof) I was considering the
> recent thread about responsible singularity PR.
>
> Do we think entertainment media can/should be used to prepare the
> general public to accept a higher level of technological possibility?

I've never heard about a specific correlation between Fantasy and
xenophobic memes (and I'd love to see the actual research), but if you
think about it in general, there is definitely a growth in fantasy
media during wars, depressions, etc., because people need the mental
escape.  People needed to see Good triumph over Evil.  Comic books,
movies, pulp fiction, etc. certainly reflected this in the 20th
Century.  But fantasy wasn't just relegated to the fantastical.  It
was equally about economic fantasies, like Fred & Ginger musicals,
"Cinderella" stories, etc.

We have the nerve to tell the depressing stories, of which SF is
usually a part because of its reliance on distopias as a genre, when
we're secure enough to hear them.

In many ways, it's immaterial whether media can or should be used to
prepare the public, because propagandistic intent is usually not part
of the motivation to either create or distribute mainstream Fantasy or
SF content.  The motivation is usually money!  However, media prepares
the public, regardless.  It seems to me the determining factor of its
success is how far ahead is the preparation and for what?  For
instance, SF has always inspired people to create things that don't
yet exist.  My kids love the show "How William Shatner Changed the
World" in which the irrepressible actor shows how "Star Trek" inspired
an entire generation of kids to grow up and create real versions of
the futuristic technologies they were watching.  I think the reason
Star Trek was such an effective inspiration was 1) it was in kids'
living rooms each week (or daily in syndication); 2) the stories were
fun, simple and it took little effort to link the story parallels to
the viewers' present (Vietnam/racism/etc.); and 3) it was a soothing,
Utopian vision of humanity.  We were the good guys and we'd worked
most of our speciel crap out before he hit the galaxy to force
peaceful co-existence down everyone else's throats.  It went down
easy.

But you only have to look at the history of SF to see how some stories
and writers have presaged larger trends and changes.

HOWEVER, there is quite a long lead time between the initial
publication of someone like Jules Verne and his eventual technological
vindication, so most of his futuristic ideas are acknowledge only in
retrospect.  In my opinion, it's the work of more near-term creators
that has any hope of preparing a public for a prompt change.  There's
a reason Michael Crichton has a larger and more mainstream readership
than anyone in the traditional SF pantheon.  It's because people don't
think they're reading SF.  They are reading a "techno-thriller" which
by definition employs SF, but it also has as much in common with spy
thrillers and combat stories as SF.  He writes character-based
adventures and the world he describes is here and now, except with
genetically-engineered
dinosaurs/nano-swarms/cyborgs/fill-in-the-technological-boogieman-blank.

Of course, many could say that's nonsense.  A single technology does
not exist in a vacuum and the advance of technology across the board
would make the story, by definition, anachronistic and impossible.
But that's not what attracts readers.  They want to know about now.
Not decades hence.  Otherwise, it has no relevance and no immediacy.
That means fewer eyeballs, either on screens or on the page.  And that
makes preparing the public, who won't know about your ideas if they
haven't seen/heard/read them, much harder.

I know I've said this all before, but there it is.  Again.

PJ

From andres at thoughtware.tv  Mon Oct  1 03:40:08 2007
From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:08 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and Non-Zero Energy Empty
	Space:
Message-ID: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com>

I understand the concept of why empty space has non-zero energy. After being
introduced to the casimir effect and quantum fluctuations, I finally decided
to ask the list in the hopes that one of the physicist here can answer me
this question that has been bothering me.

If energetic particles are constantly blinking in and out of existence in
empty space...why doesn't this violate the second law of thermodynamics?

..in short:

Q. Why don't vacuum fluctuations violate the second law of thermodynamics?

Share the answer and enjoy this
video<http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/show/837>on the conservation of
energy at
Thoughtware.TV

Andr?s,
Thoughtware.TV <http://www.thoughtware.tv>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070930/2618fce9/attachment.html 

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Oct  1 03:54:16 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:54:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and Non-Zero Energy
 Empty	Space:
In-Reply-To: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070930225254.02227470@satx.rr.com>

At 11:40 PM 9/30/2007 -0400, Andr?s wrote:
>If energetic particles are constantly blinking 
>in and out of existence in empty space...why 
>doesn't this violate the second law of thermodynamics?

1) Because the second law of thermodynamics is statistical.
2) Because the debt is paid back quickly. 


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Oct  1 04:06:10 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:06:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
References: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY124-DAV8B57455A7A33330CDD355A3AC0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

James writes

> Lee;
> 
> Like any issue, there are those whose motives are unimpeachable (whether
> they're factually right or wrong), and those whose motives are biased.  This
> is the sole point of my posting - that neither side is completely free from
> bias, and we should avoid making sweeping statements that try to paint
> everyone on one side with a single brush.  Maybe the media and the
> politicians can make use of such mud-slinging, but anyone who has the skills
> of critical thinking should be more concerned with uncovering and evaluating
> the facts for themselves.

Very good.  I can hardly ask for more.

But I can, actually.  While it is great to participate in discussions
where people (i) admit their biases when they are able, (ii) sincerely
wish to know the truth, (iii) are willing to expend a modicum of
effort,  THEN some progress can be made. 

I'm after further ideas and further information. Scanning lists of 
skeptics or believers does some help, but this thread has so far
exposed some weaknesses of relying merely on this. But we
can do more.

1. we can give narratives of the formation of our own beliefs;
    any asymmetries can be revealing
2. we can search for well-pedigreed pundits on this issue
    (well-pedigreed amounting to having a history of non-
    ideological and non-political serious inquiry)

That's all I've been able to think of right now. I strongly welcome
any testimonials of the form (i) and will write one myself.  And we
(collectively) must surely be able to point to *some* examples of (ii).
I suppose that libertarians and conservatives may tend to be on
the same side here, because there is a strong and on this issue
very relevant common denominator of opposing large government
and being very skeptical of programs to be executed by government.
(People doubting my bonafides should appreciate that last, just as
I explicitly appreciated several of James' points that did not help my
own case.)

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:29 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
> 
> James writes
> 
>> you're not suggesting that there are no financial incentives for
>> those who write research papers against Global Warming, are you?  See
>>
>>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?ex=1311739200&en=00
> d5453101bbc950&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
> 
> Thanks.  Indeed I was not aware that any outside agencies were paying
> any scientists who did not support the view that global warming was
> being oversold. But you should wince a little at the tone of that article,
> which begins
> 
> Utilities Pay Scientist Ally on Warming
> 
>> BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>> Published: July 28, 2006
>> WASHINGTON, July 27 - Coal-burning utilities are contributing money to
>> one of the few remaining climate scientists openly critical of the broad 
>> consensus that fossil fuel emissions are intensifying global warming.
> 
> The bias of this lead sentence is large and obvious. The writer is
> apparently
> someone who would find it somewhat painful to complete any full
> sentence without pushing the point of view he personally believes in.
> Everything from "few remaining..." to "broad consensus".  Now 
> explain *why* a journalist, indeed writing for the Associated Press,
> would have such an agenda?    Of course, we do or should be able
> to individually acknowledge the general overt bias of western media in 
> politically related questions, of which this is a sample.
> 
>> There are tremendous amounts of money to be made and lost by corporations
> as
>> a result of environmental decisions by governments, which under our
> current
>> structure leads to tremendous pressure by some to retain the status quo,
> and
>> by others to push for changes and punish their competition.
> 
> Yes (and thank you for admitting that last phrase; we must strive for
> objectivity).  But you haven't said whether you agree with the point
> that the traditional left seems to have a horse in this race that's not
> simply scientific.
> 
> The bigger question I'm addressing is the bias itself, from both sides,
> and why we think what we think. On a number of occasions, I have
> to brag, a desire to explain *this* phenomenon in unbiased terms
> has always seemed to be coming much more from my side of the
> political spectrum. 
> 
> No one has yet addressed either way my contention that the social
> idealism (quite apart from literally saving the Earth) of many on the
> left---idealism that manifests itself in wanting bigger government
> and greater regulation---is behind a great deal of the support for
> global warming and a very great amount of support for the belief
> in catastrophic global warming.
> 
> One way to address this might be if anyone has attempted to poll
> scientists who are entirely unpolitical or ideological (I understand
> the difficulty of this). But we may ourselves have some success in
> soliciting opinion from well-known extropians who have never
> voiced a political opinion.
> 
> Lee
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
>> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:04 AM
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
>>
>> BillK writes
>>
>>> On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>>> Be sure to see
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html
>>>>
>>>> Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing...
>>>> ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the
>> Church of Chicken
>>>> Little.  Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our
>> attention:
>>>
>>> As the last reader comment on that item notes...
>>> He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who
>>> support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global
>>> warming.
>>>
>>> You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of
> evolution.
>>> Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer.
>>
>> There are a number of differences. One is to check if you can be
>> suspicious of some prior crackpot element.  Clearly in the case
>> of evolution we have ample explanation of the motives of some
>> of the creationists and so on---religion is a huge force in human
>> thinking and motivation. So what would be the analogy here?
>> Do a lot of the names on these list jump out at you as being bought
>> and paid for by people who can somehow make money if global
>> warming is false?
>>
>> Another is the incredible yet obvious, amazing yet not-so-perplexing
>> political component of this scientific issue.
>>
>> Political component?  Now, how could that be?  I ask seriously, but
>> especially if anyone wishes to make an unbiased stab at answering,
>> i.e. answering in such a way that the writer's own biases or political
>> allegiances are not patent (though of course all comments welcome).
>>
>> But being political, one may ask (just as one does in tobacco cases) who
>> does the funding?  In this case, it's almost entirely governments and
> those
>> who hope for government grants.  Thus we instantly see the especially
>> harmful effects of funding that is partly or mainly politically or
>> ideologically motivated.
>>
>> The iron law of government bureaucracies is growth, growth, and more
>> growth.  A "crisis" real or imagined is damn, damn fine for government
>> growth, and is a very convenient truth for those who believe that
>> governments ought to be actively improving our lives a lot more than
>> they supposedly are already.
>>
>> Lee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 04:14:46 2007
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:14:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and Non-Zero Energy Empty
	Space:
In-Reply-To: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200709302314.46134.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Sunday 30 September 2007 22:40, Andres Colon wrote:
> Q. Why don't vacuum fluctuations violate the second law of
> thermodynamics?

A friend says: "The uncertainty principle can be applied here. Usually 
the uncertainty principle has to do with velocity and position. In this 
case it would deal with energy and time."

But I think a more interesting question is "how can we reconcile the 
localized conservation of energy with our uncertainty as to whether or 
not energy is conserved on the much larger macroscopic scales of our 
universe." Thoughts?

- Bryan

From clementlawyer at hotmail.com  Mon Oct  1 04:16:48 2007
From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:16:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
In-Reply-To: <008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<BAY124-DAV8B57455A7A33330CDD355A3AC0@phx.gbl>
	<008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <BAY124-DAV61756D53EADA3F4C00CDAA3AD0@phx.gbl>

In his discussion on the "Proactionary Principle" at the TransVision 2007
conference, Max More alluded to his acceptance of Global Warming, based on
his own reading of the evidence.  I would like to hear more about his
thoughts, or read any papers he's written on this subject, since he has
represented the Libertarian side of the Transhumanist movement for many
years.  If I'm mistaken about his remarks or the portrayal, then I apologize
in advance.

Can this be arranged Natasha?

James Clement 

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:06 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?

James writes

> Lee;
> 
> Like any issue, there are those whose motives are unimpeachable (whether
> they're factually right or wrong), and those whose motives are biased.
This
> is the sole point of my posting - that neither side is completely free
from
> bias, and we should avoid making sweeping statements that try to paint
> everyone on one side with a single brush.  Maybe the media and the
> politicians can make use of such mud-slinging, but anyone who has the
skills
> of critical thinking should be more concerned with uncovering and
evaluating
> the facts for themselves.

Very good.  I can hardly ask for more.

