From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu May 1 01:05:04 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:05:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <580930c20804300830y691a9f8fgb2b1cce51fc9b37f@mail.gmail.com> References: <918a899d0804262149x63d05bd8gcd775add4836a9b1@mail.gmail.com> <200804270559.m3R5xIGd004549@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <08ec01c8aa44$1cb52230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20804300830y691a9f8fgb2b1cce51fc9b37f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670804301805m6d2264bfvfe73db37c3fb3cdb@mail.gmail.com> Spike wrote: > Agreed that the FLDS people were doing wrong. The critical question now > becomes this: if I show you a neighborhood with teen pregnancy numbers > similar to these, is the government obligated to go into that neighborhood > and seize all the children who live there? Kevin Freels wrote: Ouch. That was so observant that it just smacked me in the face while I wasn't looking. We have a lot of abuse and neglect in my own small town and most of the time these parents just get a "talking to" by child protective services despite the fact that "everyone knows" what lousy parents they are. And yes, many of them turn up pregnant - sometimes as young as 12. But I guess it's not entirely the same. These are most often girls impregnated by other kids at their school. It seems that the biggest concern isn't the teen pregnancy. It's the age of the penis that caused it. >>> "Age of the the inseminator" is a big part of it, but the largest issue is that the FLDS community had *formally institutionalized* their very exploitive and criminal behavior. Older Adult males at the higher echelons of power had formal societal control mechanisms in place to condition these young coming of age teenage girls to be their wives (and keep them out of the hands of younger males who might try to compete for them). Yes, there are poor ghetto neighborhoods with outrageous teen pregnancy rates, and sometimes many of the male inseminators are far older than the girls, but still, the level of overwhelming social control mechanisms/institutionalization of the FLDS society is not there. I want to thank BillK for his excellent insights as to why what was happening in the FLDS community was very wrong. John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 1 02:30:01 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:30:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A very short theological science fiction story Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080430212916.025105d0@satx.rr.com> You Lose a short story Dead Pascal said, "Allah? Shit!" From brent.allsop at comcast.net Thu May 1 02:48:56 2008 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:48:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A very short theological science fiction story In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080430212916.025105d0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080430212916.025105d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <48192F98.7060508@comcast.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > You Lose > a short story > > Dead Pascal said, "Allah? Shit!" > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > Great one Damien! From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 1 04:46:08 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:46:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... References: <918a899d0804262149x63d05bd8gcd775add4836a9b1@mail.gmail.com> <200804270559.m3R5xIGd004549@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <08ec01c8aa44$1cb52230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670804292013g32d25177y50cc853aac9b4223@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <095a01c8ab46$7bac9ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Grigg writes > [Lee wrote] > > "Oh, but they're only *children*!", the cry will then go out. > > "They don't know what is best for them, their parents don't > > know what is best for them, and their friends and neighbors > > don't know what is best for them! > > > > "But *WE* know what is best for them, and we have the > > men, badges, dogs, and guns to prove it!" > > Sorry. I will not compare two *adult* gay men living together to... Well, you *are* comparing them, only you are finding intrinsic differences that aren't apparent to me. Nor is this about whether or not you are "stunned", as you wrote. It is about advancing reasonable arguments for or against certain propositions. > 14 and 15 year-old teenage girls who were brainwashed by > their parent's religious cult/commune... On what principle do you say that some people are "brainwashed" and not others? More particularly, I accuse you and many others for using such concepts merely to attack things that seem wrong to you. Freedom is a very powerful and still very alien concept. It amounts to allowing for the possibility of others to act in ways we find very strange and non-intuitive. In economics, we have the principle of "watch their feet". That is, don't judge what is best for someone without considering what that individual chooses to do, e.g., which jobs to take, which countries to move to, which cultures to adopt. I will only join you in condemning innocent behavior in others--- i.e., innocent in the sense of no one is objecting and no force is being applied---only in those cases that a credible likelihood exists that our entire group (tribe, nation, etc.) will be undermined or endangered by said activity. And *that* is not an easy case to make. > to enter into sexual relationships & have babies with with men > generally a number of *decades* older than they are, You will know that in many cultures throughout the world, despite the partially successful unification attempts as to what "human nature" is made during the 90s, all manner of traditions that you would find repellent are considered normal. The above example is relatively mild, as has characterized most different kinds of human groups throughout history and prehistory. It is our Christian heritage that causes many of us in particular to feel revolted, nothing more. > I realize this was "how things were" for millennia among humans, > but we have matured/become more enlightened over the last > century or so. It's often right to talk of human moral advancement, especially when we embrace the powerful new idea of *freedom*. That allows us to condemn, for example, slavery, which escaped the finest and most penetrating minds of antiquity, e.g. Aristotle and Cicero. Without the concept that people should be free all the way up to where their acts harm others in ways that the others object to---without actual brainwashing, torturing, sensory deprivation, and drugs administered without knowledge of the recipient---we would still probably see nothing whatsoever wrong with slavery. True libertarians ask others to embrace to the greatest degree they can the concepts of freedom and liberty, and to be willing to extend to others *all* the freedoms that they claim they should have.[1] Lee [1] Up to the point where (a) others are harmed (and say so) (b) the existence of the entire society is somehow imperiled. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 1 06:11:00 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] VP was Re: VR In-Reply-To: <00c701c8aae7$3d53ab80$9de41e97@archimede> Message-ID: <940648.9270.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > The Physical World as a Virtual Reality > http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0337 > Computational Universes > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0305048 > The VR hypothesis > http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/01/vr-hypothesis.html Thanks for the links, Serafino. Very thought provoking articles. However, my understanding of general relativity doesn't quite jibe with the model's whole "processor overload" theory of gravitational time dilation. The whole point of time-dilation is that it is a local effect. Observers *outside* of the gravity well will notice the slow down of time within the well without themselves being affected. >From a virtual reality standpoint, this is difficult to reconcile. To illustrate this simply imagine you are playing the Sims and you have so many Sims on your screen that your processor becomes overloaded. Why would some Sims slow down and others continue onward at normal speed? Of course the VR model is also somewhat dualist, but that doesn't bother me as much as some. I mean if an unknowable "Processor" outside of the universe supervenes on the universe, it would be indistinguishable from God. Of course it would also suffer from many of the same criticisms that God does as well. Who created the Processor? Or what is "processing" the Processor? (Poor God, but that's art for you. Everybody's a critic.) In order for it to be taken seriously as a cosmological model, I would switch things around a bit. I would embrace objective reality as being really real and call the new and improved theory the "Virtual Processor Model" in the spirit of the virtual particles like gluons that bind atoms together despite being undetectable. This makes sense, since the model emphasizes the *effect* of an unseen and unseeable processor on the measurable universe of physics. My virtual processor correction to Whitworth's model further has the benefit of restoring locality to general relativity since one can have any number of virtual processors in various locations slowing down or speeding up as physics dictates. Who knows, perhaps black hole quasars are the IO busses of the "Cosmic Computer"? One could imagine that they shuttle information back and forth between the virtual processors and our universe by swallowing old matter and energy from their equatorial plane and expelling new matter and energy into the universe from their polar axis. It seems that Newton and his deist buddies may have been right after all; the universe IS like a giant watch. God simply upgraded from clockwork to digital. ;-) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 1 07:42:31 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:42:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming Message-ID: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Once again, since I last posted on this topic, you have seen dozens if not hundreds of references to global warming. I certainly have. Scientific American, for example, has religiously affirmed the imminent danger in every issue in every year since about 2003. So it's not out of place at all to bring up the other side of the story, or data that might support it, (whether or not I am myself an entirely unbiased source). I am sure, however, that facts like this will not diminish Al Gore's enthusiam---nor the enthusiam of so many people like him---that *immediate* and *drastic* action (regardless of cost) must be undertaken by all nations at once in order to save the planet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 1 17:37:26 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 12:37:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> At 12:42 AM 5/1/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm >it's not out of place at all to bring up the other >side of the story, or data that might support it, >(whether or not I am myself an entirely unbiased >source). Lee, can't you see what you're doing in these sorts of posts? Isn't your clear implication "Here's more evidence that global heating due to human activity is bullshit"? Yet, as usual, a moment reading the BBC item you cited will find this: < His group's projection diverges from other computer models only for about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and temperatures rise.... The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon. "We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature. "We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)." > What comfort do you get from this? The comfort *I* get is the possibility that this countervailing or offsetting cooling gives us a little more time to do something to correct the longer-term disruption (should we choose to do so), and that due to the predicted accelerations of technology over the next 15-20 years we'll be better able to do that in 2030, and less expensively, than we can now. Is that what you had in mind? (Bearing in mind that during those years, anthropogenic factors will also increase *drastically* as the Third World tears headlong into 20th century industrialization.) Damien Broderick From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Thu May 1 22:08:32 2008 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] raid on lds Message-ID: <547552.23707.qm@web46115.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> It brings to mind a larger issue, no problem with libertarianism per se however inexperienced people who might be say act like 14 in age can get themselves in trouble and cost the taxpayer by hebephrenically-influenced unsafe sexual practices. And though medicaid and medicare might be scrapped you can be sure other programs will replace them. libertarians naturally are not responsible for unsafe practices but indirectly irresponsible people are influenced by laissez faire thinking to reinforce their immature yearning for unprepared freedom. by the way libertarians are so contentious they cant band together well enough to get elected ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 2 02:53:58 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 19:53:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > Lee wrote: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm > >>it's not out of place at all to bring up the other >>side of the story, or data that might support it, >>(whether or not I am myself an entirely unbiased >>source). > > Lee, can't you see what you're doing in these sorts of posts? Isn't > your clear implication "Here's more evidence that global heating due > to human activity is bullshit"? That might be one reading. It's certainly not *my* reading! My whole point is that so far as I can determine, no one really knows much for sure. Therefore the media mania is unfounded. It's just another example of how every few years our "best understanding" of some of these things changes. So let's not act precipitously. > What comfort do you get from this? More evidence that the near-hysteria espoused by many (thankfully not on this list) is unfounded. > The comfort *I* get is the possibility that this countervailing or > offsetting cooling gives us a little more time to do something to > correct the longer-term disruption (should we choose to do so), and maybe, just maybe, to keep studying the problem, and to keep trying to stop whether or not certain groups have agendas that could interfere with their objectivity? Okay so let me ask you: what odds would you give, if you were someone who gave odds and were someone who's a betting man, that average temperatures 30 years from now will be warmer than they are now? Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 2 03:15:14 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 22:15:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> At 07:53 PM 5/1/2008 -0700, Lee asked me: >what odds would you give, if you >were someone who gave odds and were someone who's >a betting man, that average temperatures 30 years from >now will be warmer than they are now? On the available evidence I've seen, and in the absence of heroic remediation measures, I feel very confident indeed that this will be the case. But my point was that *so, too, is the guy you quoted, apparently in the belief that he was saying the contrary!* Here's the quote again: "We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)." Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 2 04:38:04 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 21:38:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com><008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > At 07:53 PM 5/1/2008 -0700, Lee asked me: > >>what odds would you give, if you >>were someone who gave odds and were someone who's >>a betting man, that average temperatures 30 years from >>now will be warmer than they are now? So despite all my qualifications, you're not prepared to give any estimate whatsoever of the odds? How odd. > On the available evidence I've seen, and in the absence of heroic > remediation measures, I feel very confident indeed that this will be > the case. I see. In other words, you think that there is a 70% chance that 30 years from now temperatures will be higher? > But my point was that *so, too, is the guy you quoted, > apparently in the belief that he was saying the contrary!* I understood your point. Did you understand mine, namely that there is *huge* uncertainty in these models? Also, did you understand that massive global expenditures by governments are at this time premature? (Now we see that the American subsidies to ethanol production are resulting in food riots around the world. It's obvious to me that if there is a crisis, it's too much concerted government action and government planning.) And all this is besides the point that since 1986, when the ballyhoo began, it has always seemed likely to me that global warming will be beneficial. Rafal presented quite excellent arguments. Lee From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri May 2 05:11:33 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 01:11:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805012211x38fb1417k499ea1cc808642e1@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:53 PM 5/1/2008 -0700, Lee asked me: > > > >what odds would you give, if you > >were someone who gave odds and were someone who's > >a betting man, that average temperatures 30 years from > >now will be warmer than they are now? > > On the available evidence I've seen, and in the absence of heroic > remediation measures, I feel very confident indeed that this will be > the case. ### I might be even more confident than you are that the average temperatures will be higher in 30 years than they are now (the expected minor cooling period mentioned in the article will have played out by then). But I still think (just as the Copenhagen consensus implies) that the only real climate crisis is the storm of government activity whose destructive force will greatly exceed any net damage from man-made climate change. Rafal From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri May 2 06:37:20 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 23:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Grigg wrote: >I want to thank BillK for his excellent insights as to why what was >happening in the FLDS community was very wrong. I have to agree. The thought that grown men think it's normal behavior of 14 to 16 year old girls to produce children shows me that they don't know much of the biology of a woman. Forcing "children" to have "children" is an unacceptable behavior. It's seems rational to let the body of the woman decide when it feels ready to produce children as opposed to programming young girls to believe that this is the only solution. This is called manipulation...it should be a crime. When children are too young to know better, it is usually based on the ignorance of the parent..keep that in mind. Just an opinion Anna __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From amara at amara.com Fri May 2 08:17:19 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 02:17:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: >The thought that grown men think it's normal behavior of 14 to 16 year >old girls to produce children shows me that they don't know much of the >biology of a woman. Dear Anna, However, this sentence killed your argument in the rest of your post. Teenage girls are exactly in prime-time to have babies; that _is_ their biology and when women can most easily conceive. As a simple test, look at the numbers of accidental pregnancies in teenage girls versus thirty or forty-something year olds. If you meant to say that teenage girls are usually not _psychologically_ prepared to be mothers, then yes, I agree. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 2 08:26:50 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 01:26:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... References: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00bb01c8ac2e$5b476da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anna writes > The thought that grown men think it's normal behavior > of 14 to 16 year old girls to produce children shows > me that they don't know much of the biology of a woman. Ah, so about 90% of the contributors to this list are disqualified? A not-so-new form of argument from authority. >From a scientific point of view, women are ready to have children when they are physically capable of it. We *know* that there have been and continue to be vast cultural differences all throughout history and all around the world. I strongly suspect that you are supervening your culturally acquired beliefs onto obvious biological and ethnological reality. > Forcing "children" to have "children" is an unacceptable > behavior. If you had read the emails a bit carefully, you would have noticed that *every* single poster was opposed to the use of force. Surely you recall reading that somewhere on this list, don't you? Here is a quick way to make $10,000. Find me a single email over the last two weeks where someone came out in favor of the use of force against children in order to make them conceive. > It seems rational to let the body of the woman decide > when it feels ready to produce children I totally agree. That occurs when girls start wanting to have sex with boys. Or men. We as a species have evolved so that the young girls don't care which, especially---they'll swoon over an Elvis in his late twenties or more, whether he's twice their own age or not. Women are ready to have children when they're capable of it and when they want to. This is not to suggest that this is in any way wise for the particular girl. There are---it should be needless to say---many, many reasons why these young women might be better off to delay giving birth, to delay becoming involved with sex, to delay any number of things. I suggest that you re-read this paragraph again, thanks. The question comes down to this: whose choice is it to be? Since you may have not understood what I just said, let me repeat: 1. No one on this list has ever suggested that the use of force is justified in these situations 2. It may very well be the case that it is very unwise for some 13-year-old to have a child. 3. The real question is, "Who shall decide?" As for #3, I say that the decision should be as *local* as possible. It should be up to the young woman. But, alas, it is also the business of her parents or legal guardian on whose support she depends. So it should be up to the young woman and her parents. But, alas, there are other people closely involved, such as the potential father of such a child, his family, and so on. So it should be up to all of those who have knowledge of the situation at hand. But at each remove, knowledge becomes less. Often, so very sadly, as this knowledge wanes, power itself actually grows. It may happen that the chief the tribe, or the pastor of the church, or the cult leader, or legislators hundreds of miles away, or supreme court justices *thousands* of miles away, have the final say. So sad. So arrogant. So really stupid. > When children are too young to know better, it is usually > based on the ignorance of the parent..keep that in mind. Ah, but *you* know better than does the girl herself, and even better than her parents! Indeed you must feel that God himself speaks through you to have conferred such wisdom concerning particular individuals who you have never met, and until a few weeks ago, never even heard of. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 2 08:56:56 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:56:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <00bb01c8ac2e$5b476da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00bb01c8ac2e$5b476da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > If you had read the emails a bit carefully, you would have > noticed that *every* single poster was opposed to the use > of force. Surely you recall reading that somewhere on this > list, don't you? Here is a quick way to make $10,000. > Find me a single email over the last two weeks where > someone came out in favor of the use of force against > children in order to make them conceive. > But you seem to be arguing in favour of *not* using force to prevent the use of force by others to abuse children? Is this correct? It appears that your logic leads you to defend the right of the FLDS adults to manipulate and abuse children under the age of majority. You are actually defending an organisation that is the exact opposite of the freedom and liberty that libertarians are supposed to support. Don't you think there comes a time when practicality takes preference over intellectual correctness? How much needless suffering will you permit before you say that maybe my intellectual rigour has gone wrong somewhere along the line? BillK From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri May 2 08:34:39 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <272452.29190.qm@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/2/08, Amara Graps wrote: > Dear Anna, Well nice to hear. > However, this sentence killed your argument in the rest of > your post. >>The thought that grown men think it's normal behavior of 14 to 16 year >>old girls to produce children shows me that they don't know much of the >>biology of a woman. Really? Why? Do you have some kind of review of this? I've read some really religious views that produce some kind of explanations. I'm really not that sure as in such that many of my current friends are happily engaging in producing children. > Teenage girls are exactly in prime-time to have babies; Please state references. > that _is_their biology and when women can most easily conceive. As a > simple test, look at the numbers of accidental pregnancies in teenage > girls versus thirty or forty-something year olds. It's easy to conceive when you don't know better. > If you meant to say that teenage girls are usually not _psychologically_ > prepared to be mothers, then yes, I agree. Amara That's exactly what I was aiming at..thanks for noting it. Anna __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From Michael at videosonics.com Fri May 2 08:50:01 2008 From: Michael at videosonics.com (Michael Lawrence) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:50:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49F012@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> So, several teams made climate models and all those models predicted global warming with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. None ? not one ? of those models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998 then stop for the following decade despite atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increasing by ~5%. But that is what has happened.*** Now, one team has amended their model so it shows the cessation of global warming in 1998. Their amended model predicts that global warming will re-start in 2015. Does anybody other than a fool believe them? Michael. ***Falsifiability? A prediction had been done in 1988 (Hansen et al), the test provided by reality seems to be going to falsify that prediction. Prediction wrong = hypothesis wrong. Consequently, regardless if whether it cools or warms, claiming that AGW is right anyways, denies falsifiabilty. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Lee Corbin Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 8:42 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming Once again, since I last posted on this topic, you have seen dozens if not hundreds of references to global warming. I certainly have. Scientific American, for example, has religiously affirmed the imminent danger in every issue in every year since about 2003. So it's not out of place at all to bring up the other side of the story, or data that might support it, (whether or not I am myself an entirely unbiased source). I am sure, however, that facts like this will not diminish Al Gore's enthusiam---nor the enthusiam of so many people like him---that *immediate* and *drastic* action (regardless of cost) must be undertaken by all nations at once in order to save the planet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3753 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 2 09:28:53 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:28:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670804301805m6d2264bfvfe73db37c3fb3cdb@mail.gmail.com> References: <918a899d0804262149x63d05bd8gcd775add4836a9b1@mail.gmail.com> <200804270559.m3R5xIGd004549@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <08ec01c8aa44$1cb52230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20804300830y691a9f8fgb2b1cce51fc9b37f@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670804301805m6d2264bfvfe73db37c3fb3cdb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805020228t37d49b03labe9c8550433cf6@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:05 AM, John Grigg wrote: > "Age of the the inseminator" is a big part of it, but the largest issue is > that the FLDS community had *formally institutionalized* their very > exploitive and criminal behavior. Older Adult males at the higher echelons > of power had formal societal control mechanisms in place to condition these > young coming of age teenage girls to be their wives (and keep them out of > the hands of younger males who might try to compete for them). What is "special" in the FLDS situation is that the relevant communities do not have any claim to sovereignty and belong to a larger political community at a state and federal US level. Here, while again I prefer to err on the side of giving communities the right to adopt the internal rules of their choice, it is unclear whether a "libertarian" stance provides a final solution to those issues. In fact, there are libertarian arguments on both side of the fence, since if one hand freedom included that of giving oneself the legal or moral system or one's choice, we obviously have a conflict here between two different set of rules; on the other, those who would like to limi FLDS freedom to regulate their affair as they like would probably contend that they do so in the name of the individual rights of a few fellow citizens. This of course does not justify the idea that, say, or current concept of "adult" has some metaphysical and universal value. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 2 09:59:30 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:59:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805020259s8d579f5kea59fe35b80dd161@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Anna Taylor wrote: > I have to agree. The thought that grown men think it's normal behavior of 14 to 16 year old girls to produce children shows me that they don't know much of the biology of a woman. Forcing "children" to have "children" is an unacceptable behavior. It's seems rational to let the body of the woman decide when it feels ready to produce children as opposed to programming young girls to believe that this is the only solution. In fact, I seriously doubt that anything but the body of the female concerned may decide on whether to have a child or not. :-/ Whatever the opinion of grown men, in fact it is exactly biology that decides, irrespective of the "programming" at a purely psychological or cultural level the female concerned may have received. Or are you suggesting that they are administering hormones to the girls? Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 2 10:05:54 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 12:05:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: References: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00bb01c8ac2e$5b476da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20805020305n771f6c6ie8dd563b5afb6222@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM, BillK wrote: > Don't you think there comes a time when practicality takes preference > over intellectual correctness? How much needless suffering will you > permit before you say that maybe my intellectual rigour has gone wrong > somewhere along the line? Aren't we being a little culturally biased here? What would you think of somebody saying "How much needless suffering will you permit before taking away thirteen-year old, possibly fertile, girls from parents restricting or obstructing their reproductive freedom?". Maintaining that they do not really suffer entirely ignores the possibility that this is the case only because of "violent" societal brainwashing. Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 2 10:19:56 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:19:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <580930c20805020305n771f6c6ie8dd563b5afb6222@mail.gmail.com> References: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00bb01c8ac2e$5b476da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20805020305n771f6c6ie8dd563b5afb6222@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Aren't we being a little culturally biased here? What would you think > of somebody saying "How much needless suffering will you permit before > taking away thirteen-year old, possibly fertile, girls from parents > restricting or obstructing their reproductive freedom?". > > Maintaining that they do not really suffer entirely ignores the > possibility that this is the case only because of "violent" societal > brainwashing. > Yea, yea. Nothing matters really. It's all relative. Every opinion is equally valid. Every culture has equal rights. Nobody's culture is any better than any other culture., etc. etc. Why waste time even discussing it? BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 2 11:47:55 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:47:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: References: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00bb01c8ac2e$5b476da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20805020305n771f6c6ie8dd563b5afb6222@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805020447i67694537i2f3c76d0a5eb3852@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:19 PM, BillK wrote: > Yea, yea. Nothing matters really. It's all relative. Every opinion is > equally valid. Every culture has equal rights. Nobody's culture is any > better than any other culture., etc. etc. No, actually, for me self-determination, sovereignty and diversity do matter, not in the least since they are our best hope for *any* kind of posthuman future. Even though I am fully aware that they are themselves cultural and relative concepts. :-) Stefano Vaj From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 2 12:17:36 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 22:17:36 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/5/2 Lee Corbin : > I understood your point. Did you understand mine, namely > that there is *huge* uncertainty in these models? Also, did > you understand that massive global expenditures by > governments are at this time premature? (Now we see > that the American subsidies to ethanol production are > resulting in food riots around the world. It's obvious to > me that if there is a crisis, it's too much concerted government > action and government planning.) Suppose it's true that global warming will happen and that it will be a disaster, and suppose it's also true that there is something that could be done now to prevent it. Even if this is understood by everyone, the free market is unlikely to give rise to action to avert disaster if such action results in loss of short and medium term profits for individual enterprises. It's a variation on the Prisoner's Dilemma: you would be foolish to restrict your energy use or switch to more expensive "green" energy sources if you're going to lose money as a result and, in any case, no-one benefits from your trouble unless a majority of people voluntarily follow your example. The only way to solve the problem seems to be if there is an opportunity to vote to *force everyone* to adhere to a plan which, although profit-sapping, will at least be disaster-averting. -- Stathis Papaioannou From xuenay at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:19:08 2008 From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:19:08 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Blackford and Egan on >H In-Reply-To: <20080427180302.COSL301.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> References: <380-22008442481936833@M2W027.mail2web.com> <29666bf30804241511m2f65bb51xe54210872600f9ba@mail.gmail.com> <20080427180302.COSL301.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0805020619i561e870bq6f8b2bd6e82d3305@mail.gmail.com> In Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People, which is otherwise a very transhumanist book, the philosopher John Harris expresses similar sentiments: "The use of the terms 'transhumanism' and 'transhumanist' is much in vogue, but these terms seem to imply an agenda. Espousal of such terms can seem to be a way of characterizing (and often embracing) a movement or quasi-religion which promotes, encourages, and indeed has as its objective the creation of a new species of 'transhumans'. This idea has, I believe, no special merit aside from the ways in which the changes that (might) lead to the creation of a new species are justified and indeed mandated by the good that they will do for us and our successors. To say you are a transhumanist is like saying you are a 'born-again Christian' or a 'fundamentalist Muslim'. It is both a program and an identity. I have no transhumanist agenda program or agenda. I do think there are powerful moral reasons for ensuring the safety of the people and for enhancing our capacities, our health, and thence our lives. If the consequence of this is that we become transhumans, there is nothing wrong with that, but becoming transhumans is not the agenda; improving life, health, life-expectancy, and so on is, however, not only part of a defensible moral agenda, it is a mandatory dimension of any moral program." -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:43:19 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:43:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Blackford and Egan on >H In-Reply-To: <6a13bb8f0805020619i561e870bq6f8b2bd6e82d3305@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-22008442481936833@M2W027.mail2web.com> <29666bf30804241511m2f65bb51xe54210872600f9ba@mail.gmail.com> <20080427180302.COSL301.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> <6a13bb8f0805020619i561e870bq6f8b2bd6e82d3305@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805020643y3d0ff984h5b2353acdd67d3d5@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Kaj Sotala wrote: > Espousal of such terms > can seem to be a way of characterizing (and often embracing) a > movement or quasi-religion which promotes, encourages, and indeed has > as its objective the creation of a new species of 'transhumans'. This > idea has, I believe, no special merit aside from the ways in which the > changes that (might) lead to the creation of a new species are > justified and indeed mandated by the good that they will do for us and > our successors. ... which shows how much no-less quasi-religious but boring and petit-bourgeois utilitarian-only ethics and agendas have permeated the Western way of thinking. :-) Nietzsche and Marinetti and perhaps Huxley would have provocatively argued that the idea of the good that the changes will do for us and our successors has no special merit aside from the ways in which such good might lead to the creation of something "greater" than us. :-))) Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:52:29 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:52:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20805020652v5eaf5724p62b4c0b096a5798d@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The only way to > solve the problem seems to be if there is an opportunity to vote to > *force everyone* to adhere to a plan which, although profit-sapping, > will at least be disaster-averting. "Profits" ordinarily mean "the difference between earnings and costs". I do not see how this margin would be reduced by a compulsory plan, say, to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere. What would be reduced by a global enforcement of such a plan is the total amount of resources available to "mankind" to pursue other goals and/or to limit other risks. Stefano Vaj From amara at amara.com Fri May 2 14:10:15 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 08:10:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: me: >> Teenage girls are exactly in prime-time to have babies; Anna: >Please state references. Anna, there is a simple biological logic. A girl can't become pregnant until she reaches puberty. That is the peak of her fertility because the number of her eggs when she reaches puberty is already on a decline. For couples having unprotected sex, the teenage girls will beat the older women for ease of conception. From: http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/aging-infertility.html "One of the most important explanations for age-related infertility in women is the declining number of genetically normal available eggs. The peak number of eggs (also known as oocytes) is achieved long before women even consider becoming pregnant: when a female fetus is 4-5 months old, still in the mother's uterus, it possesses up to 6-7 million eggs. By birth, this number drops to 1-2 million and declines even further when, at the start of puberty in normal girls, there are 300,000-500,000 eggs. Several hundred oocytes are lost during the 3-4 decades a woman has regular menstrual cycles through the monthly development and ovulation of an oocyte. Many other oocytes are lost through triggered, natural cell death. When a woman reaches her mid- to late 30s, when she has about 25,000 eggs left in her ovaries, the loss rate of oocytes accelerates. In addition, as a woman ages the ability of her oocytes to divide and distribute the genetic contents normally declines. The likelihood that an oocyte with an abnormal number of chromosomes will be fertilized increases with age." "Egg Quality and a Woman's Age" http://www.gettingpregnant.co.uk/egg_quality/age.html "Age and Infertility" http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/ageinf.htm Here we see that my favorite solution to the problem, freezing one's eggs, still has a number of problems: "Racing to beat the maternal clock" http://health.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-infertilitywomen-ess.html If you are interested in the transhuman spin on this topic, then I will repeat what I wrote on the wta-talk list a few weeks ago about why I would NOT recommend a woman to go into science/technology as a career choice today. Her biology limits her severely to start a family in exactly the time when she is establishing her name in her professional career. Me, on wta-talk 10 April 2008: ========================================================================== If you were a girl, I would tell you: Working in Science is a 150% commitment. Your offtime hours are not your own, good pay for your work is hard to find all over the world, your working life will likely be unstable with contracts of one to a couple of years at a time for a decade after your PhD with little or no work benefits. You will be living frequently in different states and sometimes different countries over the course of your career, so that every time you build a social life, you will need to leave your friends behind. And moreover, in science, as a woman in most western countries, it will be very difficult or not possible to build a family. Your biology will limit you, and there is very little that you can do about that in 2008. Unless you _really_ love science and/or don't care very much about about building a family, or go through the large expense and painful process of [1] to try to preserve that option, I don't recommend the field of science for you. Reference [1] Frozen egg birth begins a reproduction revolution for women http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/1022c.html An example of the chasm between nice theoretical transhumanist discussions and the reality of implementation in daily life. In 2008, technologies such as [1] exist, but the legality (depending on the country), the expense (varies by country), and the long painful process (each day for some weeks or months, several intramuscular and/or subcutaneous daily injections of different hormones, then the eggs extraction procedure) makes this procedure into an obstacle that very few young women are willing to undergo. I know because I've tried to convince several young women researchers I know. This is definitely a technology that looks good in theory, but the implementation isn't there for the average western woman; it is certainly _not_ designed with her in mind. And moreover, these 'preparation' (hormone) procedures, which are the same as for IVF, _have barely changed in the last 10 years_. This is the 'wave of the future'? Sorry, but I don't see that, and neither do other smart women. Now here is a more eloquent writer, Sabine who can say more, and about the life of a young scientific researcher, generally. ------------------------------------------------------------------- from Sabine at: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/03/brief-history-of-mine-iii.html Meaning I have to write applications - again - this fall. Which, after all these words, eventually brings me to the reason of my current tiredness. I've been in the field for more than ten years now. I've had contracts for a year, for 9 months, I've even had a contract for 6 months. I moved 5 times in 4 years. I have three different social security numbers, but I'm not sure if I'd qualify for either of their benefits (actually, I have four, but that's a longer story). Each summer I try to arrange my conference participation with meeting friends and family. My contact to them is an annual briefing with the essentials, who got married, divorced, died, lost his job, had children. I have no retirement plan, and my unemployment insurance is basically non-existing because I've never had a job in my home-country for more than a few months (the ones that I've had were tax-free scholarships which doesn't count). Since I've never had a regular income, no bank would sensibly lend me money. I vote in a country where I don't live and live in a country where I can't vote. I'm not telling you that because I want to complain; I am telling you that because my situation is in no means exceptional. That's just what it means to be a postdoc. In fact, I believe I am better off than many others. I could live with that - if there was an end in sight. [...] Why am I telling you that Because I see an increasing number of friends leaving the academic world. It hardly happens because they are not qualified enough, or because they discovered they lost their interest in physics. Neither does it happen because they couldn't find a job. In fact, they often quit a position they had. They just simply weren't willing to play these games of vanity any more. Many of them just want to have a job where their skills are appreciated appropriately - appropriately to their age and expertise - where they have a sensible contract, and at least some kind of stability and future options. So they go and work for the research departments of large companies, become teachers, work in counseling, in a bank, scientific publishing, for the weather service, or in a patent office. The good aspect is I don't know anybody with a PhD in theoretical physics who became unemployed. Theoretical physicists, so it seems, have the reputation of being good in solving problems, which makes them useful for a lot of different tasks. The bad aspect is that all these people are lost for foundational research. And that, folks, are the selection criteria currently applied to pick the 'brightest' and 'most promising' young researchers: Those who will do well should be completely convinced of their own ingenuity, flourish without much motivation, and perform well under high competitive pressure. They should be able and willing to think in one to three year plans - for work and for life -, have connections up the latter and use them, act politically and socially smart, and should be willing to work under other people's supervision until their mid thirties. Now I'll go back to bed and pull the blanket over my face. Thanks for listening in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 2 14:23:41 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 00:23:41 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <580930c20805020652v5eaf5724p62b4c0b096a5798d@mail.gmail.com> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20805020652v5eaf5724p62b4c0b096a5798d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/2 Stefano Vaj : > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > The only way to > > solve the problem seems to be if there is an opportunity to vote to > > *force everyone* to adhere to a plan which, although profit-sapping, > > will at least be disaster-averting. > > "Profits" ordinarily mean "the difference between earnings and costs". > I do not see how this margin would be reduced by a compulsory plan, > say, to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere. > > What would be reduced by a global enforcement of such a plan is the > total amount of resources available to "mankind" to pursue other goals > and/or to limit other risks. If the average cost of energy goes up then everyone, on average, becomes poorer because more resources must be put into produce the same amount of goods. Even if nominal profits are maintained by increasing prices to compensate for increased costs real profits will still be eroded as a result of inflation. This is not to say that a stronger, better and cleaner economy won't emerge eventually, but in the short term economic growth will probably take hit. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 2 14:53:25 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:53:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20805020652v5eaf5724p62b4c0b096a5798d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805020753y26a4d1b4pc00ecc6c1ba8965a@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > If the average cost of energy goes up then everyone, on average, > becomes poorer because more resources must be put into produce the > same amount of goods. Even if nominal profits are maintained by > increasing prices to compensate for increased costs real profits will > still be eroded as a result of inflation. Yes, it is a different way to say the same thing, but with a slight difference: it would not be just a matter of nominal profits and inflation. If you measure the profits in terms of margins, the same depend on the relative scarcity of offer in comparison to demand, not on the "absolute" costs of input. Jewellers do not have lower margins because gold or diamonds have a higher absolute cost than, say, lead. Stefano Vaj From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri May 2 15:23:25 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:23:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming Message-ID: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Suppose it's true that global warming will happen and that it will be > a disaster, and suppose it's also true that there is something that > could be done now to prevent it. Even if this is understood by > everyone, the free market is unlikely to give rise to action to avert > disaster if such action results in loss of short and medium term > profits for individual enterprises. It's a variation on the Prisoner's > Dilemma: you would be foolish to restrict your energy use or switch to > more expensive "green" energy sources if you're going to lose money as > a result and, in any case, no-one benefits from your trouble unless a > majority of people voluntarily follow your example. The only way to > solve the problem seems to be if there is an opportunity to vote to > *force everyone* to adhere to a plan which, although profit-sapping, > will at least be disaster-averting. ### Stathis, long term exposure to statist propaganda may have sapped your desire to use your imagination, hence your usage of the words "only" and "force everyone" (the state, in three short words). But I am sure you still could think your way through the problem and come up with non-violent solutions (i.e. solutions that do not postulate the use of a unitary player/organization applying overwhelming force to cause conformity of action). I know of such solutions to the Prisoner's Dilemma, which work beautifully in other real-like contexts, so let me challenge you: Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. If you succeed, you may in time grow strong enough to throw down the libertarian yoke, but that's a whole different story. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 2 16:31:22 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 11:31:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080502113022.0269f238@satx.rr.com> At 11:23 AM 5/2/2008 -0400, Rafal wrote: >Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming Fun. You go first. Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri May 2 15:42:49 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: References: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00bb01c8ac2e$5b476da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805020842p69b8f788paf803f66caac31fb@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:56 AM, BillK wrote: > > Don't you think there comes a time when practicality takes preference > over intellectual correctness? How much needless suffering will you > permit before you say that maybe my intellectual rigour has gone wrong > somewhere along the line? ### I asked this question before, I asked John, and I asked you but neither one has so far answered, so I'll ask again: WHERE IS THE PROOF OF ABUSE? Where are the unbiased reports and sworn testimony to the widespread use of force against these young women? How many have been raped? How many have been incarcerated and detained against their will? Talking about suffering, how much suffering by innocent children (not the teenage mothers, who are not children anymore but their toddler-size offspring) do you want to see before changing your mind? This is a sordid affair. I don't watch TV but one Moslem friend of mine told me about something that he saw: an interview with the people who volunteered to be the foster parents to the kidnapped children. The were saying that LDS are not true Christians, that the children need to hear the true word of Christ, so they must be taken! My Moslem friend found it more disturbing than the average Americans would, since it's easier for him to imagine finding himself at the receiving end of this concern for other people's salvation. This is a filthy affair, Bill, fueled by religious zealotry, male dominance, male envy, and all covered in tons of hypocrisy. Look into your own soul. What do you find there? Rafal Rafal From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 2 16:52:28 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:52:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Dear Anna, I sincerely apologize for what I wrote to you very late last night. I do understand that you are a very nice, well-meaning individual who just wants to express her ideas on all the usual topics we discuss here just like everyone else. (I also understand that sometimes you don't distinguish between attacks upon your ideas from attacks against you personally. There is indeed a certain logic to that, which I'll say more about sometime later.) However, what I said was plainly inexcusable. I said >> Ah, but *you* know better than does the girl herself, and >> even better than her parents! Indeed you must feel that >> God himself speaks through you to have conferred such >> wisdom concerning particular individuals who you have >> never met, and until a few weeks ago, never even heard of. which, although perhaps not technically crossing the line into ad hominem, comes far, far too close. Why couldn't I have said "some people" instead of "you"? It was inexcusable, doubly-so since it was Anna to whom I was speaking. And yes, the reality is that despite our ideals, *who* one is talking to is, alas, important. Again, my sincerest apologies, and I will try hard to see that it never happens again. I see that there are a number of posts, one from you, on this subject which I have no time to get to this morning. With apologies, Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 2 18:34:36 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:34:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080502113022.0269f238@satx.rr.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080502113022.0269f238@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:23 AM 5/2/2008 -0400, Rafal wrote: > > >Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming > > Fun. You go first. I think Rafal is pointing in a very good direction, but I don't think such a solution exists for any such problem in isolation. It will work when a critical amount of the population of persons adopt the superrational viewpoint that **within the indefinite scope of an uncertain future**, promotion of their individual values is optimized by acting in accordance with best-known principles rather than expected consequences. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 2 18:51:14 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 13:51:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080502134751.025b8ec0@satx.rr.com> Krugman comments relevantly, I think, in today's NYT, presenting both market and govt functioning together on problems: ...the first President Bush established a market-based system for controlling sulfur dioxide emissions, which has been highly successful at controlling acid rain. But by then the idea of markets in emission permits had long been accepted by economists of all political stripes. And it had also been accepted by leading Democrats. The Environmental Protection Agency began letting cities meet air-quality standards using emissions-trading systems during the Carter administration ? which also led the way on deregulation of airlines and trucking. Furthermore, the sulfur dioxide scheme actually marked a sharp change in policy from the Reagan administration, which ? committed to the belief that government is always the problem, never the solution ? spent eight years opposing any effort to control acid rain. Rather than admit that pollution is a problem the government has to solve ? even as the consequences of acid rain became ever more alarming, not to mention as America?s failure to act provoked a near-crisis in relations with Canada, which was suffering the effects of U.S.-generated sulfur dioxide ? the Reaganites insisted that there was no problem at all. They denied the evidence, questioned the science, called for more research and did nothing. Sound familiar? From dagonweb at gmail.com Fri May 2 19:38:26 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 21:38:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080502134751.025b8ec0@satx.rr.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080502134751.025b8ec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I can only say I advocate criminal proceedings against people who do this, and I urge the maximum penalty under the law. I think in the US that is execution, for high treason. I am of the adamant persuasion these people don't really believe there is no acid rain or global warming, and even the majority of their collaborators do so. They just want their cake and rub the resulting excrement in the face of everyone else. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 2 20:25:05 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, > assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore > libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who > initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing > with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless > libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death > on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without > simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. When I was in college, a friend of mine named James Pitts wrote a science fiction short story regarding genetically-engineered bacteria that when injected into an oil field rapidly metabolized the oil and polymerized it into a fibrous gelatinous mass that was impossible to pump out of the ground. Such an organism used on oil fields throughout the world might render them useless thus bringing the world to the point it would be in a few decades any way. One could concievably do this without violence or even without anyone knowing it had been done deliberately. Companies would have to switch to green energy because there would be no alternative. All without spilling a drop of blood. Although Exxon-Mobil might spill plenty of blood if it knew who was responsible such a thing. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri May 2 20:33:55 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:33:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> BillK wrote: Yea, yea. Nothing matters really. It's all relative. Every opinion is equally valid. Every culture has equal rights. Nobody's culture is any better than any other culture., etc. etc. Why waste time even discussing it? >>> At this point I don't know what to say that will open the eyes of Lee and Rafal. I am stunned at their stance on the matter of these young 14-15 year-old teenage brides (and baby making machines) married off to many decades older men. Being brainwashed/socially conditioned (yes..., brainwashed, that is the right word) by the prominent men in their community to be an least mostly willing wife/sex partner is WRONG. How can you gentlemen not grok this??? John Grigg : ( From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Fri May 2 22:00:38 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:00:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > me: > >> Teenage girls are exactly in prime-time to have babies; > Anna: > >Please state references. > > Anna, there is a simple biological logic. A girl can't > become pregnant > until she reaches puberty. That is the peak of her fertility > because the > number of her eggs when she reaches puberty is already on a > decline. For > couples having unprotected sex, the teenage girls will beat the older > women for ease of conception. > > From: > http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/aging-infertility.html > > "One of the most important explanations for age-related > infertility in > women is the declining number of genetically normal available > eggs. The > peak number of eggs (also known as oocytes) is achieved long before > women even consider becoming pregnant: when a female fetus is 4- > 5 months > old, still in the mother's uterus, it possesses up to 6-7 > million eggs. > By birth, this number drops to 1-2 million and declines even further > when, at the start of puberty in normal girls, there are 300,000- > 500,000eggs. Several hundred oocytes are lost during the 3-4 > decades a woman > has regular menstrual cycles through the monthly development and > ovulation of an oocyte. Many other oocytes are lost through triggered, > natural cell death. When a woman reaches her mid- to late 30s, > when she > has about 25,000 eggs left in her ovaries, the loss rate of oocytes > accelerates. In addition, as a woman ages the ability of her > oocytes to > divide and distribute the genetic contents normally declines. The > likelihood that an oocyte with an abnormal number of chromosomes > will be > fertilized increases with age." > > I wholeheartedly agree that the concern for girls having children at such a young age is much more a cultural concern than a biological one. I've already stated my thoughts previously about this. I just wanted to point out that the quality and quantity of eggs only benefits the baby from an evolutionary perspective. Once that baby is born it doesn't matter if the mother lives 15 or 50 years. There can still be health concerns when a very young girl has a baby at such a young age. For example, often the hips have not widened to a point where the baby can be passed easily which increases complications. Various sources put the ideal age from a biological standpoint ranges between 13 and 17. What I find interesting is that while our culture seems to be continually pushing the "prime" child bearing years towards later life and the population numbers are growing stagnant, the age of sexual maturity in women is actually growing younger. Girls now are maturing at much younger ages than they did just a couple decades ago and the prime age is of course decreasing as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 2 22:14:22 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:14:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BD70439-155F-4089-8AE8-F8773D94279B@mac.com> On May 2, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Kevin Freels wrote: > > I wholeheartedly agree that the concern for girls having children at > such a young age is much more a cultural concern than a biological > one. I've already stated my thoughts previously about this. I just > wanted to point out that the quality and quantity of eggs only > benefits the baby from an evolutionary perspective. Once that baby > is born it doesn't matter if the mother lives 15 or 50 years. There > can still be health concerns when a very young girl has a baby at > such a young age. For example, often the hips have not widened to a > point where the baby can be passed easily which increases > complications. Various sources put the ideal age from a biological > standpoint ranges between 13 and 17. Yes but the "cultural concern" is quite legitimate. This is also prime learning age. In cultures with a great deal of accumulated knowledge, like ours, to have babies during those years has a major negative effect on subsequent years of a woman's life and on her non- biological contributions. Beyond this it is economically highly non- viable to have children so young. > > What I find interesting is that while our culture seems to be > continually pushing the "prime" child bearing years towards later > life and the population numbers are growing stagnant, the age of > sexual maturity in women is actually growing younger. Girls now are > maturing at much younger ages than they did just a couple decades > ago and the prime age is of course decreasing as well. I don't think the prime child-bearing age is decreasing actually. It can't decrease very much and still be sufficiently grown to safely give birth. Girls are reaching puberty earlier largely due to environmental increases in certain chemicals afaik. - samantha From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Fri May 2 22:18:44 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:18:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: John Grigg Date: Friday, May 2, 2008 15:39 Subject: Re: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... To: Lee Corbin , ExI chat list > BillK wrote: > Yea, yea. Nothing matters really. It's all relative. Every > opinion is > equally valid. Every culture has equal rights. Nobody's culture > is any > better than any other culture., etc. etc. > Why waste time even discussing it? > >>> > > At this point I don't know what to say that will open the eyes > of Lee > and Rafal. I am stunned at their stance on the matter of > these young > 14-15 year-old teenage brides (and baby making machines) married off > to many decades older men. Being brainwashed/socially > conditioned(yes..., brainwashed, that is the right word) by the > prominent men in > their community to be an least mostly willing wife/sex partner is > WRONG. > > How can you gentlemen not grok this??? > > John Grigg : ( > _______________________________________________ The problem here is theway it was done. There is much disagreement on the exact number but the estimated number of foster children who end up in jail or homeless is usually cited between 25% and 65%. That's a lot of children who are now going to end up in jail or on the streets. How can anyone think that this is a better life? And do you really think that the girls at the public schools are going to just take these kids in and "help" them adjust? No one bothered here to go in and figure out which kids were actually being abused and which ones actually wanted to leave. "Brainwashed" or not, happiness and quality of life are the most important. I've been brainwashed to believe that my convertible sports car is cool and fun to drive so I have one and I am happy. I'm not saying this is a preferrable way of life over ours, but I don't think you understand the culture shock these kids will go through which is far worse than just being brainwashed and being happy. It's obvious some were immune to the brainwashing or this woudl have never come out. No one even considered just asking who wanted to leave and who wanted to stay. The laws are what they are and you can't just totally ignore them just because something hides under the umbrella of religion. But there are many other ways this could have been handled and almost all of them would have been better. What is happening right now amounts to punishing the victims. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From godsdice at gmail.com Fri May 2 22:52:44 2008 From: godsdice at gmail.com (Rick Strongitharm) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 18:52:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A very short theological science fiction story In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080430212916.025105d0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080430212916.025105d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > You Lose > a short story > > Dead Pascal said, "Allah? Shit!" > > Cute. What Pascal's wager does is prove that Xianity is the most hideous belief set from human perspective. I'm originating one that is worse, just to one-up them. In my religion, if you don't accept grape jelly as Lord, not only do *you* spend eternity in unending, fully sentient torture, your progeny does as well (and you can't stop having children). Rick Strongitharm "Hell is overkill." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Fri May 2 23:49:43 2008 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 16:49:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1209772183.15374.3619.camel@hayek> I would like to point out the obvious: there is no libertarian position on global warming. To imply that there is such a thing is nonsense. Persons who claim that there is such a position, in particular those who claim to be libertarian, obviously have no clue about libertarianism. Climate change is a subject for study by persons such as climatologists, atmospheric physics and so forth. There is no more a libertarian position on climate change than there is a libertarian position on string theory. Fred On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 13:25 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, > > assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore > > libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who > > initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing > > with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless > > libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death > > on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without > > simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. > > When I was in college, a friend of mine named James Pitts wrote a science > fiction short story regarding genetically-engineered bacteria that when > injected into an oil field rapidly metabolized the oil and polymerized it into > a fibrous gelatinous mass that was impossible to pump out of the ground. > > Such an organism used on oil fields throughout the world might render them > useless thus bringing the world to the point it would be in a few decades any > way. One could concievably do this without violence or even without anyone > knowing it had been done deliberately. Companies would have to switch to green > energy because there would be no alternative. All without spilling a drop of > blood. Although Exxon-Mobil might spill plenty of blood if it knew who was > responsible such a thing. > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "Life is the sum of all your choices." > Albert Camus > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 3 03:03:03 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 13:03:03 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/3 Rafal Smigrodzki : > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > Suppose it's true that global warming will happen and that it will be > > a disaster, and suppose it's also true that there is something that > > could be done now to prevent it. Even if this is understood by > > everyone, the free market is unlikely to give rise to action to avert > > disaster if such action results in loss of short and medium term > > profits for individual enterprises. It's a variation on the Prisoner's > > Dilemma: you would be foolish to restrict your energy use or switch to > > more expensive "green" energy sources if you're going to lose money as > > a result and, in any case, no-one benefits from your trouble unless a > > majority of people voluntarily follow your example. The only way to > > solve the problem seems to be if there is an opportunity to vote to > > *force everyone* to adhere to a plan which, although profit-sapping, > > will at least be disaster-averting. > > ### Stathis, long term exposure to statist propaganda may have sapped > your desire to use your imagination, hence your usage of the words > "only" and "force everyone" (the state, in three short words). > > But I am sure you still could think your way through the problem and > come up with non-violent solutions (i.e. solutions that do not > postulate the use of a unitary player/organization applying > overwhelming force to cause conformity of action). I know of such > solutions to the Prisoner's Dilemma, which work beautifully in other > real-like contexts, so let me challenge you: > > Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, > assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore > libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who > initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing > with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless > libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death > on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without > simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. It wouldn't be a matter of a few people forcing their views on everyone else. The issue is that, as Jef said, the superrational course of action is to cooperate, while the "rational" course of action is to defect. The two choices are: (a) no-one is compelled to do anything - everyone gets 50 units of utility; (b) everyone is forced to cooperate - everyone gets 100 units of utility. Knowing all this, I and everyone else would *willingly* agree to be compelled to cooperate. Collectivist anarchism might allow for such cooperation while free market anarchism would not. If the advanced aliens are all libertarians this may explain the Fermi Paradox. -- Stathis Papaioannou From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 3 05:32:44 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 22:32:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1209792883_2125@s7.cableone.net> At 08:23 AM 5/2/2008, Rafal wrote: snip >. . . so let me challenge you: > >Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, Global warming will be solved as a side effect of a considerably more pressing problem, renewable energy. I have been talking about that for better than a year without stirring up much interest. More if you want it. Keith From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 3 13:57:26 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 09:57:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080502113022.0269f238@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805030657h73ba4ff4l4f3a05567994da2b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 11:23 AM 5/2/2008 -0400, Rafal wrote: > > > > >Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming > > > > Fun. You go first. > > I think Rafal is pointing in a very good direction, but I don't think > such a solution exists for any such problem in isolation. It will > work when a critical amount of the population of persons adopt the > superrational viewpoint that **within the indefinite scope of an > uncertain future**, promotion of their individual values is optimized > by acting in accordance with best-known principles rather than > expected consequences. ### I disagree with the notion of "superrationalism", especially as stated above. Obviously, if you disregard expected consequences, you are very likely to fail at whatever you are trying to achieve, no matter how feel-good your principles are. I am quite familiar with the application of "superrationalism" to trying to develop a meta-analysis of a situation and to find strategies circumventing the weaknesses of existing strategies. Usually, there are strategies which provide limited efficiency due to defection: one cannot join a cooperative effort functioning over the long term because defection over the short term is both possible and rewarding (in terms of e.g. survival fitness, satisfaction of individual desires), thus defectors are not excluded/suppressed, and inevitably destroy the cooperation by outbreeding or otherwise marginalizing cooperators. "Superrationalism" here means the ability to see the limitations imposed by defection, and trying to improve the strategies by dealing with it. If you are successful, you can achieve more in the long term than somebody who doesn't analyze the system as a whole and tries to maximize his utility within the existing framework of strategies. I dislike the term "superrationalism": we don't need it, since it simply refers to rationalism applied consistently and over the long term, rather than something qualitatively different from rationalism. Also, many "superrationalists" only point out the weaknesses of existing strategies, which isn't exactly rocket science, and then hand-wavingly exhort to do something better. Certainly it would be nice if we all were a happy family working together to make each one of us better off, but the really hard issue is finding new solutions that are impervious to defection and work well over long time. Still, if you like to talk about "superrationalism", the argument could be made that the libertarian trying to find non-violent and resilient modes of cooperation to supplant the endemic violence surrounding us, is in fact the superrationalist. After all, we are all in it together, we are all suffering because of the widespread belief that violence is a good way of getting things done, and all of us would assuredly be much better off if we could find a way of making it more difficult to inflict. I posited the "libertarian yoke" to stimulate discussion of exactly how it could be done but so far it looks like everybody is stymied, no doubt in part because for us, humans, advocating violence against others is an ingrained habit of thought. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 3 14:24:27 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:24:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > It wouldn't be a matter of a few people forcing their views on > everyone else. The issue is that, as Jef said, the superrational > course of action is to cooperate, while the "rational" course of > action is to defect. ### It isn't "superrational" to cooperate while knowing that defectors will eat you alive. The rational way is to try to invent new ways of cooperation. ------------ > > The two choices are: > > (a) no-one is compelled to do anything - everyone gets 50 units of utility; > (b) everyone is forced to cooperate - everyone gets 100 units of utility. > > Knowing all this, I and everyone else would *willingly* agree to be > compelled to cooperate. Collectivist anarchism might allow for such > cooperation while free market anarchism would not. If the advanced > aliens are all libertarians this may explain the Fermi Paradox. > ### You are not trying! Really, you are not trying to deal with the situation. Again, imagine standing under the leaden skies, aswarm with alien hulls bristling with lasers. You can rant and rave, you can pine for the collectivist past when everything was so simple, but They don't care, They are libertarians. And some scientists predict that in 98 years the average temperatures will rise by anything from 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius. Whatcha gonna do? If you accept the premises of this intellectual exercise, it won't help to complain about not being able to force everyone to cooperate - you are only restating the premise. Also, there is something fishy about "willingly agree to be compelled", like, an oxymoron, or something. Give it a try. You are at least as smart as I am, so I know you can. It's only the habituation to violence that makes it difficult but habits can be overcome. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 3 16:18:44 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 12:18:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM, John Grigg wrote: > > At this point I don't know what to say that will open the eyes of Lee > and Rafal. I am stunned at their stance on the matter of these young > 14-15 year-old teenage brides (and baby making machines) married off > to many decades older men. Being brainwashed/socially conditioned > (yes..., brainwashed, that is the right word) by the prominent men in > their community to be an least mostly willing wife/sex partner is > WRONG. > > How can you gentlemen not grok this??? > ### It is certainly wronger to be kidnapped by SWAT and delivered to other religious nuts who will indoctrinate you with their own brand of bullshit. Since you never answered in the affirmative to my questions about physical abuse, rape, and incarceration, I assume you actually agree with me that none of these acts of violence plays a significant role in maintaing polygamous families in the US. And here is a point where you are clearly incorrect: The "conditioning" you are objecting to is not all done by "prominent men". Of course, everybody in the FLDS communes is participating - older men, women, granny, grandpa, older sisters, everybody. It is their way of life, their way of thinking. It is not a situation where a few lecherous old sleazeballs are keeping everybody else subdued by force. Of course, the cultists know they can leave but mostly they don't want to (now perhaps even less so than before, knowing that the SWAT teams are after them). They believe all their baloney, think they will go to heaven, nothing really unusual. Nobody is "brainwashed" there. You can look up the original meaning, first used pertaining to Communist POW camps (e.g. "Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs"). Nobody is brainwashing prisoners, they are just telling stupid stories to their children, just as almost everybody else. There is nothing "WRONG" about telling each other stupid stories, as long as nobody gets hurt by them. There is nothing "WRONG" if a few older men get consensually laid, even if you are not getting any. Try to grok that using violence to end a bizarre, but non-violent way of life is just plainly wrong, no matter how much you disagree with the underlying doctrines. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 3 16:39:35 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 12:39:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, > > assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore > > libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who > > initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing > > with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless > > libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death > > on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without > > simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. > > When I was in college, a friend of mine named James Pitts wrote a science > fiction short story regarding genetically-engineered bacteria that when > injected into an oil field rapidly metabolized the oil and polymerized it into > a fibrous gelatinous mass that was impossible to pump out of the ground. > > Such an organism used on oil fields throughout the world might render them > useless thus bringing the world to the point it would be in a few decades any > way. One could concievably do this without violence or even without anyone > knowing it had been done deliberately. Companies would have to switch to green > energy because there would be no alternative. All without spilling a drop of > blood. Although Exxon-Mobil might spill plenty of blood if it knew who was > responsible such a thing. ### I can assure you that destroying our economy, including agriculture, would spill many millions of gallons of blood, as the population is reduced by about 70 - 80% in the ensuing food riots and mass famine. Do you really hate "companies" so much that you can think about something like that as a neat solution? Jeez. Rafal From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat May 3 17:09:22 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:09:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com> Rafal wrote: Since you never answered in the affirmative to my questions about physical abuse, rape, and incarceration, I assume you actually agree with me that none of these acts of violence plays a significant role in maintaining polygamous families in the US. >>> Rafal, there is "hard-style" abuse and then there is "soft-style (but in its own way just as bad...)" abuse. In most of these polygamous communes they don't *need* to beat, lock up or rape the 14 and 15 year-old teenage girls they intend to have as sex partners/mothers, because these young women have been so powerfully indoctrinated/socially conditioned to accept their situation as "God's will." Yep, the "soft-style" abuse is the way to go (all future cult leaders take note...)! you continue: And here is a point where you are clearly incorrect: The "conditioning" you are objecting to is not all done by "prominent men". Of course, everybody in the FLDS communes is participating - older men, women, granny, grandpa, older sisters, everybody. It is their way of life, their way of thinking. It is not a situation where a few lecherous old sleazeballs are keeping everybody else subdued by force. Of course, the cultists know they can leave but mostly they don't want to (now perhaps even less so than before, knowing that the SWAT teams are after them). They believe all their baloney, think they will go to heaven, nothing really unusual. >>> And yes, mom, grandma, dad, uncle joe, aunt mary, etc., do support this system, but does that make it right? LOL It is the human condition to generally support those in powerful positions when you have been indoctrinated from birth that they have authority direct from God to tell you what to do (and when to do it). Please keep in mind that in a number of these polygamous communities that voicing disagreement with the "lecherous old sleazeballs" in power could easily result in losing your job, house, property and even your family (are you even aware of this fact?)! The iron grip the leadership has in these polygamous hierarchies tend to keep the rank and file in line and their mouths shut.... John Grigg From jef at jefallbright.net Sat May 3 17:06:56 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:06:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805030657h73ba4ff4l4f3a05567994da2b@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080502113022.0269f238@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60805030657h73ba4ff4l4f3a05567994da2b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Rafal - I'm so far into overload with projects here at this moment that the best I can do is tell you that I think this topic is both important and subtle and I intend to respond carefully and thoroughly when I can. I get that you think I imagine some kind of "emergent" distinction that actually adds no value in any practical terms. I think I get your point of view because I used to be there, and then discovered a model encompassing it with greater coherence. [Apologies for the appearance of unsubstantiated arrogance.] I think there is real value to the concept of Superrationality and Hofstadter didn't do it justice and Axelrod and others are too firmly entrenched in an earlier paradigm. This topic continues to pop up in the scholarly journals as variations on a paradox, a sure sign of insufficient context. ["Oh, there he goes again, with his crackpot "Importance of Context" tape loop". At least he didn't use "increasing" even once -- oops.] Best regards, and apologies for being presently too overcommited and under resourced to respond properly. - Jef ----------------- On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > At 11:23 AM 5/2/2008 -0400, Rafal wrote: > > > > > > >Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming > > > > > > Fun. You go first. > > > > I think Rafal is pointing in a very good direction, but I don't think > > such a solution exists for any such problem in isolation. It will > > work when a critical amount of the population of persons adopt the > > superrational viewpoint that **within the indefinite scope of an > > uncertain future**, promotion of their individual values is optimized > > by acting in accordance with best-known principles rather than > > expected consequences. > > ### I disagree with the notion of "superrationalism", especially as > stated above. Obviously, if you disregard expected consequences, you > are very likely to fail at whatever you are trying to achieve, no > matter how feel-good your principles are. I am quite familiar with the > application of "superrationalism" to trying to develop a meta-analysis > of a situation and to find strategies circumventing the weaknesses of > existing strategies. Usually, there are strategies which provide > limited efficiency due to defection: one cannot join a cooperative > effort functioning over the long term because defection over the short > term is both possible and rewarding (in terms of e.g. survival > fitness, satisfaction of individual desires), thus defectors are not > excluded/suppressed, and inevitably destroy the cooperation by > outbreeding or otherwise marginalizing cooperators. "Superrationalism" > here means the ability to see the limitations imposed by defection, > and trying to improve the strategies by dealing with it. If you are > successful, you can achieve more in the long term than somebody who > doesn't analyze the system as a whole and tries to maximize his > utility within the existing framework of strategies. I dislike the > term "superrationalism": we don't need it, since it simply refers to > rationalism applied consistently and over the long term, rather than > something qualitatively different from rationalism. Also, many > "superrationalists" only point out the weaknesses of existing > strategies, which isn't exactly rocket science, and then hand-wavingly > exhort to do something better. Certainly it would be nice if we all > were a happy family working together to make each one of us better > off, but the really hard issue is finding new solutions that are > impervious to defection and work well over long time. > > Still, if you like to talk about "superrationalism", the argument > could be made that the libertarian trying to find non-violent and > resilient modes of cooperation to supplant the endemic violence > surrounding us, is in fact the superrationalist. After all, we are all > in it together, we are all suffering because of the widespread belief > that violence is a good way of getting things done, and all of us > would assuredly be much better off if we could find a way of making it > more difficult to inflict. I posited the "libertarian yoke" to > stimulate discussion of exactly how it could be done but so far it > looks like everybody is stymied, no doubt in part because for us, > humans, advocating violence against others is an ingrained habit of > thought. > > Rafal > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 3 20:49:35 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 13:49:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Understanding Freedom, and Understanding what is Right References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <058f01c8ad5f$3b470e70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> John writes > At this point I don't know what to say that will open the eyes of Lee > and Rafal. LOL, and I'm thinking exactly the same thing about you! :-) > I am stunned at their stance on the matter of these young > 14-15 year-old teenage brides (and baby making machines) > married off to many decades older men. Being brainwashed/ > socially conditioned (yes..., brainwashed, that is the right word) > by the prominent men in their community to be an least mostly > willing wife/sex partner is WRONG. > > How can you gentlemen not grok this??? Excellent question. Now maybe we can get somewhere. Thanks! Here is why I, personally, cannot "grok" what you're saying. I don't believe in any kind of absolute right or wrong. It's certainly not God-given, and just as certainly it's nothing that can be objectively established one way or the other. So I use "right" as shorthand for either (i) what I approve of, or (ii) what is generally approved of by normal people in our society. Of course, I must hasten to mention that on a few items, many normal people in our society approve of things that I abhor, e.g., making laws (and so approving the use of force) against women who choose to have abortions. So I instantly have to avoid any shorthand "right" or "wrong" in cases like that. Since there is no absolute right or wrong, the question then arises, "under what circumstances should force be used against other people who are doing things that many people consider bad?". My answer: in a free country, use of force against individuals may only be initiated if A. they themselves have begun the use of force on other citizens or upon children or animals that belong to other citizens, or children who are wards of the state, and so on. B. when there is clear and imminent danger that our entire group, tribe, or (in our case) nation is being threatened with destruction via betrayal or some other means C. an individual is gaining the ability through the acquisition or construction of weapons of mass destruction whereby he *might* decide to kill many thousands of people or more on a whim I believe, for now, that that exhausts the list, but I may have overlooked something. If anyone has suggestions for additions, I'd be grateful to hear about them. No, I haven't forgotten spammers, and yes, I do agree that the only solution is slow, agonized, and merciless death, but this doesn't quite rise to the level of principle. Since the practice of polygamy or polyandry doesn't fit into A, B, or C, then I can't advocate the use of force against such activity. And if Jerry Lee Lewis wanted to marry his 13 year old cousin, and if the parents and the girl were agreeable, then since that doesn't fit into A, B, or C either, then again I can't really suggest that force be used to stop them.[1] In other words, John, my problem is that I can't see what is, to use your word, WRONG with a lot of things, presumably, that you do see as WRONG. So enough about me, let's ask you now. When you write things like 14-15 year-old teenage brides...[being] married off to many decades older men... is WRONG just *where* are you getting this idea of it being "WRONG"? Honestly, have you asked yourself where you got this idea? My own guess is that it's some kind of Christian tradition or U.S. custom that you simply grew up with. I can't imagine what else it could be, but then, that's why I'm asking. So please try to help me out the way I tried to help you out above. Thanks, Lee [1] None of my remarks should be taken as suggesting that in any way I approve of laws being broken. The law must be enforced, period. But the authorities have a lot of discretion into what to look into, and there are plenty of laws being broken with vastly more important consequences than a bit of sodomy, a little pornography, or drug use, etc. The victimless crimes especially deserve to be on the bottom of the list. No, my whole point is addressed to what *should* be the law. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 3 21:22:54 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 14:22:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? References: Message-ID: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Kevin wrote (Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation) > I just wanted to point out that the quality and quantity > of eggs only benefits the baby from an evolutionary > perspective. Once that baby is born it doesn't matter > if the mother lives 15 or 50 years. There can still be > health concerns when a very [*very*] young girl has > a baby at such a young age. For example, often the > hips have not widened to a point where the baby can > be passed easily which increases complications. > Various sources put the ideal age from a biological > standpoint ranges between 13 and 17. Yes. That's when girls should be having children. The correct solution would also entail their giving up those children to their own parents to raise, while they then continue their studies and pursue whatever life goals they have when---at age 40 or so---they can in turn parent (raise) their own biological children's offspring. So who should be the biological fathers? Today, we have the means to have this decision made correctly. Clearly the girl and her parents should select from a wide variety of publicly sold sperm, and the insemination done artificially. Lee P.S. More spectacularly, the Mormons (i.e. Brigham Young) were very close to the ideal solution in the 1850s. After reaching an appropriate age where their own personal resources permitted it, e.g., age 25 or 30, a man could settle down with as many young teenage wives as he could afford. This also had the benefit of creating a huge demographic pyramid. Despite what everyone says, you know, the world really is starkly underpopulated. The reason that Mormons are above average in intelligence stems directly from enormous numbers of offspring that many highly intelligent Mormons had back when they were all practicing polygamy. P.P.S. If there is to be more about Mormons in particular, please, oh please, would you change the subject line? From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 3 21:50:01 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 14:50:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke References: <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <05bb01c8ad67$a57b7f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart, our Avantguardian, writes > When I was in college, a friend of mine named James Pitts wrote a science > fiction short story regarding genetically-engineered bacteria that [wrecked > oil fields] > > Such an organism used on oil fields throughout the world might render them > useless thus bringing the world to the point it would be in a few decades any > way. One could conceivably do this without violence or even without anyone > knowing it had been done deliberately. Without violence? Oh, you mean without the perpetrators *themselves* doing any violence. You ignoring the vast amount of violence that would suddenly result as millions of people began to starve and most economies went under. > Companies would have to switch to green energy because there would > be no alternative. And so you think that this could be quickly done without doing any more harm than merely inconveniencing some people? Lee > All without spilling a drop of blood. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 3 21:46:09 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 14:46:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... References: <352468.7440.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00bb01c8ac2e$5b476da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <05ba01c8ad67$a5614070$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > But you seem to be arguing in favour of *not* using > force to prevent the use of force by others to abuse > children? Is this correct? No, certainly that is not correct. I would never advocate permitting the use of force on children by someone other than the children's parents or legal guardians. Rafal explained that in the particular case at hand the lack of any evidence that this in fact had occurred is glaring. So let's move on: > Don't you think there comes a time when practicality > takes preference over intellectual correctness? A much meatier and nicer question, thanks! Indeed there are a number of very interesting cases in which, just as you suggest, practicality must override our principles. Far too familiar to discuss, of course, are the cases similar to that of a man stealing to feed his starving children, or the arrest and detention of someone spreading a highly contagious disease. So let's skip those. > How much needless suffering will you permit before > you say that maybe my [our] intellectual rigour has > gone wrong somewhere along the line? Very little, actually! I characterize needless suffering as suffering that accomplishes nothing and helps no one, either in the long term or in the short term. For example, the needless suffering of dying patients must be dealt with by doctors regardless of family wishes, either (with the consent of the patient, of course) by morphine and other extremely powerful drugs, or by means of assisted suicide (or cryonic suspension). Here is a hard case. A woman is known to beat her husband unmercifully, but the man refuses to admit it out of embarrassment or pride. She continues to do so no matter how ostracized she is by the community and no matter how much verbal abuse she elicits. I don't have an answer to this one, but it wouldn't surprise me if some community simply isn't going to stand for it, and "action is taken" by, say, the sheriff. You probably won't find me on the jury voting to convict the law enforcement personnel who stepped in and stopped it. Another hard case: A man is known to beat his children and his animals unmercifully, but neither the children (who think it's normal) nor the animals (because they're mute) complain about it. This is a case where I do think that the needless suffering has to be allowed, because if the state begins to interfere in how children are raised, there will be no stopping it, until we reach the present ridiculous situation. In other words, we lose more by abandoning the principle in this case than we lose by allowing needless suffering. (Before anyone overreacts to that last example, it must be kept in mind that in the present day, such cases are rare.) Lee From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat May 3 22:48:43 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 15:48:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? References: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <002d01c8ad6f$d74e30e0$6601a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Corbin" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:22 PM Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? > Kevin wrote (Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 3:00 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation) > >> I just wanted to point out that the quality and quantity >> of eggs only benefits the baby from an evolutionary >> perspective. Once that baby is born it doesn't matter >> if the mother lives 15 or 50 years. There can still be >> health concerns when a very [*very*] young girl has >> a baby at such a young age. For example, often the >> hips have not widened to a point where the baby can >> be passed easily which increases complications. >> Various sources put the ideal age from a biological >> standpoint ranges between 13 and 17. > > Yes. That's when girls should be having children. The > correct solution would also entail their giving up those > children to their own parents to raise, while they then > continue their studies and pursue whatever life goals > they have when---at age 40 or so---they can in turn > parent (raise) their own biological children's offspring. > > So who should be the biological fathers? Today, we > have the means to have this decision made correctly. > Clearly the girl and her parents should select from > a wide variety of publicly sold sperm, and the > insemination done artificially. > > Lee > > P.S. More spectacularly, the Mormons (i.e. Brigham > Young) were very close to the ideal solution in the > 1850s. After reaching an appropriate age where their > own personal resources permitted it, e.g., age 25 or 30, > a man could settle down with as many young teenage > wives as he could afford. This also had the benefit > of creating a huge demographic pyramid. Despite > what everyone says, you know, the world really > is starkly underpopulated. > > The reason that Mormons are above average in > intelligence stems directly from enormous numbers > of offspring that many highly intelligent Mormons > had back when they were all practicing polygamy. > > P.P.S. If there is to be more about Mormons in > particular, please, oh please, would you change > the subject line? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat May 3 23:07:55 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 16:07:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? References: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <003901c8ad72$8591a1d0$6601a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "Lee Corbin" To: "ExI chat list" >> ... sources put the ideal age from a biological standpoint ranges between >> 13 and 17. > Yes. That's when girls should be having children. The correct solution > would also entail their giving up those children to their own parents to > raise, while they then continue their studies and pursue whatever life > goals they have when---at age 40 or so---they can in turn parent (raise) > their own biological children's offspring. > So who should be the biological fathers? Today, we have the means to have > this decision made correctly. Clearly the girl and her parents should > select from a wide variety of publicly sold sperm, and the insemination > done artificially. OK, you mention the girl's parents. Twice. However, by the time the girl is "at age 40 or so" - if/when she's ready to "in turn parent" her children's offspring (after having chosen artificial insemination.as you suggest) ... she will be a "parent," singular ... NOT "parents." Because I wanted to have children early (in my early 20s), and because in 1968 I did not have recourse to sperm banks (e.g., in the yellow pages), and made a deal to get pregnant to have children with a good friend of mine. That was my intent - to have children - not to be married (and, actually, to get divorced after getting the two children I wanted - something I told my friend about right up front - it was all my idea). I am not opposed to your idea, Lee - I see some practicality in it. I like the options women have nowadays. But your plan still calls for "parents" (grandparents) to help out after a generation. With sperm banks, particularly - from where would one get, after a generation, the second parent to participate? I can think of other things that would very probably be unworkable - or at least unrealiable - with your plan, but this will do for now. Unless your proposal was of the Jonathan Swift variety - a bit of a jest? (I couldn't tell exactly.) Olga > Lee > > P.S. More spectacularly, the Mormons (i.e. Brigham > Young) were very close to the ideal solution in the > 1850s. After reaching an appropriate age where their > own personal resources permitted it, e.g., age 25 or 30, > a man could settle down with as many young teenage > wives as he could afford. This also had the benefit > of creating a huge demographic pyramid. Despite > what everyone says, you know, the world really > is starkly underpopulated. > > The reason that Mormons are above average in > intelligence stems directly from enormous numbers > of offspring that many highly intelligent Mormons > had back when they were all practicing polygamy. > > P.P.S. If there is to be more about Mormons in > particular, please, oh please, would you change > the subject line? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 3 23:45:22 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 16:45:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? References: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <003901c8ad72$8591a1d0$6601a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <05ce01c8ad77$c4bb45a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Olga writes > [Lee wrote] > >>> ... sources put the ideal age from a biological standpoint >>> ranges between 13 and 17. > >> Yes. That's when girls should be having children. The correct solution >> would also entail their giving up those children to their own parents to >> raise, while they then continue their studies and pursue whatever life >> goals they have when---at age 40 or so---they can in turn parent (raise) >> their own biological children's offspring. > > OK, you mention the girl's parents. Twice. > > However, by the time the girl is "at age 40 or so" - if/when she's ready to > "in turn parent" her children's offspring (after having chosen artificial > insemination.as you suggest) ... she will be a "parent," singular ... NOT > "parents." Good point. > I am not opposed to your idea, Lee - I see some practicality in it. > But your plan still calls for "parents" (grandparents) to help out > after a generation. With sperm banks, particularly - from where > would one get, after a generation, the second parent to participate? Either by then the woman will have married, or not. Probably either way it should be her responsibility to raise her (grand)children. > I can think of other things that would very probably be unworkable - or at > least unrealiable - with your plan, but this will do for now. Many single parents raise children. And it turns out that the correlation between missing fathers and children turning out badly is only a correlation. Children do not turn out abnormally badly when the father is removed by death, for example. It has been concluded that the children of single parents tend to turn out worse because their parents are worse types to begin with. Lee P.S. It is nice if irrelevant parts of one's post are snipped, and I had a great deal in that post (e.g. about Mormons) that could have been snipped. Not only convenient for the rest of us, but remember the blind people who have to wade through a lot of irrelevant detail to get to the meat. From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sun May 4 00:00:24 2008 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 17:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? In-Reply-To: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <245836.16395.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun May 4 00:35:17 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 17:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <171839.50949.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/2/08, Lee Corbin wrote: > I sincerely apologize for what I wrote to you very > late last night. I do understand that you are a very > nice, well-meaning individual who just wants to > express her ideas on all the usual topics we discuss > here just like everyone else. > (I also understand that sometimes you don't > distinguish between attacks upon your ideas from > attacks against you personally. There is indeed a > certain logic to that, which I'll say more about > sometime later.) Hi Lee, Thanks for the apology although it wasn't needed. If I post it's usually due to an emotional response that is triggered within me. I know the logic can get lost. If I had stated my emotional response properly then you wouldn't have needed to apology. Anyway, after thinking about it I discovered what caused such an emotional reaction to certain posts. I have some questions: 1) Psychologically to you believe that these girls are ready to have children at 13-14 years old? 2) Have you ever been surrounded by 13-14 year old girls on a regular basis (Of course I mean regarding teaching, non-profit work, etc..)? 3) I have some knowledge of Canadian and American mentality when it comes to teen girl adolescence and I do agree that there is a fine line between child and young woman. What I have a problem with is the manipulation that allows these older men to take advantage of the situation. What if a young girl growing up in that environment doesn't want to? The programming is there yet they just don't want to. Do you think they can just up and leave? It is the same circumstance as a 13 year old boy that has to grow up with an alcoholic parent What if removed from that environment what makes you so sure that the child wouldn't flourish? 4) I know many women in there 30's that are currently having children. Shouldn't a girl have a choice when she chooses to want to pro-create? The option should be there. By installing these pre-conceived notions how does this better society? What can a 13-14 year old girl teach a child? Doesn't this just lead to children having children? 5) I've known many women in there 20's and 30's that have reported just knowing when they where ready to have children (as well as hearing about the sexual peek of the 30's..lol). I have never heard a 13-14 year old tell me she was ready to be a mother. Don't you think there is some kind of logic behind that? I figure I might as well ask questions as I don't seem very good at responding:) Thanks for taking the time Lee. Anna __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 4 01:54:21 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 18:54:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] FLDS side topic--monogamy Message-ID: <1209866181_881@S4.cableone.net> Re the discussions of polygamy (which is the cultural norm for the considerable majority of cultures) there is a question as to the origin of monogamy. The only place I have seen this discussed in EP terms is Robert Wright's book, _Moral Animal_, but he only talks about which sex on average does better under polygamy or monogamy. (In his opinion females make out better under polygamy--in conditions where males vary widely in quality.) Monogamy as a cultural element seems to be associated with a long history of temperate/northern zone settled farming in Europe and China. It is a meme, like all elements of culture. Memes are subject to both direct selection and host selection. I.e., a meme such as the Shaker religion (which forbid sex entirely) may be initially successful but will eventually die out due to its negative effects on host reproduction. Since virtually all tropical societies did not have the monogamy meme and seasonal farming societies did, the question is why the monogamy meme would have improved host reproductive success or (same thing) why polygamy would have decreased reproductive success in the regions (and the farming technology) in which it emerged. It isn't just agriculture because shifting agriculture groups such as the Yanomano are polygamous. It isn't just Northern because Azar Gat's papers discuss polygamy among the Eskimo. Page 12 here: http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf Gregory Clark http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf argues that the environment of stable agrarian societies selected culture and the people's genes. Clark's argument is that a different set of personality traits from those useful in tribal societies were selected. Now there might be genes for monogamy that were selected as well, but that seems dubious to me. So why would the cultural practice of monogamy have taken over? True, polygamy was never possible for more than a minority of men, but why did it fall completely out of favor among some societies? Any ideas? Know of any history of monogamy books that discuss how it came to pass and what groups were involved? BTW, what the FLDS is doing is genetic replication, but not at maximum efficiency. I would really like to know what the lifetime production of children is per woman to get a comparison with the Hutterites who manage about 9 or so and are the standard by which birth limitations are measured in other cultures. Dumping the boys is not as efficient in gene replication terms as marrying them to the girls and working their tails off. Keith Henson From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 4 04:54:25 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 21:54:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... References: <171839.50949.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <05f301c8ada3$3c505030$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anna writes > Lee wrote: > >> I sincerely apologize for what I wrote... > >> (I also understand that sometimes you don't >> distinguish between attacks upon your ideas from >> attacks against you personally. There is indeed a >> certain logic to that, which I'll say more about >> sometime later.) > > Thanks for the apology although it wasn't needed. Good! That's progress. Thanks. It really shouldn't have been needed, and evidently, despite my bad guess, it turned out not to have been needed after all. > 1) Psychologically to you believe that these girls are > ready to have children at 13-14 years old? These *particular* girls? Not being there, and having very little actual information, I'm reduced to guessing. (I admit this, though I fancy that few others in a discussion like this will make any kind of similar admission, because extraordinarily few people realize the huge connection between valid knowledge and locality. See Thomas Sowell's classic "Knowledge and Decisions.") Now as you probably know, whether or not girls aged 13-14 or 26-26 are "psychologically ready" to have children depends immensely upon them, and upon the culture they've grown up in, and upon whatever support group that's around them. Having a child, just from biological considerations alone, is no trivial matter. But from what I've heard, e.g. the testimonies on TV from very young women who've had their children taken away from them, they sounded to me quite ready psychologically, FWIW. Also, I know that it's been the practice in many cultures practically forever for girls to have children just as soon as they can. > 2) Have you ever been surrounded by 13-14 > year old girls on a regular basis (Of course I > mean regarding teaching, non-profit work, etc..)? A little, when I taught school, but not a lot. (I'm wondering, incidentally, why you're interested, but I assume that it's relevant for you to know for some valid reason.) > 3) I have some knowledge of Canadian and > American mentality when it comes to teen girl > adolescence and I do agree that there is a fine > line between child and young woman. How much knowledge do you have of what it's like to be brought up in a tightly-knit polygamous community? I presume you are speaking of middle class white people here when you speak of Canadians and Americans. But I'm getting in the way of you getting to your question. > What I have a problem with is the manipulation > that allows these older men to take advantage of > the situation. What if a young girl growing up in > that environment doesn't want to? The programming > is there yet they just don't want to. Do you think > they can just up and leave? I don't know. Normally, however, children have an immense difficulty escaping the clutches of their parents, and so I would assume that the same would be true here. Do you have evidence that young girls growing up in this environment often want to escape? > It is the same circumstance as a 13 year old boy > that has to grow up with an alcoholic parent > What if removed from that environment what > makes you so sure that the child wouldn't flourish? I don't know. In fact, I am far from sure. You and I cannot possibly know about any particular case, unless we have been or are personally involved. And I don't think that we should try to generalize an answer here. We shouldn't be in the business of legislating solutions based upon our intuitions. It should be left to the people most closely connected to the situation. Again, I would refer you to "Knowledge and Decisions". Life and people are just too complicated to go about generalizing and then applying the results to particular individuals, but *especially* if we have a hankering to begin employing force. > 4) I know many women in their 30's who are currently > having children. Shouldn't a girl have a choice [about > when she wants] to pro-create? It sounds like a good idea to me in general. But the particulars could disturb me. Suppose a 13 year old girl of your acquaintance suddenly wants to have a baby. Should her parents allow it? I'm not sure that in cases like this the wishes of people under legal age (e.g. 18) ought to be respected. > The option should be there. By installing these > preconceived notions how does this better society? It may be disastrous in some particular cases to allow a 13 year old girl to have a baby. But again, you and I cannot say. It must be left to the people close to any particular situation. We need to learn to mind our own business in this area, as is so very many other areas. > What can a 13-14 year old girl teach a child? I don' t know. But then, I don't know what a 21 year old woman can teach a child either. > Doesn't this just lead to children having children? Yes. > 5) I've known many women in there 20's and 30's > who have reported just knowing when they were > ready to have children (as well as hearing about > the sexual peek of the 30's..lol). I have never heard > a 13-14 year old tell me she was ready to be a mother. > Don't you think there is some kind of logic behind that? No, I don't think that there is much logic behind that. I think that you probably haven't known many people raised in different cultures or raised in groups like the FLDS. (I certainly haven't either, but I do know that huge differences exist among various groups.) > I figure I might as well ask questions as I don't seem > very good at responding:) Pshaw! :-) > Thanks for taking the time Lee. You're very welcome, Anna. Lee From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sun May 4 04:34:45 2008 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 21:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? In-Reply-To: <05ec01c8ad98$b9905fa0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <572935.90669.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 4 05:06:29 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 22:06:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? References: <572935.90669.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <05f401c8ada4$a39baef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anne writes (everyone should notice that Anne Corwin is not Anna Taylor) > > I'm sure you are familiar with what an ESS is. (Evolutionarily > > Stable Strategy.) Generally speaking, we should all be in > > favor of ESS's almost exclusively (one notable exception > > being that if we are indeed close to a singularity or other > > tech breakthrough that changes everything, then endorsing > > ESS's is no longer important). > > So, let me get this straight: you're saying that in the absence > of reasonable evidence that the World-As-We-Know-It is > about to be overtaken by Benevolent Robot Overlords, it > ought to be an international imperative to commandeer the > wombs of female junior high students in the service of > safeguarding the human stock? A rather humorous exaggeration of my views, as you well know. Oh, well, what harm's a little levity going to do? Seriously, only *if* it seemed necessary to the very survival of some group in question should the wombs of female junior high school students be commandeered. But then, when survival is at stake, a lot of strange things become justified. Hmm... perhaps you could aim your questions a little more accurately? > If I wanted to know what it was actually like to live > in a particular country, barring the probably-impractical > option of moving there myself, I'd much sooner take > seriously the impressions of someone who actually > lived there than of someone who merely flew over > it in a helicopter. I completely agree. So whereas you were talking about young girls in general, I will respond with a more *particular* statement concerning the actual girls being discussed here. So therefore, I must ask if you've had much experience with people living in small polygamous groups? And why you think that your knowledge of having been a young girl must generalize there? > Oh, I'm not arguing that your, er, "proposal" would > not have the effect of increasing evolutionary > sustainability of the species. For all I know, it would. > But you seem to be viewing reality from an extremely > abstractified perspective, which is all well and good if > you're trying to predict the air-speed velocity of an > unladen swallow, but rather facile as far as dealing > with actual people. Well said. > Whenever you have sentient entities in the picture, and > you're trying to propose strategies that involve either > trying to influence the behavior of sentients, you have > to take the highly feedback-driven nature of those > entities into account. Oh yes, especially the ones with the most local knowledge. Lee From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 4 05:23:28 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 01:23:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805032223k40182a57xc7a7eb0fb90bf7c4@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:09 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Rafal wrote: > Since you never answered in the affirmative to my questions about > physical abuse, rape, and incarceration, I assume you actually agree > with me that none of these acts of violence plays a significant role > in maintaining polygamous families in the US. > >>> > > Rafal, there is "hard-style" abuse and then there is "soft-style (but > in its own way just as bad...)" abuse. ### Well, yeah, that's the point: by the general notion of reciprocity, you may not answer "soft abuse" (= preaching bullshit) with hard abuse, i.e. men with bullets. Are you getting the point? The end does not justify the means. You absolutely must limit yourself to non-violent means if you are dealing with non-violent people, even if it sticks in your craw edgewise. --------------------------- > And yes, mom, grandma, dad, uncle joe, aunt mary, etc., do support > this system, but does that make it right? ### It doesn't make it right or wrong but does disarm your implication that the FLDS society is a tyranny of perverse old men. No, it's simply a bunch of religious nuts, every single one of them, and they like this way. ------------------------- LOL It is the human > condition to generally support those in powerful positions when you > have been indoctrinated from birth that they have authority direct > from God to tell you what to do (and when to do it). Please keep in > mind that in a number of these polygamous communities that voicing > disagreement with the "lecherous old sleazeballs" in power could > easily result in losing your job, house, property and even your family > (are you even aware of this fact?)! The iron grip the leadership has > in these polygamous hierarchies tend to keep the rank and file in line > and their mouths shut.... > ### If you can't beat, kill and torture your subjects you can't have an "iron grip". Look at it this way: The communes are mostly a bunch of women, running their lives according to their beliefs. Women are more religious than men - FLDS gives them that. Women are less interested in sex - in FLDS they have to put up (or maybe out) less than in monogamous relationships. Many women like children - FLDS gives them that too. They are really running the business. They are more numerous, better able to build hierarchies and networks of power. They do the indoctrination while their children are young and malleable. They decide which one goes to sleep with the old man on any particular night. So yes, some dudes have a lot fun too. Are you really so pissed off at that? And, BTW, hundreds of innocent women and children have just lost their families because of people like you, enthusiastically supporting your local SWAT team. Aren't you worried that *your* iron grip (and I mean it literally - as in manacles, prison bars, youth detention) will hurt them? Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 4 06:37:05 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 02:37:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2008/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > > > > If you accept the premises of this intellectual exercise, it won't > > help to complain about not being able to force everyone to cooperate - > > you are only restating the premise. Also, there is something fishy > > about "willingly agree to be compelled", like, an oxymoron, or > > something. > > Libertarians allow force in the event of a broken contract, and in > this case I'll be breaking the contract if I agree to cooperate and > then don't. But this is a slightly unusual contract in that I won't > agree to it unless everyone else also does. ### Now we are getting somewhere! Yes, the notion of conditional contracts is important and it could play a role in the solution. I believe that Alex Tabarrok did research on conditional contracts and it is clear that they can be a very powerful means of building extensive cooperation without violence. One minor point: Breach of contract does not automatically authorize the use of force - for that you need specific provisions in the contract or in the general body of law used to administer the contract. But yes, your overall point is right. ------------------------------- If *everyone* agrees to > cooperate provided that everyone else does the same, then I don't see > how anyone's rights, under a libertarian system, are infringed: each > individual gets exactly what he has agreed to. ### Exactly! -------------------------- This may seem at first > glance to be equivalent to the situation where everyone is simply > inclined to cooperate because they see it as a good thing, but it > isn't. The crucial difference is that the cooperation is not a charity > that may be withdrawn at any moment, but a tax that has to be paid. ### Well, you might need to rephrase it. Cooperation under a conditional contract is binding once the conditions of the contract are met but it is not a tax. A tax is very specifically a payment rendered to and by the request of a sovereign or his agents, regardless of any contractual considerations. --------------------------- > > It's a bit more difficult if most people agree to cooperate but there > are a few stubborn defectors who don't care that they put the whole > planet at risk. They might even be rationally pursuing their best > interests by deciding this way, for example if they don't expect to > live long enough to see the catastrophe they will cause. Can these > people be compelled to cooperate? ### If you don't want to be fried by the libertarian space laser, you need to be quite careful about what you mean by "compelled". Can't speak for these alien libertarians but would think that shutting the door in the defector's face would be fine. Same with saying "Mr Smigrodzki, I see you have not yet acceded to our Save-Our-Happy-Planet Contract, and therefore I will sell you my beef for 110% of my normal price, and I won't sell you the prime cuts, either". If there are enough people like that, each one them acting within their own domain, refusing daily cooperation as long as I don't belong to the contract, I might simply say, you are just a bunch of stupid losers who know nothing about the climate, and I hate your guts, but I like my beef too, so OK, I'll join. This dynamic is strongly dependent on the relative numbers of believers, with tipping points in either direction, and non-linear interactions but in general it is likely to be highly responsive to the most common beliefs and attitudes, like any good form of governance. Coasian arguments about minimization of transaction costs apply but that's a different issue we don't need to analyze right now. Non-violent social pressure is a very powerful force, even if no actual physical force is in any way involved. There is one more component you need in your solution but so far you are doing very well. Hint: You have described how to provide a form of first-order social good, in this case a widespread commitment to a beneficial (so you say) course of action. ---------------------- Well, again in a libertarian > society, I could be punished for doing something which incidentally > harms my neighbour. Doesn't the destruction of the biosphere count as > harming my neighbour? ### Indeed, destruction of the biosphere would most likely be seen by most critarchic courts as a punishable harm in most circumstances. In this particular situation, however, the destruction is a hypothetical occurrence in the far future, so you could hardly demand preventative action, unless your judges were sure that a harm is guaranteed to happen. Since the judges would be answerable to both you, a believer in the dangers of global warming and to me, an enthusiastic supporter of more global warming, that wouldn't happen, because I would immediately fire any judge espousing Gore-science. Of course, if the planet continued to warm up, and contrary to my expectations, it caused significantly more harm than benefit, you could reasonably demand restitution from me, assuming that the exact amount of harm caused by my individual carbon dioxide emissions to you could be sufficiently well calculated. You would have to subtract from the restitution any harms that I suffered from your carbon dioxide emissions. One delightful side-effect of this situation would be that wealthy hypocrites like Gore would have to pay restitution to both of us, since the hypocrites are likely to preach one thing and do another. Only honest greenies would come ahead financially, which is good and proper: honesty and being factually correct are to be rewarded, while hypocrisy and making mistakes should be expensive. Of course, it wouldn't happen, since global warming will be a boon... Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 4 06:37:52 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 02:37:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805032337k2fa4a0a5i75ac2c16c80e34c1@mail.gmail.com> Forwarding a post from Stathis: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stathis Papaioannou Date: Sat, May 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming To: rafal at smigrodzki.org 2008/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > If you accept the premises of this intellectual exercise, it won't > help to complain about not being able to force everyone to cooperate - > you are only restating the premise. Also, there is something fishy > about "willingly agree to be compelled", like, an oxymoron, or > something. Libertarians allow force in the event of a broken contract, and in this case I'll be breaking the contract if I agree to cooperate and then don't. But this is a slightly unusual contract in that I won't agree to it unless everyone else also does. If *everyone* agrees to cooperate provided that everyone else does the same, then I don't see how anyone's rights, under a libertarian system, are infringed: each individual gets exactly what he has agreed to. This may seem at first glance to be equivalent to the situation where everyone is simply inclined to cooperate because they see it as a good thing, but it isn't. The crucial difference is that the cooperation is not a charity that may be withdrawn at any moment, but a tax that has to be paid. It's a bit more difficult if most people agree to cooperate but there are a few stubborn defectors who don't care that they put the whole planet at risk. They might even be rationally pursuing their best interests by deciding this way, for example if they don't expect to live long enough to see the catastrophe they will cause. Can these people be compelled to cooperate? Well, again in a libertarian society, I could be punished for doing something which incidentally harms my neighbour. Doesn't the destruction of the biosphere count as harming my neighbour? -- Stathis Papaioannou From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 4 06:42:39 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 02:42:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080502113022.0269f238@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60805030657h73ba4ff4l4f3a05567994da2b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805032342j6653e53bu77822c4239bf88e7@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: I think there is > real value to the concept of Superrationality and Hofstadter didn't do > it justice and Axelrod and others are too firmly entrenched in an > earlier paradigm. ### Yes, it's Hofstadter who spoiled the term for me. But, I am curious to hear your take. Rafal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 4 06:52:26 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 23:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <240881.45651.