But I can, actually.  While it is great to participate in discussions
where people (i) admit their biases when they are able, (ii) sincerely
wish to know the truth, (iii) are willing to expend a modicum of
effort,  THEN some progress can be made. 

I'm after further ideas and further information. Scanning lists of 
skeptics or believers does some help, but this thread has so far
exposed some weaknesses of relying merely on this. But we
can do more.

1. we can give narratives of the formation of our own beliefs;
    any asymmetries can be revealing
2. we can search for well-pedigreed pundits on this issue
    (well-pedigreed amounting to having a history of non-
    ideological and non-political serious inquiry)

That's all I've been able to think of right now. I strongly welcome
any testimonials of the form (i) and will write one myself.  And we
(collectively) must surely be able to point to *some* examples of (ii).
I suppose that libertarians and conservatives may tend to be on
the same side here, because there is a strong and on this issue
very relevant common denominator of opposing large government
and being very skeptical of programs to be executed by government.
(People doubting my bonafides should appreciate that last, just as
I explicitly appreciated several of James' points that did not help my
own case.)

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:29 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
> 
> James writes
> 
>> you're not suggesting that there are no financial incentives for
>> those who write research papers against Global Warming, are you?  See
>>
>>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?ex=1311739200&en=00
> d5453101bbc950&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
> 
> Thanks.  Indeed I was not aware that any outside agencies were paying
> any scientists who did not support the view that global warming was
> being oversold. But you should wince a little at the tone of that article,
> which begins
> 
> Utilities Pay Scientist Ally on Warming
> 
>> BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>> Published: July 28, 2006
>> WASHINGTON, July 27 - Coal-burning utilities are contributing money to
>> one of the few remaining climate scientists openly critical of the broad 
>> consensus that fossil fuel emissions are intensifying global warming.
> 
> The bias of this lead sentence is large and obvious. The writer is
> apparently
> someone who would find it somewhat painful to complete any full
> sentence without pushing the point of view he personally believes in.
> Everything from "few remaining..." to "broad consensus".  Now 
> explain *why* a journalist, indeed writing for the Associated Press,
> would have such an agenda?    Of course, we do or should be able
> to individually acknowledge the general overt bias of western media in 
> politically related questions, of which this is a sample.
> 
>> There are tremendous amounts of money to be made and lost by corporations
> as
>> a result of environmental decisions by governments, which under our
> current
>> structure leads to tremendous pressure by some to retain the status quo,
> and
>> by others to push for changes and punish their competition.
> 
> Yes (and thank you for admitting that last phrase; we must strive for
> objectivity).  But you haven't said whether you agree with the point
> that the traditional left seems to have a horse in this race that's not
> simply scientific.
> 
> The bigger question I'm addressing is the bias itself, from both sides,
> and why we think what we think. On a number of occasions, I have
> to brag, a desire to explain *this* phenomenon in unbiased terms
> has always seemed to be coming much more from my side of the
> political spectrum. 
> 
> No one has yet addressed either way my contention that the social
> idealism (quite apart from literally saving the Earth) of many on the
> left---idealism that manifests itself in wanting bigger government
> and greater regulation---is behind a great deal of the support for
> global warming and a very great amount of support for the belief
> in catastrophic global warming.
> 
> One way to address this might be if anyone has attempted to poll
> scientists who are entirely unpolitical or ideological (I understand
> the difficulty of this). But we may ourselves have some success in
> soliciting opinion from well-known extropians who have never
> voiced a political opinion.
> 
> Lee
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
>> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:04 AM
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
>>
>> BillK writes
>>
>>> On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>>> Be sure to see
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html
>>>>
>>>> Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing...
>>>> ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the
>> Church of Chicken
>>>> Little.  Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our
>> attention:
>>>
>>> As the last reader comment on that item notes...
>>> He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who
>>> support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global
>>> warming.
>>>
>>> You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of
> evolution.
>>> Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer.
>>
>> There are a number of differences. One is to check if you can be
>> suspicious of some prior crackpot element.  Clearly in the case
>> of evolution we have ample explanation of the motives of some
>> of the creationists and so on---religion is a huge force in human
>> thinking and motivation. So what would be the analogy here?
>> Do a lot of the names on these list jump out at you as being bought
>> and paid for by people who can somehow make money if global
>> warming is false?
>>
>> Another is the incredible yet obvious, amazing yet not-so-perplexing
>> political component of this scientific issue.
>>
>> Political component?  Now, how could that be?  I ask seriously, but
>> especially if anyone wishes to make an unbiased stab at answering,
>> i.e. answering in such a way that the writer's own biases or political
>> allegiances are not patent (though of course all comments welcome).
>>
>> But being political, one may ask (just as one does in tobacco cases) who
>> does the funding?  In this case, it's almost entirely governments and
> those
>> who hope for government grants.  Thus we instantly see the especially
>> harmful effects of funding that is partly or mainly politically or
>> ideologically motivated.
>>
>> The iron law of government bureaucracies is growth, growth, and more
>> growth.  A "crisis" real or imagined is damn, damn fine for government
>> growth, and is a very convenient truth for those who believe that
>> governments ought to be actively improving our lives a lot more than
>> they supposedly are already.
>>
>> Lee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Oct  1 04:47:21 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:47:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
In-Reply-To: <BAY124-DAV61756D53EADA3F4C00CDAA3AD0@phx.gbl>
References: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY124-DAV8B57455A7A33330CDD355A3AC0@phx.gbl>
	<008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY124-DAV61756D53EADA3F4C00CDAA3AD0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070930233352.021ee238@satx.rr.com>

At 09:16 PM 9/30/2007 -0700, JC wrote:

>In his discussion on the "Proactionary Principle" at the TransVision 2007
>conference, Max More alluded to his acceptance of Global Warming

You've left out a key modifier: anthropogenic. Dyson, e.g., accepts 
that climate is warming, but thinks it's primarily a cycle in solar 
oscillations of some sort. Others agree global warming is clearly 
evident, but regard the human-added factors variously relevant. If 
vagaries of insolation are responsible for a real effect (as hinted 
by the synchronous "global warming" on Mars), an obvious technical 
fix is a soletta-type "umbrella" or "diffuser" at Earth-Sun 
Lagrange-1. Hardly anyone considers this seriously, least of all 
those for whom our presumed plight is a wake-up call to moral virtue, 
technical modesty and belt-tightening. I see some resemblances here 
to medical and ecclesiastical opposition to anesthetic relief during 
childbirth--women were *meant* to suffer, damn it!

Damien Broderick 


From clementlawyer at hotmail.com  Mon Oct  1 05:15:33 2007
From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:15:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070930233352.021ee238@satx.rr.com>
References: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<BAY124-DAV8B57455A7A33330CDD355A3AC0@phx.gbl>	<008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<BAY124-DAV61756D53EADA3F4C00CDAA3AD0@phx.gbl>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070930233352.021ee238@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY124-DAV377B6240C6202B6EF25DAA3AD0@phx.gbl>

Damien;

Without a transcript, or other writings of Max's, I would not be able to say
what his views are.  I haven't studied the field, and would certainly make
no pretense of holding any special knowledge.  If indeed the evidence shows
there is Global Warming, then it would seem prudent that the Government
would be concerned over predicted effects of such, would it not?  How the
politicians "spin" the issue will depend on their integrity and biases.
What will be done about it, should the evidence point to the necessity for
action, will likely be a combination of governmental and private action.

My object is to learn, not to proselytize.

James   

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien
Broderick
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:47 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?

At 09:16 PM 9/30/2007 -0700, JC wrote:

>In his discussion on the "Proactionary Principle" at the TransVision 2007
>conference, Max More alluded to his acceptance of Global Warming

You've left out a key modifier: anthropogenic. Dyson, e.g., accepts 
that climate is warming, but thinks it's primarily a cycle in solar 
oscillations of some sort. Others agree global warming is clearly 
evident, but regard the human-added factors variously relevant. If 
vagaries of insolation are responsible for a real effect (as hinted 
by the synchronous "global warming" on Mars), an obvious technical 
fix is a soletta-type "umbrella" or "diffuser" at Earth-Sun 
Lagrange-1. Hardly anyone considers this seriously, least of all 
those for whom our presumed plight is a wake-up call to moral virtue, 
technical modesty and belt-tightening. I see some resemblances here 
to medical and ecclesiastical opposition to anesthetic relief during 
childbirth--women were *meant* to suffer, damn it!

Damien Broderick 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From spike66 at att.net  Mon Oct  1 05:22:34 2007
From: spike66 at att.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:22:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] macdac's rocket scientists
In-Reply-To: <004f01c802dc$48c463f0$6401a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <200710010549.l915nIea010113@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
...
> 
> My husband - who's known a lot of those fabled "rocket scientists" at
> McDonnell Douglas (where he used to work for 15 years) ... found a lot of
> them wanting when it came to interdisciplinary thinking (e.g., there were
> a couple of them who were creationists)... Olga


Ja, Olga, I too have serious doubts about MacDonnnelll Doouglas' rocket
scientists.  {8^D  Oddly enough, creationism is a surprisingly common
outlook among "rocket scientists".  We have a few of these at Lockheeed.  I
never have been able to figure out why, but I will offer a theory: one can
be a rocket scientist without actually having a deep seated science mindset.
If one is really good with the mechanics of mathematics, if one can model a
physical object as a system of simultaneous differential equations and solve
for any variable therein, one can be a rocket scientist.  A rocket scientist
is really a very sophisticated technician, in a sense.  I don't doubt that
super-technicians are smart guys, but they can (and often do) convince
themselves of some wacky stuff.


New subject: at the risk of rooting for my own competitors, check this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298581,00.html


U.S. Successfully Tests Missile Defense System Saturday, September 29, 2007

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -  A ground-based missile successfully
intercepted a target missile Friday in a test of the nation's defense
system, the Missile Defense Agency said.

An intercontinental ballistic missile interceptor blasted out of an
underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base shortly after 1:15 p.m., and
tracked a target missile that had lifted off from the Kodiak Launch Complex
in Alaska, the Boeing Co. said in a statement.

The Missile Defense Agency said initial results show the interceptor's
rocket motor system and kill vehicle performed as planned. Boeing said the
warhead was tracked, intercepted and destroyed.

Boeing is the prime contractor for what is formally known as the
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system.

The MDA expects to invest $49 billion in ballistic missile defense
development and fielding over the next five years.

Two operational interceptor missiles are currently based at Vandenberg and
there are 11 deployed at Fort Greely, Alaska.






I offer my grudging congratulations to Booeing, for this is a competition in
which all humanity wins if the rocket scientists win:

There were recent disparaging comments here regarding FoxNews.  However, Fox
was the only mainstream news agency that carried this story (unless I missed
it elsewhere or it hasn't shown up yet) outside of my own rocket science
news outlets.  So without Fox, how would the public hear of this kind of
success?  This is certainly newsworthy, an extraordinary accomplishment, ja?

spike







From scerir at libero.it  Mon Oct  1 06:17:01 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:17:01 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and Non-Zero Energy
	EmptySpace:
References: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com>
	<200709302314.46134.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000401c803f2$b157a820$89931f97@archimede>

> But I think a more interesting question is "how can we reconcile the 
> localized conservation of energy with our uncertainty as to whether or 
> not energy is conserved on the much larger macroscopic scales of our 
> universe." Thoughts?
> 
> - Bryan

Not sure I understand.

Radiation energy decreases due to the universal
expansion and related red/black shifting, 
dark energy would increase due to expansion ....

It is supposed that total energy (radiation,
matter, dark energy, + gravitational field energy)
is conserved (by definition, I would say).

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 10:18:17 2007
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:18:17 +0200
Subject: [ExI] macdac's rocket scientists
In-Reply-To: <200710010549.l915nIea010113@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <004f01c802dc$48c463f0$6401a8c0@brainiac>
	<200710010549.l915nIea010113@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20710010318i511a1598jf59c2e6b28eff770@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/1/07, Spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> for any variable therein, one can be a rocket scientist.  A rocket
> scientist
> is really a very sophisticated technician, in a sense.  I don't doubt that
> super-technicians are smart guys, but they can (and often do) convince
> themselves of some wacky stuff.
>

In fact, "science" has a rather peculiar usage in English. In Neolatin
languages, "rocket scientist" cannot even be literally translated, because
engineering, as practical medicine, are considered "know-hows", distinct as
such from the sciences they are based on, as speaking a language is distinct
from philology...

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071001/e88050f8/attachment.html 

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 11:46:39 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:46:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] macdac's rocket scientists
In-Reply-To: <580930c20710010318i511a1598jf59c2e6b28eff770@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01c802dc$48c463f0$6401a8c0@brainiac>
	<200710010549.l915nIea010113@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<580930c20710010318i511a1598jf59c2e6b28eff770@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0710010446v521a9fbbme2ffad065457bbca@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/1/07, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> In fact, "science" has a rather peculiar usage in English. In Neolatin
> languages, "rocket scientist" cannot even be literally translated, because
> engineering, as practical medicine, are considered "know-hows", distinct as
> such from the sciences they are based on, as speaking a language is distinct
> from philology...
>

Hmmm.
Well, in French, 'rocket scientist' is 'scientifique de fus?e', which
literally is 'scientist of rocket or missile'.  'rocket engineer'
translates to 'ing?nieur de fus?e', which literally is 'engineer of
rocket or missile'.

So I think the phrase can be literally translated.
But maybe you are making the subtle distinction, which applies across
many languages and societies, that 'scientist' means different things
to different people.
Just like 'doctor' means something different to an American and a Zulu.

BillK

From neomorphy at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 12:34:12 2007
From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:34:12 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
In-Reply-To: <000001c80375$13eb64f0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2>
References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> <000001c80375$13eb64f0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2>
Message-ID: <f3afeba0710010534w67cd8a97s3397a29c747ac70a@mail.gmail.com>

Uh, Damien Spikey,

There are a lot of people _seriously_ considering the feasibility of
affecting the Earth's albedo, such as by setting up very large 'mirrors' in
deserts, if warming is strong, incremental, and gradual over the next few
decades.  Unless the cost of space payloads drop dramatically (yes, a space
elevator would change this), the cost of terrestrial reflectors is likely to
remain many orders of magnitude lower than those for solar diffusers.
(Besides, very lightweight celestial umbrellas would turn into solar
sails...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_global_warming

"If vagaries of insolation are responsible for a real effect (as hinted
by the synchronous "global warming" on Mars), an obvious technical
fix is a soletta-type "umbrella" or "diffuser" at Earth-Sun
Lagrange-1. Hardly anyone considers this seriously, least of all
those for whom our presumed plight is a wake-up call to moral virtue,
technical modesty and belt-tightening"

ALSO,

On 10/1/07, Gary Miller <aiguy at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top earth scientists, published a
> comprehensive
> review of recent findings and concluded, "empirical observations on all
> time
> scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate,
> with
> greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."
>


This statement is either approaching tautological (and so, nearly
meaningless), or completely wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_Gun_Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071001/0430f994/attachment.html 

From rpwl at lightlink.com  Mon Oct  1 13:09:32 2007
From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:09:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Testimonial of the form (i) [WAS Re: Global Warming Skeptics
 as Interview Subjects?]
In-Reply-To: <008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<BAY124-DAV8B57455A7A33330CDD355A3AC0@phx.gbl>
	<008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <4700F18C.9050105@lightlink.com>

Lee Corbin wrote:
> James writes
> 
>> Lee;
>>
>> Like any issue, there are those whose motives are unimpeachable (whether
>> they're factually right or wrong), and those whose motives are biased.  This
>> is the sole point of my posting - that neither side is completely free from
>> bias, and we should avoid making sweeping statements that try to paint
>> everyone on one side with a single brush.  Maybe the media and the
>> politicians can make use of such mud-slinging, but anyone who has the skills
>> of critical thinking should be more concerned with uncovering and evaluating
>> the facts for themselves.
> 
> Very good.  I can hardly ask for more.
> 
> But I can, actually.  While it is great to participate in discussions
> where people (i) admit their biases when they are able, (ii) sincerely
> wish to know the truth, (iii) are willing to expend a modicum of
> effort,  THEN some progress can be made. 
> 
> I'm after further ideas and further information. Scanning lists of 
> skeptics or believers does some help, but this thread has so far
> exposed some weaknesses of relying merely on this. But we
> can do more.
> 
> 1. we can give narratives of the formation of our own beliefs;
>     any asymmetries can be revealing
> 2. we can search for well-pedigreed pundits on this issue
>     (well-pedigreed amounting to having a history of non-
>     ideological and non-political serious inquiry)
> 
> That's all I've been able to think of right now. I strongly welcome
> any testimonials of the form (i) and will write one myself.  And we
> (collectively) must surely be able to point to *some* examples of (ii).

The formation of beliefs, on issues such as the global warming debate, 
is simple if you use the scientific method:  test all the claims made by 
tracking back to sources and doing some fact-checking and cross-examination.

What happens when you do this is that (usually) one set of opinions 
collapses in self-contradiction and/or lies.  Lomborg's book is a 
perfect example:  take any one of his claims, start tracking it back to 
source, do the cross checking, etc., and you very quickly find the 
arguments fall apart.  The text is replete with exaggerations, extreme 
distortions, omission of crucial facts, irrelevancies and statistical 
sleight of hand.

Do the same to the data and opinions generated by those who believe that 
global warming is (likely to be) anthropogenic, and you find that the 
web of facts surrounding their claims simply does not fall apart, does 
not contain huge omissions, and gets stronger and more self-consistent 
the more you look at it.

The same can be done with any other issue, scientific or political.

Your option (2) above is just comparing the size of megaphones:  that's 
the pseudoscientific method.


Richard Loosemore

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Oct  1 14:57:32 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:57:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?
In-Reply-To: <BAY124-DAV61756D53EADA3F4C00CDAA3AD0@phx.gbl>
References: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY124-DAV8B57455A7A33330CDD355A3AC0@phx.gbl>
	<008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY124-DAV61756D53EADA3F4C00CDAA3AD0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200710011457.l91EvtB7008426@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com>

At 11:16 PM 9/30/2007, JC wrote:

>In his discussion on the "Proactionary Principle" at the TransVision 2007
>conference, Max More alluded to his acceptance of Global Warming, based on
>his own reading of the evidence.  I would like to hear more about his
>thoughts, or read any papers he's written on this subject, since he has
>represented the Libertarian side of the Transhumanist movement for many
>years.

You are mixing politics with science and philosophy.  And this is 
quite a narrow-minded statement because Max represented much more 
than a "Libertarians side of Transhumumanist movement".  (I can see 
the WTA has gotten to you.)

Max has represented all sides of transhumanist but the religious and 
socialist side.

>If I'm mistaken about his remarks or the portrayal, then I apologize
>in advance.
>
>Can this be arranged Natasha?

You can call him yourself James.  In fact, you were supposed call him 
some weeks ago.

Best wishes,
Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -University of Plymouth - Faculty 
of Technology,
School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for 
Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071001/904adf19/attachment.html 

From jonkc at att.net  Mon Oct  1 15:24:36 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:24:36 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?.
References: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY124-DAV8B57455A7A33330CDD355A3AC0@phx.gbl><008e01c803e0$b1fcc6f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY124-DAV61756D53EADA3F4C00CDAA3AD0@phx.gbl>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070930233352.021ee238@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001301c8043f$4195b480$5e0a4e0c@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> I see some resemblances here  to medical and 
> ecclesiastical opposition to anesthetic relief during
> childbirth--women were *meant* to suffer, damn it!

Damn, I wish I'd said that! Oh well, undoubtly I will.

First rate post Damien, although next time have the courtesy to say 
something I disagree with so we can argue.

  John K Clark 



From pjmanney at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 20:04:57 2007
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:04:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Futurism in the Geekipedia
Message-ID: <29666bf30710011304m208d911cy7e39de1021816bb@mail.gmail.com>

Has anyone gotten a look at Wired's Geekipedia?  Under the entry
"Futurism" is a breakdown of supposed Futurist schools: Capitalists,
Socialists, Totalitarians and Apocalyptics.

http://www.wired.com/culture/geekipedia/magazine/geekipedia/futurism

Here's what they say about people we supposedly resemble:

"Totalitarians:
Futurists of this variety don't merely forecast or speculate.  The
have a rigid ideological conviction about what the future holds, and
they'll happily force it on anyone within reach.  Prominent schemes
come from situationists, singularity enthusiasts and transhumanist
visionaries who are so desperate to escape the nightmare of history
that nobody else can figure out what they're talking about.  Major
proponent: Project for the New American Century."

HUH?!  In their wildest imaginings, when did transhumanists or
singulartarians become neo-cons???!!!  Did I just wake up and you all
invaded Iran while I slept???

Some of us may partially resemble the capitalists and some of us the
socialists and some both simultaneously (and none ,thank goodness,
resemble the Apocalyptics, who are Fundies), but for Pete's sake, do
these guys know anything about actual futurism???

PJ

From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 21:54:13 2007
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:54:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and Non-Zero Energy
	EmptySpace:
In-Reply-To: <000401c803f2$b157a820$89931f97@archimede>
References: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com>
	<200709302314.46134.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<000401c803f2$b157a820$89931f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <200710011654.13514.kanzure@gmail.com>

I would agree that energy, by definition, would have to be conserved 
since we came up with the concept in the first place. However, what 
about the expansion of space? If there is a finite amount of energy and 
mass, then the vacuum fluctuations should be increasingly less 
localized. Right?

(Don't call me right off on this- just back from a long day. :))

- Bryan

From mmbutler at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 22:08:58 2007
From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:08:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Futurism in the Geekipedia
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30710011304m208d911cy7e39de1021816bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29666bf30710011304m208d911cy7e39de1021816bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d79ed890710011508j3e144a7bybcce371f6ab66a0f@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/1/07, PJ Manney <pjmanney at gmail.com> wrote:

> [F]or Pete's sake, do
> these guys know anything about actual futurism???

It's Wired. So the general answer to "[D]o these guys know
anything...?" is "...No".

-- 
         Michael M. Butler  :  m m b u t l e r  ( a t )  g m a i l . c o m
           Loneliness is the ultimate poverty.  --Abigail Van Buren

From extropy at unreasonable.com  Tue Oct  2 04:25:38 2007
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:25:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Nanotech opposition
Message-ID: <200710020427.l924RIj17561@unreasonable.com>

I just received a job posting on one of my lists 
for a position whose holder is likely to be a 
public voice in opposition to much that we want to see.


-- David.

======================================
Director, Nanotechnology Project
Center for the Study of Responsive Law (CSRL)
Washington, DC

Description:

The Nanotechnology Project* seeks a Project 
Director to develop an independent group working 
on the oversight of nanotechnology. The mission 
of the project is to educate the public and 
policymakers about nanotechnology's risks to human health and the environment.

Specific Responsibilities Include:

Activities

?         Developing and directing public education programs
?         Monitoring Congressional action on nanotechnology initiatives
?         Developing and maintaining 
relationships with allied organizations and individuals
?         Representing the group and its members 
at meetings, pubic hearings and other events

Writing

?         Authoring and editing articles, 
reports, regulatory comments and news releases
?         Developing and producing a short newsletter and information alerts
?         Writing and editing grant proposals

Group Operations

?         Overseeing general operations of the organization
?         Overseeing the communications program
?         Hiring, training and supervising other staff/interns
?         Developing fundraising programs

Desired Skills/Qualifications

?         Excellent verbal, written and interpersonal communications skills
?         Ability to build effective 
relationships with allied organizations and individuals
?         Demonstrated success in project management
?         Be a self-starter and highly motivated
?         Strong organizational skills and 
experience managing multiple tasks and projects
?         Previous experience with nanotechnology 
or technology issues highly preferable
?         Graduate degree in law, engineering or other relevant field desirable


* A project of the Center for the Study of Responsive Law (CSRL).