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### I can assure you that destroying our economy, including > agriculture, would spill many millions of gallons of blood, as the > population is reduced by about 70 - 80% in the ensuing food riots and > mass famine. > > Do you really hate "companies" so much that you can think about > something like that as a neat solution? It's not about companies or hate, Rafal, in your own words, it is about "avoiding a miserable death on a parched planet". It's about cold rationality, inevitability, making difficult choices, and holding the current generation accountable for its own mistakes instead of dooming our children to untold suffering for the sake of our own short term luxury. And it is certainly not a "neat solution" but I think 70%-80% dead is a gross overestimate. But even if you are right, 70% of 6 billion is a smaller loss than 100% of an eventual 10 billion. Remember the deer on the island? Ponds dry up and either the inhabitants develop lungs and crawl up onto dry land or they die. That's life. We might be able to adopt a high-tech nuclear-solar-agrarian lifestyle if we act soon enough with *agressive* R&D. But not if global warming has desertified the world. And so long as the oil industry is given license to pursue unlimited short-term profit at the expense of the environment, national and international security, and bleeding consumers dry until the last drop of oil has been burned, they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. I say surgically resect the tumor and see if the patient survives. You however seem to want to coddle the tumor and let the patient die of an apocalyptic siezure or a slow lingering death. The only better solution is to get the tumor to voluntarily apoptose and spread its assetts into R&D across more sustainable industries. But that would require either super-rationality on the part of the oil companies, which is unlikely or government coercion, which because the oil lobby controls the government, is also unlikely even if "advanced libertarian aliens" weren't brandishing their ray guns at my hypothetical self in your scenario. So what happened to your "heartless libertarianism"? Sorry if you can't stomach your own philosophy of "live and let die" extended to it's ultimate conclusion. Disallowing for superrationality or socialism, I don't see a lot else left. In your scenario, a purely hypothetical solution would be the overthrow of the aliens and the commandeering of their superior technology to save the planet but that's not much use in brainstorming the real world problem. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 4 07:43:51 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 00:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <05bb01c8ad67$a57b7f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <881620.28385.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart, our Avantguardian, writes > > > When I was in college, a friend of mine named James Pitts wrote a science > > fiction short story regarding genetically-engineered bacteria that [wrecked > > oil fields] > > > > Such an organism used on oil fields throughout the world might render them > > useless thus bringing the world to the point it would be in a few decades > any > > way. One could conceivably do this without violence or even without anyone > > knowing it had been done deliberately. > > Without violence? Oh, you mean without the perpetrators > *themselves* doing any violence. You ignoring the vast > amount of violence that would suddenly result as millions > of people began to starve and most economies went under. Surely my rationale is no worse than that of Colt, Winchester, General Dynamics or any other arms manufacturer. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" remember? Let the aliens deal with the rioters, I did my part. Would it make you feel better if I profitted by selling this as a bioweapon to the highest bidder instead? That would remove me a step further from the karma of violence since it would no longer even be my decision to use it. > > Companies would have to switch to green energy because there would > > be no alternative. > > And so you think that this could be quickly done without doing > any more harm than merely inconveniencing some people? No. There is no convenient way to solve this problem. The razor of natural selection is coming and it will take the hindmost. That will either be the oil industry or the rest of the world. All my "oil-eater bug" does is fast forward the economy fifty years without fast forwarding the population by fifty years putting us in the shoes of our children only with more hope. In the 21st century, oil dependency will be a vulnerability. And a vulnerability is a threat to national security. Launch a Manhattan Project on alternative energy now before it is too late. For less than we have already blown on Iraq, we could have solar power, fusion, and renewable hydrogen. Or is America a one trick pony? So long as the government is controlled by oil cartels, libertarians and socialists have a common foe. And woe to him who doesn't understand the evolutionary calculus of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I have warned you, nothing more. Don't shoot the messenger. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 4 10:11:33 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 05:11:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? In-Reply-To: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080504101136.ISQB16750.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 04:22 PM 5/3/2008, Lee wrote: >Kevin wrote (Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 3:00 PM >Subject: Re: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation) > > > I just wanted to point out that the quality and quantity > > of eggs only benefits the baby from an evolutionary > > perspective. Once that baby is born it doesn't matter > > if the mother lives 15 or 50 years. There can still be > > health concerns when a very [*very*] young girl has > > a baby at such a young age. For example, often the > > hips have not widened to a point where the baby can > > be passed easily which increases complications. > > Various sources put the ideal age from a biological > > standpoint ranges between 13 and 17. Not necessarily. >Yes. That's when girls should be having children. "[S]hould"? Come on. It is always difficult for me to read this posts concerning women's periods, sexual pleasures, fertility, pregnancy, birthing, and menopause when written in a matter-of-fact tone by anyone who has not had the experience. Natasha From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 4 11:04:42 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 21:04:42 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Understanding Freedom, and Understanding what is Right In-Reply-To: <058f01c8ad5f$3b470e70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> <058f01c8ad5f$3b470e70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/5/4 Lee Corbin : > Since there is no absolute right or wrong, the question > then arises, "under what circumstances should force be > used against other people who are doing things that > many people consider bad?". My answer: in a free > country, use of force against individuals may only be > initiated if > > A. they themselves have begun the use of force > on other citizens or upon children or animals > that belong to other citizens, or children who > are wards of the state, and so on. > B. when there is clear and imminent danger that > our entire group, tribe, or (in our case) nation is > being threatened with destruction via betrayal > or some other means > C. an individual is gaining the ability through the > acquisition or construction of weapons of > mass destruction whereby he *might* decide > to kill many thousands of people or more on > a whim > > I believe, for now, that that exhausts the list, but I may > have overlooked something. You forgot, D. When they don't pay their bills. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 4 12:43:11 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 22:43:11 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > ### Now we are getting somewhere! Yes, the notion of conditional > contracts is important and it could play a role in the solution. I > believe that Alex Tabarrok did research on conditional contracts and > it is clear that they can be a very powerful means of building > extensive cooperation without violence. > > One minor point: Breach of contract does not automatically authorize > the use of force - for that you need specific provisions in the > contract or in the general body of law used to administer the > contract. But yes, your overall point is right. Breach of perhaps the most basic and common contract - namely, if I buy something from you but don't pay - does normally authorise the use of force against me. An alternative way of dealing with this in a free market with where everyone has access to the information is that if I keep cheating, people will see me as untrustworthy and won't trade with me. eBay is a partial implementation of such a system. This is probably a purer form of capitalism than any system where there is a legal mechanism to redress dishonest behaviour, but I don't see it as working all by itself. > If *everyone* agrees to > > cooperate provided that everyone else does the same, then I don't see > > how anyone's rights, under a libertarian system, are infringed: each > > individual gets exactly what he has agreed to. > > ### Exactly! > > -------------------------- > > > This may seem at first > > glance to be equivalent to the situation where everyone is simply > > inclined to cooperate because they see it as a good thing, but it > > isn't. The crucial difference is that the cooperation is not a charity > > that may be withdrawn at any moment, but a tax that has to be paid. > > ### Well, you might need to rephrase it. Cooperation under a > conditional contract is binding once the conditions of the contract > are met but it is not a tax. A tax is very specifically a payment > rendered to and by the request of a sovereign or his agents, > regardless of any contractual considerations. A tax in a democracy is a kind of conditional contract just like this. I won't voluntarily pay (i.e. as charity) the amount I pay in tax even for projects I consider worthwhile, but I will agree to pay on condition that everyone else also agrees to pay. This is why people in general hate paying tax, but keep voting in a government that will force them to pay tax. That is, people see the situation as follows, in order of decreasing desirability: (a) everyone is compelled to pay tax, but they are exempted; (b) everyone, including them, is compelled to pay tax; (c) no-one is compelled to pay tax and they elect not to pay voluntarily; (d) no-one is compelled to pay tax but they elect to pay voluntarily. Since (a) isn't likely to happen, (b) is the best. A few people might choose (d) but this would be an unexpected bonus, not in keeping with the free market creed of enlightened self-interest as (a), (b) and (c) are. > > It's a bit more difficult if most people agree to cooperate but there > > are a few stubborn defectors who don't care that they put the whole > > planet at risk. They might even be rationally pursuing their best > > interests by deciding this way, for example if they don't expect to > > live long enough to see the catastrophe they will cause. Can these > > people be compelled to cooperate? > > ### If you don't want to be fried by the libertarian space laser, you > need to be quite careful about what you mean by "compelled". Can't > speak for these alien libertarians but would think that shutting the > door in the defector's face would be fine. Same with saying "Mr > Smigrodzki, I see you have not yet acceded to our > Save-Our-Happy-Planet Contract, and therefore I will sell you my beef > for 110% of my normal price, and I won't sell you the prime cuts, > either". If there are enough people like that, each one them acting > within their own domain, refusing daily cooperation as long as I don't > belong to the contract, I might simply say, you are just a bunch of > stupid losers who know nothing about the climate, and I hate your > guts, but I like my beef too, so OK, I'll join. This dynamic is > strongly dependent on the relative numbers of believers, with tipping > points in either direction, and non-linear interactions but in general > it is likely to be highly responsive to the most common beliefs and > attitudes, like any good form of governance. Coasian arguments about > minimization of transaction costs apply but that's a different issue > we don't need to analyze right now. > > Non-violent social pressure is a very powerful force, even if no > actual physical force is in any way involved. Yes, that might work, but it would have to be included in the original contract since there would be a temptation to defect by selling to the defectors, who would be very keen for trading partners. But this isn't any different to swapping fines and criminal prosecution for boycott, ostracism or exile of businesses and individuals who refuse to pay their tax. > There is one more component you need in your solution but so far you > are doing very well. Hint: You have described how to provide a form of > first-order social good, in this case a widespread commitment to a > beneficial (so you say) course of action. > > ---------------------- > > Well, again in a libertarian > > society, I could be punished for doing something which incidentally > > harms my neighbour. Doesn't the destruction of the biosphere count as > > harming my neighbour? > > ### Indeed, destruction of the biosphere would most likely be seen by > most critarchic courts as a punishable harm in most circumstances. In > this particular situation, however, the destruction is a hypothetical > occurrence in the far future, so you could hardly demand preventative > action, unless your judges were sure that a harm is guaranteed to > happen. Since the judges would be answerable to both you, a believer > in the dangers of global warming and to me, an enthusiastic supporter > of more global warming, that wouldn't happen, because I would > immediately fire any judge espousing Gore-science. > > Of course, if the planet continued to warm up, and contrary to my > expectations, it caused significantly more harm than benefit, you > could reasonably demand restitution from me, assuming that the exact > amount of harm caused by my individual carbon dioxide emissions to you > could be sufficiently well calculated. You would have to subtract from > the restitution any harms that I suffered from your carbon dioxide > emissions. One delightful side-effect of this situation would be that > wealthy hypocrites like Gore would have to pay restitution to both of > us, since the hypocrites are likely to preach one thing and do > another. Only honest greenies would come ahead financially, which is > good and proper: honesty and being factually correct are to be > rewarded, while hypocrisy and making mistakes should be expensive. That's all very well, but it doesn't address the urgency of the situation. I don't want to punish the people responsible after the train has crashed, I want to prevent the train crashing in the first place. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 4 12:57:27 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 13:57:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805032223k40182a57xc7a7eb0fb90bf7c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032223k40182a57xc7a7eb0fb90bf7c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Well, yeah, that's the point: by the general notion of > reciprocity, you may not answer "soft abuse" (= preaching bullshit) > with hard abuse, i.e. men with bullets. Are you getting the point? The > end does not justify the means. You absolutely must limit yourself to > non-violent means if you are dealing with non-violent people, even if > it sticks in your craw edgewise. > It is interesting to watch the contortions that Rafal's theorising goes through. His love affair with logical analysis overwhelms all the practical problems of humans living together. He has logically worked himself into the position of defending an organisation that totally denies the freedom and liberty that he claims to support. Libertarianism has absolutely no place in the FLDS structure, but Rafal defends it. Now he is saying that 'mental cruelty' doesn't exist. People fight with the weapons they have available. Some use guns, some use machetes, some use charisma and a bullying nature, some use intellect and a sharp mind to outwit and dominate others. There is absolutely no rule that says if an attacker uses a club, you are only allowed to use a similar weight and size club in response. > > And, BTW, hundreds of innocent women and children have just lost their > families because of people like you, enthusiastically supporting your > local SWAT team. Aren't you worried that *your* iron grip (and I mean > it literally - as in manacles, prison bars, youth detention) will hurt > them? > Now Rafal is defending slavery! All these slaves are well looked after by their owners, so it would really upset them to be forcibly given their freedom. Rafal just argued that the War of Independence was all wrong and should never have been allowed. What planet is he from? ;) Nobody said freedom was easy, Rafal. You of all people should know that! Rafal's major weak point is his determination not to defend the weaker members of society. He is in the fortunate position of being intelligent, well-educated and aggressive. Many people in our society are the opposite. If the weaker members of society are only regarded as prey it is appallingly uncivilised behaviour. And if we aspire to being a civilised society then we have to put a stop to those who would prey on the disadvantaged. BillK From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 4 16:52:50 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 12:52:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032223k40182a57xc7a7eb0fb90bf7c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805040952r418318f0n5a10158572d13601@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:57 AM, BillK wrote: > > > > It is interesting to watch the contortions that Rafal's theorising > goes through. His love affair with logical analysis overwhelms all the > practical problems of humans living together. > > He has logically worked himself into the position of defending an > organisation that totally denies the freedom and liberty that he > claims to support. Libertarianism has absolutely no place in the FLDS > structure, but Rafal defends it. > ### You see, we libertarians are "different". We are attached to some basic principles, like non-violence, freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom of speech. We don't espouse these views for short term political expediency. For you it is so natural to advocate violence against people you disagree with, that you see my attachment to principles as "contortions", ignoring "practical problems" (i.e. the tactical scheming). Yes, libertarians end up defending the Neo-Nazi's right to flaunt the swastika. Yes, we end up defending scat pornographers. We defend religious nuts, many of whom would be appalled by the mere thought of somebody like us. For somebody who thinks in terms of short term power gain, who makes only alliances of convenience to be broken when the wind changes, this may seem bizarre. Perhaps a proof that we are actually Neo-Nazi nuts (have been called either one, a number of times). You are not libertarian. You will stay baffled. --------------------------- > Now he is saying that 'mental cruelty' doesn't exist. People fight > with the weapons they have available. Some use guns, some use > machetes, some use charisma and a bullying nature, some use intellect > and a sharp mind to outwit and dominate others. There is absolutely no > rule that says if an attacker uses a club, you are only allowed to use > a similar weight and size club in response. ### Yeah, in your world there is no rule, except winning now, and quick. Whatever club you have at hand, use it, against whoever is today's target of opportunity. -------------------------- > Now Rafal is defending slavery! ### Huh? I am baffled. --------------------- All these slaves are well looked > after by their owners, so it would really upset them to be forcibly > given their freedom. Rafal just argued that the War of Independence > was all wrong and should never have been allowed. What planet is he > from? ;) ### Libertopia. ------------------------------- > > Nobody said freedom was easy, Rafal. You of all people should know that! ### You have no idea how right you are. ---------------------- > Rafal's major weak point is his determination not to defend the weaker > members of society. He is in the fortunate position of being > intelligent, well-educated and aggressive. ### Wow, so saying that SWAT teams are not the right solution for dealing with non-violent cultists is now "aggression"? ------------------------ Many people in our society > are the opposite. If the weaker members of society are only regarded > as prey it is appallingly uncivilised behaviour. And if we aspire to > being a civilised society then we have to put a stop to those who > would prey on the disadvantaged. ### I notice you are trying to redefine the terms of the debate, as is the old rhetoric practice. You say you are for freedom (but apparently not for non-violent people you disagree with), you are just trying to protect the "weaker members" (by kidnapping them and sending to orphanages), you throw in a few random insults ("Now Rafal is defending slavery!", "intelligent, well-educated and aggressive"), and you say that when somebody is using those dangerous weapons, "charisma" and "sharp wit", it's OK to send the SWAT team in response. It's all market-rate rhetoric, the kind of stuff you hear the candidates for office say all the time. Why should I care to answer? Rafal From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 4 18:34:54 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 11:34:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke References: <881620.28385.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <062801c8ae16$0ed40a70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes >> > Such an organism used on oil fields throughout the world might render them >> > useless thus bringing the world to the point it would be in a few decades >> any >> > way. One could conceivably do this without violence or even without anyone >> > knowing it had been done deliberately. (Why should I bother fixing his line breaks anymore? Does anyone besides me care, anyway? Did Stuart even *think* that perhaps his email came out wrong, because what you see above I what we got. Check his original email, if you don't believe me.) >> Without violence? Oh, you mean without the perpetrators >> *themselves* doing any violence. You ignoring the vast >> amount of violence that would suddenly result as millions >> of people began to starve and most economies went under? > > Surely my rationale is no worse than that of Colt, > Winchester, General Dynamics or any other arms > manufacturer. "Guns don't kill people, people kill > people" remember? You're mixing apples and oranges. The evolution of firearms goes back half a dozen centuries, and nobody was making rationalizations, at least none that had the slightest effect. It sounds like you're raving. Calm down. Then answer my question above about just what would begin to happen the day after you unleash your bug. >> > Companies would have to switch to green energy because there would >> > be no alternative. >> >> And so you think that this could be quickly done without doing >> any more harm than merely inconveniencing some people? > > No. There is no convenient way to solve this problem. The razor of natural > selection is coming and it will take the hindmost. That will either be the oil > industry or the rest of the world. And you are so *sure* of what you're saying, that you would without telling anyone, unleash your awful bug that would destroy so much energy? (Please say a clear "yes" or "no".) > All my "oil-eater bug" does is fast forward the economy fifty years without > fast forwarding the population by fifty years putting us in the shoes of our > children only with more hope.... > > So long as the government is controlled by oil cartels, libertarians and > socialists have a common foe. And woe to him who doesn't understand the > evolutionary calculus of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I have warned > you, nothing more. Don't shoot the messenger. Why don't you get a sign and parade the streets? (Okay, sorry for the sarcasm.) Stuart, you really, really need to read "The Black Swan". And woe unto us when someone gets into power who things he or she knows exactly what the future will hold. What Stalin and Mao did will be nothing in comparison. Lee From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 4 18:31:58 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 13:31:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] META: Might be Time to Take it Off List (Was Re: flds raid, was general repudiation...) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805040952r418318f0n5a10158572d13601@mail.gmail.co m> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032223k40182a57xc7a7eb0fb90bf7c4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805040952r418318f0n5a10158572d13601@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080504183200.WRRJ301.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Gentlemen - Messers. BillK and Rafal Smigrodzki Now might be a good time to take your argument off list before it gets too heated. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More, BFA, MS, MPhil University Lecturer 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: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 4 18:24:21 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 13:24:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? In-Reply-To: <20080504101136.ISQB16750.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha -39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080504101136.ISQB16750.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20080504182424.WOQB301.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 05:11 AM 5/4/2008, you wrote: >At 04:22 PM 5/3/2008, Lee wrote: > >Kevin wrote (Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 3:00 PM > >Subject: Re: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation) > > > > > I just wanted to point out that the quality and quantity > > > of eggs only benefits the baby from an evolutionary > > > perspective. Once that baby is born it doesn't matter > > > if the mother lives 15 or 50 years. There can still be > > > health concerns when a very [*very*] young girl has > > > a baby at such a young age. For example, often the > > > hips have not widened to a point where the baby can > > > be passed easily which increases complications. > > > Various sources put the ideal age from a biological > > > standpoint ranges between 13 and 17. > >Not necessarily. > > >Yes. That's when girls should be having children. > >"[S]hould"? Come on. > >It is always difficult for me to read this posts concerning women's >periods, sexual pleasures, fertility, pregnancy, birthing, and >menopause when written in a matter-of-fact tone by anyone who has not >had the experience. Sorry didn't mean to come down so hard. But there is no appropriate or right age for producing a child. Let me explain why: the body does not always follow the sentiment of one's psychology. And just because eggs are fresh does not mean that they are healthy. Biology, as we are all fully aware, does not keep up with the times and lags far behind what many women today realize as their preferred future(s). Susan, Julie or Jerry can have their own right productive age(s), but my right/ripe productive age has come and gone several times over the decades, as life's preferences change and travels around the curves of highs and lows. One day women will not have to undergo the stern/rigid historical plan and opt to have children at anytime, anywhere because they/we want to invest in developing life, intelligence, and the expression of joy/love. It is a fairly sure bet that the stigma of reproduction outside the social norm of reproduction will change as mosaic births come about and the favored couple-parenting falls out of favor if children of one parent or several parents grow up to be healthy, kind and generous people. The size of a woman's hips will an obscure, fuzzy notion of the past. best wishes, Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 4 18:53:39 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 11:53:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? References: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080504101136.ISQB16750.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <064901c8ae18$dd5a4d30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Natasha writes >>Yes. That's when girls should be having children. > > "[S]hould"? Come on. It's shorthand for "I approve" or "according to what I would endorse" or "what I would suggest" or "what I would be in favor of" or "what I would vote for, if we were going to vote". > It is always difficult for me to read this posts concerning > women's periods, sexual pleasures, fertility, pregnancy, > birthing, and menopause when written in a matter-of-fact > tone by anyone who has not had the experience. That is a form of argument from authority. Besides, whether or not you have difficulty reading some posts is besides the point. Here are some reasons for my opinion: I'm sure you are familiar with what an ESS is. (Evolutionarily Stable Strategy.) Generally speaking, we should all be in favor of ESS's almost exclusively (one notable exception being that if we are indeed close to a singularity or other tech breakthrough that changes everything, then endorsing ESS's is no longer important). The reason for that is that groups which do not deploy ESSs become extinct. I cannot in good conscience advocate any course of action of any group I'm a member of (and which I like) that is not an ESS. If western nations had adopted some form of my plan, or had even all become Mormons, they wouldn't be in the demographic fix they're in. Their civilization would have a future. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 4 19:06:06 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 12:06:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60805032223k40182a57xc7a7eb0fb90bf7c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <065901c8ae1a$4486d950$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > [Rafal] has logically worked himself into the position of defending an > organisation that totally denies the freedom and liberty that he > claims to support. Libertarianism has absolutely no place in the FLDS > structure, but Rafal defends it. Surely you have heard the phrase usually attributed to Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I do not agree with the lifestyle of nudists, but I will respect them and defend their wish to practice that lifestyle anyway. They're harming no one---at least none of them will admit to being harmed. We do not have good evidence, as has been repeatedly pointed out here, that actual harm was accruing to anyone in that FLDS group at that time. Perhaps it was, perhaps not. But we can be pretty sure of the harm that followed the intrusion of the authorities. >> And, BTW, hundreds of innocent women and children have just lost their >> families because of people like you, enthusiastically supporting your >> local SWAT team. Aren't you worried that *your* iron grip (and I mean >> it literally - as in manacles, prison bars, youth detention) will hurt >> them? > > Now Rafal is defending slavery! All these slaves are well looked > after by their owners, so it would really upset them to be forcibly > given their freedom. Rafal just argued that the War of Independence > was all wrong and should never have been allowed. What planet is he > from? ;) Natasha has explained that this is getting a little content-free. Can you please avoid questions like that last one? Not a single person, so far as we can tell, who was actually *there* and so had first hand knowledge, would regard himself or herself as a slave. Your claims are getting pretty wild. > Rafal's major weak point is his determination not to defend the > weaker members of society. He is in the fortunate position of being > intelligent, well-educated and aggressive. Many people in our society > are the opposite. If the weaker members of society are only regarded > as prey it is appallingly uncivilised behaviour. And if we aspire to > being a civilised society then we have to put a stop to those who > would prey on the disadvantaged. All your assertions about certain people being "prey" are very debatable. I'm sure you realize that. It sounds to me like you're perhaps making such absolutist statements in lieu of having more rational arguments that would provide explanations. Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 19:15:13 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:15:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080502134751.025b8ec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <481E0B41.7020000@mac.com> Dagon Gmail wrote: > I can only say I advocate criminal proceedings against > people who do this, and I urge the maximum penalty under > the law. I think in the US that is execution, for high treason. > > I am of the adamant persuasion these people don't really > believe there is no acid rain or global warming, and even the > majority of their collaborators do so. I believe very sincerely that global warming is tremendously overhyped and is distracting us from much more serious and immediate concerns. Acid rain is a growing problem principally in areas that still burn a lot of coal without modern safeguards. Think China. But all of that pales in comparison by at least an order of magnitude if not two compared to real energy shortage and the coming wars (already warming up) over same and the growing economic meltdown. If you want mundane immediate issues these swamp the rest. - samantha > They just want their > cake and rub the resulting excrement in the face of everyone > else. That is a contemptible way of dismissing those who disagree with you. From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 19:18:45 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:18:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <481E0C15.5000407@mac.com> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, >> assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore >> libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who >> initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing >> with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless >> libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death >> on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without >> simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. >> > > When I was in college, a friend of mine named James Pitts wrote a science > fiction short story regarding genetically-engineered bacteria that when > injected into an oil field rapidly metabolized the oil and polymerized it into > a fibrous gelatinous mass that was impossible to pump out of the ground. > Stopping the flow of oil abruptly would kill billions of people through starvation and bring all economies of the world to a grinding halt. This is not a reasonable thing to ever contemplate. Remember always that it will take many years to move the world to new forms of energy even when we have the technology perfected. > Such an organism used on oil fields throughout the world might render them > useless thus bringing the world to the point it would be in a few decades any > way. One could concievably do this without violence or even without anyone > knowing it had been done deliberately. It is clearly violence and utterly irresponsibly playing God and without thinking through obvious consequences. - samantha From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 4 19:21:05 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 12:21:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? References: <05b601c8ad64$240102c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><20080504101136.ISQB16750.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <20080504182424.WOQB301.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <067301c8ae1c$02683440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Natasha writes > > Yes. That's when girls should be having children. [13-17] > > > > > "[S]hould"? Come on. > > > > > > It is always difficult for me to read this posts concerning women's > > > periods, sexual pleasures, fertility...by anyone who has not > > > had the experience. > > Sorry didn't mean to come down so hard. Oh, not at all :-) No apology needed, but thanks anyway. Sorry that I responded to the above before I saw this last. > But there is no appropriate or right age for producing a child. > Let me explain why: the body does not always follow the > sentiment of one's psychology. And just because eggs are > fresh does not mean that they are healthy. Biology, as we > are all fully aware, does not keep up with the times and > lags far behind what many women today realize as their > preferred future(s). The links Amara pointed to sum up the situation pretty well. *Statistically speaking*, most females are at the height of their reproductive ages in their teenage years. Yes, there is indeed a clash between what their bodies are ready for, and what they, as individuals are ready for. Hence my idea that girls should get their children out of their way, biologically speaking, by the time they're 17, get their tubes tied or whatever, and then get on with their lives. Later, at age 35-55, they can in turn raise their children's children according to the same plan. > Susan, Julie or Jerry can have their own right productive > age(s), Exactly! And it may fall entirely out of the range regarded as "normal". And who is to know? That knowledge is *local* and cannot and should not be determined hundreds of miles away by politicians. Susan, Julie, and Jerry and the people closest to them have the most knowledge, and the decision should be left in their hands. The rest of us can get on with our own business. > One day women will not have to undergo the stern/rigid > historical plan and opt to have children at anytime, > anywhere because they/we want to invest in developing > life, intelligence, and the expression of joy/love. Well said! > It is a fairly sure bet that the stigma of reproduction outside > the social norm of reproduction will change as mosaic > births come about and the favored couple-parenting > falls out of favor if children of one parent or several > parents grow up to be healthy, kind and generous people. Right. Even now we have the technologies. Men should get over the idea that they simply must pass on their own genes to as many viable offspring as possible. Families wishing children should use the best sperm available with the finest pedigree that fits their preferences. Or, as I propose, if we can't develop artificial wombs, then let the young girl and her parents decide who the biological father should be using artificial insemination, and let the (grand) parents raise the kids. Best wishes, Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 19:22:33 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:22:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <481E0CF9.70209@mac.com> John Grigg wrote: > BillK wrote: > Yea, yea. Nothing matters really. It's all relative. Every opinion is > equally valid. Every culture has equal rights. Nobody's culture is any > better than any other culture., etc. etc. > All cultures are like developmental stages that real people not "Them" go through. Some lead to a stillborn civilization. Some (all?) are in some respects toxic. Some are a clear danger to their members and others. But one of the types of dangerous culture is the type that goes out to cull the rest. But most certainly cultures can be graded as to potential, internal living conditions, costs and benefits to other cultures and so on. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 19:28:24 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:28:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <481E0E58.3050603@mac.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2008/5/2 Lee Corbin : > > >> I understood your point. Did you understand mine, namely >> that there is *huge* uncertainty in these models? Also, did >> you understand that massive global expenditures by >> governments are at this time premature? (Now we see >> that the American subsidies to ethanol production are >> resulting in food riots around the world. It's obvious to >> me that if there is a crisis, it's too much concerted government >> action and government planning.) >> > > Suppose it's true that global warming will happen and that it will be > a disaster, and suppose it's also true that there is something that > could be done now to prevent it. Even if this is understood by > everyone, the free market is unlikely to give rise to action to avert > disaster if such action results in loss of short and medium term > profits for individual enterprises. Do you think elected officials on a mere few years electability cycle are likely to be more responsive? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 19:34:06 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:34:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <580930c20805020652v5eaf5724p62b4c0b096a5798d@mail.gmail.com> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20805020652v5eaf5724p62b4c0b096a5798d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <481E0FAE.60504@mac.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> The only way to >> solve the problem seems to be if there is an opportunity to vote to >> *force everyone* to adhere to a plan which, although profit-sapping, >> will at least be disaster-averting. >> > > "Profits" ordinarily mean "the difference between earnings and costs". > I do not see how this margin would be reduced by a compulsory plan, > say, to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere. > If as the IPCC models say if you read them closely the median expected temperature delta is around 1.6 degree C in 100 years then most of the plans to date are hysterical overkill. Also the Kyoto accords if fully implemented would make less than a few hundreds of a degree difference in the same 100 years. So why exactly are we falling into CO2 hysterics? I am strongly reminded of the anti-nuclear power hysteria of the 70s. An interesting question is why this hysteria is being whipped up. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 19:41:54 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:41:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <481E1182.1030502@mac.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > It wouldn't be a matter of a few people forcing their views on > everyone else. The issue is that, as Jef said, the superrational > course of action is to cooperate, while the "rational" course of > action is to defect. > > The two choices are: > > (a) no-one is compelled to do anything - everyone gets 50 units of utility; > (b) everyone is forced to cooperate - everyone gets 100 units of utility. > History is full of examples of would be world improvers who thought they had this argument down pat, knew very much what would be best or were at least determined to find it and force everyone to adhere. When they have come to power many tens of millions of their own people have died prematurely. We should really be extremely careful not to fall into this old deadly pattern yet again. > Knowing all this, I and everyone else would *willingly* agree to be > compelled to cooperate. If you agree to cooperate then their is no need for compulsion. > Collectivist anarchism might allow for such > cooperation while free market anarchism would not. If the advanced > aliens are all libertarians this may explain the Fermi Paradox. > > Hahaha. Actually the Fermi Paradox is explained by a lot of the alien best minds pretty much ignoring the seriousness of the same technological/political cusp we are in until much too late. Perhaps they spend too much time in sterile email exchanges. :-) - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 19:50:27 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:50:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c501c8ac75$1c93ab90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805021333y2bf86652j7e6b2751f3a6b66@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030918k6568384fh30e09f3c213f960a@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670805031009y6997e646h948e591ce9fff6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <481E1383.2070402@mac.com> John Grigg wrote: > Rafal wrote: > Since you never answered in the affirmative to my questions about > physical abuse, rape, and incarceration, I assume you actually agree > with me that none of these acts of violence plays a significant role > in maintaining polygamous families in the US. > > > Rafal, there is "hard-style" abuse and then there is "soft-style (but > in its own way just as bad...)" abuse. In most of these polygamous > communes they don't *need* to beat, lock up or rape the 14 and 15 > year-old teenage girls they intend to have as sex partners/mothers, > because these young women have been so powerfully > indoctrinated/socially conditioned to accept their situation as "God's > will." Yep, the "soft-style" abuse is the way to go (all future cult > leaders take note...)! > > Everyone in the world without exception has been subject to "soft style abuse" aka cultural indoctrination. So what? Does that mean your indoctrination gives you the right to go in with guns blazing to "rescue" people who may in fact not believe they need rescuing? Does it so empower you that you not only have that right assuming the costs and risks yourself but have the right to demand that others who may or may not agree with your actions pay for them and sanction them? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 19:55:55 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:55:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? In-Reply-To: <05f401c8ada4$a39baef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <572935.90669.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <05f401c8ada4$a39baef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <481E14CB.2060705@mac.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > Anne writes (everyone should notice that Anne Corwin is > not Anna Taylor) > > >>> I'm sure you are familiar with what an ESS is. (Evolutionarily >>> Stable Strategy.) Generally speaking, we should all be in >>> favor of ESS's almost exclusively (one notable exception >>> being that if we are indeed close to a singularity or other >>> tech breakthrough that changes everything, then endorsing >>> ESS's is no longer important). >>> >> So, let me get this straight: you're saying that in the absence >> of reasonable evidence that the World-As-We-Know-It is >> about to be overtaken by Benevolent Robot Overlords, it >> ought to be an international imperative to commandeer the >> wombs of female junior high students in the service of >> safeguarding the human stock? >> > > A rather humorous exaggeration of my views, as you well > know. Oh, well, what harm's a little levity going to do? > > Seriously, only *if* it seemed necessary to the very > survival of some group in question should the wombs > of female junior high school students be commandeered. > But then, when survival is at stake, a lot of strange things > become justified. Hmm... perhaps you could aim your > questions a little more accurately? > If it seems expedient then you should force others to do your bidding. Thanks for clearing that up. Next. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 4 20:01:11 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 13:01:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <240881.45651.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <240881.45651.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <481E1607.2040007@mac.com> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### I can assure you that destroying our economy, including >> agriculture, would spill many millions of gallons of blood, as the >> population is reduced by about 70 - 80% in the ensuing food riots and >> mass famine. >> >> Do you really hate "companies" so much that you can think about >> something like that as a neat solution? >> > > It's not about companies or hate, Rafal, in your own words, it is about > "avoiding a miserable death on a parched planet". It's about cold rationality, > inevitability, making difficult choices, and holding the current generation > accountable for its own mistakes instead of dooming our children to untold > suffering for the sake of our own short term luxury. > Come now. The earth in the last 1000 years has experienced higher temperatures than those actually projected. Speaking of a "parched planet" is hysterical. > And it is certainly not a "neat solution" but I think 70%-80% dead is a gross > overestimate. But even if you are right, 70% of 6 billion is a smaller loss > than 100% of an eventual 10 billion. Remember the deer on the island? Ponds dry > up and either the inhabitants develop lungs and crawl up onto dry land or they > die. That's life. > You are a rather scary individual. Even when the consequences are pointed out with this lame scheme you claim it is justified. I have nothing further to say. You are most certainly not any friend of humanity. - samantha From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sun May 4 20:08:42 2008 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 14:08:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is it possible to achieve all will fore everyone? Message-ID: <481E17CA.9000402@comcast.net> I always thought all transhumanists thought it would be possible to get everyone all that everyone wanted. But evidently I was grossly mistaken? Here is what I believe on this critical moral issue: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/64/2 What do all of you believe? Brent Allsop From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 4 21:54:46 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 14:54:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <481E0B41.7020000@mac.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080502134751.025b8ec0@satx.rr.com> <481E0B41.7020000@mac.com> Message-ID: <1209938207_3076@S1.cableone.net> At 12:15 PM 5/4/2008, samantha wrote: snip >But all of that >pales in comparison by at least an order of magnitude if not two >compared to real energy shortage and the coming wars (already warming >up) over same and the growing economic meltdown. If you want mundane >immediate issues these swamp the rest. Samantha is dead on target here. The energy shortage, which is to a considerable extent causing the economic meltdown, is a problem right now. Keith Henson From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 4 22:26:32 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 15:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <062801c8ae16$0ed40a70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <75781.49378.qm@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > And you are so *sure* of what you're saying, that you would > without telling anyone, unleash your awful bug that would > destroy so much energy? (Please say a clear "yes" or "no".) No Lee. Why would I do that? Rafal asked me to brainstorm a way to stop global warming under a bizarre constraint of "advanced libertarian aliens". But if someone came to me with some pretty steep consulting fees, I might come up with a design. I myself am no altruist so I certainly wouldn't design it, let alone use it, for free. In any case my idea is out there in the noosphere now so it really matters very little what I personally do from here on out. > Stuart, you really, really need to read "The Black Swan". You are right. I have been meaning to. > And woe unto us when someone gets into power who > things he or she knows exactly what the future will hold. > What Stalin and Mao did will be nothing in comparison. Lee it is impossible to know what the future holds because the future is contigent on the choices made by billions of people and many times that more quantum particles. Its just clouds of probability. Besides I am about as far from power as a person can get and still put food on the table. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 4 23:10:53 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 16:10:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <481E0FAE.60504@mac.com> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20805020652v5eaf5724p62b4c0b096a5798d@mail.gmail.com> <481E0FAE.60504@mac.com> Message-ID: <1209942774_3239@S1.cableone.net> At 12:34 PM 5/4/2008, samantha wrote: >Stefano Vaj wrote: > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > >> The only way to > >> solve the problem seems to be if there is an opportunity to vote to > >> *force everyone* to adhere to a plan which, although profit-sapping, > >> will at least be disaster-averting. > >> > > > > "Profits" ordinarily mean "the difference between earnings and costs". > > I do not see how this margin would be reduced by a compulsory plan, > > say, to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere. > > >If as the IPCC models say if you read them closely the median expected >temperature delta is around 1.6 degree C in 100 years then most of the >plans to date are hysterical overkill. Also the Kyoto accords if fully >implemented would make less than a few hundreds of a degree difference >in the same 100 years. So why exactly are we falling into CO2 >hysterics? I am strongly reminded of the anti-nuclear power hysteria >of the 70s. An interesting question is why this hysteria is being >whipped up. Again, dead on target, Samantha, and a heck of a good question. 100 years from now is way beyond the singularity. The problem then could well be *too little* CO2 from plant-like nanomachines mining the atmosphere and turning the carbon into diamond for engineering projects. There are arguments being stated in places such as New Scientists that there isn't enough accessible fossil fuel left to cause much of climate shift. What we really need to do is come up with a way that provides renewable energy at a lower cost than coal and oil. I think there is such a way. Anyone interested in seeing work on it should send me email. No point in sending it to the uninterested on the list. Keith From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Fri May 2 18:04:21 2008 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: <961259.97646.qm@web46105.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> a larger issue remains, each society is closed to some degree and everyone thinks their negative influence is less than others'. Libertarianism was and is a powerful and serious philosophy. personally i don't know or care if anyone was raped but i know that everyone pretends their actions aren't hurting someone-- they are. Every problem we solve causes other problems. no one here is being blamed btw. This is a sordid affair. I don't watch TV but one Moslem friend of mine told me about something that he saw: an interview with the people who volunteered to be the foster parents to the kidnapped children. The were saying that LDS are not true Christians, that the children need to hear the true word of Christ, so they must be taken! My Moslem friend found it more disturbing than the average Americans would, since it's easier for him to imagine finding himself at the receiving end of this concern for other people's salvation. This is a filthy affair, Bill, fueled by religious zealotry, male dominance, male envy, and all covered in tons of hypocrisy. Look into your own soul. What do you find there? Rafal Rafal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Fri May 2 21:04:24 2008 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 14:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: <799747.44367.qm@web46107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> anectodal yet compelling evidence:?ten out of ?ten sexual tourists i've met were libertarians. They all confided that they had?had?sex with children and adolescents overseas. so what is it that surprises anyone concerning schismatic lds males' behaviors? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon May 5 04:33:01 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 21:33:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <799747.44367.qm@web46107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <799747.44367.qm@web46107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805042133l2e8457f3p54b26e9a89a7ff00@mail.gmail.com> Rafal wrote: This is a filthy affair, Bill, fueled by religious zealotry, male dominance, male envy, and all covered in tons of hypocrisy. >>> Rafal, you could have been describing what was going on in that FLDS commune... you continue: Look into your own soul. What do you find there? >>> There is a real disconnect in the Libertarian thinking of you and Lee. But honest self-appraisal (as in "looking into your own soul") has been replaced with intellectual slight of hand and side stepping. Alan Brooks wrote: anectodal yet compelling evidence: ten out of ten sexual tourists i've met were libertarians. They all confided that they had had sex with children and adolescents overseas. >>> !!!!!!!!!! It's a slippery slope... Samantha Atkins wrote: Everyone in the world without exception has been subject to "soft style abuse" aka cultural indoctrination. So what? Does that mean your indoctrination gives you the right to go in with guns blazing to "rescue" people who may in fact not believe they need rescuing? Does it so empower you that you not only have that right assuming the costs and risks yourself but have the right to demand that others who may or may not agree with your actions pay for them and sanction them? >>> Samantha, when you have totally indoctrinated/brainwashed (from birth) young teen girls (only fourteen and fifteen), who are being compelled to marry older men (statutory rape) that drive off suitors their own age, well..., yes, I'm for sending in law enforcement to stop what's going on. Call me crazy! LOL John Grigg From spike66 at att.net Mon May 5 04:35:09 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 21:35:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <05f301c8ada3$3c505030$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200805050503.m4553FLC009577@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > > 1) Psychologically to you believe that these girls are > > ready to have children at 13-14 years old? > > These *particular* girls? Not being there, and having very > little actual information, I'm reduced to guessing... This discussion seems to have gone off in a debate over when girls are ready to have children, one which I will not join presently. The FLDS raid to me was a shocking civics lesson that tells me one need not commit a crime to have the government take away one's children. The child-mothers did nothing wrong that I can see: being raped is not a crime, being brainwashed into marrying an old man is not a crime. Being a very young mother does not necessarily make one an unfit mother. Having one's children taken is the worst possible thing I can imagine, losing contact with one's own mother is abominable, and yet nearly all of the victims here DID NO CRIMES! We can justify rounding up the perps who actually impregnated underage girls, fine, do that full stop. But how in the hell can we justify punishing the victims by taking their children? spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon May 5 06:41:02 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:11:02 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> 2008/5/3 Stathis Papaioannou : > It wouldn't be a matter of a few people forcing their views on > everyone else. The issue is that, as Jef said, the superrational > course of action is to cooperate, while the "rational" course of > action is to defect. > > The two choices are: > > (a) no-one is compelled to do anything - everyone gets 50 units of utility; > (b) everyone is forced to cooperate - everyone gets 100 units of utility. > > Knowing all this, I and everyone else would *willingly* agree to be > compelled to cooperate. Collectivist anarchism might allow for such > cooperation while free market anarchism would not. If the advanced > aliens are all libertarians this may explain the Fermi Paradox. Interestingly, the major commercial players in markets sometimes behave in the "superrational" manner, working towards and welcome regulation - ie: externally imposed restrictions. The great example of this must be supporting the state's monopoly on force. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 5 06:58:23 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:58:23 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <481E1182.1030502@mac.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <481E1182.1030502@mac.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/5 Samantha Atkins : > > The two choices are: > > > > (a) no-one is compelled to do anything - everyone gets 50 units of utility; > > (b) everyone is forced to cooperate - everyone gets 100 units of utility. > > > > History is full of examples of would be world improvers who thought they > had this argument down pat, knew very much what would be best or were at > least determined to find it and force everyone to adhere. When they > have come to power many tens of millions of their own people have died > prematurely. We should really be extremely careful not to fall into > this old deadly pattern yet again. Yes, I don't want to be told what to do by someone who thinks they know best for me. But assume for the sake of argument that the above two cases (a) and (b) apply and are seen to apply by everyone involved. > > Knowing all this, I and everyone else would *willingly* agree to be > > compelled to cooperate. > > If you agree to cooperate then their is no need for compulsion. If I agree to pay you in exchange for goods then I am tacitly agreeing to being compelled to pay and you are tacitly agreeing to being compelled to provide the goods. This is not the best possible arrangement for either of us. The best arrangement for me is that I get the goods and am then free not to pay, and the best arrangement for you is that I pay but you are then free not to give me the goods; but of course, if this was the actual arrangement there would be no trade. Therefore, the best deal that either of us could realistically strike is to agree that both of us will be compelled to hold to the agreement. -- Stathis Papaioannou From moulton at moulton.com Mon May 5 07:02:41 2008 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 00:02:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A plea for improvement Message-ID: <1209970961.10235.352.camel@hayek> I would like to make a small plea for improvement of this email forum. There are a couple of ways which I think it would be improved and the first to avoid generalizing from the comments of one or two individuals to a larger group. Specifically it seems that several individuals want to make broad general statements about the libertarians in an context in which the statements are not warranted. Just because there are people on this list who call themselves libertarian does not mean that what they say has anything to do with the libertarian philosophy or movement. The same thing applies for socialism or any other similar category. If person S identifies as socialist and makes a statement with which you disagree then please do not respond with a derogatory comments about socialists; instead if the comment was made person S then please make sure your comments are about person S and not socialists in general. Secondly can I strongly suggest that everyone spend more time thinking about what they are going sent. Frankly I think the quality of the discourse on extropy-chat has dipped significantly in the past couple of months. Spending a bit more time making sure that statements are accurate and making sure that use of terminology (technical, legal, etc) is correct will go a long way in improving the list. Thanks Fred From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 5 07:13:58 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 17:13:58 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <481E0E58.3050603@mac.com> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <481E0E58.3050603@mac.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/5 Samantha Atkins : > > Suppose it's true that global warming will happen and that it will be > > a disaster, and suppose it's also true that there is something that > > could be done now to prevent it. Even if this is understood by > > everyone, the free market is unlikely to give rise to action to avert > > disaster if such action results in loss of short and medium term > > profits for individual enterprises. > Do you think elected officials on a mere few years electability cycle > are likely to be more responsive? I don't have a great deal of respect for elected officials per se but I do have respect for the capacity for collective decision-making and collective action. If you prefer, you can think of this as a special type of contract. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 5 07:24:01 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 17:24:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/5 Emlyn : > Interestingly, the major commercial players in markets sometimes > behave in the "superrational" manner, working towards and welcome > regulation - ie: externally imposed restrictions. The great example of > this must be supporting the state's monopoly on force. Yes, in conflict with ideological purity. If there's one thing to be learned from the history of political movements it's that ideological purity should not be allowed to get in the way of doing the right thing. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon May 5 09:37:58 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 11:37:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <481E0FAE.60504@mac.com> References: <002e01c8ab5e$ed6390e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501122605.0271dad0@satx.rr.com> <008d01c8ac00$2bd27750$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080501221140.024190e8@satx.rr.com> <00a101c8ac0e$e3f8c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20805020652v5eaf5724p62b4c0b096a5798d@mail.gmail.com> <481E0FAE.60504@mac.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805050237p21d41714p8ba5ceb9f6432a6e@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Stefano Vaj wrote: > > "Profits" ordinarily mean "the difference between earnings and costs". > > I do not see how this margin would be reduced by a compulsory plan, > > say, to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere. > > If as the IPCC models say if you read them closely the median expected > temperature delta is around 1.6 degree C in 100 years then most of the > plans to date are hysterical overkill. Also the Kyoto accords if fully > implemented would make less than a few hundreds of a degree difference > in the same 100 years. So why exactly are we falling into CO2 > hysterics? I am strongly reminded of the anti-nuclear power hysteria > of the 70s. An interesting question is why this hysteria is being > whipped up. I do agree on the fact that this is interesting, even though it may say little on the hard facts being (or not) behind this hysteria. I have no final opinion on the issue of GM, but I am pretty sure that - emission reduction is not a kind of zero-cost panacea short-sightedly resisted by greedy megacorporations (the profits of the latter would not dip at all in the framework of a globally enforced plan, but at the same time we would be all the poorer) - it is irrational to base the decision on what price we would be ready to avoid or to limit GM, if it exists at all, on the question of whether it is anthropic or not. Stefano Vaj From amara at amara.com Mon May 5 13:43:52 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 07:43:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: Spike: >Having one's children taken is the worst possible thing I can imagine, >losing contact with one's own mother is abominable, and yet nearly all of >the victims here DID NO CRIMES! Can't help but remind me of situations like this, from the latest ifeminist newsletter: -------------- Abused Afghan women often up end in jail http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/enews/enews.php?item.9822 Trafficked across the border from Pakistan with her 3-year-old son, Rukhma was handed to an Afghan who raped and abused her, then beat the toddler to death as she watched helplessly. He was jailed for 20 years for murder, but Rukhma ended up in prison too. Rukhma, who doesn't know her age but looks younger than 20, had put up with her mistreatment for three months last summer before seeking protection and justice from authorities. Instead she was given a four-year sentence on Dec. 5 for adultery and "escaping her house" in Pakistan, even though she says she was kidnapped and raped. (04/30/08) -------------- BTW, I recommend (strongly) this group of women: ifeminists and their newsletter: http://www.ifeminists.net It's been an eye-opening source of news for me about the US govt. march towards the Total State (and occasionally other governments foray into same) during the last years. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From amara at amara.com Mon May 5 13:54:19 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 07:54:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: Here are some good, rational arguments to consider in this case: (and a good example of the biases of the media reporting and what parts of the Constitution was thrown away) http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1485 http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1486 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 5 14:19:17 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:19:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60805050719v76f64863jc0e604ea21d38e26@mail.gmail.com> Good pointers, Amara. My opinions on FLDS and the raid are the same as Wendy McElroy's, although she articulates them much better and more extensively than I did here. Highly recommended. Rafal On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > Here are some good, rational arguments to consider in this case: > (and a good example of the biases of the media reporting and what > parts of the Constitution was thrown away) > > http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1485 > http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1486 > > > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon May 5 14:34:29 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1342.12.77.169.37.1209998069.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > Here are some good, rational arguments to consider in this case: > (and a good example of the biases of the media reporting and what > parts of the Constitution was thrown away) > > http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1485 > http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1486 > Thank you, Amara. :) Wendy certainly expresses my disgust and ... fear quite nicely. She has a fine way with words. :) No doubt this FLDS case will be used as a precedent for more state interferances. And which way might this knife cut next, pray tell? Regards, MB From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon May 5 18:40:07 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <200805050503.m4553FLC009577@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <772203.75803.qm@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/5/08, spike wrote: >>Having one's children taken is the worst possible thing I can imagine, >>losing contact with one's own mother is abominable, and yet nearly all >>of the victims here DID NO CRIMES! We can justify rounding up the perps >>who actually impregnated underage girls, fine, do that full stop. But >>how in the hell can we justify punishing the victims by taking their >>children? >Good point Spike. I hadn't thought of that when I posted. I thought about >how unfair it is that these teen mothers will never understand what real >love is about (as there husbands are old and chosen for them) or that >they will never have there own choices. It makes me sad. What if one of >these girls could have been a doctor, a scientist or an artist? Their >lives are pre-ordained by elders that have alternative motives, how can >this be good for women? I thought the idea was to progress, how can we >progress when we still will not acknowledge that certain mentalities are >not worth keeping? What if nobody had taken action to stop slavery? The >mentality had to have affected enough people to warrant change. >As for taking the children away from the mother, I get your point. So >what is the alternative? Let the children stay in the same circumstances >and create a whole new generation of such manipulation? I can only think >that maybe taking the mother and child away from the environment may be a >better idea. I wonder if a year or two away from the manipulation if the >mentality would change? >I will not say that going in with guns a blaze and snatching the children >away was the best solution but I do not understand how some do not see >the injustice being done to these girls. (As for the old manipulating >geezers, I hope there peckers fall off:) Sex with minors is an offence in >the United States, that alone should warrant that these men be convicted. >Enough from me on the subject and thanks to whoever brought the subject >up, it has given me much to think and write about. >Thank you Amara for the links. Anna __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon May 5 19:13:02 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 12:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Sorry..flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: <584028.82940.qm@web30406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorry about the post. I'm not sure why yahoo does that. It never used to come out in that format. Anyway, again my apology, i'll fix it before posting again. --- On Mon, 5/5/08, Anna Taylor wrote: > From: Anna Taylor > Subject: Re: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... > To: "ExI chat list" > Received: Monday, May 5, 2008, 2:40 PM > --- On Mon, 5/5/08, spike wrote: > > Having one's children taken is the worst > possible thing I can imagine, losing contact with > one's own mother is abominable, and yet nearly all > of the victims here DID NO CRIMES! We can justify > rounding up the perps who actually impregnated > underage girls, fine, do that full stop. But how > in the hell can we justify punishing the victims by taking > their children? > Good point Spike. I hadn't thought of that when I > posted. I thought about >how unfair it is that these > teen mothers will never understand what real love is > about (as there husbands are old and chosen for them) or > that they will never have there own choices. It makes > me sad. What if one of these girls could have been a > doctor, a scientist or an artist? Their lives are > pre-ordained by elders that have alternative motives, how > can this be good for women? I thought the idea was to > progress, how can we progress when we still will not > acknowledge that certain mentalities are not worth > keeping? What if nobody had taken action to stop slavery? > The mentality had to have affected enough people to > warrant change. > > As for taking the children away from the mother, I get > your point. So what is the alternative? Let the > children stay in the same circumstances and create a > whole new generation of such manipulation? I can only > think that maybe taking the mother and child away from > the environment may be a better idea. I wonder if a > year or two away from the manipulation if the mentality > would change? > > I will not say that going in with guns a blaze and > snatching the children away was the best solution but I > do not understand how some do not see the injustice > being done to these girls. (As for the old manipulating > geezers, I hope there peckers fall off:) Sex with > minors is an offence in the United States, that alone > should warrant that these men be convicted. > > Enough from me on the subject and thanks to whoever > brought the subject up, it has given me much to think > and write about. > Thank you Amara for the links. > > Anna > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving > junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on > Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for > free at http://mail.yahoo.ca __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 5 19:53:31 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 20:53:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <1342.12.77.169.37.1209998069.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <1342.12.77.169.37.1209998069.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM, MB wrote: > Thank you, Amara. :) > Wendy certainly expresses my disgust and ... fear quite nicely. She has a fine way > with words. :) > > No doubt this FLDS case will be used as a precedent for more state interferances. > And which way might this knife cut next, pray tell? > It is, of course, interesting to read comments by concerned law amateurs. Findlaw.com has the legal position on child abuse set out clearly by a (woman) law professional. The Rescue of Children from the FLDS Compound in Texas: Why the Arguments Claiming Due Process Violations and Religious Freedom Infringement Have No Merit By MARCI HAMILTON --- Thursday, May. 01, 2008 Quote: No self-respecting child protective agency could have departed from that compound without taking all of the children away as well. The authorities revealed this week that 31 out of the 53 underage YFZ girls have been pregnant and/or are pregnant now. Imminent risk of harm, the legal standard that bound the authorities, was apparent, and indeed, a decision to leave the children in that setting would have opened up the state to liability. The key point here is that children were being abused, and were very likely to be abused in the future, and, worse, this was occurring in an atmosphere where the adults seemed incapable of apprehending the depth of the criminal behavior they were committing. etc...... BillK From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon May 5 20:13:51 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 14:13:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Bostrom on the Fermi Paradox in Technology Review Message-ID: I've been getting a little behind in my reading, so if someone else has posted about this, well, I missed it. Here's Nick's piece, full text: Technology Review - Published by MIT May/June 2008 Where Are They? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing. By Nick Bostrom People got very excited in 2004 when NASA's rover Opportunity discovered evidence that Mars had once been wet. Where there is water, there may be life. After more than 40 years of human exploration, culminating in the ongoing Mars Exploration Rover mission, scientists are planning still more missions to study the planet. The ?Phoenix, an interagency scientific probe led by the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona, is scheduled to land in late May on Mars's frigid northern arctic, where it will search for soils and ice that might be suitable for microbial life (see "Mission to Mars," November/December 2007). The next decade might see a Mars Sample Return mission, which would use robotic systems to collect samples of Martian rocks, soils, and atmosphere and return them to Earth. We could then analyze the samples to see if they contain any traces of life, whether extinct or still active. Such a discovery would be of tremendous scientific significance. What could be more fascinating than discovering life that had evolved entirely independently of life here on Earth? Many people would also find it heartening to learn that we are not entirely alone in this vast, cold cosmos. But I hope that our Mars probes discover nothing. It would be good news if we find Mars to be sterile. Dead rocks and lifeless sands would lift my spirit. Conversely, if we discovered traces of some simple, extinct life-form--some bacteria, some algae--it would be bad news. If we found fossils of something more advanced, perhaps something that looked like the remnants of a trilobite or even the skeleton of a small mammal, it would be very bad news. The more complex the life-form we found, the more depressing the news would be. I would find it interesting, certainly--but a bad omen for the future of the human race. How do I arrive at this conclusion? I begin by reflecting on a well-known fact. UFO spotters, Ra?lian cultists, and self-?certified alien abductees notwithstanding, humans have, to date, seen no sign of any extraterrestrial civilization. We have not received any visitors from space, nor have our radio telescopes detected any signals transmitted by any extraterrestrial civilization. The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has been going for nearly half a century, employing increasingly powerful telescopes and data-?mining techniques; so far, it has consistently corroborated the null hypothesis. As best we have been able to determine, the night sky is empty and silent. The question "Where are they?" is thus at least as pertinent today as it was when the physicist Enrico Fermi first posed it during a lunch discussion with some of his colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory back in 1950. Here is another fact: the observable universe contains on the order of 100 billion galaxies, and there are on the order of 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. In the last couple of decades, we have learned that many of these stars have planets circling them; several hundred such "exoplanets" have been discovered to date. Most of these are gigantic, since it is very difficult to detect smaller exoplanets using current methods. (In most cases, the planets cannot be directly observed. Their existence is inferred from their gravitational influence on their parent suns, which wobble slightly when pulled toward large orbiting planets, or from slight fluctuations in luminosity when the planets partially eclipse their suns.) We have every reason to believe that the observable universe contains vast numbers of solar systems, including many with planets that are Earth-like, at least in the sense of having masses and temperatures similar to those of our own orb. We also know that many of these solar systems are older than ours. >From these two facts it follows that the evolutionary path to life-forms capable of space colonization leads through a "Great Filter," which can be thought of as a probability barrier. (I borrow this term from Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University.) The filter consists of one or more evolutionary transitions or steps that must be traversed at great odds in order for an Earth-like planet to produce a civilization capable of exploring distant solar systems. You start with billions and billions of potential germination points for life, and you end up with a sum total of zero extraterrestrial civilizations that we can observe. The Great Filter must therefore be sufficiently powerful--which is to say, passing the critical points must be sufficiently improbable--that even with many billions of rolls of the dice, one ends up with nothing: no aliens, no spacecraft, no signals. At least, none that we can detect in our neck of the woods. Now, just where might this Great Filter be located? There are two possibilities: It might be behind us, somewhere in our distant past. Or it might be ahead of us, somewhere in the decades, centuries, or millennia to come. Let us ponder these possibilities in turn. If the filter is in our past, there must be some extremely improbable step in the sequence of events whereby an Earth-like planet gives rise to an intelligent species comparable in its technological sophistication to our contemporary human civilization. Some people seem to take the evolution of intelligent life on Earth for granted: a lengthy process, yes; ?complicated, sure; yet ultimately inevitable, or nearly so. But this view might well be completely mistaken. There is, at any rate, hardly any evidence to support it. Evolutionary biology, at the moment, does not enable us to calculate from first principles how probable or improbable the emergence of intelligent life on Earth was. Moreover, if we look back at our evolutionary history, we can identify a number of transitions any one of which could plausibly be the Great Filter. For example, perhaps it is very improbable that even ?simple self-replicators should emerge on any Earth-like planet. Attempts to create life in the laboratory by mixing water with gases believed to have been present in the Earth's early atmosphere have failed to get much beyond the synthesis of a few simple amino acids. No instance of abiogenesis (the spontaneous emergence of life from nonlife) has ever been observed. The oldest confirmed microfossils date from approximately 3.5 billion years ago, and there is tentative evidence that life might have existed a few hundred million years before that; but there is no evidence of life before 3.8 billion years ago. Life might have arisen considerably earlier than that without leaving any traces: there are very few preserved rock formations that old, and such as have survived have undergone major remolding over the eons. Nevertheless, several hundred million years elapsed between the formation of Earth and the appearance of the first known life-forms. The evidence is thus consistent with the hypothesis that the emergence of life required an extremely improbable set of coincidences, and that it took hundreds of millions of years of trial and error, of molecules and surface structures randomly interacting, before something capable of self-replication happened to appear by a stroke of astronomical luck. For aught we know, this first critical step could be a Great Filter. Conclusively determining the probability of any given evolutionary development is difficult, since we cannot rerun the history of life multiple times. What we can do, however, is attempt to identify evolutionary transitions that are at least good candidates for being a Great Filter--transitions that are both extremely improbable and practically necessary for the emergence of intelligent technological civilization. One criterion for any likely candidate is that it should have occurred only once. Flight, sight, photosynthesis, and limbs have all evolved several times here on Earth and are thus ruled out. Another indication that an evolutionary step was very improbable is that it took a very long time to occur even after its prerequisites were in place. A long delay suggests that vastly many random recombinations occurred before one worked. Perhaps several improbable mutations had to occur all at once in order for an organism to leap from one local fitness peak to another: individually deleterious mutations might be fitness enhancing only when they occur together. (The evolution of Homo sapiens from our recent hominid ancestors, such as Homo erectus, happened rather quickly on the geological timescale, so these steps would be relatively weak candidates for a Great Filter.) The original emergence of life appears to meet these two criteria. As far as we know, it might have occurred only once, and it might have taken hundreds of millions of years for it to happen even after the planet had cooled down enough for a wide range of organic molecules to be stable. Later evolutionary history offers additional possible Great Filters. For example, it took some 1.8 billion years for prokaryotes (the most basic type of single-celled organism) to evolve into eukaryotes (a more complex kind of cell with a membrane-enclosed nucleus). That is a long time, making this transition an excellent candidate. Others include the emergence of multicellular organisms and of sexual reproduction. If the Great Filter is indeed behind us, meaning that the rise of intelligent life on any one planet is extremely improbable, then it follows that we are most likely the only technologically advanced civilization in our galaxy, or even in the entire observable universe. (The observable universe contains approximately 1022 stars. The universe might well extend infinitely far beyond the part that is observable by us, and it may contain infinitely many stars. If so, then it is virtually certain that an infinite number of intelligent extraterrestrial species exist, no matter how improbable their evolution on any given planet. However, cosmological theory implies that because the universe is expanding, any living creatures outside the observable universe are and will forever remain causally disconnected from us: they can never visit us, communicate with us, or be seen by us or our descendants.) The other possibility is that the Great Filter is still ahead of us. This would mean that some great improbability prevents almost all civilizations at our current stage of technological development from progressing to the point where they engage in large-scale space colonization. For example, it might be that any sufficiently advanced civilization discovers some tech?nology--perhaps some very powerful weapons tech?nology--that causes its extinction. I will return to this scenario shortly, but first I shall say a few words about another theoretical possibility: that extraterrestrials are out there in abundance but hidden from our view. I think that this is unlikely, because if extraterrestrials do exist in any numbers, at least one species would have already expanded throughout the galaxy, or beyond. Yet we have met no one. Various schemes have been proposed for how intelligent species might colonize space. They might send out "manned" spaceships, which would establish colonies and "terraform" new planets, beginning with worlds in their own solar systems before moving on to more distant destinations. But much more likely, in my view, would be colonization by means of so-called von Neumann probes, named after the ?Hungarian-?born prodigy John von Neumann, among whose many mathematical and scientific achievements was the concept of a "universal constructor," or a self-replicating machine. A von Neumann probe would be an unmanned self-?replicating spacecraft, controlled by artificial intelligence and capable of interstellar travel. A probe would land on a planet (or a moon or asteroid), where it would mine raw materials to create multiple replicas of itself, perhaps using advanced forms of nanotechnology. In a scenario proposed by Frank Tipler in 1981, replicas would then be launched in various directions, setting in motion a multiplying colonization wave. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across. If a probe were capable of traveling at one-tenth the speed of light, every planet in the galaxy could thus be colonized within a couple of million years (allowing some time for each probe that lands on a resource site to set up the necessary infrastructure and produce daughter probes). If travel speed were limited to 1 percent of light speed, colonization might take 20 million years instead. The exact numbers do not matter much, because the timescales are at any rate very short compared with the astronomical ones on which the evolution of intelligent life occurs. If building a von Neumann probe seems very difficult--well, surely it is, but we are not talking about something we should begin work on today. Rather, we are considering what would be accomplished with some very advanced technology of the future. We might build von Neumann probes in centuries or millennia--intervals that are mere blips compared with the life span of a planet. Considering that space travel was science fiction a mere half-century ago, we should, I think, be extremely reluctant to proclaim something forever technologically infeasible unless it conflicts with some hard physical constraint. Our early space probes are already out there: Voyager 1, for example, is now at the edge of our solar system. Even if an advanced technological civilization could spread throughout the galaxy in a relatively short period of time (and thereafter spread to neighboring galaxies), one might still wonder whether it would choose to do so. Perhaps it would prefer to stay at home and live in harmony with nature. However, a number of considerations make this explanation of the great silence less than plausible. First, we observe that life has here on Earth manifested a very strong tendency to spread wherever it can. It has populated every nook and cranny that can sustain it: east, west, north, and south; land, water, and air; desert, tropic, and arctic ice; underground rocks, hydrothermal vents, and radioactive-waste dumps; there are even living beings inside the bodies of other living beings. This empirical finding is of course entirely consonant with what one would expect on the basis of elementary evolutionary theory. Second, if we consider our own species in particular, we find that it has spread to every part of the planet, and we have even established a presence in space, at vast expense, with the International Space Station. Third, if an advanced civilization has the technology to go into space relatively cheaply, it has an obvious reason to do so: namely, that's where most of the resources are. Land, minerals, energy: all are abundant out there yet limited on any one home planet. These resources could be used to support a growing population and to construct giant temples or supercomputers or whatever structures a civilization values. Fourth, even if most advanced civilizations chose to remain nonexpansionist forever, it wouldn't make any difference as long as there was one other civilization that opted to launch the colonization process: that expansionary civilization would be the one whose probes, colonies, or descendants would fill the galaxy. It takes but one match to start a fire, only one expansionist civilization to begin colonizing the universe. For all these reasons, it seems unlikely that the galaxy is teeming with intelligent beings that voluntarily confine themselves to their home planets. Now, it is possible to concoct scenarios in which the universe is swarming with advanced civilizations every one of which chooses to keep itself well hidden from our view. Maybe there is a secret society of advanced civilizations that know about us but have decided not to contact us until we're mature enough to be admitted into their club. Perhaps they're observing us as if we were animals in a zoo. I don't see how we can conclusively rule out this possibility. But I will set it aside in order to concentrate on what to me appear more plausible answers to Fermi's question. The more disconcerting hypothesis is that the Great Filter consists in some destructive tendency common to virtually all sufficiently advanced technological civilizations. Throughout history, great civilizations on Earth have imploded--the Roman Empire, the Mayan civilization that once flourished in Central America, and many others. However, the kind of societal collapse that merely delays the eventual emergence of a space-colonizing civilization by a few hundred or a few thousand years would not explain why no such civilization has visited us from another planet. A thousand years may seem a long time to an individual, but in this context it's a sneeze. There are probably planets that are billions of years older than Earth. Any intelligent species on those planets would have had ample time to recover from repeated social or ecological collapses. Even if they failed a thousand times before they succeeded, they still could have arrived here hundreds of millions of years ago. The Great Filter, then, would have to be something more dramatic than run-of-the mill societal collapse: it would have to be a terminal global cataclysm, an existential catastrophe. An existential risk is one that threatens to annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential for future development. In our own case, we can identify a number of potential existential risks: a nuclear war fought with arms stockpiles much larger than today's (perhaps resulting from future arms races); a genetically engineered superbug; environmental disaster; an asteroid impact; wars or terrorist acts committed with powerful future weapons; super?intelligent general artificial intelligence with destructive goals; or high-energy physics experiments. These are just some of the existential risks that have been discussed in the literature, and considering that many of these have been proposed only in recent decades, it is plausible to assume that there are further existential risks we have not yet thought of. The study of existential risks is an extremely important, albeit rather neglected, field of inquiry. But in order for an existential risk to constitute a plausible Great Filter, it must be of a kind that could destroy virtually any sufficiently advanced civilization. For instance, random natural disasters such as asteroid hits and supervolcanic eruptions are poor Great Filter candidates, because even if they destroyed a significant number of civilizations, we would expect some civilizations to get lucky; and some of these civilizations could then go on to colonize the universe. Perhaps the existential risks that are most likely to constitute a Great Filter are those that arise from technological discovery. It is not far-fetched to imagine some possible technology such that, first, virtually all sufficiently advanced civilizations eventually discover it, and second, its discovery leads almost universally to existential disaster. So where is the Great Filter? Behind us, or not behind us? If the Great Filter is ahead of us, we have still to confront it. If it is true that almost all intelligent species go extinct before they master the technology for space colonization, then we must expect that our own species will, too, since we have no reason to think that we will be any luckier than other species. If the Great Filter is ahead of us, we must relinquish all hope of ever colonizing the galaxy, and we must fear that our adventure will end soon--or, at any rate, prematurely. Therefore, we had better hope that the Great Filter is behind us. What has all this got to do with finding life on Mars? Consider the implications of discovering that life had evolved independently on Mars (or some other planet in our solar system). That discovery would suggest that the emergence of life is not very improbable. If it happened independently twice here in our own backyard, it must surely have happened millions of times across the galaxy. This would mean that the Great Filter is less likely to be confronted during the early life of planets and therefore, for us, more likely still to come. If we discovered some very simple life-forms on Mars, in its soil or under the ice at the polar caps, it would show that the Great Filter must come somewhere after that period in evolution. This would be disturbing, but we might still hope that the Great Filter was located in our past. If we discovered a more advanced life-form, such as some kind of multicellular organism, that would eliminate a much larger set of evolutionary transitions from consideration as the Great Filter. The effect would be to shift the probability more strongly against the hypothesis that the Great Filter is behind us. And if we discovered the fossils of some very complex life-form, such as a ?vertebrate-?like creature, we would have to conclude that this hypothesis is very improbable indeed. It would be by far the worst news ever printed. Yet most people reading about the discovery would be thrilled. They would not understand the implications. For if the Great Filter is not behind us, it is ahead of us. And that's a terrifying prospect. So this is why I'm hoping that our space probes will discover dead rocks and lifeless sands on Mars, on Jupiter's moon Europa, and everywhere else our astronomers look. It would keep alive the hope of a great future for humanity. Now, it might be thought an amazing coincidence if Earth were the only planet in the galaxy on which intelligent life evolved. If it happened here, the one planet we have studied closely, surely one would expect it to have happened on a lot of other planets in the galaxy--planets we have not yet had the chance to examine. This objection, however, rests on a fallacy: it overlooks what is known as an "observation selection effect." Whether intelligent life is common or rare, every observer is guaranteed to originate from a place where intelligent life did, in fact, arise. Since only the successes give rise to observers who can wonder about their existence, it would be a mistake to regard our planet as a randomly selected sample from all planets. (It would be closer to the mark to regard our planet as a random sample from the subset of planets that did engender intelligent life, this being a crude formulation of one of the saner ideas extractable from the motley ore referred to as the "anthropic principle.") Since this point confuses many, it is worth expanding on it slightly. Consider two different hypotheses. One says that the evolution of intelligent life is a fairly straightforward process that happens on a significant fraction of all suitable planets. The other hypothesis says that the evolution of intelligent life is extremely complicated and happens perhaps on only one out of a million billion planets. To evaluate their plausibility in light of your evidence, you must ask yourself, "What do these hypotheses predict I should observe?" If you think about it, both hypotheses clearly predict that you should observe that your civilization originated in places where intelligent life evolved. All observers will share that observation, whether the evolution of intelligent life happened on a large or a small fraction of all planets. An observation-selection effect guarantees that whatever planet we call "ours" was a success story. And as long as the total number of planets in the universe is large enough to compensate for the low proba?bility of any given one of them giving rise to intelligent life, it is not a surprise that a few success stories exist. If--as I hope is the case--we are the only intelligent species that has ever evolved in our galaxy, and perhaps in the entire observable universe, it does not follow that our survival is not in danger. Nothing in the preceding reasoning precludes there being steps in the Great Filter both behind us and ahead of us. It might be extremely improbable both that intelligent life should arise on any given planet and that intelligent life, once evolved, should succeed in becoming advanced enough to colonize space. But we would have some grounds for hope that all or most of the Great Filter is in our past if Mars is found to be barren. In that case, we may have a significant chance of one day growing into something greater than we are now. In this scenario, the entire history of humankind to date is a mere instant compared with the eons that still lie before us. All the triumphs and tribulations of the millions of people who have walked the Earth since the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia would be like mere birth pangs in the delivery of a kind of life that hasn't yet begun. For surely it would be the height of na?vet? to think that with the transformative technologies already in sight--genetics, nano?technology, and so on--and with thousands of millennia still ahead of us in which to perfect and apply these technologies and others of which we haven't yet conceived, human nature and the human condition will remain unchanged. Instead, if we survive and prosper, we will presumably develop some kind of posthuman existence. None of this means that we ought to cancel our plans to have a closer look at Mars. If the Red Planet ever harbored life, we might as well find out about it. It might be bad news, but it would tell us something about our place in the universe, our future technological prospects, the existential risks confronting us, and the possibilities for human transformation--issues of considerable importance. But in the absence of any such evidence, I conclude that the silence of the night sky is golden, and that in the search for extraterrestrial life, no news is good news. Nick Bostrom is the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. Copyright Technology Review 2008. From amara at amara.com Mon May 5 21:53:12 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 15:53:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: >It is, of course, interesting to read comments by concerned law amateurs. Bill, you seem concerned that these posts are not by practicing lawyers. I lump your link with Wendy McElroy as not written by a practicing lawyer; in fact, Hamilton's writing style is too inflammatory to be accepted as legal text. It's, instead, an opinion piece, like McElroy's, but at the opposite spectrum. However, the American Civil Liberties Union, which is an organization of American lawyers concerned with protecting the US Constitution, has taken the side of the FLDS, in concern. Here is their statement: http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35123res20080502.html Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Mon May 5 14:48:55 2008 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 07:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... Message-ID: <959369.81046.qm@web46107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> not only does every problem we solve cause other problems but every time you help someone you hurt someone else; every time you create a winner you create a loser; everything we do causes an equal and opposite overreaction. So, again, what is so surprising about government kidnapping of schismatic adolescent lds losers? and they are losers either way-- stay with the cult and they lose, go with the byzantine court system and foster care and they lose too. Who wins? the guvmint for one, they spends lots of dough and cement their authority. Who else wins? The dirty old men in Utah or Arizona or wherever they are. Only the adolescents lose. >Every problem we solve causes other problems. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon May 5 15:33:04 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 11:33:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] My new address References: <1342.12.77.169.37.1209998069.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <001001c8aec5$59471480$0301a8c0@MyComputer> My Email address has changed, it is now jonkc at bellsouth.net . There was some confusion during the changeover so if you sent me an Email in the last few days I probably didn't get it. John K Clark jonkc at bellsouth.net From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue May 6 01:13:54 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 20:13:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? In-Reply-To: <245836.16395.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <245836.16395.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <481FB0D2.6090703@insightbb.com> Anne Corwin wrote: > Kevin said: > > Various sources put the ideal age from a biological > > standpoint ranges between 13 and 17. > > To which Lee replied: > > > Yes. That's when girls should be having children. The > > correct solution would also entail their giving up those > > children to their own parents to raise, while they then > > continue their studies and pursue whatever life goals > > they have when---at age 40 or so---they can in turn > > parent (raise) their own biological children's offspring. > > Whaaaa??? Are you serious? Where's this "should" stuff coming from? > Who says anyone "should" be having children, at ANY age? The world is > not your science lab, people are not your prized specially-bred > Armenian dwarf-hamsters, and the future is not your > carefully-optimized gated community. Having actually BEEN a > 13-year-old girl at some point, I must say it's a bizarre impression > indeed I get from seeing a guy who is probably older than my father > suggesting that there was some point in my CHILDHOOD at which it would > have been a great idea to get me impregnated. > > Granted, my developmental neuro-atypicality would probably have gotten > me "excused" from the Extropian Mailing List Experimental Breeding > Program, but still -- ugh. > > Please, please tell me this is some kind of joke. Because it's *damn* > creepy. > > - Anne > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We're not talking about mental or social capability to raise children. We are talking about physical capability to bear quality offspring. These ages are correct. Surely you have noticed that most gymnasts and other athletes in the Olympics are in that same age group? Many are past their prime by the time they get 18 years old. Why would it be any different with the extremely demanding task of carrying and birthing a child? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue May 6 01:41:05 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 20:41:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <171839.50949.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <171839.50949.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <481FB731.70800@insightbb.com> I think these questions were posed for Lee but I wanted to share my answers since I share Lee's thoughts on this.... > If I had stated my emotional response properly then you wouldn't have needed to apology. > Anyway, after thinking about it I discovered what caused such an emotional reaction to certain posts. I have some questions: > > 1) Psychologically to you believe that these girls are ready to have children at 13-14 years old? > I don't think that's the argument. The psychological preparedness necessary to raise children is dictated by the society in which they live. In OUR society, the answer is "no". But if you threw a hundred people of various ages together on an island without our technology and infrastructure, I would place my bets on the younger mothers. Our society virtually demands that women grow to a specific age, develop a career, and gain their own independence before they become mothers. They also need to be able to raise their children to deal with the complexities of our culture. In a small isolated society, none of this is a benefit. All that matters is the ability to nurture and love the child and pass on the simple teachings they have learned themselves. > 2) Have you ever been surrounded by 13-14 year old girls on a regular basis (Of course I mean regarding teaching, non-profit work, etc..)? > My daughters are 13 and 12. And before you ask, I would not have a man of ANY age bedding them and making them pregnant. This is because my kids need to be able to succeed in this world we know and the one that is coming. But I have to admit, there is a certain appeal to the idea that they could grow up in a world where all they have to worry about is raising children. This of course goes into an entirely different debate - "Is ignorance bliss?". I happen to think that being aware of reality is preferable to being ignorant - regardless of how ugly life really is. That's why I don't filter my kids internet connection. (I do monitor). In a way, these parents who raise their girls like this are only doing what most of us do already but take it to an extreme. How many parents REALLY want their kids exposed to the REAL world at 13? > 3) I have some knowledge of Canadian and American mentality when it comes to teen girl adolescence and I do agree that there is a fine line between child and young woman. What I have a problem with is the manipulation that allows these older men to take advantage of the situation. What if a young girl growing up in that environment doesn't want to? The programming is there yet they just don't want to. Do you think they can just up and leave? It is the same circumstance as a 13 year old boy that has to grow up with an alcoholic parent What if removed from that environment what makes you so sure that the child wouldn't flourish? > This was already addressed. We all agree that those who did not wish to be there should be allowed to leave and anyone preventing this could and should be held accountable. But no one ever asked. Instead, they forcefully removed ALL of the children even when there were no signs of abuse, neglect, etc. > 4) I know many women in there 30's that are currently having children. Shouldn't a girl have a choice when she chooses to want to pro-create? Yes. Exactly the point. > The option should be there. By installing these pre-conceived notions how does this better society? Everything we teach kids is a "pre-conceived notion". We teach that they should get educated, get good jobs, make lots of money, buy lots of stuff, raise kids, buy more stuff, and die. If you really want to fight poorly conceived preconceived notions, take up the fight against those who think that death should be accepted as part of life. > What can a 13-14 year old girl teach a child? Doesn't this just lead to children having children? > As I said earlier - it doesn't matter in a small isolated society. > 5) I've known many women in there 20's and 30's that have reported just knowing when they where ready to have children (as well as hearing about the sexual peek of the 30's..lol). I have never heard a 13-14 year old tell me she was ready to be a mother. Don't you think there is some kind of logic behind that? > No. This is because of the preconceived notions that we give kids that they should go to school, get educated, and everything else before having kids. As far as humanity is concerned, it is better if we all get educated and find a way to the singularity. I am not saying that we are wrong to teach our children that. But in many ways, these people may very well be happier than we ever could be. None of us would ever condone going into a tribe of aboriginal people and forcing them to live by our rules - regardless of the age of the girls who have the children. For some reason people think the worst thing that could happen to a girl is to be taught that it is OK to have children young and live in an isolated society without having the opportunity to become rich. I disagree. I think that it is worse to rip a 13 year old girl from her family and everything she knows and drop her into a foster home with possibly abusive foster parents and a 25%-65% chance of becoming jailed or homeless and subjecting her to the nastiness that exists in the public school system which if you know as much about teen girls as you say, you know very well is extremely rough. With all that said, does anyone want to place bets on the number of suicides that result from this action? I didn't think so. From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue May 6 01:47:20 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 20:47:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is the Right Reproductive Age? In-Reply-To: <572935.90669.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <572935.90669.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <481FB8A8.6040007@insightbb.com> > For all I know, it would. But you seem to be viewing reality from > an extremely abstractified perspective, which is all well and good if > you're trying to predict the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow, > but rather facile as far as dealing with actual people. > Is that an African or a European swallow? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 6 02:37:11 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 19:37:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Monty Python and the Holy Grail References: <572935.90669.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <481FB8A8.6040007@insightbb.com> Message-ID: <06ec01c8af22$96398500$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> For those who aren't familiar with the movie (probably rather few here), these references from Anne and Kevin aren't as obscure as they might seem at first: > > For all I know, it would. But you seem to be viewing > > reality from an extremely abstractified perspective, which > > is all well and good if you're trying to predict the air-speed > > velocity of an unladen swallow, but rather facile as far as > > dealing with actual people. > > Is that an African or a European swallow? I suspect that someone could easily write an English major's senior thesis on the clash between science on the one hand and "ancient ways" on the other in this movie. King Arthur was the embodiment of everything that was traditional, and he was over and over again confronted with the new-fangled stuff called "science" that he had no use for. Yet at a couple of key junctures, he gives into practicality, and fights fire with fire, as in when he uses last phrase above, which saves him from the Gorge of Eternal Peril. There are many truly hilarious scenes ridiculing the pre- scientific viewpoint, and yet, I guess, also a number of others commenting rather ironically on the occasional over-use of abstraction/jargon in science. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 6 02:45:59 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 19:45:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See NoWarming References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06f001c8af23$fddfadf0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > 2008/5/5 Emlyn : > >> Interestingly, the major commercial players in markets sometimes >> behave in the "superrational" manner, working towards and welcome >> regulation - ie: externally imposed restrictions. You may call it "superrationality" but I call it an unwillingness to face the free market. The major commercial players, instead of having to lower prices to beat out the competition, seek out and get government "regulation" instead. And guess who become the actual human regulators? None other than the most "knowledgeable" people around, namely, those in the very industry! (This is so typical of what happens when government gets involved. "Corruption" is not too harsh a word, here.) > > The great example of this must be supporting the state's > > monopoly on force. Well, maybe. But still, this latter is an unfortunate exception that simply so far has been necessary for progress and civilization. Stathis replies > Yes, in conflict with ideological purity. If there's one thing to be > learned from the history of political movements it's that ideological > purity should not be allowed to get in the way of doing the right > thing. One certainly has to agree with Stathis here! Sticking consistently to an ideology is one thing, but when the direct results are extreme and statistically meaningful horror, then your ideology has to take a back seat. While surely we all agree with that, we'll continue to disagree about when the thresholds for "extreme" and "statistically significant" have been crossed. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 6 02:57:53 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 19:57:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... References: <799747.44367.qm@web46107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2d6187670805042133l2e8457f3p54b26e9a89a7ff00@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06f101c8af25$67355ba0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Grigg writes > There is a real disconnect in the Libertarian thinking > of you [Rafal] and Lee. But honest self-appraisal > (as in "looking into your own soul") has been replaced > with intellectual slight of hand and side stepping. I do disagree with Rafal that the answer is for you, John, to "look into your own soul". But by the same token, it's not the case that Rafal and Samantha and Kevin and I and all those who agree with us are guilty of having failed "honest self-appraisal". Clearly neither side should be characterized as uninformed (except to the general extent that none of us has actually lived there or known the people involved), or as uneducated, or unthoughtful, or unethical, or blind, or dumb, or anything of the kind. This is simply one of those cases where for rather deeply held reasons people honestly disagree. It does good to exchange opinions, I have conjectured, because in the months and years following such, each person unconsciously incorporates any telling criticism he or she has listened to. > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Everyone in the world without exception has been subject to "soft style > > abuse" aka cultural indoctrination. So what? Does that mean your > > indoctrination gives you the right to go in with guns blazing to > > "rescue" people who may in fact not believe they need rescuing? Does it > > so empower you that you not only have that right assuming the costs and > > risks yourself but have the right to demand that others who may or may > > not agree with your actions pay for them and sanction them? > > Samantha, when you have totally indoctrinated/brainwashed (from birth) > young teen girls (only fourteen and fifteen), who are being compelled > to marry older men (statutory rape) that drive off suitors their own > age, well..., yes, I'm for sending in law enforcement to stop what's > going on. But how do you know that it's not *you* who has been indoctrinated from birth by Christian dogma or other sources? As someone said, we are all very much influenced by the cultures in which we grew up. My main point---which I don't think you or anyone else has addressed ---is simply that *knowledge* is necessarily limited by distance and by lack of personal experience. So whenever we can, we therefore should all mind our own businesses as much as possible. Only the most tried and true principles going back hundreds of years, e.g., that property must be secure, and the rule of law established, ought to be regarded as principles we feel free to apply to (by law only) to people living hundreds of miles away. Or even next door. > Call me crazy! LOL Never! LOL. You may be wrong, but not crazy! Lee From spike66 at att.net Tue May 6 03:15:27 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 20:15:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805060342.m463gBuP013534@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > > No doubt this FLDS case will be used as a precedent for > more state interferences. > And which way might this knife cut next, pray tell? MB I suggested the obvious one earlier MB: the muslim community. There we see all the stuff for which the FLDS people are being accused: polygamy, child abuse, teaching the daughters to accept abuse, teaching the sons to become abusers, etc. Of course the muslim does not universally accept these things. But the critical precedent set by the FLDS raid was taking *all the kids in the neighborhood* when some subset of that group is judged to be out of line, with no legal proof required. It is too easy to imagine this standard being applied to the muslim community and the local CPS attempting to seize the children of *anyone* known to be part of that mosque. Then if they don't, why is not the CPS considered negligent? Once they are finished there, where next? spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue May 6 04:55:11 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 00:55:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <200805060342.m463gBuP013534@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200805060342.m463gBuP013534@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805052155o6cb01881g8e650477289a8970@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:15 PM, spike wrote: But the critical precedent set by the FLDS raid was taking *all the > kids in the neighborhood* when some subset of that group is judged to be out > of line, with no legal proof required. It is too easy to imagine this > standard being applied to the muslim community and the local CPS attempting > to seize the children of *anyone* known to be part of that mosque. Then if > they don't, why is not the CPS considered negligent? Once they are finished > there, where next? ### After Mormons and Moslems there will be libertarians, atheists, homosexuals, Ba'hai, the usual suspects. The state finally declared sovereignty over America's children. Luckily, the UFAI will make all this moot anyway. Rafal From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 6 06:19:05 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 23:19:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... References: <200805060342.m463gBuP013534@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7641ddc60805052155o6cb01881g8e650477289a8970@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <070201c8af41$19fb3e10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike wrote > But the critical precedent set by the FLDS raid was > taking *all the kids in the neighborhood* when some > subset of that group is judged to be out of line, with > no legal proof required. But this occurred in the U.S., not in a country where the law is applied strictly and impartially. For over fifty years now, judges have tried to do what is "right", instead of following the law. > It is too easy to imagine this standard being applied to > the Muslim community and the local CPS attempting > to seize the children of *anyone* known to be part of > that mosque. Honestly, I can *not* imagine it. No, it's not going to happen, and the Muslim communities are correct in not feeling at all worried. > Then if they don't, why is not the CPS considered > negligent? Once they are finished there, where next? and Rafal commented > ### After Mormons and Moslems there will be libertarians, > atheists, homosexuals, Ba'hai, the usual suspects. I'm sorry, but you're quite mistaken. The group that was attacked was a small and very unpopular sect of Mormons, (who are not terribly popular to begin with). They could, and were, attacked with impunity. None of the groups that you have listed is similarly vulnerable. All have huge support not only in the U.S., but around the world, and they also have immense political and social connections. And that is what, in reality, it is all about. The law really has very little to do with it, except to license what the authorities want to do anyway. The authorities will not be able to go after those other groups until either the law is explicitly changed (which won't happen) or until some kind of religious revival sweeps the U.S. that makes attacks on such groups sufficiently popular. Lee From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue May 6 08:02:40 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 01:02:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gina "Nanogirl" update: yes it is Multiple Sclerosis Message-ID: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> So I have had some more tests and the results also confirm that I do indeed have Multiple Sclerosis. I'll be starting treatments soon. I wrote an thorough update at the blog here: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ And thank you Extropes for all of your continued support. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 6 11:14:53 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 07:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <481FB731.70800@insightbb.com> References: <171839.50949.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <481FB731.70800@insightbb.com> Message-ID: <1048.12.77.168.189.1210072493.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > For some reason people think the worst thing that could happen to a girl > is to be taught that it is OK to have children young and live in an > isolated society without having the opportunity to become rich. I > disagree. I think that it is worse to rip a 13 year old girl from her > family and everything she knows and drop her into a foster home with > possibly abusive foster parents and a 25%-65% chance of becoming jailed > or homeless and subjecting her to the nastiness that exists in the > public school system which if you know as much about teen girls as you > say, you know very well is extremely rough. > > With all that said, does anyone want to place bets on the number of > suicides that result from this action? I don't really expect massive suicide, but I do expect massive unhappiness and troubles adjusting (if that ever happens). The fault for this will no doubt be all laid at the feet of the FLDS themselves, not the CPS that abducted them from their homes and dumped them into Modern America. As witness I call the efforts in the US to forcibly mainstream Native American children and the similar efforts in Australia to mainstream the Aboriginal children... by ripping them from their homes and raising them elsewhere. Regards, MB From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue May 6 14:56:10 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 07:56:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Monty Python and the Holy Grail In-Reply-To: <06ec01c8af22$96398500$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <572935.90669.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <481FB8A8.6040007@insightbb.com> <06ec01c8af22$96398500$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <2d6187670805060756w1dbd2f9fk909e1aa812f04e06@mail.gmail.com> It's funny that you mention Monty Python because at my local discount theater they just had a Python double feature. It was the classic team-up of "Holy Grail" and "Iife of Brian." I love both films but as I get older "Life of Brian" holds more chuckles for me. It amazed me how many people in the audience could quote long passages of dialogue from both films (this was encouraged) and sing along during the musical bits! My favorite part of "Holy Grail" must be the foppish stereotyping of the French soldiers or the "bring forth ye holy hand grenade" scene after the knights get mauled by the rabbit from hell. I'd love to see a "Rocky Horror Picture Show" style shadowcasting of "Holy Grail." In some ways I feel the baton of Monty Python caliber (but not style) social satire has been passed on to Trey Parker and Matt Stone of "Southpark" fame. I sorely wish the surviving members of the Monty Python crew would reunite and do at least one more film together. They could spoof so many different subjects, the war on terror, the war in the Middle East, the coming of the Singularity, cryonics, political correctness, religion, the list is endless. John Grigg http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A687945 >From the BBC web article: Although Meaning of Life was the last genuine Python project, there was talk all through the 1980s about a Python reunion, another stage show, another film, another television series... The problem was that all the individual Pythons were too busy with their own (and each other's) projects to find the time to get all six of them together. Then, in 1988, Graham Chapman was diagnosed with cancer and, despite claiming to have beaten it, died on 4 October, 1989, one day short of the 20th anniversary of the Flying Circus. The Python team were reunited in 1998 for a stage appearance in Aspen, Colorado, USA, with British comedian Eddie Izzard making a brief appearance claiming to be one of the team. Graham also 'appeared', in an urn, which was 'accidentally' kicked over and spilt by Terry G. After the event, there was again talk of a new film or stage show, but it failed to materialise. The team also got together for a 30th anniversary celebration on the BBC in 1999. The sad fact is that, although they remain friends, they are all too busy and successful to ever co-ordinate their efforts into a joint production. Besides, without Graham Chapman, it just wouldn't be Python anyway... >>>> On 5/5/08, Lee Corbin wrote: > For those who aren't familiar with the movie (probably rather > few here), these references from Anne and Kevin aren't > as obscure as they might seem at first: > > > > For all I know, it would. But you seem to be viewing > > > reality from an extremely abstractified perspective, which > > > is all well and good if you're trying to predict the air-speed > > > velocity of an unladen swallow, but rather facile as far as > > > dealing with actual people. > > > > Is that an African or a European swallow? > > I suspect that someone could easily write an English major's > senior thesis on the clash between science on the one hand > and "ancient ways" on the other in this movie. King Arthur > was the embodiment of everything that was traditional, and > he was over and over again confronted with the new-fangled > stuff called "science" that he had no use for. > > Yet at a couple of key junctures, he gives into practicality, > and fights fire with fire, as in when he uses last phrase above, > which saves him from the Gorge of Eternal Peril. > > There are many truly hilarious scenes ridiculing the pre- > scientific viewpoint, and yet, I guess, also a number of > others commenting rather ironically on the occasional > over-use of abstraction/jargon in science. > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue May 6 20:03:58 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 15:03:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gina "Nanogirl" update: yes it is Multiple Sclerosis In-Reply-To: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> References: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080506150225.02406ec0@satx.rr.com> Damn. But... seen this? "Bone Marrow Treatments Restore Nerves, Expert Says" by Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor May 6, 2008; Bethesda, MD (Reuters) -- "An experiment that went wrong may provide a new way to treat Multiple Sclerosis," a Canadian researcher said on Tuesday. Patients who got bone marrow stem-cell transplants -- similar to those given to Leukemia patients -- have enjoyed a mysterious remission of their disease. And Dr. Mark Freedman of the University of Ottawa is not sure why. "Not a single patient, and it's almost seven years, has ever had a relapse," Freedman said. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) affects an estimated 1 million people globally. There is no cure. It can cause mild illness in some people while causing permanent disability in others. Symptoms may include numbness or weakness in one or more limbs, partial or complete loss of vision, and an unsteady gait. Freedman, who specializes in treating MS, wanted to study how the disease unfolds. He set up an experiment in which doctors destroyed the bone marrow and thus the immune systems of MS patients. Then stem cells known as hematopoeitic stem cells, blood-forming cells taken from the bone marrow, were transplanted back into the patients. "We weren't looking for improvement," Freedman told a stem cell seminar at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. "The actual study was to reboot the immune system." Once MS is diagnosed, Freedman said, "you've already missed the boat. We figured we would reboot the immune system and watch the disease evolve. It failed." Stem-Cell Repair They had thought that destroying the bone marrow would improve symptoms within a year. After all, MS is believed to be an autoimmune disease, in which immune system cells mistakenly attack the fatty myelin sheath that protects nerve strands. Patients lose the ability to move as the thin strands that connect one nerve cell to another wither. Instead, improvements began two years after treatment. Freedman reported to the seminar about 17 of the patients he has given the transplants to. "We have yet to get the disease to restart," he said. Patients are not developing some of the characteristic brain lesions seen in MS. "But we are seeing this repair." MS patients often have hard-to-predict changes in their symptoms and disease course, so Freedman says his team must study the patients longer before they can say precisely what is going on. "We are trying to find out what is happening and what could possibly be the source of repair," Freedman said. But he has found some hints that may help doctors who treat MS by using drugs to suppress the immune system. "Those with a lot of inflammation going on were the most likely to benefit (from the treatment)," he said. "We need some degree of inflammation." While inflammation may be the process that destroys myelin, it could be that the body needs some inflammation to make repairs, Freedman said. Immune cells secrete compounds known as cytokines. While these are linked with inflammation, they may also direct cells, perhaps even the stem cells, to regenerate. The treatment itself is dangerous -- one patient died when the chemicals used to destroy his bone marrow also badly damaged his liver. Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Julie Steenhuysen and Eric Walsh From moulton at moulton.com Tue May 6 21:14:01 2008 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 14:14:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Singing Revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1210108441.10235.450.camel@hayek> I saw this movie over the weekend and I highly recommend it. It is playing in San Jose until Thursday. Fred On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:46 -0700, Amara Graps wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I saw _The Singing Revolution_ yesterday at the Boulder International > Film Festival. The title refers to the revolution in Estonia, even > though the events were generally proceeding in parallel with similar > strides in Latvia and Lithuania. It is one of those films that you will > likely never in your life, forget. > http://thesingingrevolution.com/ > > The New York Times has a review > http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/movies/14revo.html > > Steve Jurvetson is the executive film producer, you can see his comments > (showing his pride too) at his flickr site: > http://flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/1419219274/ where his readers > (including me) give more comments and links to movie reviews. > > For me, most of the story was not new, but there were a couple of > astounding historical events regarding the winter 90-91 confrontations > between the Estonian political groups: Interfront (pro-Soviet) and > Popular Front (pro-Independence) of which I was unaware. The scene left > me without breath; it breaks all rules for the behavior of 'mobs' and > protests that western media usually show as the normal behavior. I heard > the comment, repeatedly, that every peace organization in the world > should see this film. > > You can see where the film is playing near you: > http://www.singingrevolution.com/cgi-local/screenings.cgi > > After the film, you might want to understand more of the story. I have > more parts of the story at my own web site: > http://www.amara.com/Independence/LestWeForget.html > > Ciao, > Amara > From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 6 22:36:00 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 23:36:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Gambling on global warming In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3262.73334.