Center for the Study of Responsive Law (CSRL) is 
a nonprofit Ralph Nader organization that 
supports and conducts a wide variety of research 
and educational projects to encourage the 
political, economic and social institutions of 
this country to be more aware of the needs of the 
citizen-consumer. The Center serves to empower 
citizens, guard the environment, protect 
consumers and monitor worker health and safety issues.

How to Apply:

Email resume and cover letter to Adam Tapley, atapley at csrl.org.

  


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Oct  2 05:12:51 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:12:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>


On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 PM, Emlyn wrote:

> This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't
> have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that
> if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes?

Yes.

1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job, seriously inside.

2) 911 was then used to curtail civil liberties and all but  
rubberstamp subsequent government power grabs.

3) 911 is used to justify current and future wars and indeed "war  
without end".  Out of generated and nurtured sustained fear the people  
go along.

4) Our economy is a tottering house of cards with the dollar fast  
running off the rails.

5) Peak Oil is real.

6) 4 & 5 and the knowledge thereof and how bad it really is likely  
explain why (1) was considered justified and why it and subsequent  
developments raise so little outcry in either major party.

7) Given a coming economy crash and subsequent mass unrest the state  
wants and has acquired the means to do whatever it wishes to and with  
the people to perpetuate its own existence or at least the comfort of  
the power elites.

on her (2) I don't think it is an accident that we jail a larger  
percentage of our citizens than any other government or that much more  
prison capacity is being planned and built out.   I find it very  
chilling that already signed executive orders give the President  
authority to have anyone he wants arrested and effectively disappeared  
without trial or rights simply by applying the label 'enemy combatant'  
or 'terrorist' without any standard of proof.

(4), surveillance, worries me greatly.  Past States leaning toward  
totalitarianism could not dream of the level of surveillance that is  
technically possible today.  With increasingly powerful and ubiquitous  
surveillance resistance become not merely futile but nearly impossible.

She is right on (5) that the definition of "terrorism" is much too  
loose and fluid.  It is easy to label something or someone as  
terrorist and remove many legal protections and quiet objections.

She is right about the dangers and about every specific development  
she mentions in its dangers and implications.

This is a very dangerous situation for we who live on this side of the  
pond.  So why is most of the response here about how much of an  
intellectual she is or is not and other side matters?   Is the heart  
of the matter so easily dismissed?  Or is it simply to disheartening  
and difficult to take on?  Would we really argue about what "fascism"  
means or strut our intellectual wit while our freedoms and our future  
are taken away?    Perhaps "fascism" is not technically the right  
word.  Perhaps the author does overly inflate.   But the subject is  
far too deadly serious to treat lightly or to distract ourselves with  
lesser matters from considering.


- samantha


From mmbutler at gmail.com  Tue Oct  2 05:45:26 2007
From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:45:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
Message-ID: <7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/1/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job, seriously inside.

Ballocks. Makes it very hard to take the rest of what you write
seriously, even though I do.

Eugene? I tried to quit the list twice already. What does it take?


-- 
         Michael M. Butler  :  m m b u t l e r  ( a t )  g m a i l . c o m
           Loneliness is the ultimate poverty.  --Abigail Van Buren

From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Oct  2 15:37:11 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:37:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Futurism in the Geekipedia
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30710011304m208d911cy7e39de1021816bb@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <29666bf30710011304m208d911cy7e39de1021816bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200710021537.l92FbZfj017389@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com>

At 03:04 PM 10/1/2007, PJ Manney wrote:

>Has anyone gotten a look at Wired's Geekipedia?  Under the entry
>"Futurism" is a breakdown of supposed Futurist schools: Capitalists,
>Socialists, Totalitarians and Apocalyptics.
>
>http://www.wired.com/culture/geekipedia/magazine/geekipedia/futurism
>
>Here's what they say about people we supposedly resemble:
>
>"Totalitarians:
>Futurists of this variety don't merely forecast or speculate.  The
>have a rigid ideological conviction about what the future holds, and
>they'll happily force it on anyone within reach.  Prominent schemes
>come from situationists, singularity enthusiasts and transhumanist
>visionaries who are so desperate to escape the nightmare of history
>that nobody else can figure out what they're talking about.  Major
>proponent: Project for the New American Century."
>
>HUH?!  In their wildest imaginings, when did transhumanists or
>singulartarians become neo-cons???!!!  Did I just wake up and you all
>invaded Iran while I slept???
>
>Some of us may partially resemble the capitalists and some of us the
>socialists and some both simultaneously (and none ,thank goodness,
>resemble the Apocalyptics, who are Fundies), but for Pete's sake, do
>these guys know anything about actual futurism???

Yes I think they do but in this thing - this pedia - whatever it is - 
they are ignorantly segregating for effect.
Years ago Wired was friendly with transhumanism, especially its 
philosophy of Extropy.  Kevin Kelly, the founder, is a friend and he 
admires Max and Eric, etc.  As I emailed Mike La Torra privately, I 
have been written up in Wired several times and never criticized or 
made to look bad.  There was no hate, but a genuine fondness and 
appreciation.  Wired had been the darling of futurist ideas for many 
years.  Then little by little things started changing.  When Alex 
Herd wrote about transhumanists for the New York Times in 1999, he 
was objective and favorable.  He later became editor of Wired and 
things changed.  I know he left quickly thereafter.  Wired started 
getting a little mean-spirited.  But there was still people like Mark 
Frauenfedler and Brian Alexander and RU Sirius who were not 
transhumanists but respected us.  Over time, changed continued and 
some of the writers got snotty.  Bruce Sterling still writes for 
Wired.  Bruce does not speak well of transhumanism and he has a loud voice.

In short, Wired has changed.

Natasha


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -University of Plymouth - Faculty 
of Technology,
School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for 
Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071002/8118acf8/attachment.html 

From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Oct  3 01:32:28 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:32:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>


On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Michael M. Butler wrote:

> On 10/1/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job, seriously inside.
>
> Ballocks. Makes it very hard to take the rest of what you write
> seriously, even though I do.

It will take a lot more than your say-so to make the official story  
hold water.

- s

From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com  Wed Oct  3 00:56:00 2007
From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:56:00 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The FP e-Alert: Why Climate Change Can't Be Stopped
References: <LYRIS-729198-232199-2007.10.01-22.26.07--sergiomartinez#mac.com@list.carnegieendowment.org>
Message-ID: <F2446F44-E5D4-48C8-B58F-CBDEA700339B@mac.com>

Some of you might find some of these articles (my own selection from  
FP's last e-Alert) interesting...

Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> WHY CLIMATE CHANGE CAN'T BE STOPPED
>
> By Paul J. Saunders and Vaughan Turekian
> Environmental advocates have finally managed to put the issue of  
> global warming at the top of the world's agenda. But the  
> scientific, economic, and political realities may mean that their  
> efforts are too little, too late.
>
>
> From the latest issue of FP
>
> HOW CAPITALISM IS KILLING DEMOCRACY
> By Robert B. Reich
> JUST SAY NO TO PROHIBITION
> By Ethan Nadelmann
> HOW TO MAKE A SPY
> By Tim Weiner
> THE TERRORISM INDEX
>
> More Web Exclusives Available at ForeignPolicy.com:
>
> The List
>
> SPUTNIK PLUS 50
> It's been 50 years since a tiny, bleeping orb named Sputnik  
> triggered a decades-long competition between the United States and  
> the Soviet Union to rule the heavens. But if you thought the space  
> race was over, think again. In this List, FP looks at the five  
> hottest contests for space dominance.
>
>
>
> FIVE POPULATION TRENDS TO WATCH
> Military experts have a saying: Amateurs study strategy;  
> professionals study logistics. When it comes to geopolitics,  
> professionals study demographics. In this List, FPsurveys the five  
> population trends that will shape our world in the years to come.
>
>
>
> THE WORLD ACCORDING TO JOHN BOLTON
> Negotiations with North Korea are on a knife's edge. Rumors of  
> secret Israeli raids on alleged Syrian nuclear facilities and  
> possible U.S. airstrikes on Iran are roiling political salons from  
> Washington to Riyadh. In this Seven Questions, former U.S.  
> Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton offers some advice for  
> those confronted with a dangerous world.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071003/f9490990/attachment.html 

From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com  Tue Oct  2 19:52:16 2007
From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:52:16 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: New Article
References: <1101831252530.1101378562372.1738.6.5135501@scheduler>
Message-ID: <7D4D7C96-D35F-4260-A991-A128AD1587F0@mac.com>

>
> A transcript of Sam Harris' recent (controversial) speech at the  
> Atheist Alliance Conference is now available on the Washington  
> Post / Newsweekwebsite.
>
> It can be read here: The Problem with Atheism
>

This was an important talk, so I'm passing along the link to its  
transcript.

--
Sergio M.L. Tarrero
Lifeboat Foundation     http://lifeboat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071002/b5ecbc9a/attachment.html 

From scerir at libero.it  Tue Oct  2 20:52:00 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:52:00 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and Non-Zero
	EnergyEmptySpace:
References: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com><200709302314.46134.kanzure@gmail.com><000401c803f2$b157a820$89931f97@archimede>
	<200710011654.13514.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000601c80536$17e55ee0$a2b81f97@archimede>

Bryan:
However, what about the expansion of space?
If there is a finite amount of energy and mass,
then the vacuum fluctuations should be increasingly
less localized. Right?

#

Imagine removing from the universe the matter,
the radiation, and the other exotic stuff.
The resulting content is vacuum, the unobservable
lowest possible energy state. 

There are many effects which contribute to the total 
vacuum energy, including vacuum fluctuations (if energy 
conservation is violated when the particles are created, 
then all of that energy is restored when they annihilate 
again, and according to a vacuum conservation theorem, 
at a classical level the vacuum must be stable against 
spontaneous matter creation processes). 

Essentially the effect of vacuum energy is to contribute 
to the universal expansion, and not to the self-gravity 
effects. 

A quintessential possibility is that the vacuum energy 
changes with time. In this case, the problem of 
conservation/localization of vacuum energy may find 
a solution (ecological too).

Another possibility is a sort of inflationary scenario. 

The best possibility seems that the expansion is fueled 
by our lack of understanding :-)

I did not check Ned Wright
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
or Sean Carroll
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004075
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310342
maybe you can find something there.


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Oct  3 18:43:14 2007
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:43:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Mental Floss:  Puffed-up virtuosos
Message-ID: <380-220071033184314484@M2W032.mail2web.com>

Christopher Smith's article for Mental Floss is a good read:
     
"(Mental Floss) -- They say a lot of artistic expression is motivated by
self-loathing. But not for these folks! Long before the Material Girl
ordered papa to stop preaching, these six puffed-up virtuosos knew darn
well how to strike a pose."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/worklife/09/28/mf.prima.donnas/index.html

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Oct  3 19:54:57 2007
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 21:54:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
	<43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20710031254q77f4e6f5vd8d4b9d1e26eb5ae@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/3/07, Samantha  Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Michael M. Butler wrote:
>
> > On 10/1/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job, seriously inside.
> >
> > Ballocks. Makes it very hard to take the rest of what you write
> > seriously, even though I do.
>
> It will take a lot more than your say-so to make the official story
> hold water.

Bottom line: the "inside" part of "inside job" may mean many things
(what degree of active or passive involvement? at what level?), but
the point is that the burden of proof is on those affirming the
official version.

And while I doubt that any of those challenging it can claim to know
"the truth, all the truth" about 9/11, I think that they have more
than successfully shown that the official version is far from being
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Stefano Vaj

From scerir at libero.it  Wed Oct  3 20:51:17 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 22:51:17 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and
	Non-ZeroEnergyEmptySpace:
References: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com><200709302314.46134.kanzure@gmail.com><000401c803f2$b157a820$89931f97@archimede><200710011654.13514.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<000601c80536$17e55ee0$a2b81f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <001701c805ff$25c388b0$9cbf1f97@archimede>

[the questions by Andres and Bryan
were interesting (at last to me)
so I asked an expert ...]

> Is the vacuum energy density constant
> in the universe?

This depends upon who you talk to --- :-o .
Steinhardt came up with an idea that
the cosmological constant /\ was dependent
(eg no longer constant) upon a field phi,

/\ = /\(phi, phi_{,a}),

and since the cosmological constant is
related to the density and pressure by

/\ = 8pi G/c^2(e + p)

a cosmological term that varies in time
and space means that the energy density e
and pressure p will change as well.
This idea is called quintessence.

Is supect that quintessence is a phase
condition for the universe and vacuum,
along with dark energy and phantom energy.
These have curious analogues to Landau theory
of Fermi fluids in solid state physics.

> Having in mind the universal expansion,
> and if the vacuum energy density is constant,
> does it mean there is a continuous production
> of vacuum energy caused by the universal expansion,
> or causing the universal expansion?

This is one reason for dark energy and
negative pressure.  The equation of state is
p = we, for w a particular number.

The first law of thermodynamics is dE = -dW + TdS.
As you observe if the vacuum density of
the universe is a constant then as the volume
of the universe increases more energy would be
created for free.  Yet the total energy
of the universe should be zero, so we set
dE = 0 and dW = -de, and TdS = dp (units assumed)
we have that
dE = 0 = de + dp,
or in covariant terms
nabla_u(E) = 0 = (e + p)U^a_{;a}
and so we must have e = -p,
or that w = -1.

SN1A and WMAP data put w = -1.02 +- .01 or so.
Now in this first law view what is happening
is that internal energy is being created in
the universe, and so to conserve total energy
the vacuum absorbs work from the universe.

This is why there is negative pressure which we
interpret as dark energy.  This prevents the
expansion of the universe from creating energy
in a runaway process.

> (I can agree these are maybe little stupid
> questions, but I could not find easy answers ...)
> s.

Not stupid, but what is stupid is why nobody
asked these questions before 1997.
Before Perlmutter found SN1A luminosities implied
an accelerated universe it was known that inflation
acted on the universe in much the way I illustrate
above.  I suppose everyone was sure that /\ = 0.
However, once /\ =/= 0 the accelerated universe
and dark energy are almost manditory.  Why nobody
saw this before 10 years ago is almost a mystery.

> " One must be able to say
> 'tables, chairs, beer-mugs'
> each time in place of
> 'points, lines, planes' "
> -David Hilbert
> (returning home to K?rnigsberg from
> attending a lecture in Halle, by Hans Wiener,
> on the foundations and structure of geometry).





From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Oct  3 19:55:31 2007
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:55:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Party scheduling
Message-ID: <200710031957.l93JvBj80965@unreasonable.com>

My next party is upcoming, and I want to set tentative dates for 
2008. If you are a potential or likely attendee, please let me know 
which alternative dates work better for you. The actual dates are 
chosen to best accommodate folks, particularly someone who's rarely 
in the Boston vicinity. This coming party will probably be scheduled 
around Joe and Gay Haldeman's availability, since they're only around 
in the fall.

Parties are at my house in southern New Hampshire, on a Saturday, 
from around 2 pm on. Some people have other commitments and arrive 
late. We've traditionally gotten a massive Chinese take-out order; 
last time we went out to the excellent Korean sushi restaurant down 
the road. Most people leave around 9 or 10; there tends to be a few 
staying to 1 am or so.

Attendees are all smart, with a broad range of interests and an open 
mind. About half I know from our shared spheres -- extropian, 
cryonics, libertarian, sf, space advocacy, AI, nanotech, etc. The 
rest are friends from other circles all of whom can hold their own in 
conversation.

There's usually a ride available for someone car-less, and we've had 
groups drive up from places like NYC.

In planning when to hold the parties, I look at predictable conflicts 
that I know I or regulars would have -- e.g., holidays, conferences, 
conventions. This led to these candidates:

Next party	Oct 20 [most likely], Nov 3, or Nov 10
Winter		Jan 26 or Feb 2, 2008
Spring		Apr 12 or May 3
Summer	Jul 26 or Aug 2
Fall		Oct 18 or Oct 25

The summer party is outdoors, extending the invitation to kids and 
dogs. (But cerebral kids who'd want to participate in the regular 
gusher of conversation are welcome at any of the parties.)

Also, if you can't come but have a friend near here who you think 
would fit right in, tell me about them. And if you're going to be 
around here non-adjacent to a party, give a holler. I can probably 
rustle up a coterie for dinner.


-- David.


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Oct  3 14:54:58 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:54:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: New Article
In-Reply-To: <7D4D7C96-D35F-4260-A991-A128AD1587F0@mac.com>
References: <1101831252530.1101378562372.1738.6.5135501@scheduler>
	<7D4D7C96-D35F-4260-A991-A128AD1587F0@mac.com>
Message-ID: <1191423226_42513@S3.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071003/1dd47868/attachment.html 

From michaelanissimov at gmail.com  Tue Oct  2 14:16:33 2007
From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:16:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Futurism in the Geekipedia
In-Reply-To: <20071002063147.GS4005@leitl.org>
References: <29666bf30710011304m208d911cy7e39de1021816bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<9ff585550710011349k3688e1f6x7333e0983c3c4517@mail.gmail.com>
	<29666bf30710011442oed1c285t8854d53b23401c49@mail.gmail.com>
	<20071002063147.GS4005@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <51ce64f10710020716ofb019ap8f018798f922c0d6@mail.gmail.com>

More evidence that WIRED sucks!  It should have been put to bed when the
bubble burst.

By the way it's funny to see posts from wta-talk and ExI play out in the
same thread.  Gmail merges them all together.

Wta-talk and ExI are "sister lists", isn't that cute?

-- 
Michael Anissimov
Lifeboat Foundation   http://lifeboat.com
http://acceleratingfuture.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071002/b93971eb/attachment.html 

From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Oct  3 15:06:11 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:06:11 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and Non-Zero
	EnergyEmptySpace:
In-Reply-To: <000601c80536$17e55ee0$a2b81f97@archimede>
References: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com>
	<200709302314.46134.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<000401c803f2$b157a820$89931f97@archimede>
	<200710011654.13514.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<000601c80536$17e55ee0$a2b81f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <62c14240710030806n7bcc07f2xf524518ad213997e@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/2/07, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> The best possibility seems that the expansion is fueled
> by our lack of understanding :-)

armchair physicist thought:  Could the expansion be the increase in
entropy due to the passage of time.  (our awareness of time as a
passage)  Maybe the information required to reverse computation of
this universe is represented in the subspace (to borrow a scifi term)
that seems to be expanding space.  If plausible, it would suggest that
at the 'end of time' the amount of reversal potential would be
maximized so another 'big bang' would start a forward process of
uncomputing the universe.  What if the universal Turing tape is a
palindrome written on a moebius strip?

From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Tue Oct  2 21:04:16 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:04:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/1/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job, seriously inside.

I must agree with Michael Butler, that, depending on what you mean by
it, this assertion could seriously diminish your credibility on this
matter.   Could you elaborate?

-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles

From spike66 at att.net  Thu Oct  4 06:08:15 2007
From: spike66 at att.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 23:08:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: New Article
In-Reply-To: <1191423226_42513@S3.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <200710040855.l948t4Sv015726@reva.xtremeunix.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:55 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: New Article

At 12:52 PM 10/2/2007, Sergio wrote:


A transcript of Sam Harris' recent (controversial) speech at the Atheist
Alliance Conference is now available on the Washington Post /
Newsweekwebsite.

It can be read here: The Problem with Atheism

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_wi
th_atheism.html




This is the first time I had read Harris, altho I had heard of him.  In some
ways I actually like Harris' approach better than Dawkins.  I will give this
more thought and check back in a week or so.

spike





From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Oct  4 08:56:27 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:56:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: New Article
In-Reply-To: <1191423226_42513@S3.cableone.net>
References: <1101831252530.1101378562372.1738.6.5135501@scheduler>
	<7D4D7C96-D35F-4260-A991-A128AD1587F0@mac.com>
	<1191423226_42513@S3.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0710040156w569ede10k6cff334c8fe160b9@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/3/07, hkhenson wrote:
<snip>
>  Of course even understanding the problem may not lead to a solution.  And
> it may be that the explanation is too bitter a pill.
>
>  If anyone has a way to get Sam Harris' attention, please let me know.
>


He is making the case that all religions are not equal and the Muslim
religion is much more likely to produce jihadist murderers than other
religions.
So there is also a specific Muslim problem to deal with.

Sam Harris has a website with a 'contact the author' page.
Obviously he gets a *lot* of email, but you are probably famous enough
yourself to get his attention, if you name-drop a bit.  ;)

<http://www.samharris.org/site/contact_author/>

BillK

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Oct  3 19:49:02 2007
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 21:49:02 +0200
Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Fwd: The FP e-Alert: Why Climate Change Can't
	Be Stopped
In-Reply-To: <F2446F44-E5D4-48C8-B58F-CBDEA700339B@mac.com>
References: <LYRIS-729198-232199-2007.10.01-22.26.07--sergiomartinez#mac.com@list.carnegieendowment.org>
	<F2446F44-E5D4-48C8-B58F-CBDEA700339B@mac.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20710031249w54cb297dx7fe76b159eafd21d@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/3/07, Sergio M.L. Tarrero <sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com> wrote:
>
>  Some of you might find some of these articles (my own selection from FP's last e-Alert) interesting...
>
> WHY CLIMATE CHANGE CAN'T BE STOPPED
> By Paul J. Saunders and Vaughan TurekianEnvironmental advocates have finally managed to put the issue of global warming at the top of the world's agenda. But the scientific, economic, and political realities may mean that their efforts are too little, too late.

Mmhhh. "Too little, too late" in connection to what? If there were,
say, a a global consensus on a 100% chance of life extinction on the
planet Earth in two-years' time depending on anthropic emissions of
greenhouse gases, does one really believe that the "scientific,
economic and political realities" would prevent us to do anything
about it? I suspect that most people would kill on sight anybody
suspected of such emissions, in spite of any conceivable inertia.

The real issue is the break-even point between the expected costs of
GW vs. the expected costs of forced gas emission reductions vs. the
costs and collateral effects of possible alternative measures.

Stefano Vaj

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Oct  4 21:30:43 2007
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 23:30:43 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: New Article
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0710040156w569ede10k6cff334c8fe160b9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1101831252530.1101378562372.1738.6.5135501@scheduler>
	<7D4D7C96-D35F-4260-A991-A128AD1587F0@mac.com>
	<1191423226_42513@S3.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0710040156w569ede10k6cff334c8fe160b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20710041430q58b558ccqa3c52a254b179947@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/4/07, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> He is making the case that all religions are not equal and the Muslim
> religion is much more likely to produce jihadist murderers than other
> religions.

On the other hand, one should recognise and remember that Muslims are
amongst monotheists the least opposed to H+ and self-determination
technologies, including PDG and eugenetic abortion.

Stefano Vaj

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Oct  4 21:56:34 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:56:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>

At 02:04 PM 10/2/2007 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:

>Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job, seriously inside.
>
>I must agree with Michael Butler, that, depending on what you mean by
>it, this assertion could seriously diminish your credibility

Has instantly done so.

>on this matter.

On any matter, by contagion. Shame; but it's always useful to have 
these triangulation data.

2 cents.

Damien Broderick


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Oct  4 22:42:28 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:42:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: New Article
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0710040156w569ede10k6cff334c8fe160b9@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <1101831252530.1101378562372.1738.6.5135501@scheduler>
	<7D4D7C96-D35F-4260-A991-A128AD1587F0@mac.com>
	<1191423226_42513@S3.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0710040156w569ede10k6cff334c8fe160b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1191537673_34341@S3.cableone.net>

At 01:56 AM 10/4/2007, BillK wrote:
>On 10/3/07, hkhenson wrote:
><snip>
> >  Of course even understanding the problem may not lead to a solution.  And
> > it may be that the explanation is too bitter a pill.
> >
> >  If anyone has a way to get Sam Harris' attention, please let me know.
> >
>He is making the case that all religions are not equal and the Muslim
>religion is much more likely to produce jihadist murderers than other
>religions.
>So there is also a specific Muslim problem to deal with.