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Sorry I took a while to reply, my internet connection went down at the weekend and there's been a public holiday in the UK for us to celebrate fertility rites. http://www.livescience.com/environment/070413_fools_bet.html this article mentions the latest odds. Thinking of more transhumanist gambling, anyone fancy making financial investments in longevity? JP Morgan has launched a longevity index, and the first derivative allowing insurance companies to hedge mortality risk has just been launched. http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/746741 Actually, searching through "the actuary" news revealed various facts about big insurance claims, such as how much writing off a passenger jet costs, and how the biggest cost in Australian floods is the loss from shutting down mines. Anyone feeling lucky? Or have we all been reading books like "The Black Swan" too much and feel hopeless at predicting the future? __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 7 02:28:12 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 19:28:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080507022812.GB28362@ofb.net> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 01:25:05PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > When I was in college, a friend of mine named James Pitts wrote a science > fiction short story regarding genetically-engineered bacteria that when > injected into an oil field rapidly metabolized the oil and polymerized it into > a fibrous gelatinous mass that was impossible to pump out of the ground. > > Such an organism used on oil fields throughout the world might render them > useless thus bringing the world to the point it would be in a few decades any > way. One could concievably do this without violence or even without anyone Insofar as the oil fields are considered private property, I think that would be the libetarian violence known as theft. Or wilful property damage, perhaps more precisely. Certainly not voluntary from the POV of the oil companies, so I'd say it fails the spirit of the challenge. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 7 02:24:58 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 19:24:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:11:02PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > 2008/5/3 Stathis Papaioannou : > > Knowing all this, I and everyone else would *willingly* agree to be > > compelled to cooperate. Collectivist anarchism might allow for such > > cooperation while free market anarchism would not. If the advanced > > aliens are all libertarians this may explain the Fermi Paradox. > > Interestingly, the major commercial players in markets sometimes > behave in the "superrational" manner, working towards and welcome > regulation - ie: externally imposed restrictions. The great example of I think that would just be rational, not Hofstadter's superrationality. The latter is when you agree to the thing not in your immediate self-interest, with no actual enforcement of that, in the expectation that the other person will follow your thinking and do likewise. It sounds nice but I've never really bought it. Agreeing to regulation is agreeing to enforcement of a global standard, bringing things into rationality. (And the agreement itself can be rational, if the agree-er is avoiding harsher regulation, or has non-market values the regulation will protect.) Maybe second-order rational, like committing to be irrational for game theoretic reasons, but it still makes direct sense without weird symmetry operations, which I suspect would only work well when the two parties share a history, e.g. I can trust the other to be superrational because we have common knowledge of having altered ourselves to be superrational, and can thus trust each other even without future interaction. Or, more biologically, because we're clones. -xx- Damien X-) From mark at cosmicpenguin.com Tue May 6 11:02:51 2008 From: mark at cosmicpenguin.com (Mark S Bilk) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 04:02:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gina "Nanogirl" update: yes it is Multiple Sclerosis In-Reply-To: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> References: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> Message-ID: <20080506110251.GA26731@Isis> A friend of mine with MS was greatly helped by taking Evening Primrose oil (gel capsules from a healthfood store). So were many others in the articles I read decades ago. The only side-effect known at the time was diarrhea with very large doses. Now I see cautions about seizures when used with antipsychotic drugs or if a person has a seizure disorder: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-primrose.html#Safety If that doesn't apply to you then it's certainly worthwhile to try it. My friend had complete remission as long as she kept taking it. I don't remember the dosage; you can start small and ramp up; also research it on the Web. Good Luck! On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 01:02:40AM -0700, Gina Miller wrote: >So I have had some more tests and the results also confirm that I do indeed have Multiple Sclerosis. I'll be starting treatments soon. I wrote an thorough update at the blog here: >http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ > >And thank you Extropes for all of your continued support. > >Gina "Nanogirl" Miller From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 7 03:44:37 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 20:44:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superrationality References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> Message-ID: <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien S. writes >> Interestingly, the major commercial players in markets sometimes >> behave in the "superrational" manner, working towards and welcome >> regulation - ie: externally imposed restrictions. The great example of > > I think that would just be rational, not Hofstadter's superrationality. Yes. > The latter is when you agree to the thing not in your immediate > self-interest, with no actual enforcement of that, in the expectation > that the other person will follow your thinking and do likewise. It > sounds nice but I've never really bought it. I bought it hook, line, and sinker---having had many exactly similar thoughts myself---back in 1983, when H published an SA article on it. It took me at least three years to fully understand and appreciate the flaw. The flaw in Hofstadter's superrationality is very simple to state. Unless the other player's behavior is highly correlated with yours ---for reasons that must be explained and must make sense--- then to Cooperate is to defy the very definition of the two-player game. > Maybe second-order rational, like committing to be irrational for game > theoretic reasons, but it still makes direct sense without weird > symmetry operations, which I suspect would only work well when the two > parties share a history, e.g. I can trust the other to be superrational > because we have common knowledge of having altered ourselves to be > superrational, and can thus trust each other even without future > interaction. Or, more biologically, because we're clones. Precisely. I would, for example, cooperate only with a "close duplicate", since physically speaking what I do is what my close duplicate does to a high degree of fidelity. One should write Hofstadter and ask him a very simple question: "Were you able to travel by time machine back to 1983, would you play C or D against the DH of 1983?" Unless he violates the very meaning of the game, DH of 2008 *must* play D, because he knows for certain what DH of 2003 will play. (In fact, *any* time that a player knows with high probability what his opponent will play, he must play D.) On the other extreme, the logician Raymond Smullyan is reputed to have said (in "The Mind's I", I believe) that he would not cooperate even with his mirror image! :-) But I have stated the necessary and sufficient conditions above for superrationality to obtain, and so lacking "close physical duplicates", superrationality at the present time in human history is impossible. Lee From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed May 7 03:54:22 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 13:24:22 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0805062054t13e85728hd4b74bdd5af50135@mail.gmail.com> 2008/5/7 Damien Sullivan : > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:11:02PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > > 2008/5/3 Stathis Papaioannou : > > > > Knowing all this, I and everyone else would *willingly* agree to be > > > compelled to cooperate. Collectivist anarchism might allow for such > > > cooperation while free market anarchism would not. If the advanced > > > aliens are all libertarians this may explain the Fermi Paradox. > > > > Interestingly, the major commercial players in markets sometimes > > behave in the "superrational" manner, working towards and welcome > > regulation - ie: externally imposed restrictions. The great example of > > I think that would just be rational, not Hofstadter's superrationality. > The latter is when you agree to the thing not in your immediate > self-interest, with no actual enforcement of that, in the expectation > that the other person will follow your thinking and do likewise. It > sounds nice but I've never really bought it. Thanks for that, I was just parrotting the word superrational without knowing its actual meaning. In fact, I meant something in quite strong contrast to superrational; it's the fact that there is no superrationality that drives this line of thinking. And of course, non-enforced standards can achieve the same thing in some situations, without regulation, simply because of the positive network effects that can flow from a shared standard, best I guess in situations where gradual adoption gradually increases the usefulness of the standard, and where defection doesn't give a significant benefit. > Agreeing to regulation is > agreeing to enforcement of a global standard, bringing things into > rationality. (And the agreement itself can be rational, if the agree-er > is avoiding harsher regulation, or has non-market values the regulation > will protect.) Or if the agree-er simply sees that the total value of the market will be vastly improved by regulation, predicting that will benefit them far more than any losses from the direct imposition on them of the regulation. > > Maybe second-order rational, like committing to be irrational for game > theoretic reasons, but it still makes direct sense without weird > symmetry operations, which I suspect would only work well when the two > parties share a history, e.g. I can trust the other to be superrational > because we have common knowledge of having altered ourselves to be > superrational, and can thus trust each other even without future > interaction. Or, more biologically, because we're clones. > > -xx- Damien X-) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From kanzure at gmail.com Wed May 7 03:55:18 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Fwd: [Comp-neuro] neuroinformatics congress: abstract submission deadline extended In-Reply-To: <48202345.4090107@incf.org> References: <48202345.4090107@incf.org> Message-ID: <55ad6af70805062055h581a5f02pc1e96ffbf96c300a@mail.gmail.com> The key note speakers are good reasons to attend. Take a look: Idan Segev Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel Title: Where detailed brain models lead us? Bio sketch: Idan Segev's research team utilizes computational tools ranging from cable theory to compartmental modeling to statistical methods and information theory to study how neurons, the elementary microchips of the brain, compute and dynamically adapt to our ever-changing environment. More recently, he has worked jointly with several experimental groups worldwide in an endeavor to model in detail the cortical column ? a functional unit containing thousands of intensely but very specifically connected networks of neurons. This project also aims at developing automated methods for generating models of the different electrical and morphological classes of neurons found in the column. The ultimate goal is to unravel how local fine variations within the cortical network underlie specific computations (e.g., the orientation of a bar in the visual system) and may give rise to certain brain diseases or to a healthy (and "individual") brain. Idan Segev is the David & Inez Myers Professor in Computational Neuroscience and former director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Neural Computation (ICNC) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Henry Markram Brain Mind Institute, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland Title: The Blue Brain Project Bio sketch: Dr.Markram discovered a groundbreaking watershed synaptic learning principle that underpins learning and memory processes. He is the Project Director of the Blue Brain Project, Director of the Center for Neuroscience & Technology and co-Director of EPFL's Brain Mind Institute (BMI). At the BMI, in the Laboratory for Neural Microcircuitry, Markram has continued his work to unravel the blueprint of the neocortical column, building state-of-the-art tools to carry out multi-neuron patch clamp recordings combined with laser and electrical stimulation as well as multi-site electrical recording, chemical imaging and gene expression. The neocortical microcircuit exhibits computational power that is impossible to match with any known technology. Deriving the blueprint and its operational principles could therefore spur a new generation of neuromorphic devices with immense computational power. The ultimate aim of the ambitious Blue Brain Project is to simulate the brains of mammals with a high level of biological accuracy and study the steps involved in the emergence of biological intelligence. Mary B. Kennedy California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA Title: Synaptic Nanomachines Bio sketch: Dr.Kennedy's work focuses on synaptic plasticity and involves study of the functions of the signaling machinery in the postsynaptic density as well as the development of computer simulations of synaptic signaling to aid our understanding of how the large number of signaling molecules present at the synapse may work together. She is the Allen and Lenabelle Davis Professor of Biology at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and has been on the faculty since 1981. She was awarded the Ipsen Foundation Prize in Neuronal Plasticity, together with Drs. Eckhart Gundelfinger and Morgan Sheng, in 2006. Mary Kennedy is the founding director of the Center for Integrative Study of Cell Regulation, at Caltech. The center scientists' work include development of algorithms for identifying, locating, and determining the shape and orientation of key proteins in high-resolution cryo-electron microscopic images of cells, and creation of computer programs to simulate complex biochemical signaling pathways in neuronal synapses. Dr. Kennedy is leading a program focusing on the modeling of biochemical mechanisms in brain synapses to better understand the chemistry of learning and memory. Mitsuo Kawato ATR Computational Neuroscience Labs, Japan Title: Towards Manipulative Neuorscience based on Brain-Network-Interface Bio sketch: Prof. Kawato received the B.S. degree in physics from Tokyo University in 1976 and the M.E. and Ph. D. degrees in biophysical engineering from Osaka University in 1978 and 1981, respectively. From 1981 to 1988, he was a faculty member and lecturer at Osaka University. Professor Kawato has served as a director of ATR computational Neuroscience Laboratories and a research supervisor of JST, ICORP Computational Brain Project. He is now concurrently working as a visiting professor at Kanazawa Institute of Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Osaka University, the National Institute for Physiological Sciences and Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine. He has been appointed Toyama Prefectural University as a Specially Appointed Visiting Professor. He was awarded the Yonezawa founder's medal memorial special award of The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, in 1991, the outstanding research award of the International Neural Network Society in 1992, the Osaka Science Prize in 1993, the 10th Tsukahara Naka-akira Memorial Award in 1996, the Tokizane Toshihiko Memorial Award in 2001, IEICE fellow in 2004, the Chunichi Cultural Award and the Shida Rinzaburo Award in 2005, the Asahi Prize in 2007. He is a governing board member of the Japanese Society of Neuroscience and a Member of American Physiologica Society. He is currently serving as an Editor of HFSP Journal. For the last 15 years he has been working in computational neuroscience and neural network modeling. He published about 200 papers, reviews and books. Research topics include simulation study of dendritic spines, feedback-error-learning model and its applications to industrial robot manipulators, movement trajectory formation, bi-directional theory for interactions between cortical areas, cerebellar internal models, and teaching by demonstration for robots. Professor Kawato's work focuses on constructing a brain in order to understand the brain, through building a brain to the extent that we can build a brain. More concretely, he has been investigating the information processing of the brain with the long-term goal that machines, either computer programs or robots, could solve the same computational problems as those that the human brain solves, while using essentially the same principles. With these general approaches, he has greatly contributed in elucidating visual information processing, optimal control principles for arm trajectory planning, internal models in the cerebellum, teaching by demonstration for robots, human interfaces based on electoromyogram, and applications in rehabilitation medicine. Recently, he proposes a new experimental paradigm; manipulative neuroscience. David Van Essen Washington University, St. Louis, USA Title: A neuroinformatics perspective on cerebral cortical structure and function Bio sketch: David Van Essen is known for his research on the structure, function, and development of the cerebral cortex in general and the visual cortex in particular. His physiological and anatomical studies of macaque visual cortex provide many insights regarding functional specialization and hierarchical organization. His studies of human cerebral cortex provide insights regarding normal variability, abnormalities in specific diseases, and patterns of cortical development. He has been a pioneer in the emerging field of neuroinformatics through the development of a suite of brain-mapping software, surface-based atlases of primates and rodents, and the SumsDB database for online access and visualization of a growing body of neuroimaging data. He is currently Edison Professor and Head of the Anatomy & Neurobiology Department at Washington University in St. Louis. He has served as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neuroscience, founding chair of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, and President of the Society for Neuroscience. He is a fellow of the AAAS and has received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the St. Louis Academy of Science. Mark H. Ellisman University of San Diego, USA Title: Brain Research in the Digital Age Bio sketch: Dr. Mark Ellisman is Professor of Neurosciences and Bioengineering at the University of California San Diego. In 1988, Ellisman established the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research (NCMIR) to achieve greater understanding of the structure and function of the nervous system by developing three-dimensional light and electron microscopy methods spanning dimensions from 5nm^3 to 50?m^3 . Ellisman, also a founding fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, has received numerous awards including the Jacob Javits Neuroscience Investigatory Award from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Creativity Award from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Since 1996, he has been serving as the founding director of the UCSD Center for Research in Biological Systems (CRBS) and has received several teaching awards, including the Department of Neurosciences Award for Outstanding Teaching in 1987 and 1992, and was named the University Lecturer in Biomedicine in 2001. He is also the interdisciplinary coordinator for the National Partnership for Advanced Computing Infrastructure (NPACI) and led NPACI's Neuroscience thrust, which involves integration of brain research and advanced computing and communications technologies. In 2001, Ellisman founded the Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN), a NIH initiative that provides a multiscale imaging infrastructure linking major neuroimaging centers around the country. The BIRN builds infrastructure and technologies to enable large-scale biomedical data mining and refinement. The following year, he was appointed to the National Advisory Council of the NIH National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) and to the Physics Division Review Committee of the Department of Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Ellisman is recognized nationally and internationally for helping to pioneer the development of new technologies that enhance neurobiological and clinical research. His laboratory is actively pursuing several research tracks that are yielding seminal contributions to neuroscience. Alan Evans McGill University, Montreal, Canada Title: The NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development Bio sketch: Dr. Evans is currently the director of the Montreal Consortium for Brain Imaging Research (MCBIR), a $35M multi-center initiative to network the BIC with 6 other institutions engaged in research in psychiatry, neurology, development and aging, cognitive neuroscience, brain development and drug addiction and large-scale brain data processing. MCBIR provides the BIC with state-of-the-art equipment for human (MRI/PET/MEG) and animal (MRI/PET) studies as well as extensive computational resources. Dr. Evans heads the data coordinating center for a large NIH-funded multi-center MRI study of normal pediatric development. This project provides a web-accessible reference database of normal maturation, both neuroanatomical and behavioral, for studies of normal and abnormal brain development. The methodologies developed for that project, most notably (i) the web-based imaging/behavioral database, (ii) the automated MRI segmentation pipeline, and (iii) the brain-behavior correlation analysis for voxel-based (volumetric) or vertex-based (surface) data, are being used in a series of international collaborations on abnormal pediatric development and Alzheimer's disease. Thomas Mrsic-Fl?gel University College London, UK Title: Imaging functional organization and plasticity of neuronal populations in intact visual cortex with single-cell resolution Bio sketch: The vast majority of our knowledge about how the brain encodes information has been obtained from recordings of one or few neurons at a time or from global mapping methods such as fMRI. These approaches have left unexplored how neuronal activity is distributed in space and time within a cortical column and how hundreds of neurons interact to process sensory information. By taking advantage of the most recent advances in two-photon microscopy, the research in my lab addresses the function, development and plasticity of primary visual cortex: 1) to understand how cortical neuronal networks encode visual information, and 2) to understand how they become specialised for sensory processing during postnatal development. Specifically, we use in vivo two-photon calcium imaging to record activity simultaneously from hundreds of neurons in visual cortex while showing different visual stimuli. This approach enables us to characterise in detail how individual neurons and neuronal subsets interact within a large cortical network in response to visual stimuli. We investigate the maturation of cortical network function after the onset of vision and assess the role of visual experience in this process. I'll be doing a zip on their papers soon, thanks to: http://heybryan.org/projects/autoscholar/ - Bryan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: INCF - Elli Chatzopoulou Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:22 AM Subject: [Comp-neuro] neuroinformatics congress: abstract submission deadline extended To: comp-neuro at neuroinf.org **** Abstract submission deadline extended until Friday, May 9th, 23h59 PDT **** *NEW*: All congress abstracts will be published by Frontiers in Neuroscience in a special issue and be attributed a DOI. Opportunities for students: Attendees of the INCF Autumn School from the EU are eligible to apply for funding to cover expenses for both the Neuroinformatics2008 congress and the INCF Autumn School. The awards are intended to cover low-price airfare, low-fare hostel accommodation for the full duration of the congress and the course (i.e. 5 nights), and the congress registration fee (early registration). We especially encourage students from new EU countries to apply. Course applicants who wish to apply for this funding should indicate this and provide an estimate of the traveling costs in their CV or Autumn School application. Online registration and abstract submission at www.neuroinformatics2008.org Neuroinformatics 2008 program: Keynote Speakers: * Mark Ellisman * Mitsuo Kawato * Mary Kennedy * Henry Markram * Idan Segev * David Van Essen Workshops: * Future hardware challenges to scientific computing Erik de Schutter (chair), Gabriel Wittum, Marc-Oliver Gewaltig, John Shalf * Neurogenomics meets bioinformatics meets neuroinformatics in database research Robert Williams (chair), Ed Lein, Seth Grant, Kristen Harris * Extraction of structural and functional information from brain images Ulla Ruotsalainen (chair), Katrin Amunts, Alan Evans, Thomas Mrsic-Fl?gel * Challenges and benefits of multichannel electrophysiology Andrzej Wrobel (chair), Gy?rgy Buzsaki, Miguel Nicolelis, Xiaoqin Wang Special session: Perspectives in funding research in neuroinformatics Kathie Olsen, Wolfgang Boch The INCF Automn School on Methods in Neuroinformatics will be held in conjunction with the Congress, September 10 - 11. -- Elli Chatzopoulou, Ph.D. Scientific Information and Public Relations Officer International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility Secretariat Karolinska Institutet Nobels v?g 15A SE-171 77 Stockholm Sweden Email: elli.chatzopoulou at incf.org Phone: +46 8 524 87491 Mobile: +46 7 614 87491 Fax: +46 8 524 87150 web: www.incf.org _______________________________________________ Comp-neuro mailing list Comp-neuro at neuroinf.org http://www.neuroinf.org/mailman/listinfo/comp-neuro From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 7 04:19:12 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:19:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Breach of perhaps the most basic and common contract - namely, if I > buy something from you but don't pay - does normally authorise the use > of force against me ### This is incorrect. Use of force is either explicitly authorized in the contract, or else it is implied by the general legal framework under which the contract is signed. Frequently a contract will have provisions for non-violent sanctions in case of breach, such as forfeiture of a surety. In other situations there are provisions for arbitration, which may or may not involve agreeing to the use of force. ----------------- . An alternative way of dealing with this in a free > market with where everyone has access to the information is that if I > keep cheating, people will see me as untrustworthy and won't trade > with me. ### Yes, this is another, non-contractual and non-violent form of contract enforcement. ------------------- > A tax in a democracy is a kind of conditional contract just like this. ### No, most definitely it is not. One of the essential features of a valid contract is that it is being entered voluntarily, that is, neither of the parties, their agents, principals, nor allies, is threatening violence to induce another peaceful party to sign the contract. Clearly, the agents of the state are threatening deadly violence to anybody who fails to meet their peremptory demands, and therefore neither the state nor its victims can enter into a contract. The threat of violence is sufficient to invalidate or pre-empt a contract. ----------------- > I won't voluntarily pay (i.e. as charity) the amount I pay in tax even > for projects I consider worthwhile, but I will agree to pay on > condition that everyone else also agrees to pay. ### You are in fact not capable of giving consent to pay taxes, simply because you have no choice. Are you following it? No matter what is your opinion, what kind of "conditions" you are imagining, you *have* to pay the tax. I know it may seem strange at first... but all you need to realize is that to be able to legitimately say "yes", you must be able to say "no". Without the right to refuse, there can be no legitimate contract. --------------------- This is why people in > general hate paying tax, but keep voting in a government that will > force them to pay tax. ### Why people keep voting is a whole another issue, none of it however can legitimize a tax as a form of contractual payment. --------------------- > > Yes, that might work, but it would have to be included in the original > contract since there would be a temptation to defect by selling to the > defectors, who would be very keen for trading partners. ### Exactly! You have just described the heretofore missing ingredient in our non-violent solution to global warming: provisions for maintenance of secondary public goods, that is features of the social order that are only important as means to achieve or protect primary public goods. Here, the primary goods are parts of the Save-Our-Happy-Planet conditional contract directly necessary to prevent a collective heatstroke, while the secondary goods are provisions meant to protect the primary good from being destroyed - such as an injunction against trading with defectors. Note that once you voluntarily sign the contract, you *may* be legitimately subjected to violent reprisals for breaching it. If paragraph #22 says "Whoever trades freely with a defector or refusnik, will have his right hand taken off", well, then the other parties to the contract, and their agents, may cut off your hand for selling beef at normal price to me. This is why you should always read the small print in a contract. ---------------------- But this isn't > any different to swapping fines and criminal prosecution for boycott, > ostracism or exile of businesses and individuals who refuse to pay > their tax. ### Yeah, isn't this great? No thugs chasing you, just people turning away from you, one by one. This makes unjust punishment so much less likely. ------------------- > That's all very well, but it doesn't address the urgency of the > situation. I don't want to punish the people responsible after the > train has crashed, I want to prevent the train crashing in the first > place. > ### Sure. As long as you manage to convince enough people that the train could crash, you will be able to build a contract to prevent it. To summarize, you were able to come up with all the significant parts of a workable, non-violent solution to a major tragedy of the commons, which so many short-sighted people see as unsolvable without large-scale organized violence. It took a bit of coaxing, but you did it, which means you could become an excellent libertarian theorist.... if you only wanted to. You do seem to have some habits of thought and emotion, such as seeing your oppressors as one of "us" rather than "them", but that is nothing you couldn't overcome. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 7 04:32:41 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:32:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <240881.45651.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> <240881.45651.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805062132s54af39n48ef8288b487112c@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:52 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### I can assure you that destroying our economy, including > > agriculture, would spill many millions of gallons of blood, as the > > population is reduced by about 70 - 80% in the ensuing food riots and > > mass famine. > > > > Do you really hate "companies" so much that you can think about > > something like that as a neat solution? > > It's not about companies or hate, Rafal, in your own words, it is about > "avoiding a miserable death on a parched planet". It's about cold rationality, > inevitability, making difficult choices, and holding the current generation > accountable for its own mistakes instead of dooming our children to untold > suffering for the sake of our own short term luxury. ### Nah, I posed the "libertarian yoke" challenge to stimulate thoughts on non-violent methods of solving social problems. Stathis did great - he reproduced a huge chunk of libertarian economical theory and formulated a non-violent solution. I am sorry to say, but your proposal fails the challenge by definition, with extra demerits for rhetoric about "cold rationality" and saving our children. ------------------- > > So what happened to your "heartless libertarianism"? Sorry if you can't stomach > your own philosophy of "live and let die" extended to it's ultimate conclusion. > Disallowing for superrationality or socialism, I don't see a lot else left. In > your scenario, a purely hypothetical solution would be the overthrow of the > aliens and the commandeering of their superior technology to save the planet > but that's not much use in brainstorming the real world problem. ### Read Stathis' posts. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 7 04:53:14 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:53:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <881620.28385.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <05bb01c8ad67$a57b7f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <881620.28385.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805062153qcca0ac1l9a82c91b967bb558@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 3:43 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > So long as the government is controlled by oil cartels, libertarians and > socialists have a common foe. And woe to him who doesn't understand the > evolutionary calculus of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I have warned > you, nothing more. Don't shoot the messenger. ### No worry, libertarians don't shoot innocent people. But we do ridicule ridiculous ideas, like the notion that oil cartels exist, or the completely magnolious idea that they control the US government. Here is some data: 1) A table summarizing the profit margins by industry, in the US http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SB21VNa4GUI/AAAAAAAAEZ0/ShZfqz2UE0U/s1600-h/pm.bmp 2) An illustration of the relative amounts of Exxon's taxes and profits http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/05/exxon-paid-almost-3-in-taxes-for-every.html Obviously, if you control the government you don't have the lowest profit margins of all major branches of industry and you don't pay three times more in taxes than you get in profits. But, I am not sure you would be convinced. You already understand the calculus, don't you? Rafal From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 7 05:22:28 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 22:22:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080507052228.GA25469@ofb.net> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:19:12AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > A tax in a democracy is a kind of conditional contract just like this. > > ### No, most definitely it is not. One of the essential features of a > valid contract is that it is being entered voluntarily, that is, > neither of the parties, their agents, principals, nor allies, is > threatening violence to induce another peaceful party to sign the > contract. Clearly, the agents of the state are threatening deadly OTOH, apparently it *is* valid to threaten violence to anyone who doesn't accept the existing distribution of property rights. > violence to anybody who fails to meet their peremptory demands, and > therefore neither the state nor its victims can enter into a contract. > The threat of violence is sufficient to invalidate or pre-empt a > contract. The US Constitution was accepted by votes of the legislatures of all 13 initial states, and by the request of the legislature or convention of each subsequent state. A very literal social contract. Of course, there were flaws in the process: non-unanimity (but that needn't matter if you contract to form a state government which can make majority vote decisions), lack of votes to women and blacks. The fact that none of us were born back then seems less significant, since we're supposed to respect property distributions from before our birth -- despite their ultimate origins being equally flawed. > ### You are in fact not capable of giving consent to pay taxes, simply > because you have no choice. Are you following it? No matter what is > your opinion, what kind of "conditions" you are imagining, you *have* > to pay the tax. And if you inherit property in a condo, you have to abide by the condo association fees and regulations. If you don't like it, you can sell out. Why not regard yourself as having inherited a share in the US association? > ### Why people keep voting is a whole another issue, none of it > however can legitimize a tax as a form of contractual payment. If a group of people unanimously agreed to a constitution which included provisions that fees could be levied on all members by a majority vote, that'd be a contractual 'tax'. If they unanimously agreed to a constitution which didn't have that provision, but allowed for supermajority vote adoption of new provisions, then the fee provision could be adopted, and then the fee itself. So you can certainly set up something similar to a modern democratic government, contractually, in principle. You can get closer, too, if all land or water within an area is agreed to be owned by the association. Then what happens to a child born within the association? > > That's all very well, but it doesn't address the urgency of the > > situation. I don't want to punish the people responsible after the > > train has crashed, I want to prevent the train crashing in the first > > place. > > > ### Sure. As long as you manage to convince enough people that the > train could crash, you will be able to build a contract to prevent it. > > To summarize, you were able to come up with all the significant parts > of a workable, non-violent solution to a major tragedy of the commons, Theoretically workable. Practicalities of getting 6 billion people to agree, even under economic duress from boycott by the initial contractors, are another matter. ::: I saw an interesting argument recently that minarchy is the least adaptive societal form. We ultimately solve problems with violence -- if we can't deal with someone who's causing a problem, we try to beat them up. In anarchy, plenary rights to violence rest with all individuals. If someone starts dumping pollution into "our" air, we can go beat him up, he can defend himself or give in, may the best mob win. In a normal state, we give up that right (or have it taken from us) to the state, which holds all plenary rights to force. Instead of beating him up, we appeal to the state to defend our rights. Risks: the state may not. The state may even be used against us. OTOH, things may work out -- the state may defend our rights against people much more powerful than us, at no risk to our own lives. Which outcome happens depends on the state, and the people. In minarchy, we give up our rights to violence, but the state can act only in a predetermined sphere. Being minimal, it has no rights outside its initial list. Expanding that list is probably very problematic if possible at all, since it involves new bans on behavior, or redistributing property rights, which is exactly what minarchy doesn't want. But this leaves it helpless when conditions change, when conflicts of property no one thought to define rights about come into play. Who owned the ozone layer, to defend it against CFCs? Who in the 18th century imagined one would need rights against acid rain? Or against Denmark, say, deciding to melt off the Greenland ice cap to develop its property, incidentally threatning oceanside property worldwide? I have a right to my beach, Denmark has a right to develop Greenland, none of our ancestors imagined our rights would conflict via sea level rise. In anarchy I go to war with Denmark; in the World State I sue it in a common law court, or appeal to the legislature to define a new right for me. In minarchy... Transfers don't help, because the prior rights aren't defined. Should I pay Denmark to forego development? Should Denmark pay me to relocate, or to build seawalls? Or, 18th century minarchy land rights meets the plane. Do I have a right to prevent flights over my property? Does the height matter? Constitution doesn't say. Would flight useful over any large distance be possible if the default was rights stretching from the center of the earth out to infinity, through my plot of land? What if those rights are defined before the concept of aquifers, and the realization that our separate wells are in fact draining a common source? Never mind the current global warming debate. Say Canada or Russia decide to use space mirrors to raise the temperatures of their countries, benefiting themselves but wreaking havoc with weather patterns elsewhere. Do they have a right to that, or do I have a right to pre-existing weather patterns? Is violence to force them to submit to a global weather commission, or self-(property)-defence? -xx- Damien X-) From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed May 7 05:24:59 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 14:54:59 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0805062224i7dcb246fi8cbcd0fe1ad99c69@mail.gmail.com> 2008/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, > > > assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore > > > libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who > > > initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing > > > with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless > > > libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death > > > on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without > > > simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. > > This problem would solve itself. Microseconds after their declaration was announced, the aliens would notice initiation of force all over the globe as part of normal affairs. Cue the lasers. Assuming the lasers don't add to global warming themselves, civilisation would fall, billions would die, and the remnant of humanity would no longer have a significant impact on planetary systems. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 7 05:28:09 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 01:28:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805042133l2e8457f3p54b26e9a89a7ff00@mail.gmail.com> References: <799747.44367.qm@web46107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2d6187670805042133l2e8457f3p54b26e9a89a7ff00@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805062228w662cc2bby8f6122f796599305@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:33 AM, John Grigg wrote: > There is a real disconnect in the Libertarian thinking of you and Lee. > But honest self-appraisal (as in "looking into your own soul") has > been replaced with intellectual slight of hand and side stepping. ### Bill accused me of being intelligent and now you are accusing me of intellectual sleight of hand and substituting technical expertise in rhetoric for honesty. So far you have been a worthy participant in a discussion, where we exchanged some opinions - but it looks like all the pertinent ideas have been presented, so let's finish here, before we get into a repetitive and unnecessarily dissonant mode of discourse. Let me just add that this particular issue is one where I did a lot of honest self-appraisal and as a result I changed my mind very significantly. There was a time when I read a comment about Waco by a reader published in the National Geographic, something like "They took themselves out the gene pool", and I thought "Wow, this dude hit the nail on the head!" Needless to say, I am now deeply ashamed about these thoughts. I am really ashamed and sorry. So, please, don't say I didn't look into my soul ... even though, strictly speaking, I have none. Rafal From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 7 05:36:22 2008 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 22:36:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <402e01e70805062236x31670175h6a180a8a191aefb5@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Precisely. I would, for example, cooperate only with a "close duplicate", > since physically speaking what I do is what my close duplicate does to a > high degree of fidelity. > > But I have stated the necessary and sufficient conditions above for > superrationality to obtain, and so lacking "close physical duplicates", > superrationality at the present time in human history is impossible. Your condition is sufficient but not necessary. It suffices for the players to know each other's algorithms. -- Eliezer Yudkowsky Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 7 05:37:07 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 01:37:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0805062224i7dcb246fi8cbcd0fe1ad99c69@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805062224i7dcb246fi8cbcd0fe1ad99c69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805062237m28d4ccaei3472dbb91c545177@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Emlyn wrote: > 2008/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM, The Avantguardian > > wrote: > > > > > > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, > > > > assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore > > > > libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who > > > > initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing > > > > with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless > > > > libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death > > > > on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without > > > > simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. > > > > > This problem would solve itself. Microseconds after their declaration > was announced, the aliens would notice initiation of force all over > the globe as part of normal affairs. Cue the lasers. Assuming the > lasers don't add to global warming themselves, civilisation would > fall, billions would die, and the remnant of humanity would no longer > have a significant impact on planetary systems. ### No, no, they are real libertarians, not straw ones :) Of course they would observe all the niceties of prior warning, proper techniques for the escalation of force to minimize harm, etc. With great power comes a great responsibility, the responsibility to give a choice. Rafal From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed May 7 05:42:55 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:12:55 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0805062242k1d7c516jfaa18a9808b70dbf@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805062224i7dcb246fi8cbcd0fe1ad99c69@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062237m28d4ccaei3472dbb91c545177@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805062242k1d7c516jfaa18a9808b70dbf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0805062242o2d14d1c4g31a2a9d38ab7521a@mail.gmail.com> 2008/5/7 Rafal Smigrodzki : > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Emlyn wrote: > > 2008/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM, The Avantguardian > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > > Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, > > > > > assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore > > > > > libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who > > > > > initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing > > > > > with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless > > > > > libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death > > > > > on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without > > > > > simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. > > > > > > > > This problem would solve itself. Microseconds after their declaration > > was announced, the aliens would notice initiation of force all over > > the globe as part of normal affairs. Cue the lasers. Assuming the > > lasers don't add to global warming themselves, civilisation would > > fall, billions would die, and the remnant of humanity would no longer > > have a significant impact on planetary systems. > > ### No, no, they are real libertarians, not straw ones :) Of course > they would observe all the niceties of prior warning, proper > techniques for the escalation of force to minimize harm, etc. With > great power comes a great responsibility, the responsibility to give a > choice. > > Rafal > I don't know, I don't like 'em. Can I choose an alternate security provider? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 7 05:49:42 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 01:49:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0805062242k1d7c516jfaa18a9808b70dbf@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805062224i7dcb246fi8cbcd0fe1ad99c69@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062237m28d4ccaei3472dbb91c545177@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805062242k1d7c516jfaa18a9808b70dbf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805062249s3120c4fdo5f61d41133119941@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Emlyn wrote: > 2008/5/7 Rafal Smigrodzki : > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Emlyn wrote: > > > 2008/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM, The Avantguardian > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > > > Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming, > > > > > > assuming that we have been invaded by highly advanced (and therefore > > > > > > libertarian) aliens, who say they will fry with lasers everybody who > > > > > > initiates the use of force but they won't help us otherwise in dealing > > > > > > with our problems (of course they won't, they are heartless > > > > > > libertarians). So, willy-nilly, if you want to avoid a miserable death > > > > > > on a parched planet, you have to deal with global warming without > > > > > > simply grabbing a gun and going after people who disagree with you. > > > > > > > > > > > This problem would solve itself. Microseconds after their declaration > > > was announced, the aliens would notice initiation of force all over > > > the globe as part of normal affairs. Cue the lasers. Assuming the > > > lasers don't add to global warming themselves, civilisation would > > > fall, billions would die, and the remnant of humanity would no longer > > > have a significant impact on planetary systems. > > > > ### No, no, they are real libertarians, not straw ones :) Of course > > they would observe all the niceties of prior warning, proper > > techniques for the escalation of force to minimize harm, etc. With > > great power comes a great responsibility, the responsibility to give a > > choice. > > > > Rafal > > > > I don't know, I don't like 'em. Can I choose an alternate security provider? > > ### No way! The thread's title is "Under the libertarian yoke", not "Living large in Libertopia". Rafal From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 7 06:40:22 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 23:40:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 6, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: >> >> Breach of perhaps the most basic and common contract - namely, if I >> buy something from you but don't pay - does normally authorise the >> use >> of force against me > > ### This is incorrect. Use of force is either explicitly authorized in > the contract, or else it is implied by the general legal framework > under which the contract is signed. Frequently a contract will have > provisions for non-violent sanctions in case of breach, such as > forfeiture of a surety. In other situations there are provisions for > arbitration, which may or may not involve agreeing to the use of > force. > Violence per se is not verboten to libertarians. The *initiation* of force without cause is verboten. Violence in self defense for instance is perfectly acceptable. Non-initiation of force is not the same thing as non-violence. Not all initiation of force entails physical force. > ----------------- > > . An alternative way of dealing with this in a free >> market with where everyone has access to the information is that if I >> keep cheating, people will see me as untrustworthy and won't trade >> with me. > > ### Yes, this is another, non-contractual and non-violent form of > contract enforcement. > > ------------------- > >> A tax in a democracy is a kind of conditional contract just like >> this. > > ### No, most definitely it is not. One of the essential features of a > valid contract is that it is being entered voluntarily, that is, > neither of the parties, their agents, principals, nor allies, is > threatening violence to induce another peaceful party to sign the > contract. Clearly, the agents of the state are threatening deadly > violence to anybody who fails to meet their peremptory demands, and > therefore neither the state nor its victims can enter into a contract. > The threat of violence is sufficient to invalidate or pre-empt a > contract. > The use of force if I disagree with this arrangement invalidates taxation as any sort of legitimate contract. The weasel tax code more or less claims that you "agree" if you file a W4 swearing you are a taxpayer subject to withholding or agree in your 1040 that you owed the taxes withheld! It is illegal to not file a 1040 (although tens of millions do not) and you can't find many employers that will hire you if you don't file a W4. The 1040 is used as an information return of you voluntarily assessing how much you owe the government of "all that comes in" which may or may not be what "income" really means within the intricacies of the tax code. Pretty sick if you ask me. > ----------------- >> I won't voluntarily pay (i.e. as charity) the amount I pay in tax >> even >> for projects I consider worthwhile, but I will agree to pay on >> condition that everyone else also agrees to pay. > > ### You are in fact not capable of giving consent to pay taxes, simply > because you have no choice. Are you following it? No matter what is > your opinion, what kind of "conditions" you are imagining, you *have* > to pay the tax. That is not at all clear if you start delving into the actual tax code. However the IRS is not exactly known for playing fair or hearing out arguments against paying. To this day the IRS claims the tax is "voluntary". Curious, no? > > I know it may seem strange at first... but all you need to realize is > that to be able to legitimately say "yes", you must be able to say > "no". Without the right to refuse, there can be no legitimate > contract. > Another reason the tax is an invalid contract is that the majority of people are tricked into assuming it is legitimate. Taxation in the US at least involves a large measure of fraud. > --------------------- > > This is why people in >> general hate paying tax, but keep voting in a government that will >> force them to pay tax. > > ### Why people keep voting is a whole another issue, none of it > however can legitimize a tax as a form of contractual payment. > Yep. > --------------------- >> >> Yes, that might work, but it would have to be included in the >> original >> contract since there would be a temptation to defect by selling to >> the >> defectors, who would be very keen for trading partners. > > ### Exactly! You have just described the heretofore missing ingredient > in our non-violent solution to global warming: provisions for > maintenance of secondary public goods, that is features of the social > order that are only important as means to achieve or protect primary > public goods. Here, the primary goods are parts of the > Save-Our-Happy-Planet conditional contract directly necessary to > prevent a collective heatstroke, while the secondary goods are > provisions meant to protect the primary good from being destroyed - > such as an injunction against trading with defectors. Note that once > you voluntarily sign the contract, you *may* be legitimately subjected > to violent reprisals for breaching it. I would not sign a contract subjecting me to violent reprisals if I come to disagree with the "save the happy planet" line and trade with others who disagree. > If paragraph #22 says "Whoever > trades freely with a defector or refusnik, will have his right hand > taken off", well, then the other parties to the contract, and their > agents, may cut off your hand for selling beef at normal price to me. > Sorry no, no more than you can create a legitimate contract enslaving yourself or others. > ---------------------- > > But this isn't >> any different to swapping fines and criminal prosecution for boycott, >> ostracism or exile of businesses and individuals who refuse to pay >> their tax. > > ### Yeah, isn't this great? No thugs chasing you, just people turning > away from you, one by one. This makes unjust punishment so much less > likely. > Also it makes uniformity of bad opinions as encoded in law and regulation much less likely because an unpopular cause will have lots of defectors quite happy to trade with one another so the "cause" is likely to harmlessly dissipate. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 7 07:04:58 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:04:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <20080507052228.GA25469@ofb.net> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> <20080507052228.GA25469@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4A4C3D47-F0E9-4E1A-A6C6-C021ABDFC712@mac.com> On May 6, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:19:12AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: > >>> A tax in a democracy is a kind of conditional contract just like >>> this. >> >> ### No, most definitely it is not. One of the essential features of a >> valid contract is that it is being entered voluntarily, that is, >> neither of the parties, their agents, principals, nor allies, is >> threatening violence to induce another peaceful party to sign the >> contract. Clearly, the agents of the state are threatening deadly > > OTOH, apparently it *is* valid to threaten violence to anyone who > doesn't accept the existing distribution of property rights. > Property rights are inseperable individual rights which are ultimately a form of self-ownership. Abrogation of property rights is a form of initiation of force against the owners of that property. Now we can certainly have quite good discussions of what is an is not "property". Personally I have very little use for much of what is called "intellectual property". >> violence to anybody who fails to meet their peremptory demands, and >> therefore neither the state nor its victims can enter into a >> contract. >> The threat of violence is sufficient to invalidate or pre-empt a >> contract. > > The US Constitution was accepted by votes of the legislatures of all > 13 > initial states, and by the request of the legislature or convention of > each subsequent state. Which included no provision whatsoever for anything like the current income tax. It actually prohibits such and the 16th Amendment according to Supreme Court rulings does not add any new taxing authority. > A very literal social contract. Liberal in the old sense, not as that word is abused today. > Of course, > there were flaws in the process: non-unanimity (but that needn't > matter > if you contract to form a state government which can make majority > vote > decisions), lack of votes to women and blacks. The US was set up as a republic, not a democracy. In losing the difference lies much of our deterioration. > The fact that none of us > were born back then seems less significant, since we're supposed to > respect property distributions from before our birth -- despite their > ultimate origins being equally flawed. > >> ### You are in fact not capable of giving consent to pay taxes, >> simply >> because you have no choice. Are you following it? No matter what is >> your opinion, what kind of "conditions" you are imagining, you *have* >> to pay the tax. > > And if you inherit property in a condo, you have to abide by the condo > association fees and regulations. If you don't like it, you can sell > out. Why not regard yourself as having inherited a share in the US > association? > Since you can sell out you are not bound. There is no such thing as "a share in the US association". >> ### Why people keep voting is a whole another issue, none of it >> however can legitimize a tax as a form of contractual payment. > > If a group of people unanimously agreed to a constitution which > included > provisions that fees could be levied on all members by a majority > vote, > that'd be a contractual 'tax'. > No it would not. It would be a tyrannical assault of the majority on any minority who would not voluntarily pay such. This is impossible to see without some grasp of individual rights though. > If they unanimously agreed to a constitution which didn't have that > provision, but allowed for supermajority vote adoption of new > provisions, then the fee provision could be adopted, and then the fee > itself. > Yes, but this in fact has not occurred in the US. > So you can certainly set up something similar to a modern democratic > government, contractually, in principle. You can get closer, too, if > all land or water within an area is agreed to be owned by the > association. Then what happens to a child born within the > association? > This is rank socialism. No thank you. Note that what we live in in the US is pretty much socialism already. We did not vote to do so per se. > > I saw an interesting argument recently that minarchy is the least > adaptive societal form. We ultimately solve problems with violence > -- if > we can't deal with someone who's causing a problem, we try to beat > them > up. In anarchy, plenary rights to violence rest with all individuals. > If someone starts dumping pollution into "our" air, we can go beat him > up, he can defend himself or give in, may the best mob win. > That is not how an anarchic or a minarchic society works. > In a normal state, we give up that right (or have it taken from us) to > the state, which holds all plenary rights to force. But the critical difference is whether it has the power to decide to use force for anything it wishes or its use of force is severely proscribed. > Instead of beating > him up, we appeal to the state to defend our rights. Risks: the state > may not. The state may even be used against us. OTOH, things may > work > out -- the state may defend our rights against people much more > powerful > than us, at no risk to our own lives. Which outcome happens depends > on > the state, and the people. > > In minarchy, we give up our rights to violence, but the state can act > only in a predetermined sphere. Being minimal, it has no rights > outside > its initial list. Expanding that list is probably very problematic if > possible at all, since it involves new bans on behavior, or > redistributing property rights, which is exactly what minarchy doesn't > want. > Actually, not so. The list is expanded when and only when the recognized rights of people are shown to be violated by activities not previously recognized as a violation. I would argue that is precisely the right amount of flexibility. Similarly old proscriptions can under examination perhaps be seen as not violating anyone's rights and thus as illegitimate use of state force. They would then be removed form the set of enforceable laws. > But this leaves it helpless when conditions change, when conflicts of > property no one thought to define rights about come into play. That is a bogus argument contrary to historical fact as well as legal theory. > Who > owned the ozone layer, to defend it against CFCs? Use of CFCs turned out to be a danger to all of us and thus contrary to our right to live. No ownership of the ozone layer per se was required. > Who in the 18th > century imagined one would need rights against acid rain? Irrelevant for the reasons above. > Or against > Denmark, say, deciding to melt off the Greenland ice cap to develop > its > property, incidentally threatning oceanside property worldwide? A good trick if they could manage it which they could not. If real behavior legitimately harms others then it would be covered in anarchic and minarchic law eventually when the threat is clearly shown. > I have > a right to my beach, Denmark has a right to develop Greenland, none of > our ancestors imagined our rights would conflict via sea level rise. No one has a right to infringe by initiation of force (which includes most real physical harm) on the rights of others. That is Libertarianism 101. Did you miss that? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 7 07:07:55 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:07:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0805062242o2d14d1c4g31a2a9d38ab7521a@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <402765.39178.