I would disagree with him there.  *All* religions can inspire 
warriors to jump up and down and yell "kill, kill."  That's the 
evolved *function* of religions and if one has drifted away from its 
function, it can jolly well swim back as needed.  Remember the crusades!

>Sam Harris has a website with a 'contact the author' page.
>Obviously he gets a *lot* of email, but you are probably famous enough
>yourself to get his attention, if you name-drop a bit.  ;)

You overrate my fame.

Keith 


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Oct  4 15:51:23 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:51:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gasoline
In-Reply-To: <580930c20710031254q77f4e6f5vd8d4b9d1e26eb5ae@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
	<43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>
	<580930c20710031254q77f4e6f5vd8d4b9d1e26eb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1191513007_20699@S1.cableone.net>

Dollar gas

With enough investment, engineers can do just 
about anything not forbidden by physical laws.

Gasoline is just a form of stored chemical 
energy.  It is compact because 65% of the mass of 
the reaction products (CO2 and water) comes from 
oxygen in the air.  Gasoline or equal chemical 
energy sources can be synthesized from air and 
water at reasonable cost if you have a source of really inexpensive energy.

How inexpensive?  As a rough estimate, the cost 
of electrical energy will have to be 10-20% of 
the cost of the product.  The energy in gallon of 
gasoline is about 40 kWh or at 5 cents a kWh 
about two dollars, implying that we could make 
gasoline from electricity today at some $10-20 a 
gallon.  The cost of energy to run a synthetic 
fuel plant would have to fall to the sub cent per 
kWh range to expect liquid fuels at a dollar a gallon.

Is that possible?  Assuming solar, i.e., no cost 
for fuel, the cost is mostly due to capital 
costs.  There are about 8,000 hours in a 
year.  Taking a 4 year payback, that?s 32,000 
hours, which means (selling the power for a 
cent/kWh) the installed cost of a kW has to be $320 or less.

Is *this* possible?  At extremely high levels of 
production, costs approach the cost of materials 
and energy.  The parts of a solar power satellite 
consist of supporting wings, solar cells, 
transmitter and ground station.  A kW is 2-4 
square meters of wing surface.  The estimated 
mass, including the transmitter is 2kg/kW, half 
of which will probable be Invar.  Because of the 
35% nickel content of Invar, the material cost of 
the support structure will be in the range of $10 
an installed kW.  The cost of solar cells in the 
extreme case is mostly due to the energy required 
to reduce sand (zero cost) and purify the 
silicon.  In very high volume, this would be 
about 40kWh/kg or $4 down to 40 cents at the 
target energy cost.  The space elevator energy 
cost is about a Gw-day to lift a Gw of capacity, 
so an installed kW would take 24 kWh, 24 cents at 
the target energy price.  In the limiting case, 
it seems possible that an installed kW in space 
could be done for under $200 a kW.

There will be some low cost structural mass in 
the rectennas because it takes 4 square meters to 
collect a kW.  It should take in the order of 100 
microwave diodes, but those are already in the 
sub cent range.  Diodes, antenna support, and 
DC/AC power conversion (based on the cost of PC 
power supplies) might be in the $100/kW 
range.  (For a sanity check, 1/3kW PC power 
supplies cost no more than $30 to make.)  Land is 
assumed at zero cost because rectennas can be installed over farmland.

So while initial power sat energy would be sold 
into the market a 5-10 cents a kWh, there are no 
barriers I can see to the cost of bus bar energy 
to synthetic fuel plants falling over time into 
the sub cent per kWh?implying that dollar a 
gallon (or even less) fuels are within physical reality.

Of course, the lower you want to drive cost, the 
higher the initial investment.  Even making use 
of surplus items such as the Enterprise for the 
surface anchor, the cost of the space elevator 
project may be the most expense project ever under taken.

It just depends on how much people want dollar gasoline.

Keith Henson

PS  This sort of material really should go on a 
wiki.  Anyone have a wiki site available?


From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Oct  4 15:44:31 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:44:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] SENS 3 talks now online
Message-ID: <200710041544.l94FiVLV025461@ms-smtp-02.texas.rr.com>

Forwarded from Fabio:

>Not to be missed!
>
><http://www.sens.org/sens3/talks.htm>http://www.sens.org/sens3/talks.htm
>
>Or here for the [excellent!] streaming video versions:
>
><http://richardjschueler.com/wp-gallery2.php?g2_itemId=56847>http://richardjschueler.com/wp-gallery2.php?g2_itemId=56847
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071004/3b42f254/attachment.html 

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Oct  4 23:15:44 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:15:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gasoline
In-Reply-To: <1191513007_20699@S1.cableone.net>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
	<43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>
	<580930c20710031254q77f4e6f5vd8d4b9d1e26eb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191513007_20699@S1.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0710041615x33b6c152o8e7f719b5a323011@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/4/07, hkhenson wrote:
> Dollar gas
>
> With enough investment, engineers can do just
> about anything not forbidden by physical laws.
>
<snip>
> So while initial power sat energy would be sold
> into the market a 5-10 cents a kWh, there are no
> barriers I can see to the cost of bus bar energy
> to synthetic fuel plants falling over time into
> the sub cent per kWh?implying that dollar a
> gallon (or even less) fuels are within physical reality.
>
> Of course, the lower you want to drive cost, the
> higher the initial investment.  Even making use
> of surplus items such as the Enterprise for the
> surface anchor, the cost of the space elevator
> project may be the most expense project ever under taken.
>
> It just depends on how much people want dollar gasoline.
>


Not that much, is the answer.

Yes, it would be nice, but not if it needs much effort to get it.

The present US price is around 3 USD per US gallon.
Here in the UK we fall about laughing at such a ridiculously cheap price.

The UK has just had a tax increase on fuel, making it about 98p per litre.
The exchange rate is 2.04 USD to 1 UK pound.
I US gallon = 3.785 litres.
So, converting,
0.98 x 3.785 x 2.04 = 7.56 USD per US gallon.

But there is still little interest in alternative fuels in the UK.
Partly because mileage driven is smaller also, and partly because
narrower, congested roads encourage the use of smaller cars that use
less fuel..

The secret to high fuel prices is to have slow but steady increases.
People don't really notice the water getting hotter if it is gradual
enough.


BillK

From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 02:04:22 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:04:22 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gasoline
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0710041615x33b6c152o8e7f719b5a323011@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
	<43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>
	<580930c20710031254q77f4e6f5vd8d4b9d1e26eb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191513007_20699@S1.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0710041615x33b6c152o8e7f719b5a323011@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240710041904m363823bdn4ce3d381dee9b7d6@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/4/07, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> The secret to high fuel prices is to have slow but steady increases.
> People don't really notice the water getting hotter if it is gradual
> enough.

Nice, but I don't want to be a boiled frog.  You do have a point
though about the effort needed to get cheaper energy is what prevents
us from doing so.

I'm surprised Keith would suggest we would even consider doing real
work to get cheaper power.  As long as the "haves" retain enough
influence to squeeze small amounts of energy from increasingly larger
amounts of the "have not," then there is no motivation to risk the
status quo.

I wonder; even if the metaphorical increase in temperature remains
linear will we build the replacement power source before we've
exhausted the resources to do so?  What will it take to motivate us to
make the investment?

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Oct  5 04:50:09 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:50:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gasoline
In-Reply-To: <62c14240710041904m363823bdn4ce3d381dee9b7d6@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
	<43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>
	<580930c20710031254q77f4e6f5vd8d4b9d1e26eb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191513007_20699@S1.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0710041615x33b6c152o8e7f719b5a323011@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240710041904m363823bdn4ce3d381dee9b7d6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1191559734_1056@S1.cableone.net>

At 07:04 PM 10/4/2007, Mike Dougherty wrote:
>On 10/4/07, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The secret to high fuel prices is to have slow but steady increases.
> > People don't really notice the water getting hotter if it is gradual
> > enough.
>
>Nice, but I don't want to be a boiled frog.  You do have a point
>though about the effort needed to get cheaper energy is what prevents
>us from doing so.

Until the idea of combining space elevators and solar power 
satellites came along, there really wasn't a known way to get cheaper 
energy.  Well, actually there is, but you probably consider gigadeath 
undesirable.  Perhaps I should post a screed on that.

>I'm surprised Keith would suggest we would even consider doing real
>work to get cheaper power.  As long as the "haves" retain enough
>influence to squeeze small amounts of energy from increasingly larger
>amounts of the "have not," then there is no motivation to risk the
>status quo.

I am not adverse to your basic thesis, but I don't see your 
point.  How about some examples?

>I wonder; even if the metaphorical increase in temperature remains
>linear will we build the replacement power source before we've
>exhausted the resources to do so?  What will it take to motivate us to
>make the investment?

Well, the very first thing is to get widespread agreement that space 
elevators building solar power satellites are even *possible.*  I 
think they are, but is that just wishful thinking?  If they are 
possible, can we make a case for them providing a reasonable (or 
better an unreasonable) return on investment.  Again, that's going to 
take serious work, far more than what one person can do.

There are many ways this could turn out.  For example, 
nanotechnology/uploading could massively reduce the need for energy 
as could live, power producing roof plants.  But if you stick to the 
sources we are using today, then we are going to be in dire straights 
as we slide down the back half of peak oil.

Keith Henson 


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Oct  5 05:01:31 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:01:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The bright side of Gigadeath.
Message-ID: <1191560416_1285@S4.cableone.net>


Before expounding on the down side of populations in the billions, 
large populations definitely have some positive points.

First is the advantage of large markets.  A lot of products, drugs, 
computer chips, software, movies and cars have high development 
costs.  The cost have to be spread over large production runs to make 
the cost per unit reasonable.  This is an application of extreme 
specialization (see Adam Smith's description of pin makers).

And large populations make for larger number of those 3-6 SD geniuses 
that drag the rest of the population along in their wake.

But large populations are the direct or indirect cause of virtually 
every problem we have today from global warming and lose of 
biodiversity to terrorism and wars.  Engineering in the broad sense 
has stayed just ahead of population growth for some decades, but 
business as usual can't continue on the down slope of peak oil.

What we have been doing in the last 4 generations is converting oil 
into people through food.  Running out of oil is the same as running 
out of food.  You can see the leading edge as corn ethanol drives up 
the price of tortillas in Mexico.  Unless something replaces oil in a 
really big way, the human population will fall along with the available energy.

This isn't the first time human populations have been cut way back or 
even wiped out.  Jarrad Diamond in _Collapse_ discusses the Greenland 
Norse (wiped out), the Easter Island Polynesians and the Mayans. 
Steven Lablank describes the near total destruction of the southwest 
corn farmers.

It is true that history repeats itself (though never exactly).  The 
reason is that the stone-age mechanisms that lead to war and the 
death of up to half the adults in some tribal societies still 
exist.  They just don't get turned on as often in places with slow 
population growth below economic growth.

Terrorism is a stunted version of war that occurs when conventional 
war is inhibited by wide gaps between the ability of a stressed 
population to wage war and the inhibition (at present) of technically 
advanced societies to impose "biblical" solutions.  The German 
extermination of the Jews, the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the 
use of nuclear weapons on Japan shows that this inhabitation by 
advanced societies is a chancy thing.

Given how dependant economic activity is on energy, you can see how 
this couples.  It has always been self correcting.  With a fall to 
about 1 billion people, energy problems would go away for a considerable time.

Keith Henson


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Oct  5 07:56:54 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:56:54 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Question on Vacuum fluctuations and
	Non-ZeroEnergyEmptySpace:
References: <f1d9c15f0709302040t513c3f6bt626eab315575232b@mail.gmail.com><200709302314.46134.kanzure@gmail.com><000401c803f2$b157a820$89931f97@archimede><200710011654.13514.kanzure@gmail.com><000601c80536$17e55ee0$a2b81f97@archimede>
	<62c14240710030806n7bcc07f2xf524518ad213997e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000301c80725$4e91edf0$6d941f97@archimede>

From: "Mike Dougherty" 

> armchair physicist thought:  Could the expansion 
> be the increase in entropy due to the passage of time.