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805030939n493b6e60g176fb73e822010ac@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805062224i7dcb246fi8cbcd0fe1ad99c69@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062237m28d4ccaei3472dbb91c545177@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805062242k1d7c516jfaa18a9808b70dbf@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805062242o2d14d1c4g31a2a9d38ab7521a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8B33B5B3-C9B7-4254-B309-585EEF41399C@mac.com> On May 6, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Emlyn wrote: > 2008/5/7 Rafal Smigrodzki : > >> >> ### No, no, they are real libertarians, not straw ones :) Of course >> they would observe all the niceties of prior warning, proper >> techniques for the escalation of force to minimize harm, etc. With >> great power comes a great responsibility, the responsibility to >> give a >> choice. >> >> Rafal >> > > I don't know, I don't like 'em. Can I choose an alternate security > provider? > Sure, if you can find one willing to take you as client. - samantha From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 7 07:56:16 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:56:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superrationality References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com><20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net><074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <402e01e70805062236x31670175h6a180a8a191aefb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <076901c8b017$ded0a050$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes > Lee wrote: > >> Precisely. I would, for example, cooperate only with a "close duplicate", >> since physically speaking what I do is what my close duplicate does to a >> high degree of fidelity. >> >> But I have stated the necessary and sufficient conditions above for >> superrationality to obtain, and so lacking "close physical duplicates", >> superrationality at the present time in human history is impossible. To be clear, I wrote (for my condition) Unless the other player's behavior is highly correlated with yours ---for reasons that must be explained and must make sense--- then to Cooperate is to defy the very definition of the two-player game [non-iterated prisoner's dilemma NIPD] Hopefully, you were taking that as my condition. If so, then > Your condition is sufficient but not necessary. It suffices for the > players to know each other's algorithms. seems to me to fail. First, for an algorithm to be of any use here, it would have to terminate in a finite number of steps and yield a "Y" or an "N". But your solution sounds reflexive: each player must use the output of the other player's algorithm as input to his own. How could it ever get started? Even if you were to somehow explain that (good luck), then the condition I stated is still necessary, to wit, that the players realize somehow (can explain) that their behaviors are highly correlated. Lee From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 7 09:03:43 2008 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 02:03:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <076901c8b017$ded0a050$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <402e01e70805062236x31670175h6a180a8a191aefb5@mail.gmail.com> <076901c8b017$ded0a050$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <402e01e70805070203u6712a79cm3eb80d50127253b6@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Eliezer writes > > > Your condition is sufficient but not necessary. It suffices for the > > players to know each other's algorithms. > > seems to me to fail. First, for an algorithm to be of any use > here, it would have to terminate in a finite number of steps > and yield a "Y" or an "N". > > But your solution sounds reflexive: each player must use the > output of the other player's algorithm as input to his own. > How could it ever get started? Oh, that's what they say about *all* self-modification. > Even if you were to somehow explain that (good luck), > then the condition I stated is still necessary, to wit, > that the players realize somehow (can explain) that > their behaviors are highly correlated. Yes, but in this case a *motive* exists to *deliberately* correlate your behavior to that of your opponent, if the opponent is one who will cooperate if your behaviors are highly correlated and defect otherwise. You might prefer to have the opponent think that your behaviors are correlated, and then defect yourself; but if your opponent knows enough about you to know you are thinking that, the opponent knows whether your behaviors are really correlated or not. I'm thinking here about two dissimilar superintelligences that happen to know each other's source code. -- Eliezer Yudkowsky Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 7 08:43:10 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 01:43:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805062153qcca0ac1l9a82c91b967bb558@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <747226.93232.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### No worry, libertarians don't shoot innocent people. But we do > ridicule ridiculous ideas, like the notion that oil cartels exist, or > the completely magnolious idea that they control the US government. Oh I get it. OPEC is a figment of my paranoid conspiracy fantasies. ;) Nice to know Congress and I share the same delusions. http://www.energybulletin.net/5368.html > > Here is some data: > > 1) A table summarizing the profit margins by industry, in the US > > http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SB21VNa4GUI/AAAAAAAAEZ0/ShZfqz2UE0U/s1600-h/pm.bmp > > 2) An illustration of the relative amounts of Exxon's taxes and profits > > http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/05/exxon-paid-almost-3-in-taxes-for-every.html > > Obviously, if you control the government you don't have the lowest > profit margins of all major branches of industry and you don't pay > three times more in taxes than you get in profits. But, I am not sure > you would be convinced. You already understand the calculus, don't > you? They had to finance our purportedly non-oil-centric government's ongoing military misadventure in the middle east somehow. I mean China wasn't going to go on loaning us money forever. So they buckled down and actually paid their taxes for a change. Think they deserve a good citizen medal for that? Do you happen to have their taxes for the last 12 years? I imagine it would show an upward trend when the wars began. The taxes they pay are just going toward the overhead of what amounts to their fairly inept attempt at "conquest" in the old parlance and "liberation" in the new. Doesn't that smell a little like desperation to you? The fact that with their army of lawyers and accountants, they actually *paid* so much? Look Rafal. I think you understand what I am saying but not quite getting where it is coming from. For the love of yourself please think this through from your own individual perspective rather than from the perspective of an "ism". I don't hate the oil companies. It was a great ride while it lasted. They brought America oportunities and memories that no previous civilization had even thought possible. You want to retire them as heroes then fine but retire them we must and soon or they'll be America's downfall. It's writ as large as Rome, my friend. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 7 13:55:36 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:55:36 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/7 Rafal Smigrodzki : > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > Breach of perhaps the most basic and common contract - namely, if I > > buy something from you but don't pay - does normally authorise the use > > of force against me > > ### This is incorrect. Use of force is either explicitly authorized in > the contract, or else it is implied by the general legal framework > under which the contract is signed. Frequently a contract will have > provisions for non-violent sanctions in case of breach, such as > forfeiture of a surety. In other situations there are provisions for > arbitration, which may or may not involve agreeing to the use of > force. I might agree to all sorts of things explicitly in a contract, including sanctions in case the contract is breached, but if those sanctions in any way depend on my cooperation then force will have to be used to make me comply. It is best if the sanctions don't require my cooperation, but it won't always be possible to arrange the contract that way. > > A tax in a democracy is a kind of conditional contract just like this. > > ### No, most definitely it is not. One of the essential features of a > valid contract is that it is being entered voluntarily, that is, > neither of the parties, their agents, principals, nor allies, is > threatening violence to induce another peaceful party to sign the > contract. Clearly, the agents of the state are threatening deadly > violence to anybody who fails to meet their peremptory demands, and > therefore neither the state nor its victims can enter into a contract. > The threat of violence is sufficient to invalidate or pre-empt a > contract. But as discussed above, the threat of force, usually implicit, is a very common part of a contract. I won't trade with you unless I know that I will be able to obtain adequate compensation if you cheat me, and that may require the use of force. Similarly, you won't trade with me unless you know you can obtain compensation if I cheat you. Now I would *prefer* that the deal we agree to does not allow anyone to use force against me, since then I can get away with cheating you, but of course you won't agree to anything this one-sided. So unless we both - grudgingly - agree to having force used against us, we will both be denied the benefits of trade. > > I won't voluntarily pay (i.e. as charity) the amount I pay in tax even > > for projects I consider worthwhile, but I will agree to pay on > > condition that everyone else also agrees to pay. > > ### You are in fact not capable of giving consent to pay taxes, simply > because you have no choice. Are you following it? No matter what is > your opinion, what kind of "conditions" you are imagining, you *have* > to pay the tax. > > I know it may seem strange at first... but all you need to realize is > that to be able to legitimately say "yes", you must be able to say > "no". Without the right to refuse, there can be no legitimate > contract. It's problematic when a group of people agree to a contract which will be binding on all those in the group including those who voted against it. However, this is what happens all the time in every organisation. By joining the organisation, members agree to be bound by the decisions of the group, even when they don't agree with it. They are (or should be) free to leave, but it's difficult when the organisation is a whole country, or potentially even the whole world. For example, what do you do if a minority declares that they don't recognise certain property rights, never agreed to be bound by any laws regarding these rights, and therefore start taking whatever they feel they need? You would be forced to say that there are certain rules which apply to everyone living in your particular society, whether they have explicitly agreed to them or not, and if they don't like it they can leave. > This is why people in > > general hate paying tax, but keep voting in a government that will > > force them to pay tax. > > ### Why people keep voting is a whole another issue, none of it > however can legitimize a tax as a form of contractual payment. People are free, at least in many places, to vote for tax to be voluntary for themselves and everyone else. Surely this is an attractive proposition, for the naive as well as for the sophisticated voter! A politician could become fabulously popular and make his country fabulously wealthy (according to libertarian theory) if he ran on a platform of reducing compulsory taxation to, say, 1% to run only the essential machinery of government. Why when the low taxation/small government zealots are in power do they balk when the spending cuts reach a certain low level? > > Yes, that might work, but it would have to be included in the original > > contract since there would be a temptation to defect by selling to the > > defectors, who would be very keen for trading partners. > > ### Exactly! You have just described the heretofore missing ingredient > in our non-violent solution to global warming: provisions for > maintenance of secondary public goods, that is features of the social > order that are only important as means to achieve or protect primary > public goods. Here, the primary goods are parts of the > Save-Our-Happy-Planet conditional contract directly necessary to > prevent a collective heatstroke, while the secondary goods are > provisions meant to protect the primary good from being destroyed - > such as an injunction against trading with defectors. Note that once > you voluntarily sign the contract, you *may* be legitimately subjected > to violent reprisals for breaching it. If paragraph #22 says "Whoever > trades freely with a defector or refusnik, will have his right hand > taken off", well, then the other parties to the contract, and their > agents, may cut off your hand for selling beef at normal price to me. > > This is why you should always read the small print in a contract. > > ---------------------- > > > But this isn't > > any different to swapping fines and criminal prosecution for boycott, > > ostracism or exile of businesses and individuals who refuse to pay > > their tax. > > ### Yeah, isn't this great? No thugs chasing you, just people turning > away from you, one by one. This makes unjust punishment so much less > likely. So if the penalty for not paying tax was that the majority of the population, who voted for universal taxation, would be forbidden from trading with you, would that be OK? It sounds like just another way of saying that if you don't want to pay tax, you can either leave the country or stay in the country but not earn any income. > > That's all very well, but it doesn't address the urgency of the > > situation. I don't want to punish the people responsible after the > > train has crashed, I want to prevent the train crashing in the first > > place. > > > ### Sure. As long as you manage to convince enough people that the > train could crash, you will be able to build a contract to prevent it. > > To summarize, you were able to come up with all the significant parts > of a workable, non-violent solution to a major tragedy of the commons, > which so many short-sighted people see as unsolvable without > large-scale organized violence. > > It took a bit of coaxing, but you did it, which means you could become > an excellent libertarian theorist.... if you only wanted to. You do > seem to have some habits of thought and emotion, such as seeing your > oppressors as one of "us" rather than "them", but that is nothing you > couldn't overcome. I used to be very taken with anarchism as a political movement, with quotes such as the following from Proudhon: "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." I still see anarchism as the ideal to aim for, even if it's a utopian ideal. One of my main concerns is that communitarian anarchism will end in anarcho-capitalism, with the tyranny of the state being replaced by a tyranny of powerful business interests. I see the state, at least in the form of the more benign modern democracies, as the lesser of two evils. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 7 14:38:19 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:38:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > But as discussed above, the threat of force, usually implicit, is a > very common part of a contract. I won't trade with you unless I know > that I will be able to obtain adequate compensation if you cheat me, > and that may require the use of force. Similarly, you won't trade with > me unless you know you can obtain compensation if I cheat you. Now I > would *prefer* that the deal we agree to does not allow anyone to use > force against me, since then I can get away with cheating you, but of > course you won't agree to anything this one-sided. So unless we both - > grudgingly - agree to having force used against us, we will both be > denied the benefits of trade. Even that is not good enough in the messy, irrational, crazy, double-dealing real world. The whole health fraud industry, which is worth billions, is hugely successful because of after the fact failed attempts at recompense. By the time it comes to the notice of the 'authorities' that the magic cream doesn't actually do anything, the crooks are in a Caribbean island with their millions of profits. (It never comes to the notice of the general population. That's why the crooks claim that "there's one born every minute"). Sometimes they just close the company down every year and start up again under another name. Sometimes they even pay a few millions in fines without bothering too much, out of their huge scam profits. Contracts are pretty much useless against crooks. Even for ordinary people, as soon as a contract or agreement appears, people are trying to work out ways round it, cases not covered by it, loopholes, etc. That's why we have so many lawyers. BillK From spike66 at att.net Wed May 7 14:23:05 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 07:23:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <1210108441.10235.450.camel@hayek> Message-ID: <200805071450.m47EnkqC028538@andromeda.ziaspace.com> This is a report from that SF study. Damn. {8-[ http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/06/disappearing.bees.ap/index.html From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 7 15:02:43 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:02:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <747226.93232.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60805062153qcca0ac1l9a82c91b967bb558@mail.gmail.com> <747226.93232.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805070802q216d8c5eo41b9fdbd121e94bd@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:43 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > ### No worry, libertarians don't shoot innocent people. But we do > > ridicule ridiculous ideas, like the notion that oil cartels exist, or > > the completely magnolious idea that they control the US government. > > Oh I get it. OPEC is a figment of my paranoid conspiracy fantasies. ### This is a *government cartel*, don't you know? To spell it out, "OPEC ..... is .... a.... cartel .... of...... governments". Not a cartel of oil companies. I guess I should have spelled out "private oil cartels" above, even though it was clear in context that we are talking about the non-existence of private oil cartels in the US. Well, all efforts will be made to make it really impossible for you to misunderstand. ------------------------- > They had to finance our purportedly non-oil-centric government's ongoing > military misadventure in the middle east somehow. I mean China wasn't going to > go on loaning us money forever. So they buckled down and actually paid their > taxes for a change. Think they deserve a good citizen medal for that? Do you > happen to have their taxes for the last 12 years? I imagine it would show an > upward trend when the wars began. ### That's why the oil companies ordered the US government to start the war, right :), I mean it's obvious, they *wanted to pay more taxes*! You are hitting the nail on the head! -------------------------- > > Look Rafal. I think you understand what I am saying but not quite getting where > it is coming from. For the love of yourself please think this through from your > own individual perspective rather than from the perspective of an "ism". I > don't hate the oil companies. It was a great ride while it lasted. They brought > America oportunities and memories that no previous civilization had even > thought possible. You want to retire them as heroes then fine but retire them > we must and soon or they'll be America's downfall. It's writ as large as Rome, > my friend. ### I capitulate before your unshakable faith, Stuart. Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 7 15:36:29 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 08:36:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Damien S. writes > > >> Interestingly, the major commercial players in markets sometimes > >> behave in the "superrational" manner, working towards and welcome > >> regulation - ie: externally imposed restrictions. The great example of > > > > I think that would just be rational, not Hofstadter's superrationality. > > Yes. > > > The latter is when you agree to the thing not in your immediate > > self-interest, with no actual enforcement of that, in the expectation > > that the other person will follow your thinking and do likewise. It > > sounds nice but I've never really bought it. > > I bought it hook, line, and sinker---having had many exactly > similar thoughts myself---back in 1983, when H published > an SA article on it. It took me at least three years to fully > understand and appreciate the flaw. > > The flaw in Hofstadter's superrationality is very simple to state. The overarching flaw in Hofstadter's view and exposition of superrationality is that he retained the prevailing consequentialist framework which, like Archimedes and his famous lever, presumes a position outside the system from which to evaluate and act. Consequentialism works -- very well -- but only to the extent that the context is effectively well-defined. It's a special case of a more general principle which, roughly stated, describes the (necessarily subjective) rightness of any action as increasing with the application of increasingly effective principles (reflecting an increasingly scientific understand of the world), toward the the promotion of (evolving) values increasingly coherent over increasing context. This means (in part) that to the extent the future is complexly evolving and thus uncertain, effective decision-making should be on the basis of best-known principles rather than expected consequences. > Unless the other player's behavior is highly correlated with yours > ---for reasons that must be explained and must make sense--- > then to Cooperate is to defy the very definition of the two-player > game. Key to understanding this, and the "arrow of morality", is that our natures (and thus our subjective values) are **hugely** correlated like the individual leaves on a tree of increasing possibility, grounded through branches of increasing probability rooted in ultimate "reality." I hope this suffices as my response to Rafal, and (probably inadvisably) to our mischievous Lee Corbin. - Jef [Back to work building tools for increasing awareness] From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 7 16:03:27 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:03:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805070903v30339fccp26f5be2ddd525373@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I might agree to all sorts of things explicitly in a contract, > including sanctions in case the contract is breached, but if those > sanctions in any way depend on my cooperation then force will have to > be used to make me comply. It is best if the sanctions don't require > my cooperation, but it won't always be possible to arrange the > contract that way. ### Sure, sometimes allowing the use of force is a reasonable part of the contract. But only sometimes. A note on sanctions: they are not dependent on your cooperation. Forfeiture of a surety (a bond, a hostage), and threat of future non-cooperation are beyond your control, and therefore applying those sanctions against you does not depend on your continued cooperation. The main lesson that I want to draw is that force is not necessary to make things work, most of the time. -------------------- > > > violence to anybody who fails to meet their peremptory demands, and > > therefore neither the state nor its victims can enter into a contract. > > The threat of violence is sufficient to invalidate or pre-empt a > > contract. > > But as discussed above, the threat of force, usually implicit, is a > very common part of a contract. I won't trade with you unless I know > that I will be able to obtain adequate compensation if you cheat me, > and that may require the use of force. Similarly, you won't trade with > me unless you know you can obtain compensation if I cheat you. Now I > would *prefer* that the deal we agree to does not allow anyone to use > force against me, since then I can get away with cheating you, but of > course you won't agree to anything this one-sided. So unless we both - > grudgingly - agree to having force used against us, we will both be > denied the benefits of trade. ### As noted above, this is incorrect. Also, not relevant to the tax discussion: What invalidates the legitimacy of a tax is the fact the a threat of violence is used by the taxman *before* you sign on. That's why I wrote about "peremptory demands" previously. Whether there is use of mutual threats as part of a contract is a separate issue. ----------------------- > It's problematic when a group of people agree to a contract which will > be binding on all those in the group including those who voted against > it. However, this is what happens all the time in every organisation. > By joining the organisation, members agree to be bound by the > decisions of the group, even when they don't agree with it. ### Legitimate organizations don't threaten to kill you to make you join. ----------------------- They are > (or should be) free to leave, but it's difficult when the organisation > is a whole country, or potentially even the whole world. ### Here you are touching on a very important subject, the value of network segmentation. I can't stress how much this issue weighs on mind. Segmentation seems to be quite unpopular in most cultures, which stress unity, building larger and larger structures, but segmentation is absolutely indispensable for long-term stability and resilience of networks. This is why the larger a state is, the more illegitimate it becomes, and the world government would be the epitome of all evil. -------------------- For example, > what do you do if a minority declares that they don't recognise > certain property rights, never agreed to be bound by any laws > regarding these rights, and therefore start taking whatever they feel > they need? ### If they never recognized your legitimate rights (i.e. acquired by first possession and free exchange), you can disregard any rights that they may claim to have. In other words, you may just kill them summarily if you feel like it. ---------------------- > > People are free, at least in many places, to vote for tax to be > voluntary for themselves and everyone else. Surely this is an > attractive proposition, for the naive as well as for the sophisticated > voter! A politician could become fabulously popular and make his > country fabulously wealthy (according to libertarian theory) if he ran > on a platform of reducing compulsory taxation to, say, 1% to run only > the essential machinery of government. Why when the low taxation/small > government zealots are in power do they balk when the spending cuts > reach a certain low level? > ### How many people do you know who *don't* feel that everybody who has more money than they should pay taxes? "Like, man, it's his doggone duty to pay taxes".... even on this enlightened forum famous for its libertarian sentiments, the notion that taxes are illegitimate is tenaciously resisted. Most people like making others pay, and the collective effect of this mutual aggression is that taxes are quite popular with politicians. ---------------------- > > So if the penalty for not paying tax was that the majority of the > population, who voted for universal taxation, would be forbidden from > trading with you, would that be OK? It sounds like just another way of > saying that if you don't want to pay tax, you can either leave the > country or stay in the country but not earn any income. ### Yes it would be OK (because this would be a non-coerced contribution rather than a tax) and no, not really to the latter sentence. You could still trade with other refuseniks, or live off the land you own - no agent of the state would come over and beat you into submission. -------------------------- > > I used to be very taken with anarchism as a political movement, with > quotes such as the following from Proudhon: > > "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, > law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached > at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, > by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the > virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every > transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, > numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, > forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of > public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed > under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted > from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the > first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed, > hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, > judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to > crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is > government; that is its justice; that is its morality." ### Sounds like my kind of man :) ---------------------- > > I still see anarchism as the ideal to aim for, even if it's a utopian > ideal. One of my main concerns is that communitarian anarchism will > end in anarcho-capitalism, with the tyranny of the state being > replaced by a tyranny of powerful business interests. I see the state, > at least in the form of the more benign modern democracies, as the > lesser of two evils. ### You are conflating anarcho-capitalism with capitalist oligarchy. They are not the same beast, but I have to go to work now. Rafal > > > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 7 17:15:55 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 12:15:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gina "Nanogirl" update: yes it is Multiple Sclerosis In-Reply-To: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> References: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> Message-ID: <20080507171556.ZEIG9391.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 03:02 AM 5/6/2008, Gina wrote: >So I have had some more tests and the results also confirm that I do >indeed have Multiple Sclerosis. Gina, you are an amazingly strong, determined and generous person, and I believe that you will have tremendous support in establishing a method for treatment and a long, long life of vitality. The medications for arresting MS are accelerating by leaps and bounds. We are here for you my dear friend! Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed May 7 17:20:11 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 13:20:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <200805071450.m47EnkqC028538@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200805071450.m47EnkqC028538@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <33849.12.77.169.64.1210180811.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > This is a report from that SF study. Damn. {8-[ > > http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/06/disappearing.bees.ap/index.html > > That is discouraging, but spike, I'm seeing pollinators all over the place now. There are *very few* honeybees, but lots of others - bumble bees, sweat bees, those bee-mimicking flies, varieties of little native bees that I don't know the names of, and little waspy things. IMHO stuff is getting pollinated. The daffodils and bluebells and other early bulbs are heavy with seed. The butterflies are thick everywhere. My veggies are too young - they've not set any blooms so I have no knowledge there. Yet. But I am encouraged. :) Look closely. What other pollinators do you see out there? At the moment my main trouble is drought. :( Early perrenials were wilting in the ground in late April. When established shrubs drop their bloom in a day and they're not even faded, what could *that* be? The butterflies were eagerly feeding, and it wasn't cold. Regards, MB From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 7 21:50:53 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 14:50:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Urge to get Personal (was Re: Superrationality) References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com><20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net><074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <077d01c8b08d$14be1ce0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > Key to understanding this, and the "arrow of morality", is that our > natures (and thus our subjective values) are **hugely** correlated > like the individual leaves on a tree of increasing possibility, > grounded through branches of increasing probability rooted in ultimate > "reality." > > I hope this suffices as my response to Rafal, and (probably > inadvisably) to our mischievous Lee Corbin. I have no idea---and don't really want to know---why some people seemingly cannot refrain from making personal characterizations, or innuendo. This particular one, above, may or may not be harmless, who is to know? Making comments about each other's personalities in any negative or potentially negative way really is beyond the pale. Note that this is quite different from complaining about someone's use of HTML, say, or other characteristics of their use of the medium. Yet even these objections, were they to drift in any way into *descriptions* of an individual who has posted something, would also be inappropriate. Lee > - Jef > [Back to work building tools for increasing awareness] From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 7 22:06:29 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:06:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Superrationality References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <402e01e70805062236x31670175h6a180a8a191aefb5@mail.gmail.com> <076901c8b017$ded0a050$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <402e01e70805070203u6712a79cm3eb80d50127253b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <078001c8b08f$3126fdf0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes >> First, for an algorithm to be of any use here, it would have to >> terminate in a finite number of steps and yield a "Y" or an "N". >> >> But your solution sounds reflexive: each player must use the >> output of the other player's algorithm as input to his own. >> How could it ever get started? > > Oh, that's what they say about *all* self-modification. It may or may not be accurate to criticize all attempts to design self-modification as suffering from this defect (I would guess it's not)> But in this specific case, the question above still stands. (see below). >> Even if you were to somehow explain that (good luck), >> then the condition I stated is still necessary, to wit, >> that the players realize somehow (can explain) that >> their behaviors are highly correlated. > > Yes, but in this case a *motive* exists to *deliberately* correlate > your behavior to that of your opponent, if the opponent is one who > will cooperate if your behaviors are highly correlated and defect > otherwise. Yes, but without a communication channel---which is normally stipulated to be absent in the NIPD---the entities have no way of achieving this cooperation. > You might prefer to have the opponent think that your > behaviors are correlated, and then defect yourself; but > if your opponent knows enough about you to know you > are thinking that, the opponent knows whether your > behaviors are really correlated or not. > > I'm thinking here about two dissimilar superintelligences > that happen to know each other's source code. Is this much different from the case of two humans who already know each other pretty well? For example, Hofstadter 2008 knows Hofstadter 2003 pretty well, and actually the latter has quite a fair knowledge of the former. Your AIs know each other's *code* but they do not know each other's present *state*. Therefore they cannot in confidence complete a model of the other's behavior, unless "always cooperate with an entity whose source code I have read and whose source code contains this statement or its equivalent" is indeed part of the source code of each. But then, they would no longer have any option to be affected by other memes, such as the following: "What will happen if I Defect, the a post *I* just read on Extropians implies I could?" Isn't the condition I stated, namely, that "the players realize somehow (and can explain) that their behaviors are highly correlated" still quite necessary? Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 7 22:13:34 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:13:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Urge to get Personal (was Re: Superrationality) In-Reply-To: <077d01c8b08d$14be1ce0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <077d01c8b08d$14be1ce0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > > I hope this suffices as my response to Rafal, and (probably > > inadvisably) to our mischievous Lee Corbin. > > I have no idea---and don't really want to know---why > some people seemingly cannot refrain from making > personal characterizations, or innuendo. > > This particular one, above, may or may not be harmless, > who is to know? I'm pretty sure, Lee, that I've never harmed you, nor am I arguing ad hominem. My concluding paragraph was a meta-statement about the response I felt I owed Rafal, and an observation on my awareness of the humorous inadvisability of engaging with your often intelligent and interesting but characteristically polemical and gamesmanlike posting style. Feel free to address the substance of my post after you've recovered from any perceived wounds due to being called mischievous. - Jef From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 7 22:53:25 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:53:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming In-Reply-To: <4A4C3D47-F0E9-4E1A-A6C6-C021ABDFC712@mac.com> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805030724j1a77ef5fha810348468cc17e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805032337hd2cdd37i8dd0722369105801@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60805062119h18cdd853i3af5eca98e0e773e@mail.gmail.com> <20080507052228.GA25469@ofb.net> <4A4C3D47-F0E9-4E1A-A6C6-C021ABDFC712@mac.com> Message-ID: <20080507225325.GA14706@ofb.net> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:04:58AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On May 6, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > Which included no provision whatsoever for anything like the current > income tax. It actually prohibits such and the 16th Amendment > according to Supreme Court rulings does not add any new taxing > authority. I invite you to test that claim before the Supreme Court, then. Or to cite the alleged rulings that "The Congress shall have the power to levy tax on income" does not add new taxing authority. > > > A very literal social contract. > > Liberal in the old sense, not as that word is abused today. literal, not liberal > The US was set up as a republic, not a democracy. In losing the > difference lies much of our deterioration. The US was set up as a republic (no king) and a democracy (some form of popular rule.) They are not exclusive. > > If a group of people unanimously agreed to a constitution which > > included provisions that fees could be levied on all members by a > > majority vote, that'd be a contractual 'tax'. > > > > No it would not. It would be a tyrannical assault of the majority on > any minority who would not voluntarily pay such. This is impossible Why would it be a tyrannical assault? The minority had previously agreed to abide by the contract. "unanimously agreed" > > So you can certainly set up something similar to a modern democratic > > government, contractually, in principle. You can get closer, too, if > > all land or water within an area is agreed to be owned by the > > association. Then what happens to a child born within the > > association? > This is rank socialism. No thank you. Note that what we live in in So the proposed Paulville, where a libertarian association is buying land that one can buy shares of, is socialism? > > In minarchy, we give up our rights to violence, but the state can act > > only in a predetermined sphere. Being minimal, it has no rights > > outside > > its initial list. Expanding that list is probably very problematic if > > possible at all, since it involves new bans on behavior, or > > redistributing property rights, which is exactly what minarchy doesn't > > want. > Actually, not so. The list is expanded when and only when the > recognized rights of people are shown to be violated by activities not > previously recognized as a violation. I would argue that is Shown to whom? A court? A legislature? The votes? Any possibility of power expansion allows for future capture of the process by special interests. -xx- Damien X-) From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 8 01:36:00 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:36:00 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60805070802q216d8c5eo41b9fdbd121e94bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60805062153qcca0ac1l9a82c91b967bb558@mail.gmail.com> <747226.93232.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805070802q216d8c5eo41b9fdbd121e94bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/8 Rafal Smigrodzki : > ### This is a *government cartel*, don't you know? To spell it out, > "OPEC ..... is .... a.... cartel .... of...... governments". Not a > cartel of oil companies. So how would you prevent a cartel of companies, or for that matter an oligarchy of companies that own everything and have an army of paid enforcers, not unlike the House of Saud? -- Stathis Papaioannou From andres at thoughtware.tv Thu May 8 01:40:18 2008 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 21:40:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Accelerating Future on G4TV's Attack Of The Show Message-ID: I would like to congratulate our good friends at Accelerating Future. Their website was just covered and promoted on G4TV's Attack of the Show on cable TV. Diggnation co-host and internet star, Alex Albrecht, covered the site's content on AOTS's The Feed on a spanking new section about Blogs on the Future. Congratulations Michael and crew! Your hard work is paying off. PS: I would like to call upon everyone's help in order to make some noise over at g4tv.com's website. The goal is to have them make the section available online. If you'd like to help, all you have to do is go to their website and add a comment requesting that Eugene Morton, the webmaster, uploads the video and correctly links to acceleratingfuture.com, which he forgot to add to the online article. The link to the article is: http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/blog/post/685259/BlogWatch_Future_Blogs.html Thanks folks, Andres, Thoughtware.TV From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Thu May 8 01:45:55 2008 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:45:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Accelerating Future on G4TV's Attack Of The Show In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51ce64f10805071845s4d88afa5udaf85144d2a61e95@mail.gmail.com> Woo! Today, geeky television, tomorrow... the world! -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Wed May 7 19:48:54 2008 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] what will lower bilirubin level? Message-ID: <687394.20979.qm@web46115.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Rafal, do you know what pharmaceuticals will lower bilirubin level? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu May 8 01:58:25 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:58:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gina "Nanogirl" update: yes it is Multiple Sclerosis In-Reply-To: <20080507171556.ZEIG9391.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> <20080507171556.ZEIG9391.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <0DD4602309734390AF713824AB577528@GinaSony> My dear Natasha, thank you for always being there for me, for your beautiful affirmations and words of hope, they are very meaningful words indeed. Warmest regards, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Health blog: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Gina "Nanogirl" update: yes it is Multiple Sclerosis At 03:02 AM 5/6/2008, Gina wrote: So I have had some more tests and the results also confirm that I do indeed have Multiple Sclerosis. Gina, you are an amazingly strong, determined and generous person, and I believe that you will have tremendous support in establishing a method for treatment and a long, long life of vitality. The medications for arresting MS are accelerating by leaps and bounds. We are here for you my dear friend! Natasha ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 8 03:15:02 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 13:15:02 +1000 Subject: [ExI] what will lower bilirubin level? In-Reply-To: <687394.20979.qm@web46115.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <687394.20979.qm@web46115.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/8 Alan Brooks : > > Rafal, do you know what pharmaceuticals will lower bilirubin level? I'm not Rafal, but cholestyramine can be used to lower bilirubin in cases of cholestatic jaundice. It works by binding bile salts in the gut, preventing their reabsorption. However, there is probably something seriously wrong with you if you have hyperbilirubinaemia and it is imperative to diagnose and treat the underlying condition. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Thu May 8 04:19:06 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 21:19:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <33849.12.77.169.64.1210180811.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200805080446.m484jmjV027977@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:20 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again > > > > > This is a report from that SF study. Damn. {8-[ > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/06/disappearing.bees.ap/index.html > > > > > > That is discouraging, but spike, I'm seeing pollinators all > over the place now... Ja, it isn't just that I fear for lack of pollinators, MB. I specifically like bees. I really like honeybees, always been a fan of them, even before working two summers as a beekeeper. Bees are my friends. I hate to see their colonies collapse. They have such cool ways, with their hexagonal combs, perfectly uniform in size, regardless of where you see them, regardless of how much food is available, regardless of the local climate. Why is that? That being said, the other bugs cannot compete with honeybees in effectiveness as pollinators. > There are *very few* honeybees, but lots of others - bumble > bees, sweat bees, those bee-mimicking flies... Bee mimicking flies are cool too. But they don't have that colony thing going, and all the other cool interesting beehaviors. > ... IMHO stuff is getting pollinated. The daffodils > and bluebells and other early bulbs are heavy with seed... Ja, some of these might be wind pollinated too. I don't know much about which plants need bugs to cross pollinate. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 8 05:34:19 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 22:34:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest Message-ID: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> May 4, 2008 snip What we really need to do is come up with a way that provides renewable energy at a lower cost than coal and oil. I think there is such a way. Anyone interested in seeing work on it should send me email. No point in sending it to the uninterested on the list. snip Dollar a Gallon: The physics and business case for Space Based Solar Power for vehicle fuel. Basic numbers Gasoline provides about 130 MJ/gal. A kWh is 3.6MJ so the energy in a gallon of gasoline is about 40 kWh. snip From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu May 8 06:06:52 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:06:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20080508060652.GA19165@ofb.net> > What we really need to do is come up with a way that provides > renewable energy at a lower cost than coal and oil. I think there is > such a way. Anyone interested in seeing work on it should send me > email. No point in sending it to the uninterested on the list. I'd say just send it to the list. As on topic as anything else going on. Tough goal, though, to compete with high-quality fuel we can just slurp freely out of the ground. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu May 8 06:08:28 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:08:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <200805080446.m484jmjV027977@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <33849.12.77.169.64.1210180811.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <200805080446.m484jmjV027977@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080508060828.GB19165@ofb.net> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:19:06PM -0700, spike wrote: > Ja, it isn't just that I fear for lack of pollinators, MB. I specifically > like bees. I really like honeybees, always been a fan of them, even before > working two summers as a beekeeper. Bees are my friends. I hate to see > their colonies collapse. They have such cool ways, with their hexagonal *wonders what the pure-libertarian answer to indirect anthropogenic causes of colony collapse would be* -xx- Damien X-) From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 8 08:08:35 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 01:08:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <20080508060652.GA19165@ofb.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <20080508060652.GA19165@ofb.net> Message-ID: <1210234244_5177@s7.cableone.net> At 11:06 PM 5/7/2008, you wrote: > > What we really need to do is come up with a way that provides > > renewable energy at a lower cost than coal and oil. I think there is > > such a way. Anyone interested in seeing work on it should send me > > email. No point in sending it to the uninterested on the list. > >I'd say just send it to the list. As on topic as anything else going >on. Tough goal, though, to compete with high-quality fuel we can just >slurp freely out of the ground. It's getting harder and harder to get oil out of the ground. The Canadian tar sands oil production cost at least $13 a barrel. The could really use a lot of cheap electrolytic hydrogen. I don't know the exact trade off, but dollar a gallon gasoline may be in the $30-40 a barrel for oil. Dollar a Gallon: The physics and business case for Space Based Solar Power for vehicle fuel. Basic numbers Gasoline provides about 130 MJ/gal. A kWh is 3.6MJ so the energy in a gallon of gasoline is about 40 kWh. Given the inefficiencies of the chemical processes needed to make liquid fuels from water and air, and the need to pay for huge plants, dollar a gallon synthetic gasoline implies a penny (or less) per kWh electrical input. If dollar a gallon gasoline is the goal, penny or sub penny per kWh electric power is a way to get there. More numbers Hydrogen has about 141 MJ/kg of energy. It costs about 50 kWh/kg to make and another 15 kWh/kg to liquefy. Penny a kWh power would make hydrogen equal to a gallon of gas for less than 50 cents. The only long-term source of energy is the sun. Solar power does not work all that well on earth because the earth is in the way much of the time. Moving solar power collectors into high orbit, geosynchronous, and very modest concentration gets you close to a factor of ten more sunlight than most places on earth. The way to get the energy down, low-density microwaves, is a 40-year-old idea, the block has been high cost to orbit. Consider a space based solar power project big enough to replace all the coal-fired plants in the US in one year, 300 GW. This number is somewhat arbitrary. (The market for new power sats would go on for decades at this rate as fossil fuels run out.) For reasons rooted in geometry and physics, power satellites have to be 5 GW or larger. That means constructing them at 60 per year. At this rate, you can ignore RDTE in a first pass analysis. Could such a project eventually deliver power at a penny a kWh? Take a year at 8000 hours, and the mass of a power sat at 2kg/kW. The annual output from a power sat would be in the range of 4000kWh/kg. At a penny a kWh, that is $40. If we allow a capital cost ten times that high (reasonable for long lived projects) then we can afford to spend about $400/kg for parts and transportation to reap $40 of penny a kWh power per year. That is a somewhat arbitrary number. At a kg/kW, we could afford $800/kg installed cost Rectennas There are two main parts to a power sat, the part in space and the rectenna on the ground. A rectenna is microwave diodes woven into a mesh much like chicken wire supported by poles containing inverters. Pending a more detailed design, I am going to use the price of PC power supplies at about $60 a kW and estimate the poles, microwave diodes and plowed in wiring to bring the cost up to $100 a kW. The assumption is that since this does not interfere with farming, land lease cost will not be a significant factor. (Maybe we give the farmers under the mesh free electricity.) I am also not including the cost of transmission lines and for this level of analysis am not considering maintenance--which should be on a par with power transformers on poles. (The typical one runs 50 years without being touched.) A 5 GW rectenna is still a formidable investment. 5 million kW at $100/kw is half a billion dollars. That leaves us with $300 a kW for the power sat parts, transport to orbit and construction Transport to Orbit?Space Elevator So how much is the cost to lift power satellite parts to GEO? This breaks down into running cost, which should mostly be energy and capital costs. Labor should be a relatively small part of a mature freight operation. Last year I calculated the absolute minimum energy for a space elevator carrying up 2000 tonnes per day. http://eugen.leitl.org/A-2000-tonne-per-day-Space-Elevator1.ppt It takes about a GW to lift about 2400 tonnes per day or 24 million kWh to lift 2.4 million kg. I.e., about 10 kWh lifts a kg to GEO. At our target price, that costs 10 cents. It is only a dollar at current consumer prices for electricity. Can we estimate the cost to put up a space elevator? If we can make nanotube cable of adequate strength at all, it will take about 100,000 tonnes of it, assuming the cable weighs 50 times the daily payload. I think we can safely assume that anything produced in that quantity will not cost more than a few dollars a kg. 100 million kg at even $10 a kg is only a billion dollars. It will probably take a number of times that figure to clean up the flying space junk and place the seed cable. Even if the cleanup and space elevator cost $100 billion, and was depreciated at 10% per year, that is a transport capital cost of only $10 billion a year. Taking the elevator's capacity at only half a million tonnes per year, the capital cost would be $20,000 per tonne or $20 per kg. That is less than 10% of what we can pay for power sat parts delivered to GEO and still charge under a penny a kWh for electric power. The problem is we don't have strong enough nanotube cable and might never get it. Hauling power sat parts up by rockets We can't yet build a space elevator. We can build rockets. A few weeks ago, Hu Davis pointed me to a design for a two-stage rocket that will deliver about 200 tons to GEO. http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/koelle/Neptun/NEP2015.pdf (Hu was the project engineer for the Eagle as in "the Eagle has landed.") I decided to look at building power sats using rockets. Neptune is about 3 times the capacity of a Saturn 5, so it is within the scale up factors engineers feel comfortable doing. This vehicle delivers 350 mt to LEO, and 100 mt to lunar orbit. I am going to take it as delivering 200 tonnes to GEO. We would abandon the third stage structure at GEO or convert it to power sat parts. To lift 200 mt to GEO Neptune uses 3762-mt of propellant for the first stage plus 1072 mt second stage totaling 4834 mt. O2 to H2 is 6 to 1. http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextrefresh=1&vgnextoid=75a0184c712de010VgnVCM100000c45a529fRCRD I.e., 1 part in 7 of this is H. or about 690 mt of LH, 6900 tons to lift 2000 tons per day in ten launches. The launch site would make electrolytic hydrogen out of water (the only long term source). That costs about 50 kWh/kg plus another 15 kWh to liquefy the H2. (I am ignoring the cost to liquefy the oxygen.) That would be 65 MWh per mt, or 65 GW hours for 1000 tons, or 448.4 GWh per day for 6900 mt. Since there are 24 hrs in a day, the steady flow of power would be about 18.7 GW. (Close to the output of four 5 GW power sats.) Considering that a straight mechanical lift to GEO at 100% efficiency takes .66 GW, this implies a lift energy efficiency of 3.5%. Constructed of parts lifted by elevator, a power sat repays the energy needed to lift it to GEO in less than a day. Lifted by rockets it would take 5 days consuming close to 20 GW/per day or 100 GW-days. A power sat constructed this way would repay its lift energy in 20 days. It would also require dedicating the first four power sats to hydrogen production, delaying producing power sats for sale by a few weeks. If these rockets flew every day like aircraft, the company would need ten of them active plus a few "in the shop." If the vehicles were good for 200 flights and there were ten in use, then a replacement vehicle would be added to the fleet every 20 days. Dry first and second stages mass 619 mt. Producing one set every 20 days is an annual rate of 11,300 mt. Is that reasonable? The Boeing 747, which massed 175 mt, was produced as high as 70 aircraft a year for a total of 12,250 mt. Rockets, being mostly huge tanks, are less complicated than aircraft and should take a smaller work force. Nonetheless, it would be a huge production line. At 40 flights per engine, 49 engines per vehicle, and 10 flights a day, the consumption of SSME would be 12 a day. That would take a lot of investment in plant, but the cost should come way down at that production rate. The cost per kg would be the energy cost plus capital costs. 20 million kW x 24 hrs x one cent per kWh is $4.8 million per day. $4.8 million/2 million kg is $2.40 per kg for fuel ($12 a kg at 5 cent per kW power) If the rockets cost the same per ton as 747 aircraft, they would be about $1 billion each. A 10,000 ton power sat would take 50 flights (1/4 of the life of one rocket) to build it, so the cost for used up rockets would be 250 million dollars / 10 million kg or $25/kg. If operation even doubled this cost, transport would still be only $50/kg of the budget of $150/kg to GEO for power satellite parts. ($300/kw at 2kg/kw) The biggest unknown in this analysis is the cost of the parts going into the power sats, particularly solar cells. Among structural mass, transmitter and solar cells, I am going to assume $100/kg or less including whatever labor it takes to snap the parts together. With this size of lift package, we could seriously consider 40% efficient steam turbines cooled by the Drexler/Henson space radiator design (expired patent). At the end of two years following the first rocket off the line, with about 90 5 GW power sats constructed, there would have been $45 billion of rectennas installed, and $135 billion spent on rocket and power sat construction. The revenue at a penny a kWh would 90 x 8000 hr/yr x 5 million kW x .01 dollars/kWh or 90 x $400 million a year, $36 billion. If the power sats were sold at ten times yearly income, the gross profit for the first two years of operation would be $180 billion, which should be enough to pay for the estimated $24 billion RDTE for the Neptune rocket, the electrolysis plant and the space port facilities. There is probably room in this figure for housing the power assembly workers and their families. Rough numbers, huge numbers, but solving the carbon and energy problems takes big numbers. From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu May 8 23:51:41 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:51:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Does your brain have a mind of its own? Message-ID: <29666bf30805081651w1a867bd0r64cde63fde24e278@mail.gmail.com> Gary Marcus of NYU writes an op-ed piece from his book "Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind". It is this juryriggedness of our brains that makes me wonder just how close we will come to accurately replicating human thought in another substrate. PJ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-marcus4-2008may04,0,5015266.story >From the Los Angeles Times Does your brain have a mind of its own? Why can't we stick to our goals? Blame the sloppy engineering of evolution. By Gary Marcus May 4, 2008 How many times has this happened to you? You leave work, decide that you need to get groceries on the way home, take a cellphone call and forget all about your plan. Next thing you know, you've driven home and forgotten all about the groceries. Or this. You decide, perhaps circa Jan. 1, that it's time to lose weight; you need to eat less, eat better and exercise more. But by the first of May, your New Year's resolutions are a distant memory. Human beings are, to put it gently, in a unique position in the animal world. We're the only species smart enough to plan systematically for the future -- yet we remain dumb enough to ditch even our most carefully made plans in favor of short-term gratification. ("Did I say I was on a diet? Mmm, but three-layer chocolate mousse is my favorite. Maybe I'll start my diet tomorrow.") In a wonderful study conducted at Stanford University in the late 1960s, psychologist Walter Mischel offered preschoolers a choice: a marshmallow now, or two marshmallows if they could wait until he returned. And then, cruelly, he left them alone with nothing more than themselves, the single marshmallow, a hidden camera and no indication of when he would return. A few of the kids ate the oh-so-tempting marshmallow the minute he left the room. But most kids wanted the bigger bonus and endeavored to wait. So they tried. Hard. But with nothing else to do in the room, the torture was visible. The kids did just about anything they could to distract themselves from the tempting marshmallow that stood before them. They talked to themselves, bounced up and down, covered their eyes, sat on their hands -- strategies that more than a few adults might on occasion profitably adopt. Even so, for about half the kids, the 15 to 20 minutes until Mischel returned was just too long to wait. Toddlers, of course, aren't the only humans who melt in the face of temptation. Teenagers often drive at speeds that would be unsafe even on an autobahn, and people of all ages have been known to engage in unprotected sex with strangers, even when they are perfectly aware of the risks. (To say nothing of the daily uncontrollable choices of alcoholics, drug addicts and compulsive gamblers.) What gives? Why are we as a species so often so desperately poor at achieving our goals? If we are, as the selfish-gene theory would have it, organisms that exist only to serve the interests of our genes, why do we waste so much of our time doing things that are not, in any obvious way, remotely in the interest of our genes? How can one explain, for example, why a busy undergraduate would spend four weeks playing "Halo 3" rather than studying for his exams? The selfish-gene theory doesn't, in itself, answer these questions, but there is another facet of evolution that can: The fact that evolution is entirely blind, unable to look forward, backward or to the side. As Charles Darwin observed, evolution invariably proceeds through a process called "descent with modification." In lay language, this means that Mother Nature never starts from scratch, no matter how useful an overhaul might be. Everything that evolves necessarily builds on that which came before. Our arms, to take one simple example, are adaptations of the front legs of our primate ancestors. In practical terms, that means that evolution's products aren't always particularly sound. Truly dismal solutions are quickly weeded out; if someone has a genetic condition that brings them into the world without a functioning heart, they don't live long enough to reproduce. But merely adequate solutions (what engineers call "kluges") -- like the awkward, injury-prone human spine, good enough but far from perfect -- can stick around indefinitely if better solutions are too far away on the evolutionary landscape. In the mental machinery that governs our everyday decisions, kluges abound. Take, for example, the scenario described in the beginning of the essay -- the fellow who forgets his errand on the way home. His problem is clearly not in finding his way to the grocery store -- it's in remembering to go in the first place. The problem is that evolution failed to realize that remembering goals is not like recognizing objects. When your brain sees a lion, the thing to do is to decide, lickety-split, to get out of the way. Run first; ask questions later. We're programmed for just that kind of split-second decision; just about every creature on the planet is built such that it can identify things like predators and prey very rapidly. We're not programmed to remember precise episodes from the past. Why not? Because remembering the exact date on which you last saw a lion is not particularly helpful when you're trying to get out of the way. Alas, evolution didn't have the foresight to realize that different kinds of tasks require different kinds of memory, and it used the same basic sort of memory for everything, not just for remembering what lions and tigers look like (in which general tendencies suffice) but also for cases -- like tracking our goals -- where a bit more precision would have been helpful. As a result, trying to remember what to do next can be a little like trying to remember what you had for breakfast yesterday: There are too many breakfasts and too many yesterdays for our biological memories to keep track of. The same thing can happen with our goals. When you sit in your car late in the day and ask yourself, "What am I supposed to do next?" and all of a sudden the cellphone rings, your brain can easily lose track of which "next step" is the right one. Instead of zeroing in on the specific memory it needs, it may well settle for remembering whatever you've done in the car most often -- and that's drive home. Voila, autopilot. Our attempts to pursue our goals are often thwarted by the fact that evolution has built our most sophisticated technologies on top of older technologies -- without working out how to integrate the two. We can plan in advance, using our modern deliberative reasoning systems, but our ancestral reflexive mechanisms, which evolved first, still basically control the steering wheel. When the chips are down, it's those mechanisms that our brains turn to, and that means that our brains frequently wind up relying on machinery that is all about acting first and asking questions later, squandering some of the efforts of our deliberative system. No sensible engineer would have designed things this way. Why design fancy machinery for making long-term goals if you're not going to use it? Yet the brain is structured such that the more tired, stressed or distracted we are, the less likely we are to use our forebrains and the more likely to lean back on the time-tested but shortsighted machinery we've inherited from our ancestors. Still, all is not lost. Even though our short-term desires are pretty good at grabbing the steering wheel of our consciousness, our more recently evolved deliberate minds are powerful enough to regain at least some measure of control. Consider, for example, the difficulty that most people having in sticking to abstract goals like "I intend to lose weight" or "I plan to finish this article before the deadline." Nice thoughts, but not formulated in terms that your ancestral, reflexive brain might understand. The work-around? Translate those abstract goals into a form your ancestral systems -- which traffic largely in dumb reflexes -- can understand: if-then. If you find yourself in a particular situation, then take a specific action: "If I see French fries, then I will avoid them." As Peter Gollwitzer, my colleague in New York University's department of psychology, has shown, even simple changes like these can markedly increase the chances of success. Our conscious, deliberate systems will never have total control, and our memories will never be perfect, but as they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, recognition is the first step. If we come to recognize our limitations, and how they evolved, we just might be able to outwit our inner kluge. Gary Marcus, a professor of psychology at New York University, is the author, most recently, of "Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind." From kanzure at gmail.com Fri May 9 01:10:59 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 20:10:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <20080508060652.GA19165@ofb.