To explain expansion cosmologists use dark, exotic, 
virtual, phantom matters and processes, and they
'are often wrong, but never in doubt', as Lev Landau
declared. So your thought could be a professional
cosmologist thought. 

I have a personal theory, that expansion is caused 
by the impossibility to delete quantum states (it is
called principle of conservation of quantum information,
the opposite of the quantum no cloning theorem). 
In other words there is, everywhere, a toxic quantum 
spam that inflates the universe :-)

( BTW, principle of conservation of quantum information
and second principle of thermodynamics have something
in common. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306044 )
  


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Oct  5 08:32:36 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:32:36 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gasoline
In-Reply-To: <62c14240710041904m363823bdn4ce3d381dee9b7d6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
	<43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>
	<580930c20710031254q77f4e6f5vd8d4b9d1e26eb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191513007_20699@S1.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0710041615x33b6c152o8e7f719b5a323011@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240710041904m363823bdn4ce3d381dee9b7d6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071005083236.GK4005@leitl.org>

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:04:22PM -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote:

> I wonder; even if the metaphorical increase in temperature remains
> linear will we build the replacement power source before we've

PV electricity will have crossed over somewhen within the next decade,
depending on where, how high fossil will go, and whether CuInSe and
CdTe will be there on time.

> exhausted the resources to do so?  What will it take to motivate us to
> make the investment?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 14:13:38 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:13:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Dollar a gallon gasoline
In-Reply-To: <1191559734_1056@S1.cableone.net>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<7d79ed890710012245w499cf4e1m774b4cc6364cb21b@mail.gmail.com>
	<43436E2A-C275-4D11-B7E7-4287D33B60B8@mac.com>
	<580930c20710031254q77f4e6f5vd8d4b9d1e26eb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191513007_20699@S1.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0710041615x33b6c152o8e7f719b5a323011@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240710041904m363823bdn4ce3d381dee9b7d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191559734_1056@S1.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <62c14240710050713mb82d27aheecc483e4007683a@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/5/07, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> At 07:04 PM 10/4/2007, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> >I'm surprised Keith would suggest we would even consider doing real
> >work to get cheaper power.  As long as the "haves" retain enough
> >influence to squeeze small amounts of energy from increasingly larger
> >amounts of the "have not," then there is no motivation to risk the
> >status quo.
>
> I am not adverse to your basic thesis, but I don't see your
> point.  How about some examples?

Pharaoh had no reason to enlighten his people.  The entire society was
so convinced of the legitimacy of Pharaoh's rule that when Ankenaten
tried to bring change, he was tolerated for the duration of his reign
(as god on earth) then his changes were undone and the old regime was
reinstated.  Is this an extreme case?  Possibly, but it is blatantly
obvious.

The Indian caste system is another example of how the status quo is
defended against change by those who hold power.  I'm sure there have
been improvements in the public perception of this culture, but the
personal biases remain long after the official policy has been made
more palatable.

European monarchy managed change by granting concessions to feudal
lords - giving them a vested interest in preserving the "order" that
kept resources flowing up the chain.  The average person lived in
deplorable conditions while those at the top were in luxury. For
example; who would turn down the opportunity to live at Versailles in
18th century France?  If not Versailles, consider the Forbidden City
in 15th century China.  Those who had consolidated power were not
about to allow change that would threaten their standard of living.

I don't think that basic premise is much different across recorded history.

The motivation I asked about being a requirement for a space elevator
is probably analogous to finding a sea route to Asian spices and
textiles for European entrepreneurs.  I believe educated people in
Columbus' day knew the world was not flat, but then-common knowledge
was that his proposal was incredibly dangerous and probably not worth
the risk.  Cortez was another opportunist who secured a huge win for
those in power in exchange for some of his own.  Imagine where we'd be
today if European expansionism wasn't so resource-hungry (and damned
clever about it) in the 16th century.

(I jumped around a lot, citing no sources for my proposition.  I hope
I can get away with a referral to General Knowledge since I've only
referenced the commonly covered history topics that I have been
exposed to)

From jonkc at att.net  Fri Oct  5 16:21:32 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:21:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks  (was: Fascist America,
	in 10 Easy Steps)
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
Message-ID: <011b01c8076b$d7df2640$93044e0c@MyComputer>

"Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com> Wrote:

> 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job,
> seriously inside.

I won't say that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen, but I do believe the
above deserves to be somewhere on the top ten list of the stupidest
remarks ever made on the Extropian List. At least the UFO, ESP, 
Big Foot, and Cold Fusion people's ideas were not vicious.

  John K Clark








From spike66 at att.net  Fri Oct  5 19:18:52 2007
From: spike66 at att.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:18:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks  (was: Fascist America,
	in 10 Easy Steps)
In-Reply-To: <011b01c8076b$d7df2640$93044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <200710051945.l95Jjckh012031@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark
> Subject: [ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks (was: Fascist America,in 10 Easy
> Steps)
> 
> "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com> Wrote:
> 
> > 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job,
> > seriously inside.
> 
> I won't say that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen, but I do believe
> the
> above deserves to be somewhere on the top ten list of the stupidest
> remarks ever made on the Extropian List. At least the UFO, ESP,
> Big Foot, and Cold Fusion people's ideas were not vicious.
> 
>   John K Clark



I propose a different way to look at this, one that might appeal to the
mathematically minded among ExIers, which are many methinks.

When someone suggests something like number 1 above, we often dismiss it
with an "oh, that's silly" or equivalent.  Instead, let us assign to it a
probability of being true.  The group of truthers that recently confronted
Geraldo insisting that 911 was an inside job, for instance, would assign a
probability of at least .5, otherwise they wouldn't be out there.  Some may
assign it as high as .95.  Few there would rationally suggest such an
extraordinary claim would have a greater than 95% chance of being true, ja?


But even the most skeptical among us would likely assign some probability,
perhaps 1E-6, that 911 was an inside job.  I would be comfortable with at
least one in a million; I would estimate the chances at about ten in a
million, 1E-5.  The way Samantha worded her comment number 1, we might
estimate her belief in the meme 911 was an inside job, a conspiracy
involving top levels of the US government at greater than .8, otherwise she
might have stated it as "911 was probably an inside job".

As a game or thought experiment, rate comment 1 above.  If you think 911 was
a conspiracy of US gov (call the meme 911con ala ideas futures) was probably
true, then 911con = .6 or if you think it was possibly true, then 911con =
.2 and so on.

For me, 911con = 1E-5.

Now we can derive a constant K(911con) by taking the ratio of another
person's Con911 with yours.  In this case my K(911con) with respect to
Samantha would be K(sp/sa) = (1e-5/8E-1) = 1.2E-5.  

Then when any meme that is related to this topic is uttered by Samantha, I
look up in my database K(sp/sa) and multiply thru by this constant to derive
how much that belief will impact my own.  

Clearly if someone with whom you generally agree utters a comment, that
often has influence on ones own thinking.  If they espouse memes which you
consider silly, then the K goes way down and one is not greatly influenced
by their comments.

spike





  




From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 21:10:51 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:10:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks (was: Fascist America,
	in 10 Easy Steps)
In-Reply-To: <200710051945.l95Jjckh012031@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <011b01c8076b$d7df2640$93044e0c@MyComputer>
	<200710051945.l95Jjckh012031@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240710051410n2fba1479yc2a6f6a9bbc2204f@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/5/07, Spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Clearly if someone with whom you generally agree utters a comment, that
> often has influence on ones own thinking.  If they espouse memes which you
> consider silly, then the K goes way down and one is not greatly influenced
> by their comments.

That is exactly why Reasonable People have so little hope of
retrieving those who have succumbed to the Religion meme ...and vice
versa.

From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 22:30:29 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:30:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40710051530k2dd16e5bse960e323f7b53f2e@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/4/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 02:04 PM 10/2/2007 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> >Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job, seriously inside.
> >
> >I must agree with Michael Butler, that, depending on what you mean by
> >it, this assertion could seriously diminish your credibility
>
> Has instantly done so.
>
> >on this matter.
>
> On any matter, by contagion. Shame; but it's always useful to have
> these triangulation data.
>
> 2 cents.
>
> Damien Broderick

Damien,

I agree, again.  But I have often observed Samantha fighting the good
fight, so I wanted to give her an opportunity to explain her position.

So many seemingly intelligent, seemingly normal folks have fallen for
the "911 Truth" hoohah.  Incredible! So, I've returned to the question
"What in the human animal makes this "brain/behavioral disease"
possible?"   My jumping-off-point is tribalism and the peer
pressure/echo chamber of the mob, but I want more substance.  I would
like to hear from the EP folk

Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Oct  5 23:23:03 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:23:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks (was: Fascist America,
 in 10  Easy Steps)
In-Reply-To: <62c14240710051410n2fba1479yc2a6f6a9bbc2204f@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <011b01c8076b$d7df2640$93044e0c@MyComputer>
	<200710051945.l95Jjckh012031@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<62c14240710051410n2fba1479yc2a6f6a9bbc2204f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1191626509_37232@S1.cableone.net>

At 02:10 PM 10/5/2007, you wrote:
>On 10/5/07, Spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > Clearly if someone with whom you generally agree utters a comment, that
> > often has influence on ones own thinking.  If they espouse memes which you
> > consider silly, then the K goes way down and one is not greatly influenced
> > by their comments.
>
>That is exactly why Reasonable People have so little hope of
>retrieving those who have succumbed to the Religion meme ...and vice
>versa.

There is a human trait to be infected by religious memes, but no "the 
Religion meme."  There is a tendency for humans to play games, but no 
"the game meme" either.  Lots of games some related, lots of 
religions, some of them related.

Keith Henson 


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Oct  6 00:13:12 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:13:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] EP in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40710051530k2dd16e5bse960e323f7b53f2e@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>
	<a6a17bd40710051530k2dd16e5bse960e323f7b53f2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1191629519_37834@S4.cableone.net>

At 03:30 PM 10/5/2007, Jeff Davis wrote:

snip

>So many seemingly intelligent, seemingly normal folks have fallen for
>the "911 Truth" hoohah.  Incredible! So, I've returned to the question
>"What in the human animal makes this "brain/behavioral disease"
>possible?"   My jumping-off-point is tribalism and the peer
>pressure/echo chamber of the mob, but I want more substance.  I would
>like to hear from the EP folk

I guess I am the resident EP guy, though if there are others, please speak up.

You are right about "tribalism and the peer pressure/echo chamber of 
the mob" but you need to go back even further and think about the 
genes that built humans with such traits.

The basic theory of EP is that if humans have a behavioral trait 
today it is the result of selection (ultimately of genes) in the EEA.

So you need rephrase such questions into how the trait you are 
thinking about could have made a difference in the reproductive 
success of our ancestors.  You need to watch out for the trait being 
a side effect of something that was under selection pressure (like 
drug addiction being a side effect of chemical social brain reward mechanisms).

I have seen people make a case (in, for example, _Human Inference_ by 
Nesbitt and Ross) that making good enough decisions fast was a 
positively selected trait.  Jumping to the conclusion that a bush 
shaking was due to a bear wasn't a bad idea when there were bears in 
the bushes.  That extended to hearing from someone else there was a 
bear in the cave or the next valley.  This could be corrected by 
looking to see if the bear had moved on.

Now if something like this is an evolved behavior trait in humans, it 
isn't hard to see how vivid and memorable stories (memes) of bears 
[class dangerous] could spread among people and how it would be hard 
to correct them, especially when part of the meme is "don't trust the 
authorities," and you don't have any personal way to see the bear has 
left the cave.

Belief in these sorts of stories isn't likely to threaten your 
survival or reproductive success even today.  All it's likely to do 
is downgrade your reputation among a statistically insignificant pool 
of people.

Keith Henson

PS  One of the persistent stories I have read about is that the feds 
didn't investigate to find who was behind the well known speculation 
of AA and UAL stock in the days before 9/11 (and won't let it be 
privately investigated either).  I have no way to verify this 
story.  My own experience with the government has not been good as 
you are well aware.  I don't think our leaders are that competent 
enough to run 9/11 as an operation.









From clementlawyer at hotmail.com  Sat Oct  6 00:21:55 2007
From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:21:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Stop Congress from Restricting Access to DHEA
Message-ID: <BAY124-DAV17840F4641A10B57155EFAA3AA0@phx.gbl>

The following comes from Ray Kurzweil & Dr. Terry Grossman's "Fantastic
Voyage," page 285: 

 

DHEA, or dehydroepiandrosterone, is the most abundant steroid hormone
produced in the human body.  In the past, DHEA was thought to simply be a
precursor to other hormones, which no particular physiological function of
it's own.  But the late William Regelson, M.D., a well-known anti-aging
physician-researcher, has referred to DHEA as the "superstar of the super
hormones."  DHEA levels peak around 25 years of age, then steadily decline
by 50 percent in your 40s and fall further to around 5 percent of youthful
levels by age 85.  Does this mean DHEA could play a role in longevity?  Some
animal experiments have indeed confirmed that taking DHEA can slow down
aging and increase longevity." [citations removed].

 

Benefits of DHEA include: decrease risk of heart disease, fights stress,
boosts immune function, reduces depression, improves memory, relieves
symptoms of menopause, prevents bone loss, enhances libido, improves insulin
sensitivity and glucose tolerance, and increases lean body mass.

 

In June, 2007, the Life Extension Foundation published an article on the
benefits of DHEA as well as their view as to why some drug companies are
lobbying Congress to ban DHEA:
http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0
<http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=912&query=dhe
a&hiword=DHEAA%20DHEAS%20dhea%20>
&page_id=912&query=dhea&hiword=DHEAA%20DHEAS%20dhea%20

 

Additional articles discuss DHEA as a weight loss and depression supplement:


http://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?id=1044; and

 

http://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?ID=1020 

 

Additional Background: 

 

In 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Anabolic
Steroid Control Act, which provided for the listing of steroid hormone
precursors such as androstenedione ("andro") under the Controlled Substances
Act. This statute now prohibits the marketing of these substances as dietary
supplements by regulating them as Schedule III controlled substances.
However, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act contained a provision that
exempted the dietary ingredient DHEA, a prohormone with little or no
potential for abuse as a performance-enhancing ingredient, but with
demonstrated value in supporting normal hormone levels during aging. 

 

DHEA offers many benefits and is most frequently used by elderly consumers
and others with deficient hormone levels. It has been on the market as a
dietary supplement for the last 20 years and currently has sales of about
$50 million, almost entirely for uses related to aging. DHEA is not like
illegal anabolic steroids such as testosterone or precursors such as
androstenedione, which have been the targeted for federal and state
restrictions over the last two years. Unlike these other substances, DHEA
cannot be used by younger, healthy adults to build muscle mass or enhance
performance, nor is there evidence that DHEA would product the negative
effects commonly associated with steroid abuse.

 

Acting on false information and understandably concerned about the public
outrage over the abuse of steroids, Senators Charles Grassley (Iowa), John
McCain (Arizona), and Richard Durbin (Illinois) have introduced S. 762,
which would nullify the DHEA exemption contained in the Anabolic Steroid
Control Act and effectively place DHEA on the Schedule III controlled
substances list. 

 

 

Senate Bill 762 & House Bill 1249 would restrict access to DHEA 

 

Your access to DHEA is in jeopardy! The Senate is considering a bill, S.
762, to classify DHEA as an anabolic steroid, adding it to the list of
controlled substances and removing it from the market. H.R. 1249 is the
companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. Your immediate help is
needed to keep this safe and effective dietary supplement legal and
accessible. 

 

DHEA is not an anabolic steroid. It is a naturally occurring hormone that
has a wide range of benefits, including maintaining muscle strength and
strong bones, boosting immunity, and improving mood and sleep patterns.
Further studies suggest that DHEA may be helpful for such conditions as
obesity, cancer and Alzheimers disease. DHEA dietary supplements, which have
been on the market for over 20 years, are derived from a plant in the wild
yam family; for more information. -

http://www.capwiz.com/nnfa/issues/bills/?bill=9492216 "

 

We need your help to keep DHEA legal. Send a message to Congress asking your
Senators and Representative to oppose S. 762 and H.R. 1249 and any amendment
to restrict access to DHEA to minors. Congress should not restrict access to
a dietary supplement that has given health to millions of Americans. Take
action now! 

 

 

 

James Clement

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071005/7fa7f69a/attachment.html 

From clementlawyer at hotmail.com  Sat Oct  6 01:05:29 2007
From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:05:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <1191629519_37834@S4.cableone.net>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>	<a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>	<a6a17bd40710051530k2dd16e5bse960e323f7b53f2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191629519_37834@S4.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <BAY124-DAV398ACFD8336F3C9F6BB5CA3AA0@phx.gbl>

The reaction which individuals have to statements like "911 was almost
certainly an inside job," primarily reflects their personal worldview more
than it reflects their rationality.  One's worldview will be different if
their beliefs include examples of secret government wars, cover-ups, ops,
etc.  Such a person might rationally view such a statement with less
skepticism than someone who's worldview discounted such beliefs.  

For example, if you grew up in an environment where the Police are looked
upon with fear and suspicion, and your only personal experience with them
includes being intimidated, roughed up, and degraded by them, then your
worldview will result in less skepticism about statements like "the police
framed O.J. Simpson" than someone from an opposite background.

So, when someone makes a statement like "911 was almost certainly an inside
job," we can probably speculate on their worldview with some accuracy.  This
however, tells us nothing about the veracity of the statement.  Rather than
condemning someone for making such a statement, IMHO we should either try to
understand their worldview or ask them for the facts upon which they base
their opinions.  Either answer will help broaden our understanding,
regardless of the ultimate veracity of the statement.

James Clement


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 01:39:50 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 21:39:50 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks (was: Fascist America,
	in 10 Easy Steps)
In-Reply-To: <1191626509_37232@S1.cableone.net>
References: <011b01c8076b$d7df2640$93044e0c@MyComputer>
	<200710051945.l95Jjckh012031@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<62c14240710051410n2fba1479yc2a6f6a9bbc2204f@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191626509_37232@S1.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <62c14240710051839i58fa61f3scb46101c194bc399@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/5/07, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> There is a human trait to be infected by religious memes, but no "the
> Religion meme."  There is a tendency for humans to play games, but no
> "the game meme" either.  Lots of games some related, lots of
> religions, some of them related.

noted.  Was my point lost by the poor word choice or was there no point to lose?

From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Sat Oct  6 01:29:50 2007
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:29:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] EP in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <1191629519_37834@S4.cableone.net>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>	<a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>	<a6a17bd40710051530k2dd16e5bse960e323f7b53f2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191629519_37834@S4.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <4706E50E.8010105@mydruthers.com>

> PS  One of the persistent stories I have read about is that the feds 
> didn't investigate to find who was behind the well known speculation 
> of AA and UAL stock in the days before 9/11 (and won't let it be 
> privately investigated either).  I have no way to verify this 
> story. 

snopes.com to the rescue:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

> Claim: In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large 
> quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by 
> persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.
> 
> Status:   False. 


Chris
-- 
I think that, for babies, every day is first love in Paris. Every
wobbly step is skydiving, every game of hide and seek is Einstein
in 1905.--Alison Gopnik (http://edge.org/q2005/q05_9.html#gopnik)

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
Blog:   http://pancrit.org


From jnh at vt11.net  Sat Oct  6 04:00:54 2007
From: jnh at vt11.net (Jordan Hazen)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:00:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] EP in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <1191629519_37834@S4.cableone.net>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>
	<a6a17bd40710051530k2dd16e5bse960e323f7b53f2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191629519_37834@S4.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <20071006040054.GL1016@vt11.net>

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:13:12PM -0700, hkhenson wrote:
> PS  One of the persistent stories I have read about is that the feds 
> didn't investigate to find who was behind the well known speculation 
> of AA and UAL stock in the days before 9/11 (and won't let it be 
> privately investigated either).  I have no way to verify this 
> story.

The 9/11 Commission Report briefly mentions this briefly, but only in
a footnote.

Note 130, page 499 (p. 516 in the PDF) states:

 130.  Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of
 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity
 in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks.  Some unusual
 trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an
 innocuous explanation.  For example, the volume of put options--
 investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price-- surged in
 the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American
 Airlines on September 10-- highly suspicious trading on its face. 
 Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no
 connection with 9/11.  A single U.S.-based institutional investor
 with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL
 puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included
 buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.  Similarly, much
 of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was
 traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to
 its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these
 trades.  These examples typify the evidence examined by the
 investigation.

 The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities
 industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue,
 including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These
 investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently
 proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004;
 May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of
 Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001
 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed
 G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).


Notice that they decline to mention the particular institutional
investor involved, and don't say anything about the suspicious
connection of A. B. Brown / Deutsche Bank to most of these trades.

> My own experience with the government has not been good as you are
> well aware.  I don't think our leaders are that competent enough to
> run 9/11 as an operation.

Not many think the political leadership as a whole had any
involvement.  Certain individuals, perhaps.

-- 
Jordan.

From jnh at vt11.net  Sat Oct  6 03:28:27 2007
From: jnh at vt11.net (Jordan Hazen)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 23:28:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps
In-Reply-To: <005c01c807b4$fc803ef0$f580bcd0$@com>
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com>
	<65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com>
	<a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>
	<a6a17bd40710051530k2dd16e5bse960e323f7b53f2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1191629519_37834@S4.cableone.net>
	<005c01c807b4$fc803ef0$f580bcd0$@com>
Message-ID: <20071006032827.GK1016@vt11.net>

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:05:29PM -0700, James Clement wrote:
> The reaction which individuals have to statements like "911 was almost
> certainly an inside job," primarily reflects their personal worldview more
> than it reflects their rationality.  One's worldview will be different if
> their beliefs include examples of secret government wars, cover-ups, ops,
> etc.  Such a person might rationally view such a statement with less
> skepticism than someone who's worldview discounted such beliefs.  
> 
> For example, if you grew up in an environment where the Police are looked
> upon with fear and suspicion, and your only personal experience with them
> includes being intimidated, roughed up, and degraded by them, then your
> worldview will result in less skepticism about statements like "the police
> framed O.J. Simpson" than someone from an opposite background.
> 
> So, when someone makes a statement like "911 was almost certainly an inside
> job," we can probably speculate on their worldview with some accuracy.  This
> however, tells us nothing about the veracity of the statement.  Rather than
> condemning someone for making such a statement, IMHO we should either try to
> understand their worldview or ask them for the facts upon which they base
> their opinions.  Either answer will help broaden our understanding,
> regardless of the ultimate veracity of the statement.

Good points.  Conversely, coming to accept, or even seriously consider
such a hypothesis, however reluctantly, can be enough to cause a shift
in one's worldview.

There are certainly a lot of ridiculous theories surrounding 9/11, but
amidst the inanity, some more reasoned arguments do exist.


Here's an interesting paper focusing on the three WTC building
collapses, from a physics perspective:

 http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

It was written by Dr. Steven E. Jones, formerly of Brigham Young
University, and hosted on the BYU website when I first came across it.
Since then, political controversity surrounding this subject has
forced the author into early retirement.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones is a devout Mormon, but try to look past that and judge his work
on its merits.  I'd be interested to hear any reactions to the above
paper.



> James Clement
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-- 
Jordan.

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Oct  6 04:13:09 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 21:13:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com><65223E6E-1066-4A79-9C41-8B3D1FA91C13@mac.com><a6a17bd40710021404m10419b72t510b9da3182705d5@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20071004165222.0223f908@satx.rr.com>
	<a6a17bd40710051530k2dd16e5bse960e323f7b53f2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01b801c807cf$71c06cc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jeff writes

> So many seemingly intelligent, seemingly normal folks have fallen for
> the