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <20080508060652.GA19165@ofb.net> Message-ID: <55ad6af70805081810l36ce969ele7cc452fc35bffd@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote: >> What we really need to do is come up with a way that provides >> renewable energy at a lower cost than coal and oil. I think there is >> such a way. Anyone interested in seeing work on it should send me >> email. No point in sending it to the uninterested on the list. > > I'd say just send it to the list. As on topic as anything else going > on. Tough goal, though, to compete with high-quality fuel we can just > slurp freely out of the ground. Why compete with it? As for Keith's question, I have a few pages up on my site that might eventually do the trick. I want orbital algae farms for getting solar energy, with bioharvesting approaches there, solar powered satellites, solar array farms, etc. But all of these require space-based manufacturing approaches, and that's what we can focus on first, like asteroid mining, which could be done through, say, the moontank approach. I recently made contact with John Cumbers again, after meeting him through OpenWetWare and the diybio group in Boston, he also does some biobricks work last I checked (I might be wrong). Anyway, he's going off to do research in the cyanobacteria-for-the-moon project that recently made the news. Same thing here. There are, in fact, experiments that you can run in your own home (the moontank) to try to make bacteria that can mine asteroids. But then we need manufacturing knowledge, and ways to innovate or at least find the good processing protocols that we aren't currently aware of. http://oscomak.net/ "OSCOMAK supports playful learning communities of individuals and groups chaordically building free and open source knowledge, tools, and simulations which lay the groundwork for humanity's sustainable development on Spaceship Earth and eventual joyful, compassionate, and diverse expansion into space (including Mars, the Moon, the Asteroids, or elsewhere in the Universe). Artwork derived from NASA artwork by Rick Guidice on Space Colonization blended with a modified version of the Land-use plan artwork by Richard Iriga from the Development Art collection using The GIMP under Debian GNU/Linux The OSCOMAK project will foster a community in which many interested individuals will contribute to the creation of a distributed global repository of manufacturing knowledge about past, present and future processes, materials, and products. OSCOMAK stands for "OSCOMAK Semantic Community On Manufactured Artifacts and Know-how". The OSCOMAK project is supporting the OpenVirgle Project for Space Habitats via Semantic MediaWiki pages starting here The project's short-term benefits will include: technology education, historical education, sustainable technology development, public science literacy, and knowledge democratization. The project's ultimate long-term goal will be to generate a repository of knowledge that will support the design and creation of space habitats. Three forces -- individual creativity, social collaboration, and technological tools -- will join to create a synergistic effort stronger than any of these forces could produce alone. " http://openvirgle.net/ "What started as an April Fool joke by Google for 2008 called Project Virgle is now a real and genuine effort by an increasing number of people to create ideas and ways in which humankind can live sustainably in space using free and open source technology. This project is a place for all space enthusiasts to cooperate on simulations of space settlements. Rather than argue whether L5 or Mars or the asteroids or the Moon or the rings of Saturn should be humankind's first space settlement, we could be asking what is common between those efforts so that that groundwork can be shared." http://osaerospace.com/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Linkdumps http://heybryan.org/exp.html I call it "metarepo" - although individuals have to make the significant contribuions, here's no reason we shouldn't streamline the work and progress on these projects of importance. I'm modeling it off of debian's apt, or gentoo's portage, yum, and so on, leaving in the distributed elements while also 'semantically grounding' the software back to reality via fablab automation. Among other things. More on this approach later. - Bryan From amara at amara.com Fri May 9 01:03:39 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 19:03:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism in wikipedia - A Call for Max Message-ID: Sorry, I only looked at this now, but my life is pretty full these months/years. In Nov 2007, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I just went to read again the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism. I read the Wikipedia article today for the first time. How profoundly disappointing. Hundreds/thousands of people every day are being introduced to transhuman ideas with *THAT*. Bleh. > think argument against transhumanism are given far too much space > compared to arguments in favor of transhumanist. Hardly neutral. There is a strong bias running through it. Even performing the most dumb-ass elementary school math of weighing words positive or against the transhumanism ideas fails the Wikipedia neutral POV. and Justice replied: >3. Transhumanist Loremaster and transhumanist sympathizer Russell Blackford >collaborated (and sometimes fought) with StN, the self-described >anti-transhumanist, to write this article which is what ensured the balance >that the article currently has. >Justice Speaking as both yourself and Loremaster, how could you say anything different? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri May 9 01:54:20 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 18:54:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism in wikipedia - A Call for Max In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 07:03:39PM -0600, Amara Graps wrote: > Sorry, I only looked at this now, but my life is pretty full these > months/years. > > In Nov 2007, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > I just went to read again the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism. > > I read the Wikipedia article today for the first time. How profoundly > disappointing. Hundreds/thousands of people every day are being > introduced to transhuman ideas with *THAT*. Bleh. What's wrong with it? Inaccurate? I thought it was fine. Unexciting? Well, encyclopedia. -xx- Damien X-) From kanzure at gmail.com Fri May 9 02:12:59 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 21:12:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism in wikipedia - A Call for Max In-Reply-To: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net> References: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net> Message-ID: <55ad6af70805081912g336fd9fh653444353847e1df@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 07:03:39PM -0600, Amara Graps wrote: >> Sorry, I only looked at this now, but my life is pretty full these >> months/years. >> >> In Nov 2007, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >> > I just went to read again the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism. >> >> I read the Wikipedia article today for the first time. How profoundly >> disappointing. Hundreds/thousands of people every day are being >> introduced to transhuman ideas with *THAT*. Bleh. > > What's wrong with it? Inaccurate? I thought it was fine. Unexciting? > Well, encyclopedia. rant mode - I don't actually have a well-formed strategy or an idea on an approach to transforming the article into something more relevant. Any suggestions would be great. Though I can't speak for Amara, and want to hear her own opinions on the topic, I think that inaccurate is a good way to put it. For example, the arguments on genetics are kept even though we know they are behind the times (the socioeconomics arguments), which perhaps belong to a history section; Drexler, Merkle, Feynman, von Neumann, Freitas, etc., all mentioned nanotech in this sense and, even though they are mentioned in the article, they aren't "integrated" as an encyclopedic approach would suggest -- i.e., countering the arguments with the ideas of post-scarcity singularities. There are numerous groups out there on the net, and many many projects that represent what the transhumanists of the 80s and 90s were talking about. For example, Orion's Arm is a good example. ImmInst, biohack, diybio, biobarcamp, scibarcamp, scifoo, hplusclub, polonator, biotech, etc., all of these aspects are basically ignored and, instead, controversy about feasability is questioned when it's *happening right now* -- in various ways, shapes or forms across the internet. For example, the open source movements read like something straight out of Max More's extropian principle papers, but why are all of these projects ignored? There are millions of users using open source tech out there, and it's representing an accelerating pace of software (and in some sense, hardware and other tech), but why is this not mentioned at all? Why is the status quo preserved with the focus on an international approach, rather than documenting transhumanism and the excellent track record in predicting tech, getting involved, and being a gateway to the awesome ideas of our time? That's what it's about -- not just the ethics, not just 'international approaches', not just governments and outlash. The 'tech of interest' section isn't integrated into the arguments section, even though transhumanism is mostly about the tech itself, even though there's been decades of discussion between transhumanists (in the *public*) available on the net that addresses these issues. Seems like it's all ignored, and edits are hastely prevented. end rant mode - Bryan From amara at amara.com Fri May 9 02:45:37 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 20:45:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism in wikipedia - A Call for Max Message-ID: Damien Sullivan phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu : >What's wrong with it? Inaccurate? I thought it was fine. Unexciting? It too heavily emphasizes technologies over the processes of change, natural and otherwise. It portrays the ideas as belonging to a kind of elite group ('intelligensia'). It portrays the holders of such ideas to attract large enemies and then expands on those 'detractors' for more than half of the article. Its history is, in my opinion, a crime of inaccuracy, not only missing the last decades when the word 'transhuman' was in use, but missing the last 2000+ years, when the basic ideas were being implemented, or trying to be implemented, and more importantly _debated_. The Theory section that follow the History section is lacking the same background depth. The Aims section barely gives a subsection of the 'large picture' of : Living: Longer, Smarter, Stronger. I.e. the myriad of ways that human lives can be improved with research, education, smart investments in our future, and how to help ourselves build the social, political, and cultural structures to make all of that happen. The Ethics section misses completely the most important idea of self-ownership and responsibility. In the Currents section - it gives equal weight to the real or fictitious subgroups, and there is one little line devoted to Extropians, which was, in fact, a prominent carrier of the ideas for more than 15 years. There is way too much space devoted to Spirituality and 'soul' in this article. Uploading is barely described. Instead it goes into a criticism, almost immediately. Strange for a topic that generates endless discussion (ad nauseum) on mailing lists for almost 20 years, hmm? In the Practice section, it is missing *most* of the daily life practices, that people are using to live longer, smarter, stronger. Vaccination, contraceptives, smart nutrition, exercise, assisted reproductive technologies (which is mentioned in _one place only_ in the 'Postgenderism' line of Currents!). The latter is quite strange for a topic that generates enough heat to be banned in some countries, no? The section is also missing mind tricks, meditations, and all of those do-it-yourself practices that people in our community have been trying and 'doing' for decades. Similarly for the 'Technologies of Interest'; there are large holes missing. What about space technologies, quantum computing, large-scale 'computing at home' efforts, evolutionary psychology insights, efforts to solve the energy problems, SENS research, technologies for democratization of societies? AND NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT HAVING FUN. This article is, in my opinion a gross distortion of Transhuman/extropian ideas, as I've known them for the last 20 years. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri May 9 03:03:22 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 20:03:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gina "Nanogirl" update: yes it is Multiple Sclerosis In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080506150225.02406ec0@satx.rr.com> References: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony> <7.0.1.0.2.20080506150225.02406ec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Yes I have seen this mentioned in respect to MS although not this particular article and it is a very interesting indeed, thank you. I would like to see more years on the results (mostly because sometimes MS patients can appear to be episode free for many years and then something will happen) and I will research the information you provided further. I do have personal experience with stem cell transplants, as you may recall my husband who was diagnosed with multiple myeloma (cancer) in 2004 had two stem cell transplants in 2005 and let me just tell you, it is extremely intense and dangerous (some people don't make it). When you have the pre chemo before hand they are basically killing you, by killing all of your cells and it is only the transplant of the stem cells that saves you, but boy is it rough getting there. So even if this is proven true at some date I would still hope for our improving on these treatments so that they are not as severe in nature.... come on nano medicine! I have started noticing stem cell transplants being mentioned as treatments for other diseases as well, I think I saw someone on TV say they had one to treat Hepatitis and they went into a 100 percent remission, I had never heard of that before - but it is sort of like a "reset" if you will, they take yours out and give you new ones - so I can see it in hindsight. I'm still in an early diagnosis (and I am still hoping that I am in the lucky 20% -small I know- that doesn't have the most dire continuation of the illness) so even if this research does move forward it probably would have to wait to be an option until I had much more debilitating symptoms, and even at that - since it would be new in relationship to this disease it would be initially considered "experimental" by the insurance company. I know this from my experience with Jim, while the allogeneic stem cell transplants (in which stem cells are provided by a donor) were available and used regularly for decades they would not approve it for him, they considered it "experimental" (not the medical community just the insurance company) so he had two auto stem cell transplants (self donated) instead, we had no choice in the matter even though we would have preferred the allogeneic for his second transplant with the data available at the time. However you can usually see a clear difference in the amount of money, just from memory here: for the autologous (which they approved) it was between 80,000 - 125,000 verses the denied allogeneic which was about 250,000 (depending upon how long they have to search for a donor). It's clearly a substantial difference. But all this research is terrific because we learn more - and I really hope they come up with some solutions for MS, MM and for all other illnesses out there. In the meantime they did send off my request to the insurance company for the weekly Avonex shots, haven't heard anything back yet. Please do not hesitate to forward me anything else you may find in the future, I want to stay informed and I very much appreciate your helping me to do so by sending this to me. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com This health stuff blog: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Gina "Nanogirl" update: yes it is Multiple Sclerosis Damn. But... seen this? "Bone Marrow Treatments Restore Nerves, Expert Says" by Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor May 6, 2008; Bethesda, MD (Reuters) -- "An experiment that went wrong may provide a new way to treat Multiple Sclerosis," a Canadian researcher said on Tuesday. Patients who got bone marrow stem-cell transplants -- similar to those given to Leukemia patients -- have enjoyed a mysterious remission of their disease. And Dr. Mark Freedman of the University of Ottawa is not sure why. "Not a single patient, and it's almost seven years, has ever had a relapse," Freedman said. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) affects an estimated 1 million people globally. There is no cure. It can cause mild illness in some people while causing permanent disability in others. Symptoms may include numbness or weakness in one or more limbs, partial or complete loss of vision, and an unsteady gait. Freedman, who specializes in treating MS, wanted to study how the disease unfolds. He set up an experiment in which doctors destroyed the bone marrow and thus the immune systems of MS patients. Then stem cells known as hematopoeitic stem cells, blood-forming cells taken from the bone marrow, were transplanted back into the patients. "We weren't looking for improvement," Freedman told a stem cell seminar at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. "The actual study was to reboot the immune system." Once MS is diagnosed, Freedman said, "you've already missed the boat. We figured we would reboot the immune system and watch the disease evolve. It failed." Stem-Cell Repair They had thought that destroying the bone marrow would improve symptoms within a year. After all, MS is believed to be an autoimmune disease, in which immune system cells mistakenly attack the fatty myelin sheath that protects nerve strands. Patients lose the ability to move as the thin strands that connect one nerve cell to another wither. Instead, improvements began two years after treatment. Freedman reported to the seminar about 17 of the patients he has given the transplants to. "We have yet to get the disease to restart," he said. Patients are not developing some of the characteristic brain lesions seen in MS. "But we are seeing this repair." MS patients often have hard-to-predict changes in their symptoms and disease course, so Freedman says his team must study the patients longer before they can say precisely what is going on. "We are trying to find out what is happening and what could possibly be the source of repair," Freedman said. But he has found some hints that may help doctors who treat MS by using drugs to suppress the immune system. "Those with a lot of inflammation going on were the most likely to benefit (from the treatment)," he said. "We need some degree of inflammation." While inflammation may be the process that destroys myelin, it could be that the body needs some inflammation to make repairs, Freedman said. Immune cells secrete compounds known as cytokines. While these are linked with inflammation, they may also direct cells, perhaps even the stem cells, to regenerate. The treatment itself is dangerous -- one patient died when the chemicals used to destroy his bone marrow also badly damaged his liver. Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Julie Steenhuysen and Eric Walsh _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 9 05:42:41 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 22:42:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70805081810l36ce969ele7cc452fc35bffd@mail.gmail.com > References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <20080508060652.GA19165@ofb.net> <55ad6af70805081810l36ce969ele7cc452fc35bffd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1210311887_10763@s7.cableone.net> At 06:10 PM 5/8/2008, Bryan wrote: >On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Damien Sullivan > wrote: > >> What we really need to do is come up with a way that provides > >> renewable energy at a lower cost than coal and oil. I think there is > >> such a way. Anyone interested in seeing work on it should send me > >> email. No point in sending it to the uninterested on the list. > > > > I'd say just send it to the list. As on topic as anything else going > > on. Tough goal, though, to compete with high-quality fuel we can just > > slurp freely out of the ground. > >Why compete with it? As for Keith's question, I have a few pages up >on my site that might eventually do the trick. I want orbital algae >farms for getting solar energy, with bioharvesting approaches there, >solar powered satellites, solar array farms, etc. But all of these >require space-based manufacturing approaches, and that's what we can >focus on first, like asteroid mining, Stop right there. Look I *founded* the L5 Society. If there is anyone who is going to defend going after ET materials it's me. The problem is paying for it. As Freeman Dyson noted in _Distrubing the Universe_ the cost of going into space is 10,000 times to high for us to do it on our own. That means we have to figure out a way to get there on things (like energy) that other people want. The problem with extra terrestrial resources is that we are not going to be able to make a case before funding sources for them. The time line is too long and the risk is too high in the viewpoint of funding sources. That's just the way it is. Phil Chapman commented on this recently. I got into this study backwards, from working on space elevators. Now if you have a high capacity, moving cable, space elevator you don't need extra terrestrial resources to do massive projects in space. The lift energy payback for an SPS taken into space with an elevator is *less than a day.* But it turns out rockets are not as inefficient as I thought. It takes under 20 days for an SPS lifted into space by rockets to pay back the lift energy. That's good because we don't have the nanotube cable to make space elevators yet and we might not get it pre singularity. I don't think humans will get into space in significant number pre singularity and afterwards who knows? But unless the singularity comes in the next few years, the energy crisis is going to cause billions of people to die. I can make a case for replacing oil with solar power satellites lifted by rockets in less than a decade. I can't make a case for asteroid resources. If you want to convince me you can, put numbers on your proposals. snip Keith Henson From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 9 06:48:39 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 23:48:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Urge to get Personal References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com><20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net><074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><077d01c8b08d$14be1ce0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <07f701c8b1a1$638c9df0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes >> > I hope this suffices as my response to Rafal, and (probably >> > inadvisably) to our mischievous Lee Corbin. >> >> I have no idea---and don't really want to know---why >> some people seemingly cannot refrain from making >> personal characterizations, or innuendo. >> >> This particular one, above, may or may not be harmless, >> who is to know? > > I'm pretty sure, Lee, that I've never harmed you, nor am I arguing ad > hominem. On a number of occasions you have used insulting language demeaning me. > My concluding paragraph was a meta-statement about the > response I felt I owed Rafal, and an observation on my awareness of > the humorous inadvisability of engaging with your often intelligent > and interesting but characteristically polemical and gamesmanlike > posting style. Very humorous. If we didn't have a history, I might have been quite charmed. > Feel free to address the substance of my post Why, thank you! > after you've recovered from any perceived wounds due to being > called mischievous. Jef, just please lay off. Please don't go on attempting to characterize me or my writing style. Just leave it alone. I've asked before, and it did seem like for a few months you got the message. Here it is again, loud and clear. I do not wish to get into any kind of subtle tit-for-tat mocking exchagnes with you. Just refrain from further characterizations of me and all will be well. Lee From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 9 18:55:33 2008 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 14:55:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] News: Colliding with nature's best-kept secrets Message-ID: <380-2200855918553310@M2W013.mail2web.com> CNN) -- Visiting a particle accelerator is like a religious experience, at least for Nima Arkani-Hamed. "Nima Arkani-Hamed, a leading theoretical physicist, thinks the universe has at least 11 dimensions. 1 of 2 Immense detectors surround the areas where inconceivably small particles slam into one another at super-high energies, collisions that may confirm Arkani-Hamed's predictions about undiscovered properties of nature." http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/09/physics.nima/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Fri May 9 21:32:53 2008 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 14:32:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism in wikipedia - A Call for Max In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70805081912g336fd9fh653444353847e1df@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net> <55ad6af70805081912g336fd9fh653444353847e1df@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <51ce64f10805091432r7137f115if6eb4c62ffd30366@mail.gmail.com> We should have confidence that the meme of transhumanism will remain healthy no matter what the Wikipedia page says. Why? Because it inherently makes sense, and open-minded people will at least see our point, even if they don't necessarily consider themselves adherents. Most people probably form their opinion about transhumanism in the first 10 seconds of realizing that it exists as a distinct movement. All other investigation after that is to merely confirm their initial expectations. The real thing that can change people's minds are face-to-face interactions. Our social instincts force us to pay attention to the tangibility of flesh-and-blood persons. We can outweigh a Wikipedia article. But still, I encourage anyone to try modifying it. It's just that, Wikipedia is corrupt and someone with political power there (don't know if Loremaster has it) can do whatever they want. -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Fri May 9 23:10:19 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 18:10:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Re: [wta-talk] Let's collaborate on an article for RU Sirius' magazine (was: Transhumanism in Wikipedia? - A Call for Max) In-Reply-To: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803907ED161C@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> References: <797171.27397.qm@web27702.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803907ED161C@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: <200805091810.19771.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 09 May 2008, Hughes, James J. wrote: > But if you really want to see some dimension of H+ highlighted, write > an article about it for the H+ magazine that RU Sirius is editing for > the WTA. I think this will be the highest profile transhumanist > publication since Extropy. Hm. Thanks for the reminder, and it's an interesting proposal. I remember R. U. Sirius showing up around these parts one or two months ago asking for contributions. Since I haven't had time to get started on this, and since we all seem to not like the Wikipedia article, let's collaborate on some sort of editorial to submit to the new magazine, using a wiki. I offer mine up for grabs: http://heybryan.org/mediawiki/index.php/Sirius_editorial I jotted down some notes. Also, George and our other local James have been requesting articles for betterhumans too, so we can kill a few birds with one stone here, especially if we collaborate and make sure that we're showing tools for people to use (to empower them) (Whole Earth magazine editorial style) rather than anything that is possibly 'biased' except, perhaps, in a passing closing reference if anybody wants to include it + link to further discussion on those Bostromian topics [for lack of better name?]. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Sat May 10 01:36:10 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 20:36:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Reality (OpenNASA) In-Reply-To: <4824F64E.4030204@kurtz-fernhout.com> References: <83bb11c3-0fc0-4987-a6b6-0582b7b1a03a@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <0465445f-7d63-4ecd-8705-6bf0907a95f0@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <7fb1d7d7-0979-4284-9da5-7e2a789c7d0d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <6960bc28-67a3-4a15-ae31-3ca975823388@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <55ad6af70805081857w6f44076dk90f3cec43540c5b9@mail.gmail.com> <4824F64E.4030204@kurtz-fernhout.com> Message-ID: <55ad6af70805091836j7ed1dc29x73ca769f159828bc@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul D. Fernhout Date: May 9, 2008 8:11 PM Subject: Re: Reality (OpenNASA) To: virgle at googlegroups.com What are the people doing there at OpenNASA? These NASA people are getting basic life support (pay) and health care. :-) Same as everyone on the planet should get as a right of birth IMHO. :-) Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear "Since the availability of power from fusion reactors [Solar panels :-)] and cheap automated [robotic] labor has enabled them to develop a post-scarcity economy, ..." Or: http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/leisure/bucky.html "It is now possible to give every man, woman and child on Earth a standard of living comparable to that of a modern-day billionaire." --Buckminster Fuller As individuals, no doubt, these OpenNASA people are some of the finest at NASA; the problem is, beyond their other duties and families, the NASA bureaucracy and the capitalist economic values that through Congress set the tone for NASA prevent them from helping the world much through free stuff (example, the widespread assumption in Congress that NASA stuff has value only if someone pays directly for it, like by exclusively licensing a patent). Example: http://technology.jsc.nasa.gov/licensing.cfm "NASA owns over 1,000 patents and patent applications that protect inventions in hundreds of subject matter categories. NASA makes these inventions available to industry through its Patent Licensing Program, which is administered by the NASA Office of General Counsel, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C." See? Taxpayer-supported NASA inventions need to be "protected" from the likes of, say, well, the taxpayers on the OpenVirgle project. Wouldn't want to get those pristine ideas dirty, now would we? :-( Nope, best to keep those leading edge NASA ideas "protected" -- maybe tucked away somewhere alongside with the "lost" (technology-wise and license-wise and ) Saturn-V plans. :-( On lost "technology-wise", see: http://stason.org/TULARC/science-engineering/space/76-What-happened-to-the-saturn-v-plans.html "Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production to assist in any future re-start. The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch from. By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean sheet design." On lost "license-wise", from what I know of NASA licensing SNAFUs, it is almost certain (I haven't checked though) that most of those Saturn-V plans (as blueprints) are copyrighted by the contractors and so OpenVirgle could redistribute them under a free license that allowed derivative works. It is barely possible that an OSCOMAK-like project run by NASA might be able to redistribute them under the government's "for government purposes" rights, I don't know for sure, but I doubt it, and here is why. I know that contractor ownership of copyrights on blueprints and CAD files has been a problem with the shuttle and/or space station. So those plans really are "lost" IMHO, same as I discussed earlier how the book "The Energy Primer" http://groups.google.com/group/virgle/msg/5019e137fc4bfe84 was in that sense similarly lost even though I found my physical copy of it the other day. Of course, even if you could do much with the Saturn-V plans as far as derivative works, making available rocket technology to the world beyond a minimal level of sophistication is probably a USA federal offense: "A short history of export control policy" http://www.thespacereview.com/article/528/1 "This essay deals with the history of export policy and how it came to be as it is today, governed by the State Department as part of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ... This was accomplished by the removal of said items from the Commerce list of dual-use items in the Export Administration Regulations and placing them on the State Department's United States Munitions List, controlled under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act." And that's one reason, sadly, I'd probably rather not see any rocket technology in OSCOMAK right now beyond (presumably legal for-export) hobby level rocketry. And that is another reason why I myself am focusing on habitat design. (Although I really do it mainly for this reason:) "Both CATS and DOGS are needed..." http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=62113&cid=5821178 Of course, people using a distributed system, like you are working with on SKDB, and who are, say, running it outside the USA (unlike the OSCOMAK server which is around Pittsburgh) would not necessarily be bound by more than prudence and local laws of whatever country's laws covered such use. Still, prudence also suggests we need to solve habitat issues sooner than rocketry issues, even if just to make SpaceShip Earth work well for most everybody. These roadblocks to space habitation are all thrown up as part of our tax dollars at work under the current economic mythology: "The Mythology of Wealth by conceptualguerilla.com" http://kai-zen.livejournal.com/46079.html "Are you scratching your head? "What do you mean, they have 'nothing at all'? Property and money are something." Property and money are as mythological as Zeus. The first thing they teach you in law school - and I mean the first thing -- is that "property" is a collection of legal rights. They are mental abstractions. They were created in more or less their present form in the middle ages by common law judges. ..." Of course, the actual taxes taken out of our pockets and then spent mainly on the military slow us down too, by making us "work" for income more and taking time for volunteer work. For the record, I'd be happy to pay even more in communal taxes if it was spent better, like is often the case in Europe (although not always). Even given NASA's bureaucracy, I'd gladly pay more taxes in the USA if NASA got 50X what the DOD got, and not vice-versa, on the assumption some of the money would leak into good things even if unintentionally. :-) But seriously, most of the NASA budget has gone to running the Shuttle (or one space station). If NASA had 20X as much money, they would have a lot of room for experimenting. So -- no aerospace contractors need go hungry with a switch to a different "racket" http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm -- just an issue of mythology and choosing whether to worship Athena (Weaving and Wisdom) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena or Mars (War) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_%28mythology%29 with that budget. NASA could likely be improved, of course, to spend money more effectively as to space habitation. But they would have to at least start laughing at the idea of space habitation first instead of mainly ignoring it out of IMHO fear of another "Golden Fleece Award" (see below). Related: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm "Before you can reach a point of effectiveness in defending your own children or your principles against the assault of blind social machinery, you have to stop conspiring against yourself by attempting to negotiate with a set of abstract principles and rules which, by its nature, cannot respond. Under all its disguises, that is what institutional schooling is, an abstraction which has escaped its handlers. Nobody can reform it. First you have to realize that human values are the stuff of madness to a system; in systems-logic the schools we have are already the schools the system needs; the only way they could be much improved is to have kids eat, sleep, live, and die there." So let me rewrite this for NASA: :-) "Before you can reach a point of effectiveness in defending your [space ambitions] or your principles against the assault of blind social machinery [embodied in NASA], you have to stop conspiring against yourself by attempting to negotiate with a set of abstract principles and rules which, by its nature, cannot respond. Under all its disguises, that is what institutional [space travel via NASA] is, an abstraction which has escaped its handlers. Nobody can reform it. First you have to realize that human values [or the Pro-Am revolution] are the stuff of madness to a system; in systems-logic the [space programs] we have are already the [space programs] the system needs; the only way they could be much improved is to have [potential space habitat dwellers] eat, sleep, live, and die there [without ever getting to live in or even visit space]." For example, the OpenNASA site doesn't even render well in (my up-to-date version of) FireFox/IceWeasel -- the left border is non-existent. What does that tell you about the true feelings of NASA-the-institution about F/OSS? Anyway, sadly, I would expect NASA makes it impossible for these OpenNASA individuals in the course of their employment to be helpful in the useful ways you outline, for the "systems-logic" reasons mentioned above. For one thing, they'd worry about giving a soapbox to people like me. :-) http://www.opennasa.com/2008/04/01/project-virgle/ Except maybe for naming comets, it feels like NASA as an *institution* has no interest in (or understanding of) the rest of the "Pro-Ams" revolution yet (regardless of employees' individual understanding): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_amateurs These F/OSS and exponential and post-scarcity technology ideas are just too threatening to the entire mythology organizing the UN Congress, and so the US Government, and so NASA. My pessimistic prediction is that if OpenNASA was really effective, since it threatens the elite status quo (with the elite having its head in the sand about people starving, dying of preventable illnesses, being bored in school. and losing their dignity at work, etc.), it would soon get some version of a Proxmire "Golden Fleece Award" again. I feel space habitation research and development at NASA has never even recovered even from the *last* time that happened in the 1970s: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/5296 "Rather than rocketing construction materials into space, he proposed mining lunar rock and then shipping it to an orbiting manufacturing plant. The rock would be moved around by a solar-powered EM launcher--much cheaper than shipping rocket fuel to the moon, he reasoned. Best of all, O'Neill concluded, rather dubiously, these colonies could be created "with existing technology." ... To build Mass Driver II would require more funding, but before NASA could approve it, Wisconsin senator William Proxmire got wind of O'Neill's space colonies idea. Famed for his "Golden Fleece" awards for government spending he deemed wasteful, Proxmire went on television to proclaim "not another penny for this nutty fantasy." NASA quickly pulled the plug on all its space colonies projects, including the Mass Driver." Of course, I can hope times have changed and either the award would not happen or NASA as an institution would find the backbone (and other support) to stand up for everyone's dreams of a better future *both* on Spaceship Earth and "out there". But until that day, it's up to us hobbyists IMHO. And some people have a tough time forgiving NASA for that lack of courage to this day. :-( But as my wife says, forgiveness is a gift you give yourself. Ultimately, it won't matter what NASA does or doesn't do. http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html "At this moment nearly every engineer on earth has a powerful and globally networked computer in his or her home. Collaborative volunteer efforts are now possible on an unprecedented scale. Moores's Law predicts continued reductions See for example the writings of Raymond Kurzweil at http://www.kurzweilai.net/ or Hans Moravec at http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm in the cost of bandwidth, storage, CPU power, and displays - which will lead to computers a million times faster, bigger or cheaper in the next few decades. Collaboration software such as for sending email, holding real-time video conferences, and viewing design drawings is also reducing in cost; much of it is now effectively free. This means there are now few technical or high-cost barriers to cooperation among engineers, many of whom even now have in their homes (often merely for game playing reasons) computing power and bandwidth beyond anything available to the best equipped engineers in the 1970s." But we can still hope NASA may change sooner rather than later, because for every day NASA plays by the old fearful scarcity mythology, people die of preventable problems in the rest of the world, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation "According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, more than 25,000 people died of starvation every day in 2003, and as of 2001 to 2003, about 800 million people were chronically undernourished." Those deaths just go to show the power of myth to do evil, since there is more than enough food to go around. Why doesn't everyone get enough? Ultimately, it is due to social myths -- like the value of "free markets" where ironically nothing is free, even is most place, "dying" (with or without dignity). There were "pre-scarcity" myths: http://www.marcinequenzer.com/horn_of_plenty.htm "In our Seneca Tradition, the Field of Plenty is seen as a spiral that has its smallest revolution out in space and its' largest revolution near the Earth." There are now "scarcity" myths (including NASA's licensing policies. :-) http://www.house.gov/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget And after that scarcity bubble pops (assuming it does not "pop" too literally and noisily :-( ), there will be "post-scarcity" myths: http://www.debian.org/ http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/1349202 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html (which are essentially a return to the pre-scarcity myths, but with the technology for space travel and supporting quadrillions of people in the solar system via self-replicating space habitats included as an upgrade from suffering through the cycle. :-) Personally, down the road, I have high hopes for recruiting *retired* NASA people (and "retired" from other places too) to make OpenVirgle literally take off. :-) A lot of those people hated the bureaucracy too and might be willing to take their retirement on life support (pension) and do something with their time. I have multiple objectives with my posts, but eventually another source of recruits for "retirees" as far as full-time devoted effort (we need no money now or maybe ever as a group IMHO, even if we may need it as individuals) are the Google Millionaires (not Billionaires, since those financially obese guys will always be too busy managing their money to add much content or metadata to OpenVirgle/OSCOMAK. :-) Anyway, there must be at least one hundred to one thousand people working at Google who could quit tomorrow and go the rest of their lives working full-time (as a volunteer hobby) on Project Virgle and never miss a frugal meal or basic health coverage for themselves or their family. Ultimately, just the *possibility* of even some of these people leaving all at once may be enough to transform Google into a subsidiary of OpenVirgle project -- once OpenVirgle/OSCOMAK has enough content and momentum to be credible so these Millionaires think they can change the word more and in better ways via that than, say, Knol. :-) I know, wake him up, he's snoring in his dreams. :-) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=snoring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snoring "While snoring is sometimes considered a minor affliction, snorers can suffer severe impairment of lifestyle. ..." --Paul Fernhout http://www.openvirgle.net/ Bryan Bishop wrote: > Hm. So, an OpenNASA project. Makes me wonder. What are the people > doing there? The individuals that are working at NASA, I mean. Are > they so very busy that they can't bother to spend time appearing on > the internet and organizing amateur communities? Are they really that > busy? I doubt it. I bet most of them have 'desk jobs' from 9 to 5, > that sort of thing, except pushing the longer hours for the techies. > Of course, everybody needs a break, but if promoting space communities > seems like work then maybe they are in the wrong field? I wonder what > happens when digital age tech kids grow up to work at NASA. Do they > torrent all of the data up to the net? Do they publish schematics on > wikileaks.org? etc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project Virgle" group. To post to this group, send email to virgle at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to virgle-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/virgle?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 10 07:14:59 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 03:14:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] what will lower bilirubin level? In-Reply-To: References: <687394.20979.qm@web46115.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60805100014n54fe4e72u340d437d3ae8fe68@mail.gmail.com> I am a bit busy now (will be answering Damien Sullivan's and Stathis' excellent post soon) so for now just let me chime in that if you have significant hyperbilirubinemia, you need to discuss this with your physician.... and it could be potentially extremely important to do it sooner rather than later. On a related note, if you have just a slight hyperbilirubinemia of the unconjugated type, you might have Gilbert's syndrome, like I do. If so, then rejoice: bilirubin is at these concentrations a powerful antioxidant, and some authorities believe that Gilbert's syndrome might be associated with a slightly lower risk of cancer and other nastiness: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6720189.html Rafal On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2008/5/8 Alan Brooks : > > > > > Rafal, do you know what pharmaceuticals will lower bilirubin level? > > I'm not Rafal, but cholestyramine can be used to lower bilirubin in > cases of cholestatic jaundice. It works by binding bile salts in the > gut, preventing their reabsorption. However, there is probably > something seriously wrong with you if you have hyperbilirubinaemia and > it is imperative to diagnose and treat the underlying condition. > > From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 10 14:04:43 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 09:04:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Facebook - poking, prodding and graffiti Message-ID: <20080510140446.YTBS27093.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Today I was reading my messages from facebook. Two people congratulated me on a one year old son, which I do not have, and I have been superpoked so many times I hurt, not to mention writings on my wall that I will never read. I thought I had turned off the okay for anyone to so poke me and write on my wall, but there you have it ... Max send me this link from a friend of ours. I am sharing it because it is appropriate to my situation and may be to yours as well. >A nice take on Facebook: > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrlSkU0TFLs Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future 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: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 10 14:34:23 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 09:34:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism in wikipedia - A Call for Max Message-ID: <20080510143426.IMVK9391.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> It has been suggested in that a small group, or large group, of members of the WTA list ban together to edit the article and block those currently controlling the article. I am opposed to this because it is taking the low road - and I think there are other options to deal with this unfortunate situation. Related is that some of the few original authors in question were on the WTA mailing list in the first place. The WTA mailing list is not necessarily object, just as no organization's owned mailing list can due to its own internal stakeholders and its desire to promote its own views. What must occur is a balanced opinion by individuals who can cover the sections with as much ethnographic study and empirical knowledge as possible. Those early writers, some of which are claimed to possess authority of this article, may not fully know the areas concerning transhumanism that they are writing on. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture Thinking About the Future 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: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat May 10 17:46:02 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 10:46:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Buckminster Fuller: The History and Mystery of Life" Message-ID: <2d6187670805101046l783051a7t341ac980c296f5ac@mail.gmail.com> Last night I watched the superb one man play, "Buckminster Fuller: The History and Mystery of Life." Joe Spano nailed the role of the visionary maverick who some have called, "the Leonardo DaVinci of the 20th century." I was enthralled by the combination of excellent acting, writing, lighting, multimedia display, and set design. The play was in a sense the most entertaining and educational university lecture I have ever attended! lol I have seen a number of documentaries about Bucky's life and this work was an incredible resurrection of both the man and his ideas. The intelligence, enthusiasm, concern, playfulness, energy, and earnestness of the man was all there. The humanity and charm of Buckminster Fuller came through as he waxed poetic about the glories of love and how as a young lad he dropped out of Harvard and ran off to the big city to court a beautiful showgirl! They projected a photo of a young Bucky with a mischievous smile on his face and the gorgeous dancer who caught his fancy. hee But this did not exactly go over well with his very concerned parents... Later, Buckminster found himself back home, with his father lecturing him about his future and the importance of wisely spending his college money on a Harvard education. And going on road trips to chase women was not a viable alternative! lol Harvard just did not agree with him, but in time he met the right woman and they married and had a long and happy marriage. It was obvious that he adored her and his romance with the universe and the future of humanity also applied to the woman he loved and spent his life with. The intertwining of Fuller's sometimes very painful and yet joyful personal life, with his scientific and philosophical ideas was fascinating. The way his spiritual/transcendental experiences affected his futurism and general outlook is very inspiring to me and a needed example. Taken from the "Good Times" online interview with Joe Spano: For Spano, the most interesting aspect of Fuller's life is his epiphany at the age of 32 when he stood on the shores of Lake Michigan contemplating suicide. He had gone bankrupt, lost his first child, was discredited and unemployed staring into the frozen waters that could take his life. In that moment, he had an idea that would change his life, and the world, forever. It was then that he embarked on his 56-year experiment that attempted to prove his most controversial ideas as feasible. In that time he authored 28 books, earned 28 United States Patents, received 47 honorary doctorates and circled the globe 57 times giving lectures and interviews. Spano says, "To come back from that low-point and make your life function and find the joyful responsibility to communicate is the most important thing that I take out of this." >>> My very favorite quote from Buckminster Fuller is, "find the time to think in a cosmically adequate manner." I consider this to be one of the coolest Transhumanist-themed ideas I have ever heard. In so many ways he tried to get across the notion that each of us really do matter and can make a difference in terms of the fate of humanity. I found this both very powerful and humbling. Another excerpt from the "Good Times" online article: Spano has truly tapped into this role and encourages anyone who seeks a connection to the world to see it. He lays it out simply: "As much as you want entertainment, people hunger for something real," he says. "That's how I experience life. Give me something that's so powerful and I'll forget my life, but this is the opposite. It gives great joy and lets the audience say, 'oh yeah.'" >>> I heartily recommend everyone look to see if this play is coming to their community, and if it is, then go see it! I only wish my comments here did justice to what I saw last night. Only one performance was scheduled for my area and the auditorium was about 90% full. But I was saddened that I only saw a small handful of young people there. I would say the most numerous demographic was of couples in their fifties and above. But then it was a Friday night... lol I wish I could start up a nightclub called "Bucky's." The place would be full of dancing and fun, and held under a gigantic and brightly lit geodesic dome! Interesting and inspirational quotes & pictures from Buckminster Fuller's life and ideas would be put on the walls of the joint. : ) John Grigg Some Buckminster Fuller quotes that really resonate with me: "If humanity does not opt for integrity we are through completely. It is absolutely touch and go. Each one of us could make the difference." "We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims." "Humanity is now experiencing history's most difficult evolutionary transformation." "I have been a deliberate half-century-fused inciter of a cool-headed, natural, gestation-rate-paced revolution, armed with physically demonstrable livingry levers with which altogether to elevate all humanity to realization of an inherently sustainable, satisfactory-to-all, ever higher standard of living. Critical threshold-crossing of the inevitable revolution is already underway." ------------------------------ The following are two online reviews that covered this incredible production: http://sixties-l.blogspot.com/2008/03/r-buckminster-fuller-history-and.html R. Buckminster Fuller: The History and Mystery of Life Actor Joe Spano takes on the life and ideas of the visionary freethinker R. Buckminster Fuller WALLACE BAINE - Sentinel staff writer Article Launched: 03/07/2008 R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller has been dead for 25 years. But no one of his generation, or perhaps of any previous generation, would be more comfortable walking out of the past right into 2008. Fuller "" futurist, inventor, philosopher, architect, engineer, freethinker, utopian "" prefigured today's world of carbon footprints, global warming and technological salvation. He has been called one of the most fascinating original minds of the 20th century and an enlightened American mystic. Yet, today, he has not penetrated the mainstream consciousness of most Americans. A new one-man show, coming to Santa Cruz on Friday, March 14, is looking to enlighten contemporary audiences on the man who became a central figure in the intellectual development of the 1960s counterculture. "R. Buckminster Fuller: The History and Mystery of Life" features actor Joe Spano in the conservative suit and big, horn-rimmed glasses of Fuller. The play is meant to address both Fuller's life and his ideas. "There are biographical elements to it," said Spano, known for his recurring role in the landmark 1980s TV series "Hill Street Blues." "But it's also a history of the evolution of his thought." Spano said he has commonly heard from audiences that many people were pleasantly surprised at the play's content. "I've heard, 'I was so afraid that I wasn't going to understand it.' But it's not about science or specifics about engineering. It's really about the experience of thinking for yourself, the integrity that makes you be yourself and how you've got to follow the path to fulfill your own life." The play's writer and director Doug Jacobs said that he first came across the ideas of Buckminster Fuller 40 years ago, during Fuller's first full flowering of influence. "I was a freshman at UC Santa Barbara, looking to study political geography," said Jacobs. "And my brother, who was in the College of Creative Studies at the time, told me, 'Hey, you gotta come hear this guy talk.' So I went, at the beginning of Bucky's lecture, slipped out to go to class, came back and he was still talking, left again, came back again and he's still there. And this went on for two or three days." It wasn't until years later, in 1980, when Jacobs read Fuller's seminal book "Critical Path" that he went "down the rabbit hole" for Fuller's ideas. "Bucky bridges science and the humanities," said Jacobs. "All those lines we draw "" left/right, Democrat/Republican, scientist/artist "" he cut across all those lines. He just paid no attention to them. He was all about jumping fences in the best kind of American way." Fuller is most known as the inventor of the geodesic dome, but his philosophical ideas embrace the doing-more-with-less notions only now coming into mainstream thought today. He was a systems thinker who, to take one example, felt that world hunger could be easily wiped out with a different systematic approach. The play came about in 1995 when Jacobs, already fully immersed in the Bucky belief system, was approached to write a play on the centennial of Fuller's birth. Jacobs said he brought elements of performance art and entertainment into the story of Fuller's life, perfectly in keeping with the man's personality. "He had this fascination with show business," said Jacobs, "and a not-so-secret desire to be a song-and-dance man. This will be different than a lecture. There's a poetic element to the play as well." Spano spent hours watching tape of Fuller's lectures to get the mannerisms and speech patterns down, and also re-interprets Fuller's tweedy manner of dress and personal style. "He was really a counterculture figure," said Spano. "But he wanted to be taken seriously also. And he knew he wouldn't be taken seriously unless he dressed conservatively, like a bank clerk." "The thing about him," said Jacobs, "was that he could go down into the minute details of any subject that interested him and then zoom out to the bigger picture, going masterfully from the microcosm to the macrocosm and back again. And very, very few people have been able to do that." Jacobs said Fuller had wished to provide the world with an example of what one person could do, given effort, energy and creativity, and that his play reflects that part of Fuller's philosophy. "It's a call to action to become who you're meant to become, just like he did. It asks the question: What are you meant to do with your life?" Spano said that Fuller's message is perfectly contemporary to today's artists, writers and freethinkers. "He says in the play, 'I do think we'll make it, if we wake up and act in a sensible way.' And that's something that people really want to hear." ------------------------- http://www.gtweekly.com/a-e/pass-the-buckminster-1 The Good Times website, article written by Alex Page: Meet the P.R. man to the universe R Buckminster Fuller was one of the greatest minds in history. Descriptions of Fuller only obfuscate his life more than it was, with apt but bizarre phrases like "the first navigator to chart spaceship earth's critical path towards either utopia or oblivion." Known to most as the designer of the geodesic dome, Fuller was nothing short of genius, but terribly disturbed as well. He is credited with inventing the Dymaxion Map and coining the word "debunked." This man of mystery has a plethora of quirks, credits, inventions and ideas. Most of us have no idea who Fuller was or even his philosophies that emanated with his environmental consciousness, but wonder no more. Joe Spano (Hill Street Blues, Apollo 13 and Hollywoodland) is tackling the task of portraying the "Da Vinci of the 20th century" and he's coming right here to Santa Cruz through the UC Santa Cruz Arts & Lectures series. For one night only at 8 p.m. on March 14 at UCSC's Mainstage Theater, Spano will be performing the highly acclaimed one man show, "R. Buckminster Fuller: The History (and Mystery) of Life." Spano has been a film actor for nearly 35 years, and began his acting career up in the Bay Area. A San Francisco native, he attended UC Berkeley where he quickly dropped his medical ambitions and found his love for stage performance. He helped found the Berkeley Repertory Theater and performed with them for 10 years before he made his way to television. He's best known for his Emmy Award-winning role on Hill Street Blues. Spano describes this stage role as the hardest thing he's done in his career. "The experience of being the sole communicator is very satisfying," he says. "But it takes more time, is much harder on you and you make less money. But for family life it's easier to do television. I've found the process to be very challenging this time; as you get older it gets harder because it's so physical." He's not the first to tackle this role, but his close-knit relationship with director D.W. Jacobs has made this production reach new heights of accuracy. He explains that researching the role led him toward stacks of tapes, books and papers written by and about the unique mind. He also took the script and really sank his teeth into it. But nothing helped more than getting to meet with Fuller's daughter who is now in her eighties. She provided an exclusive peek into Bucky's life that biographies fall short of describing. The whole performance has led the actor in his own understanding of life. He feels that Bucky Fuller and his words really speak to people. Too often audiences are watching in order to escape from reality. Yet this play guides the audience on an understanding of the world, the universe and ourselves. Spano believes that he has gained a sense of what is true. "I can't explain it and it'd be a bad idea if I tried, but truth is like pornography," he says. "You know it when you see it." That seems to be a mantra of contemporary popular culture. With shows like American Idol and Survivor, we yearn for an escape from reality into "reality." It's clear through talking with Spano that those types of shows are just a distraction. Those that seek reality must seek truth, but fabricated television cannot provide that. Instead we should try philosophical theater. "R. Buckminster Fuller: The History (and Mystery) of Life" interestingly borders that realm of escape from, and explanation of, life. For Spano, the most interesting aspect of Fuller's life is his epiphany at the age of 32 when he stood on the shores of Lake Michigan contemplating suicide. He had gone bankrupt, lost his first child, was discredited and unemployed staring into the frozen waters that could take his life. In that moment, he had an idea that would change his life, and the world, forever. It was then that he embarked on his 56-year experiment that attempted to prove his most controversial ideas as feasible. In that time he authored 28 books, earned 28 United States Patents, received 47 honorary doctorates and circled the globe 57 times giving lectures and interviews. Spano says, "To come back from that low-point and make your life function and find the joyful responsibility to communicate is the most important thing that I take out of this." The performance is a two-hour play with multimedia components infused to better convey the madness and genius of Buckminster Fuller's ideas, concepts and inventions. The show was written and directed by D.W. Jacobs and pulls most of the script straight from the words and work of Fuller who is purported to be the most documented person in human history. The play is being produced in conjunction with Z-Space Studio and has been hosted at the Rubicon Theatre in Ventura, Spano's self-declared "home theater," before its current tour throughout the country. Spano has truly tapped into this role and encourages anyone who seeks a connection to the world to see it. He lays it out simply: "As much as you want entertainment, people hunger for something real," he says. "That's how I experience life. Give me something that's so powerful and I'll forget my life, but this is the opposite. It gives great joy and lets the audience say, 'oh yeah.'" ------------------------- From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 10 23:30:56 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 16:30:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60805062153qcca0ac1l9a82c91b967bb558@mail.gmail.com> <747226.93232.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805070802q216d8c5eo41b9fdbd121e94bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D6F138B-9DD6-439D-B6A8-E24F60E0890B@mac.com> On May 7, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2008/5/8 Rafal Smigrodzki : > >> ### This is a *government cartel*, don't you know? To spell it out, >> "OPEC ..... is .... a.... cartel .... of...... governments". Not a >> cartel of oil companies. > > So how would you prevent a cartel of companies, or for that matter an > oligarchy of companies that own everything and have an army of paid > enforcers, not unlike the House of Saud? How would this cartel of companies manage to keep all would be competitors from underselling them if they had no state power (legalized force) backing them up? If they are truly charging more than costs plus reasonable profit (as defined by what any other producer would require) then they would open themselves to competitive pressure to change their position. - samantha From amara at amara.com Sun May 11 14:40:46 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 08:40:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism in wikipedia - A Call for Max Message-ID: alyosha alyosha at bostoncoop.net : >* The article isn't that bad. "It's not that bad." I sincerely hope that that is not a perspective that very many people are embracing. It's a resigning, compromising, dispassionate, passive, languid, submissive, phlegmatic, lethargic and meek perspective on one's life philosophy, and one that has no resemblance to how the transhumans and extropians approach their lives and their goals. The article _should_ accurately reflect the perspective of the philosophy of the people that it's describing. An "It's not that bad article" doesn't fit them, and it doesn't work as an educational device in the world's foremost encyclopedia either. An "it's not that bad" article is one that I would never use to introduce a newcomer to a complex topic. Such an action would demonstrate that I didn't care very much, both for that newcomer and for myself. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From max at maxmore.com Sun May 11 20:22:22 2008 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 15:22:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Max More chat with Immortality Institute, Sunday May 11, 5:00pm CDT Message-ID: <20080511202226.JCGS26570.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> I've been a bit of a hermit until recently, so if you want to come hear me and ask questions, Immortality Institute is hosting a chat a little later this afternoon. Here is the forum where there is pre-show discussion: http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21871&st=0#entry238524 Here is that streaming channel it will appear on: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/immortality-update Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun May 11 23:01:38 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 16:01:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Smarts and Status Message-ID: <007801c8b3ba$f81a20d0$6601a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Interesting study, for the implications: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080510_power Olga From aiguy at comcast.net Mon May 12 00:36:46 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 20:36:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] New Alzheimer's Research In-Reply-To: <29666bf30805081651w1a867bd0r64cde63fde24e278@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30805081651w1a867bd0r64cde63fde24e278@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: A new report was published in the May 8 online edition of the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. The report identifies two flavonoids called luteolin and diosmin reduced levels of beta-amyloid, which forms the harmful plaques that build up in the brains of those with Alzheimer's disease. "The question is, can we use these flavonoids in people that have cognitive impairment?" Rezai-Zadeh said. "That's the million-dollar question." http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/05/09/flavonoids-may -help-treat-alzheimers.html Although cognitive function was not measured in this study and I acknowledge that there are some scientists out there that believe that reducing beta-amyloid is not the answer to either prevention or cure of Alzheimer's. The exciting thing for me is that instead of having to wait seven years for an approved drug that may have more side effects than the flavinoids there supplements available now that anyone can buy off the shelf. For anyone who has a loved one in the beginning stages this disease. This article offers hope. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon May 12 06:36:16 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 23:36:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Student & prof build budget supercomputer Message-ID: <2d6187670805112336p632c31a9q2354d1c40b32c168@mail.gmail.com> Student, prof build budget supercomputer http://www.calvin.edu/news/2007-08/microwulf.htm August 30 , 2007 When Tim Brom 07' set out to build a budget supercomputer with Calvin computer science professor Joel Adams, he didn't know the product of his efforts might end up in his checked baggage headed for England. Brom, now a graduate student at the University of Kentucky continuing his studies in computer science, worked with Adams to build Microwulf, a machine that is among the smallest and least expensive supercomputers on the planet. "It's small enough to check on an airplane or fit next to a desk," said Brom. This may prove useful next summer when Brom and others from his graduate program travel to England to do work that will require "a significant amount of computing power." And as the price of commercial supercomputers is often prohibitive for many educational institutions, bringing a "personal" supercomputer like Microwulf could be a cost-effective solution for the group of graduate researchers. "So far as we can tell, this is the first supercomputer to have this low price/performance ratio?the first to cost less than $100/Gflop," said Adams. This is a significant achievement considering that Microwulf is more than twice as fast as Deep Blue, the IBM-created supercomputer that beat world chess champion Gary Kasparov in 1997, and cost only a fraction of the $5 million spent to build Deep Blue. Microwulf has been measured to process 26.25 gigaflops, or 26.25 billion double-precision floating point instructions, per second. It achieves this performance by relying on four dual-core motherboards connected by an 8-port Gigabyt Ethernet switch. The connected components form a three-tiered system that looks like a triple-decker sandwich. Supercomputers like Microwulf are used to solve problems that take too much number-crunching for an ordinary desktop to handle, either because its processor is too slow, or because it doesn't have enough memory, said Adams. Truly huge supercomputers (more than 100 times as fast as Microwulf) are used by organizations like the National Weather Service to process meteorological data and by the United States Missile Defense Agency to simulate nuclear tests. Microwulf is considered a Beowulf cluster, a group of networked computers that run open source software and work in parallel to solve a single problem. Beowulf clusters are so named because their homemade, cost-effective nature liberates researchers from expensive commercial options for super-computing, much like Beowulf of the Old English poem liberated the Danes from the tyrannical rule of Grendel. Do Brom and Adams see themselves as "liberators" by unveiling of a system like Microwulf? "We're taking the liberation a step further," said Adams. "Instead of a bunch of researchers having to share a single Beowulf cluster supercomputer, now each researcher can have their own." Just two years ago, building a personal supercomputer like Microwulf for the price of a high-performance desktop was out of the realm of possibility for Adams and Brom. But when they saw a portable Beowulf cluster called Little Fe at a conference in October 2005, they began to think about building their system. "I was really enjoying my high-performance computing class and wanted to keep working in that area after the class ended. I was also thinking about graduate school at the time and a project like Microwulf looks good on a curriculum vitae," said Brom. So by the summer of 2006 when the price of hardware materials needed to build Microwulf had gone down, Adams asked his academic department to provide $2500 for the project. He also asked Brom, then beginning his last year at Calvin, to help him build the supercomputer. In January of 2007, they began to piece together their system and by March, they were running tests to see just what Microwulf could do. In the end, the project came in under budget with Microwulf donning a price-tag of just $2470. With current hardware prices, another system like Microwulf would cost half of what it cost Adams and Brom to build earlier this year. Though supercomputers are typically evaluated on their price/performance ratio, Adams built Microwulf giving attention to its power/performance ratio as well. In other words, he wanted to pay attention to the system's energy consumption. "This is becoming increasingly important, as excess power consumption is inefficient and generates waste heat, which can in turn decrease reliability," said Adams on his Web site. Adams and Brom managed to build Microwulf so that it could plug into one standard 120V wall outlet. This feature only enhances the system's portability, allowing it to be taken to classrooms and other research labs where large power supplies are unavailable. Adams isn't going to let Microwulf gather dust in the supercomputing lab in the Science Building. Instead he's going to take it out on the road, mostly to middle school and high school classrooms to try and get teenagers hooked on computer science. Microwulf's inventors aren't set on keeping their blueprints for the supercomputer a secret. In fact, they've just published a detailed description and evaluation of their project on Cluster Monkey so others can build their own portable and affordable supercomputers. It remains to be seen whether Brom will be able to get his wire-filled personal supercomputer past airport security next summer. ~written by Allison Graff, web communications coordinator From pgptag at gmail.com Mon May 12 08:23:07 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:23:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] First Scientific Conference in World of Warcraft Message-ID: <470a3c520805120123s5e2984e7hdfd47ac9f4d5426e@mail.gmail.com> http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/first_scientific_conference_in_world_of_warcraft/ William Sims Bainbridge has co-organized Convergence of the Real and the Virtual - The First Scientific Conference in World of Warcraft. The conference was held May 9-11, 2008, inside World of Warcraft, devoted to research on WoW and on virtual worlds in general. It was proposed by John Bohannon, who creates the Gonzo Scientist feature for the AAAS journal Science. A VERY interesting event. See my reports: First Scientific Conference in World of Warcraft http://metaxlr8.net/index.php/site/first_scientific_conference_in_world_of_warcraft/ Preparing for the First Scientific Conference in World of Warcraft http://metaxlr8.net/index.php/site/preparing_for_the_first_scientific_conference_in_world_of_warcraft/ From pgptag at gmail.com Mon May 12 17:20:22 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:20:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Max More in Second Life, Sunday June 8, 10am SLT/PST Message-ID: <470a3c520805121020q4308af80n4a3deb2547daedaa@mail.gmail.com> Max More in Second Life, Sunday June 8, 10am SLT/PST Title of the talk: Unresolved Issues in Transhumanism SL-Transhumanists @ Extropia Core Stay tuned, see http://translook.com/ From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 10 23:34:11 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 16:34:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <20080508060652.GA19165@ofb.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <20080508060652.GA19165@ofb.net> Message-ID: On May 7, 2008, at 11:06 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: >> What we really need to do is come up with a way that provides >> renewable energy at a lower cost than coal and oil. I think there is >> such a way. Anyone interested in seeing work on it should send me >> email. No point in sending it to the uninterested on the list. > > I'd say just send it to the list. As on topic as anything else going > on. Tough goal, though, to compete with high-quality fuel we can just > slurp freely out of the ground. hehehe. Funny. I wish we could just "slurp freely" but that has never been true. From spike66 at att.net Sun May 11 05:43:54 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 22:43:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] evolution poetry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805110613.m4B6Ciaq020272@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Someone with poetic talent posted this on another site, and didn't even say who it was other than Winslow. The term lizardoid is a political right winger. The poet makes fun of the political/religious right discrediting itself by getting mixed up with creationism. Its good for a laugh, check it out. spike Who Knows? 'Twas once upon the internet I chanced upon an argument; A blog appeared to splinter into internecine wars. 'Twas all precipitated by a movie dedicated to Portraying Darwinism as a truth-suppressing force. A thousand comments did I read, another thousand did I feed Into my aching brain, yet little progress did I find. No sooner was a claim defeated, than it was again repeated; Surely there's a better way to influence a mind. Oh Lord, I grew so weary of the cry: "It's just a theory!" for This charge is not dismissive in the scientific world. And though this point was oft explained, it did not hinder those who claimed That "Theory!" is rhetorical invective to be hurled. My neurons whirled, my senses swirled; how did man come into this world? I longed to take a nap, but someone said: "I've found a gap!" And though the gap was quickly filled, there promptly came a voice more shrill: "Behold!" it cried, "I now have spied a flanking pair of gaps!" And then, with logic so perverse it hurts to render it in verse, The charge was made that atheism is religious faith. And even Orwell would be awed by language so profoundly flawed, For logically, religious faith is therefore non-belief. To try to cast theology as natural philosophy Is clearly what Intelligent Designers have in mind. Their documented strategy to wedge their way to victory Speaks volumes on the nature of Intelligent Design. Though Darwin's Evolution is an elegant solution to The origin of species, still I hear some people say: "There must be something greater, so there must be a Creator," but Creators need creators too; it's turtles all the way. And so it went, and so it goes, but how it all began, who knows? I'll check the blog tomorrow, just in case it's been resolved. And if, by then, we all agree on how the humans came to be, We'll try to answer how and why we lizardoids evolved. From natasha at natasha.cc Tue May 13 03:44:10 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 22:44:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] test Message-ID: <20080513034414.LTDD25757.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> From kanzure at gmail.com Tue May 13 04:27:35 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 23:27:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <1210311887_10763@s7.cableone.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <55ad6af70805081810l36ce969ele7cc452fc35bffd@mail.gmail.com> <1210311887_10763@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200805122327.35508.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 09 May 2008, hkhenson wrote: > Stop right there. > > Look I *founded* the L5 Society. If there is anyone who is going to > defend going after ET materials it's me. Yep. :) > The problem is paying for it. As Freeman Dyson noted in _Distrubing I don't see how that's a problem. We created money. It's our monster. > the Universe_ the cost of going into space is 10,000 times to high > for us to do it on our own. > > That means we have to figure out a way to get there on things (like > energy) that other people want. > > The problem with extra terrestrial resources is that we are not going > to be able to make a case before funding sources for them. The time > line is too long and the risk is too high in the viewpoint of funding > sources. That's just the way it is. Phil Chapman commented on this > recently. Hey, funding is always nice. > I don't think humans will get into space in significant number pre > singularity and afterwards who knows? But unless the singularity > comes in the next few years, the energy crisis is going to cause > billions of people to die. I can make a case for replacing oil with > solar power satellites lifted by rockets in less than a decade. I > can't make a case for asteroid resources. > > If you want to convince me you can, put numbers on your proposals. I need to put numbers on my exponential growth proposals. That's one of the manufacturing projectst that I am doing. No numbers yet, but a demonstration is coming out soon of the way it all works. http://heybryan.org/exp.html - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun May 11 16:04:54 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 12:04:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Mind body video References: Message-ID: <002401c8b380$c7f11330$0301a8c0@MyComputer> I found a rather good video about the mind body problem, it's in the form of a drama and believe it or not Daniel Dennett is the lead actor, it's at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=U_8yo5hacKM John K Clark From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 13 04:51:11 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 00:51:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Mind Body Problem References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net><55ad6af70805081810l36ce969ele7cc452fc35bffd@mail.gmail.com><1210311887_10763@s7.cableone.net> <200805122327.35508.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000c01c8b4b4$fc6f88a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> I found a rather good video about the mind body problem, it's in the form of a drama and believe it or not Daniel Dennett is the lead actor, it's at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=U_8yo5hacKM John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 13 07:37:41 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 02:37:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> The endless stupidity is breathtaking: What, like ? An accident. Keep the really dumb piece of bullshit for the end. Has this man never heard of "adaptation," or "exaptation," or repurposing, or, I don't know, natural selection by differential survival of phenotypic variants? Yeah, I believe you. And I fear he's right. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 13 08:32:21 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 01:32:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <200805122327.35508.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <55ad6af70805081810l36ce969ele7cc452fc35bffd@mail.gmail.com> <1210311887_10763@s7.cableone.net> <200805122327.35508.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080513083221.GB26318@ofb.net> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:27:35PM -0500, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Friday 09 May 2008, hkhenson wrote: > > The problem is paying for it. As Freeman Dyson noted in _Distrubing > > I don't see how that's a problem. We created money. It's our monster. ...what? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 13 08:30:01 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 01:30:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <5D6F138B-9DD6-439D-B6A8-E24F60E0890B@mac.com> References: <7641ddc60805062153qcca0ac1l9a82c91b967bb558@mail.gmail.com> <747226.93232.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805070802q216d8c5eo41b9fdbd121e94bd@mail.gmail.com> <5D6F138B-9DD6-439D-B6A8-E24F60E0890B@mac.com> Message-ID: <20080513083001.GA26318@ofb.net> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 04:30:56PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On May 7, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > So how would you prevent a cartel of companies, or for that matter an > > oligarchy of companies that own everything and have an army of paid > > enforcers, not unlike the House of Saud? > > How would this cartel of companies manage to keep all would be > competitors from underselling them if they had no state power > (legalized force) backing them up? If they are truly charging more I forget if the context was minarchy or anarchy; if the latter, they use their army of paid enforcers, "legalized" force being a moot point. Of course sometimes economies of scale form a natural barrier to entry, as with Alcoa, or network economies. Oil isn't aluminum refining, but I imagine exploratory drilling and pipeline construction have largish mininum capital requirements. -xx- Damien X-) From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 13 09:42:20 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 11:42:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] New Alzheimer's Research In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30805081651w1a867bd0r64cde63fde24e278@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805130242s46f3d916p7616c6ccde29a374@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:36 AM, Gary Miller wrote: > Although cognitive function was not measured in this study and I > acknowledge > that there are some scientists out there that believe that reducing > beta-amyloid is not the answer to either prevention or cure of > Alzheimer's. > In any event, nobody believes beta-amyloid to be of any good, and is best prevented whatever its precise consequences and origins may be. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Tue May 13 11:53:27 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 06:53:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <20080513083221.GB26318@ofb.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <200805122327.35508.kanzure@gmail.com> <20080513083221.GB26318@ofb.net> Message-ID: <200805130653.27081.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 13 May 2008, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > I don't see how that's a problem. We created money. It's our > > monster. > > ...what? For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian "Debian (pronounced [?d?bi?n]) is a computer operating system composed entirely of software which is both free and open source. Its primary form, Debian GNU/Linux, is a popular and influential Linux distribution.[1] It is a multipurpose OS; it can be used as a desktop, laptop, or server. Debian is known for strict adherence to the Unix and free software philosophies.[2] Debian is also known for its abundance of options ? the current release includes over twenty-six thousand software packages for eleven computer architectures. These architectures range from the Intel/AMD 32-bit/64-bit architectures commonly found in personal computers to the ARM architecture commonly found in embedded systems and the IBM eServer zSeries mainframes.[3] Throughout Debian's lifetime, other distributions have taken it as a basis to develop their own, including: Ubuntu, MEPIS, Dreamlinux, Damn Small Linux, Xandros, Knoppix, Linspire, sidux, Kanotix, and LinEx among others.[4] A university's study concluded that Debian's 283 million source code lines would cost 10 billion USA Dollars to develop by proprietary means." So $10 billion USD. Impossible, right? So when we extrapolate such an infrastructure to something larger, what changes? So now you have to work with matter, not just bits and bytes, so what? How'd the first people on the planet do it? They picked up rocks and the materials they found around them. I'm not saying scraps. I'm just suggesting that maybe there's a way to actually do it, and waiting for the government to do it hasn't worked out for us yet, so let's get going. (more on this later) - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From msd001 at gmail.com Tue May 13 12:54:43 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 07:54:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240805130554g18afd542mc537b98bb6d530d0@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > The endless stupidity is breathtaking: > > An accident. Keep the really dumb piece of bullshit for the end. Has > this man never heard of "adaptation," or "exaptation," or > repurposing, or, I don't know, natural selection by differential > survival of phenotypic variants? Nice rant. When you read it back, does it strike you as funny as it did me? Just last week I was getting coffee from the corporate lunchroom and I overheard two interns discussing "natural selection by differential survival of phenotypic variants" so I was not at all surprised to see the same phrase in your own email. :) From natasha at natasha.cc Tue May 13 13:54:07 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:54:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Human Body Pushing the LimitsQuiz Message-ID: <20080513135411.EUKF12898.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> This is a fun and informative quiz for the questions that are not so obvious. http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/human-body/quiz/quiz.html Natasha From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 13 14:35:12 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:35:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <004101c8b506$9d039cb0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "hkhenson" > A kWh is 3.6MJ so the energy in a gallon of gasoline > is about 40 kWh. I think that figure neatly sums up the enormous difficulty of the task. 40 kWh is a trivial amount of energy by fossil fuel standards but it is NOT trivial by solar energy standards. I do not believe there are many solar-electric installations that can produce 40 kWh even from noon to 1PM on a clear day. The ones that exist are certainly not cheap! And all for one lousy gallon of gas. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 13 15:01:12 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:01:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > The endless stupidity is breathtaking: > > > > have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.> > > What, like houses seem to be round and enormous.> ? I too noticed that article in the Times and felt sadness and fear that the disease afflicting nearly all of television is already spreading to the remaining bastions of public thoughtfulness. And it's more generally worse than that. In my work, I process daily thousands of items of news and information at the intersection of technology and society, first classifying and sorting according to relevance and salience. A little over a year ago, an item in a blog carried significantly greater (statistical) authority than an item in an email discussion list. Now there's almost no probable difference. When YouTube was young, the likelihood of a video being interesting (subjective, of course) was much higher than now, and at least one researcher is using comments posted on YouTube as a reliable corpus of inanity. When the WWW was young, the mere existence of a page was an indicator of probable salience, then it became necessary to rank according to higher-order links, and now search engines like Google work ever harder and deeper to distinguish mere popularity from content with depth AND coherence. Of course the extropy discussion list and its cousins are not immune. Looking back over more than ten years on this list, who would deny the decline in meaningful, leading edge content? As we move toward an increasingly attention-based economy of information, smarter tools help, but smarter forms of organization help more. From village gossip, to newspapers, to SIGs and email lists, to blogs and their feeds, to agent-augmented collaborative filtering, to ... what next? And pragmatically, how do we apply information -- ever more effectively -- to growth in the direction of our evolving values? I catch myself feeling frustrated with the increasingly effective production and dissemination of "stupidity", still reeling with the realization that studies show 50% of the population are below average intelligence(!), and then remember that the same tendencies that raise the peak of the distribution also lengthen the tail. I'll gladly give up the popular peak (to Brittney, Oprah, and yes, even the New York Times) while I'll give a lot for increasingly effective exploration. What really frustrates me is not the ignorance of the masses, but the dissipativeness of the cognoscenti. - Jef From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 13 14:06:11 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:06:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001601c8b502$89515530$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > The endless stupidity is breathtaking: It's really a weird coincidence; I had just put down my dead tree version of the Times with distaste when I decided to check my Email, and seconds later I saw your message. At first as I was reading the inane article I was imagining all the fun I was going to have challenging it line by line and then informing Mr. Brooks of a new orifice I had found in his body that he had not previously been aware of; but then I remembered, I was not reading this on the Extropian List by some clueless newbie, this stuff was in the New York Times. I suppose I could still write something and Email it to Mr. Brooks, but it's not as much fun when you have no assurance your outrage will ever be read. It's frustrating and that's why I put down my paper with distaste. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 13 13:05:38 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 06:05:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Urge to get Personal In-Reply-To: <07f701c8b1a1$638c9df0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60805020823i40ce571ejd09d9ac3b3527ad7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0805042341y4a559e9ct9855e97204e20222@mail.gmail.com> <20080507022456.GA28362@ofb.net> <074d01c8aff4$d6516a40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <077d01c8b08d$14be1ce0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <07f701c8b1a1$638c9df0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> I have no idea---and don't really want to know---why > >> some people seemingly cannot refrain from making > >> personal characterizations, or innuendo. > >> > >> This particular one, above, may or may not be harmless, > >> who is to know? > > > On a number of occasions you have used insulting language > demeaning me. > > Jef, just please lay off. Please don't go on attempting to characterize > me or my writing style. Just leave it alone. > > I've asked before, and it did seem like for a few months you got > the message. Here it is again, loud and clear. I do not wish to > get into any kind of subtle tit-for-tat mocking exchagnes with you. > Just refrain from further characterizations of me and all will be well. Lee, I apologize for calling you mischievous. It was petty and unnecessary. - Jef From mlatorra at gmail.com Tue May 13 17:35:18 2008 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 11:35:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9ff585550805131035y3ae2fc53pa75d07ee637516c8@mail.gmail.com> Damien, you've got to look for a ray of light wherever you can find it. Amid the blather, Brooks shed one ray right here: "That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation." A step in the right direction, wouldn't you say? Regards, Mike LaTorra On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > The endless stupidity is breathtaking: > > < > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=login > > > > have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.> > > What, like houses seem to be round and enormous.> ? > > exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything > arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape > behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an > illusion. Human beings are "hard-wired" to do this or that. Religion > is an accident. > > > An accident. Keep the really dumb piece of bullshit for the end. Has > this man never heard of "adaptation," or "exaptation," or > repurposing, or, I don't know, natural selection by differential > survival of phenotypic variants? > > > > Yeah, I believe you. > > > > And I fear he's right. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 13 17:41:01 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:41:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <62c14240805130554g18afd542mc537b98bb6d530d0@mail.gmail.com > References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> <62c14240805130554g18afd542mc537b98bb6d530d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513123618.023ad530@satx.rr.com> At 07:54 AM 5/13/2008 -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: >Just last week I was getting coffee from the corporate >lunchroom and I overheard two interns discussing "natural selection by >differential survival of phenotypic variants" so I was not at all >surprised to see the same phrase in your own email. :) I was preaching to the intelligent in that rant, so I used some compression. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 13 17:53:02 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:53:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <9ff585550805131035y3ae2fc53pa75d07ee637516c8@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550805131035y3ae2fc53pa75d07ee637516c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513124937.0271c520@satx.rr.com> At 11:35 AM 5/13/2008 -0600, Mike LaTorra wrote: >"That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize >self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation." > >A step in the right direction, wouldn't you say? Sort of, but my reading was that he deplored this as unSaved poor man's "truth"--damning with feigned praise. (But I don't know anything about which church or temple or mosque he attends, so this is inference.) Damien Broderick From mlatorra at gmail.com Tue May 13 18:19:49 2008 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:19:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513124937.0271c520@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550805131035y3ae2fc53pa75d07ee637516c8@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080513124937.0271c520@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9ff585550805131119g661d335fub9fac86e88c6d8c0@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:35 AM 5/13/2008 -0600, Mike LaTorra wrote: > > >"That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize > >self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation." > > > >A step in the right direction, wouldn't you say? > > Sort of, but my reading was that he deplored this as unSaved poor > man's "truth"--damning with feigned praise. (But I don't know > anything about which church or temple or mosque he attends, so this > is inference.) > > Damien Broderick And perhaps it is a valid inference; I don't know. Brooks has acknowledged his Jewish roots in past columns, but he seems to lack much zeal, seeming closer to most of my Jewish friends who are culturally or ethnically but not religiously Jewish. What Brooks is, most unabashedly, is one of the few house conservatives among New York Times columnists. So I take his admonition to the theologians about bolstering their biblical arguments to deal with the revelations from brain science to be more along the lines of political advice for those in his ideological camp rather than being sectarian religious advocacy. But again, I'm speculating here. We could ask Brooks directly, but I doubt that we'd get a direct answer; that would be impolitic of him. Regards, Mike LaTorra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 13 18:16:05 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 11:16:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1210702696_1092@S3.cableone.net> At 12:37 AM 5/13/2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > > >have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.> It seems to be hard for people to understand that "selfish" at the gene level can emerge as "fairness, empathy and attachment" not to mention other high level behaviors like self sacrifice and wars. You really need to grok genes the way Hamilton did for any of this to make sense. Keith From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 13 19:23:09 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:23:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <9ff585550805131119g661d335fub9fac86e88c6d8c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550805131035y3ae2fc53pa75d07ee637516c8@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080513124937.0271c520@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550805131119g661d335fub9fac86e88c6d8c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080513192309.GA8675@ofb.net> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:19:49PM -0600, Michael LaTorra wrote: > And perhaps it is a valid inference; I don't know. Brooks has > acknowledged his Jewish roots in past columns, but he seems to lack > much zeal, seeming closer to most of my Jewish friends who are > culturally or ethnically but not religiously Jewish. What Brooks is, > most unabashedly, is one of the few house conservatives among New York > Times columnists. So I take his admonition to the theologians about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_%28journalist%29 -xx- Damien X-) From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue May 13 19:34:21 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:34:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 'Boosting' research to develop world's fastest nanomotor Message-ID: <2d6187670805131234h614ee8e0kbfc71762ff113c7@mail.gmail.com> http://www.biodesign.asu.edu/news/boosting-research-to-develop-worlds-fastest-nanomotor In a "major step" toward a practical energy source for powering tomorrow's nanomachines, researchers at Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute report the development of a new generation of tiny nanomotors that are up to 10 times more powerful than existing motors. Just like weekend hot-rodders who tinker with their car engines in the ultimate quest for speed, a research team led by Joseph Wang, who directs the institute's Center for Biosensors and Bioelectronics, set out to improve on the design of current nanomotors. These so-called "catalytic nanomotors" are made with gold and platinum nanowires and use hydrogen peroxide (the same chemical that bleaches hair) as a fuel for self-propulsion. But these motors are too slow and inefficient for practical use, with top speeds of about 10 micrometers per second, the researchers say. One micrometer is about 1/25,000 of an inch or almost 100 times smaller than the width of a human hair. (If one could somehow magnify the nanoworld to human scale by multiplying by a factor of 100,000, the speed would be the seem the same as a walking speed of 3.6 miles per hour.) Wang and colleagues supercharged their nanomotors by inserting carbon nanotubes into the platinum, thus boosting average speed to 60 micrometers per second. This was the first time that carbon nanotubes had been added to the existing gold and platinum nanowires. The tiny tubes, only a few atoms thick, help conduct electricity and heat. This is the first example of a powerful, man-made nanomotor, said Wang, who is an ASU professor with a joint appointment in the departments of Chemical and Material Engineering in the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering and Chemistry and Biochemistry in the College of Liberal Arts and Science. Spiking the hydrogen peroxide fuel with hydrazine (a type of rocket fuel) kicked up the speed still further, to 94- 200 micrometers per second (using the same multiplying factor of 100,000, the top speed would now be equal to a moped-like speed of 43.2 miles per hour). This innovation "offers great promise for self-powered nanoscale transport and delivery systems," Wang states. The Biodesign team is interested in more than just bragging rights at the nanotechnology research racetrack. By packaging the nanomotors with the right cargo, Wang says the powerful nanomotors could one day deliver disease-fighting drugs inside the body to invading pathogens or tumor cells, or help clean up environmental toxins by using the toxins as fuel. Authors on the paper include: Rawiwan Laocharoensuk, Jared Burdick, and Joseph Wang. Their study is scheduled for the May 27 issue of ACS Nano, a monthly journal. They also reported their findings in the online edition of ACS Nano Carbon-Nanotube-Induced Acceleration of Catalytic Nanomotors. ### Adapted from materials provided by the American Chemical Society From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 13 22:16:14 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <004101c8b506$9d039cb0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <283227.27133.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > "hkhenson" > > > A kWh is 3.6MJ so the energy in a gallon of gasoline > > is about 40 kWh. > > I think that figure neatly sums up the enormous difficulty of the task. > 40 kWh is a trivial amount of energy by fossil fuel standards but it is > NOT trivial by solar energy standards. > I do not believe there are > many solar-electric installations that can produce 40 kWh even from > noon to 1PM on a clear day. The ones that exist are certainly not cheap! > > And all for one lousy gallon of gas. Yes but a typical modern internal combustion engine only uses gasoline about 20% efficiently so really you are only getting 8 kWh out of your gallon of gas. The rest is just wasted as heat which is a shame since 32 kWh is a lot of energy. But at least homeless people can stay warm during the winter by camping near freeways. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus From msd001 at gmail.com Tue May 13 22:45:07 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:45:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240805131545t3e9e19d8ldb8127d8d0aa827c@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > effective exploration. What really frustrates me is not the ignorance > of the masses, but the dissipativeness of the cognoscenti. Perhaps the greater subjective distances from one another causes the signal to possess less apparent strength? I do not have a paper to prove this theory, but I believe the 'geniuses' of the first wave of scientific worldview were able to possess cross-domain knowledge of nearly every field. Today it takes 20+ years of specialized study to be able to speak with existing participants in a limited realm of expertise. The sheer volume of information to be learned is prohibitive of the kind know-it-all mastery that we expect of the term genius. I agree that what was once considered intelligence is often lost in background noise From mlatorra at gmail.com Wed May 14 01:45:31 2008 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 19:45:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <20080513192309.GA8675@ofb.net> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550805131035y3ae2fc53pa75d07ee637516c8@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080513124937.0271c520@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550805131119g661d335fub9fac86e88c6d8c0@mail.gmail.com> <20080513192309.GA8675@ofb.net> Message-ID: <9ff585550805131845y2d19a756yf2d21693389d6052@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for the wikip-tip. No doubt I should have consulted that universal library of (mostly) accurate knowledge rather than punting with my "don't know" statement. Regards, Mike On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:19:49PM -0600, Michael LaTorra wrote: > > > And perhaps it is a valid inference; I don't know. Brooks has > > acknowledged his Jewish roots in past columns, but he seems to lack > > much zeal, seeming closer to most of my Jewish friends who are > > culturally or ethnically but not religiously Jewish. What Brooks is, > > most unabashedly, is one of the few house conservatives among New > York > > Times columnists. So I take his admonition to the theologians about > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_%28journalist%29 > > -xx- Damien X-) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 14 02:36:34 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 19:36:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <62c14240805131545t3e9e19d8ldb8127d8d0aa827c@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> <62c14240805131545t3e9e19d8ldb8127d8d0aa827c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > effective exploration. What really frustrates me is not the ignorance > > of the masses, but the dissipativeness of the cognoscenti. > > Perhaps the greater subjective distances from one another causes the > signal to possess less apparent strength? Huh? I tried interpreting that several ways but couldn't arrive at any substantial meaning. [Subjective distance, indeed.] "Subjective distance" => ok "Subjective distance from one another" => Between whom? The ignorant and the cognoscenti, I guess, but there wasn't any suggestion of a dynamic between them. They were related through my contrasting percepts. "Subjective distance ... causes" ... something? => It's jarring to see any assertion of the form "subjective X causes Y" because subjective implies not modelable, regardless of the actuality of the subjective X. "...the signal to possess less apparent strength" => "... the signal to apparently possess less strength" => "...the signal to appear weaker" => To what kind of signal can this refer? Huh?? Please let me know if I'm missing something key here? If you are somehow suggesting that there exists a "signal" representing the right or best course into the future, then we have a difference which is interesting, because so many naive futurists seem to assume the something like that. To recap, Damien expressed his dismay at a particular instance of "stupidity", representative of broader patterns in our society. I agreed, and expanded on the theme with some examples perhaps painting a picture of broader trends. I then observed from a higher level of abstraction that perhaps such stupidity isn't really such a problem (in the partial sense that a rising tide raises all boats. and there will always be a long-tailed distribution. I followed that up with intent to confront any "thinkers" who got that far thinking they were riding the peak, with the idea that this peak is inhabited by Brittney et al and exploration of the bleeding edge is inherently a **low**-probability affair. I then concluded with an implicit call-to-action with a reference to the "dissipative" meaning entropic, cognoscenti. Does the foregoing help? I recognize that my writing is typically terse and overly abstract, but hardly vague. My programming is the same. > I do not have a paper to prove this theory, but I believe the > 'geniuses' of the first wave of scientific worldview were able to > possess cross-domain knowledge of nearly every field. Today it takes > 20+ years of specialized study to be able to speak with existing > participants in a limited realm of expertise. The sheer volume of > information to be learned is prohibitive of the kind know-it-all > mastery that we expect of the term genius. I would agree that the relationship of individual contributors to technological innovation is changing much as you suggest, but as I pointed out in my earlier post, I think what's most significant is not the direct discovery/development but the evolution of increasingly effective structures supporting discovery/development. Retrospectively, such structures are often recognized as particularly elegant, in sharp contrast to your view that innovation tends to depend on general breadth of knowledge. There's a strong analogy to genetic programming, where success depends on a diverse set of possibilities, exploited via a strong model of probabilities. > I agree that what was once considered intelligence is often lost in > background noise Well, that wasn't my point, and isn't my belief. I think we are still within the developmental window where a strong individual intelligence can make astounding progress, not by grasping all the relevant knowledge, but by having a very good grasp of sense-making. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 14 03:36:23 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 20:36:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <093701c8b574$0e0b3b30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > When YouTube was young, the likelihood of a video being interesting > (subjective, of course) was much higher than now, and at least one > researcher is using comments posted on YouTube as a reliable corpus of > inanity. When the WWW was young, the mere existence of a page was an > indicator of probable salience, then it became necessary to rank > according to higher-order links, and now search engines like Google > work ever harder and deeper to distinguish mere popularity from > content with depth AND coherence. An unfortunate trend, it would appear. > Of course the extropy discussion list and its cousins are not immune. > Looking back over more than ten years on this list, who would deny the > decline in meaningful, leading edge content? One source of apparent decline stems from the fact that in a very meaningful sense, one can only "get up to speed" once. (Unless, of course, much later you fall behind again.) In particular, the most relevant and demanding high level philosophical issues that needed addressing were addressed long ago, and---in the opinion of probably more people than just me---settled. > As we move toward an increasingly attention-based economy of > information, smarter tools help, but smarter forms of organization > help more. From village gossip, to newspapers, to SIGs and email > lists, to blogs and their feeds, to agent-augmented collaborative > filtering, to ... what next? And pragmatically, how do we apply > information -- ever more effectively -- to growth in the direction of > our evolving values? Good questions. > I catch myself feeling frustrated with the increasingly effective > production and dissemination of "stupidity", still reeling with the > realization that studies show 50% of the population are below > average intelligence(!), Shocking, in this day and age. Something should really be done about it! :-) > What really frustrates me is not the ignorance of the > masses, but the dissipativeness of the cognoscenti. Mike D. made the point (to me) that you could blame this dissipation on the vastly increased amount of what is known (and what is being researched). My gut intuition is that if you take the ratio of what is known to what the global population is, over time this ratio has increased alarmingly---but perhaps not surprisingly. Simply consider the *flood* of highly interesting material alluded to and linked to... just on this one mailing list! Lee From msd001 at gmail.com Wed May 14 04:00:13 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> <62c14240805131545t3e9e19d8ldb8127d8d0aa827c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240805132100i66c80b6dq551151f5d34972a2@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Perhaps the greater subjective distances from one another causes the > > signal to possess less apparent strength? > > Huh? I tried interpreting that several ways but couldn't arrive at > any substantial meaning. [Subjective distance, indeed.] [breakdown snipped] > Huh?? Please let me know if I'm missing something key here? I was thinking of analogy between a broadcasting transmitter sending a signal with original intensity being observed at decreasing power at greater distances. However, the 'distance' is not measured physically, but by the subjective difference in perspective. I meant subjective in the sense that it is measured by each individual without some platonic topological reference point. From the original point about "stupid" or the lack of intelligence- perhaps you have now perceived me as less effective at communicating my intention than yourself. I would agree that I have observed this also. You mustn't assume that my ineffectual transmission of meaning is necessarily direct correlated to my ability to understand your meaning. > If you are somehow suggesting that there exists a "signal" > representing the right or best course into the future, then we have a > difference which is interesting, because so many naive futurists seem > to assume the something like that. I had visualized signal to be a measurable pattern of intelligent behavior from one 'cognoscenti' to another. Again, I was making analogy to radio/EM broadcast power. Some transmitters broadcast with more power than others, but that doesn't imply their programming is better or more right. The background noise to which I later referred is what would be observed when there is no detectable meaning or pattern on any particular carrier. Whether this is due to "the ignorant masses" mindlessly chattering over their nearest cognoscenti or something equivalent to encryption between parties make no difference - it still has no discernible value without the proper codec. > To recap, Damien expressed his dismay at a particular instance of > "stupidity", representative of broader patterns in our society. I > agreed, and expanded on the theme with some examples perhaps painting > a picture of broader trends. I then observed from a higher level of > abstraction that perhaps such stupidity isn't really such a problem > (in the partial sense that a rising tide raises all boats. and there > will always be a long-tailed distribution. I followed that up with > intent to confront any "thinkers" who got that far thinking they were > riding the peak, with the idea that this peak is inhabited by Brittney > et al and exploration of the bleeding edge is inherently a > **low**-probability affair. I then concluded with an implicit > call-to-action with a reference to the "dissipative" meaning > entropic, cognoscenti. Do you also find in the tendency to work with greater degree of abstraction that you are either in agreement with entire classes of conclusion (despite particular instances that may be wholly off-base) or that you are rarely in agreement with anyone that does not accept every instance implied by your generalization? I'm not asking to be confrontational; I feel I commonly experience exactly this situation. > Does the foregoing help? I recognize that my writing is typically > terse and overly abstract, but hardly vague. My programming is the > same. Yes. Enough to agree, and to not further sweat the details. > I would agree that the relationship of individual contributors to > technological innovation is changing much as you suggest, but as I > pointed out in my earlier post, I think what's most significant is not > the direct discovery/development but the evolution of increasingly > effective structures supporting discovery/development. Would you say that these structures represent less the achievement of any particular individual, and increasingly illustrate the emergence of a different order of self-organization? (where there was once a famous researcher, now the field of research itself is reaching a critical mass- perhaps fueled by the input of innovative researchers, but not directed by any single researcher's ego) > Retrospectively, such structures are often recognized as particularly > elegant, in sharp contrast to your view that innovation tends to > depend on general breadth of knowledge. There's a strong analogy to > genetic programming, where success depends on a diverse set of > possibilities, exploited via a strong model of probabilities. ... what you perceived as my view from a single email on the subject. I would like to clarify that my point was regarding the historical (?) idea that a genius possessed the ability to apply domain knowledge from one field in an apparently unrelated field [example omitted to prevent confusion with an instance-level disagreement] I do think this is an effective way to assess the ability to bring previous experience to a new situation (which must be at least some part of general adaptive intelligence), but I would also agree that there are elegant (to adopt the term you used) examples of innovative advancements in a narrow field relying solely on internally consistent propositions and conclusions. > > I agree that what was once considered intelligence is often lost in > > background noise > > Well, that wasn't my point, and isn't my belief. I think we are still > within the developmental window where a strong individual intelligence > can make astounding progress, not by grasping all the relevant > knowledge, but by having a very good grasp of sense-making. Can I replace "a good grasp of sense-making" with 'intuition'? I feel that we would likely be in agreement with what what you are expressing here. What mechanism is employed to somehow discover the optimal solution with minimal trial/testing? Perhaps this is an example of the self-organizing principle I mentioned above? Does the "strong individual intelligence" contribute as an ego-driven will, or an efficient "sense-making" drone to a hive process? I don't intend to be right or to prove one point is any better than another. To me, a good discussion is about the process of getting to an agreement. Maybe you'll take answer the questions I've asked and pose others in this vein - thanks in advance if you do. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 14 03:21:13 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 20:21:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption References: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net><55ad6af70805081912g336fd9fh653444353847e1df@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10805091432r7137f115if6eb4c62ffd30366@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <093601c8b574$0db57a10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Michael Anissimov wrote (From: Michael Anissimov To: ExI chat list ; World Transhumanist Association Discussion List Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism in wikipedia - A Call for Max) > The real thing that can change people's minds are > face-to-face interactions. Our social instincts force > us to pay attention to the tangibility of flesh-and-blood > persons. We can outweigh a Wikipedia article. I wouldn't know. :-) > But still, I encourage anyone to try modifying it. > It's just that, Wikipedia is corrupt and someone > with political power there (don't know if > Loremaster has it) can do whatever they want. Can anyone further substantiate the charge that Wikipedia is "corrupt", or suggest links (that you endorse) that would back up this claim? Thanks much, Lee From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 14 09:15:07 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 10:15:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption In-Reply-To: <093601c8b574$0db57a10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net> <55ad6af70805081912g336fd9fh653444353847e1df@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10805091432r7137f115if6eb4c62ffd30366@mail.gmail.com> <093601c8b574$0db57a10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Can anyone further substantiate the charge that > Wikipedia is "corrupt", or suggest links (that you > endorse) that would back up this claim? > I thought everyone was familiar with the news articles over the past year or two about the problems with Wikipedia. Is this a faux-naif question? ;) A Google on 'Wikipedia admin bias censorship' gives plenty to read. Wikipedia itself has a good article on the subject (probably biased, though) :) Quote: Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes it unauthoritative and unreliable, that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals. Specific criticisms include the encyclopedia's exposure to obvious or subtle vandalism, attempts by strongly opinionated editors to dominate articles, inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing for controversial assertions in articles, and edit wars and other types of nonconstructive conflict among editors. That's why one of the founders has set up a new online encyclopedia with stricter rules. Quote: We are creating the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base. The general public and experts collaborate, using their real names. BillK From amara at amara.com Wed May 14 14:22:34 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 08:22:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption Message-ID: Cassiopedia might be a more reputable alternative to Wikipedia. http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page I don't know how authors and editors ("pre-screened, qualitfied individuals") are selected though. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed May 14 14:43:11 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 07:43:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d6187670805140743u776873b5oefd84d6d0bebc793@mail.gmail.com> Another possibility would be to use the excellent http://canonizer.com/. And by doing so we would be supporting a fellow Transhumanist. John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed May 14 16:08:24 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805140743u776873b5oefd84d6d0bebc793@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d6187670805140743u776873b5oefd84d6d0bebc793@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805140908ob2c88d2qe7a441c9229cb904@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Cassiopedia might be a more reputable alternative to Wikipedia. > http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:43 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Another possibility would be to use the excellent http://canonizer.com/. > And by doing so we would be supporting a fellow Transhumanist. IMHO, the information fight has to be fought anywhere, everywhere, the only possible issue being prioritisation of efforts (and in that area I have little doubt that Wikipedia has a medium to high priority level for a movement like organised transhumanism). I do not see the relevance of the fact that "x" sources do or may present an objective or accurate or sympathetic description of transhumanism, whenever the issue is what to do with regard to misrepresentation or negative spin on "y" other sources and what, if anything, can be done in this respect. Stefano Vaj From frankmac at ripco.com Wed May 14 16:10:32 2008 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frank McElligott) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:10:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] NYTIMES ninny Message-ID: <001b01c8b5dd$11c59360$d75de547@thebigloser> In "white noice" De Lillo explores same argument but it was written around the turn of the century, been waiting a long time to use that phase. Explores death mostly, but does ask the same question without giving an answer. Frank From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 14 16:23:38 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:23:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Cassiopedia might be a more reputable alternative to Wikipedia. > After a bit of googling, I don't think I'd recommend Cassiopedia. Look at Recent Changes - there is nobody working on it now. They basically copied the Wikipedia articles from Aug?Sep 2006 and little has changed since then. The people behind it set my alarm bells off. A New Age medium, channeller, etc who wants publicity. BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 14 17:06:31 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 10:06:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption References: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net><55ad6af70805081912g336fd9fh653444353847e1df@mail.gmail.com><51ce64f10805091432r7137f115if6eb4c62ffd30366@mail.gmail.com><093601c8b574$0db57a10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <096401c8b5e4$f9e31940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes >> Can anyone further substantiate the charge that >> Wikipedia is "corrupt", or suggest links (that you >> endorse) that would back up this claim? > > I thought everyone was familiar with the news articles over the past > year or two about the problems with Wikipedia. I had heard a few complaints, yes. But no, I hadn't ever bothered to read whole articles about it. People are always getting into political and semi-political fights over practically nothing---turf wars, you know. Work for idle hands, you know. > Is this a faux-naif question? ;) No, and so I do indeed thank you for answering me, and giving me some clues here. I just haven't been especially interested in this question before this. > A Google on 'Wikipedia admin bias censorship' gives plenty to read. > Wikipedia itself has a good article on the subject (probably biased, though) :) > > > Quote: > Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes it > unauthoritative and unreliable, That sentence is surely irrelevant to charges of corruption, I would think. > that it exhibits systemic bias, So Wikipedia itself explains (from your link above) Another explanation, reputedly given by Jimmy Wales---it also said---is that the worldwide English speaking community is more liberal on average than the U.S. population, which would explain a liberal (as in the American "liberal vs. conservative") bias. Okay: political bias is then *explained*. But in the first place, it looks pretty tame, and in the second place, it does make sense that it would be mostly a libertarian bias (which would fit most sensibilities here), and thirdly what about *non-political* bias? I suspect that people here are mostly unhappy simply because a few articles related to transhumanism don't toot our horn as loudly as we would like it tooted. But does this really justify charges of corruption? Michael A. had written, after all, > > It's just that, Wikipedia is corrupt and > > someone with political power there > > (don't know if Loremaster has it) can > > do whatever they want. Yes, you would expect this to be true of someone like Jimmy Wales or some chum of his, given how most organizations throughout most of history are. Thanks also to you and the other posters for alternatives to wikipedia. I am actually mostly interested in knowing about how biased or corrupt most people *here* believe it to be on non-political matters. Are there broader charges of bias that people *here* actually believe? A thematic bias against Extropian thinking, futurism, or transhuman"ism"? If so, what is the explanation of that? What about this: our general worldwide society finds our ideas strange and perhaps even threatening. Can't that wholly account for it? Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 14 19:12:11 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:12:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NYT ninny In-Reply-To: <62c14240805132100i66c80b6dq551151f5d34972a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080513022755.023b6eb0@satx.rr.com> <62c14240805131545t3e9e19d8ldb8127d8d0aa827c@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240805132100i66c80b6dq551151f5d34972a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > I was thinking of analogy between a broadcasting transmitter sending a > signal with original intensity being observed at decreasing power at > greater distances. However, the 'distance' is not measured > physically, but by the subjective difference in perspective. I meant > subjective in the sense that it is measured by each individual without > some platonic topological reference point. From the original point > about "stupid" or the lack of intelligence- perhaps you have now > perceived me as less effective at communicating my intention than > yourself. I would agree that I have observed this also. You mustn't > assume that my ineffectual transmission of meaning is necessarily > direct correlated to my ability to understand your meaning. Yes, the cross-sectional intensity decreases as the square of the distance. But here are some problems with your analogy applied to memetics or to innovation within society: * The effective cross-section of the receiver can be increased arbitrarily by making it larger to intercept a greater area of the radiated power -- theoretically one could completely enclose the transmitter and recover nearly all the radiated power -- or, assuming it's periodic, by using a phased array of receiving elements. * The received power has no direct correlation with the signal (the information content.) In fact, moving away from old-fashioned AM to increasingly sophisticated (matched) coding leads to increasingly robust communication that increasingly appears to be random noise. [Which has profound implications.] So, I find your analogy of signal diminishing with distance inapplicable unless we were to reframe it as an aspect of the principle that all action is necessarily local, and thus causal chains tend to dissipate with distance... > I had visualized signal to be a measurable pattern of intelligent > behavior from one 'cognoscenti' to another. It might be worthwhile here to suggest that the hallmark of intelligent action is that it tends to maximize the intended while minimizing the unintended. Like the analogy of communication in my second bullet-point above, increasingly effective implies increasingly subtle (for any given context.) > Again, I was making > analogy to radio/EM broadcast power. Some transmitters broadcast with > more power than others, but that doesn't imply their programming is > better or more right. The background noise to which I later referred > is what would be observed when there is no detectable meaning or > pattern on any particular carrier. Whether this is due to "the > ignorant masses" mindlessly chattering over their nearest cognoscenti > or something equivalent to encryption between parties make no > difference - it still has no discernible value without the proper > codec. Buried within your mixed metaphors I still detect a hint of belief that there is an objective "true signal" to be found. To this I would offer that coherence by no means entails Truth, while coherence over increasing context entails increasing probability of Truth. More concretely, on the one hand simple beliefs such as those held by children, primitive societies, religious sects, can be very coherent with their narrow context, while being seen as completely untrue from a larger context. On the other hand, high intelligence is quite adept at synthesizing a coherent model from any given context, again having no direct relationship to Truth. We can certainly say what cannot be (within a specified context) but we are fundamentally unable to make specific predictions to the extent the future context is unknown. More directly to the topic of this thread, the cognoscenti can be recognized by their awareness of what cannot be in the present context, but their competence at prediction must vary inversely with specificity (rather than distance.) There is no free lunch. Successful prediction is not about getting it right, but about not doing it wrong. > Do you also find in the tendency to work with greater degree of > abstraction that you are either in agreement with entire classes of > conclusion (despite particular instances that may be wholly off-base) > or that you are rarely in agreement with anyone that does not accept > every instance implied by your generalization? I'm not asking to be > confrontational; I feel I commonly experience exactly this situation. It's important to operate at an appropriate level of abstraction. Continuing the electrical theme, this can be thought of as "impedance matching", maximizing energy transfer for very complex impedances. Personally, I tend to be a very visual thinker and I'm almost constantly aware of (imagined) geometric forms representing the topic at hand. So for example, if I can't make sense of what you're saying, I visualize this as something like a 3D scatter plot showing clusters of probability density. If someone says something that matches my model of reality only within a narrow region, then I may imagine a truncated plot or graph superimposed on my own (or vice versa.) If the geometry has ripples, or worse, folds back on itself non-monotonically, these regions merit particular interest, since a proper mapping of model to reality should (ideally) be flat across the entire domain. Operating at a high level of abstraction allows one to rapidly detect when something's "not quite right" but effective action requires that one perform the necessary transformation , or "impedance matching" to deal with the environment of interaction on its own terms. [Something I often don't take the time, or choose, to do.] > > I would agree that the relationship of individual contributors to > > technological innovation is changing much as you suggest, but as I > > pointed out in my earlier post, I think what's most significant is not > > the direct discovery/development but the evolution of increasingly > > effective structures supporting discovery/development. > > Would you say that these structures represent less the achievement of > any particular individual, and increasingly illustrate the emergence > of a different order of self-organization? Yes, the latter was my intended point. > > Retrospectively, such structures are often recognized as particularly > > elegant, in sharp contrast to your view that innovation tends to > > depend on general breadth of knowledge. There's a strong analogy to > > genetic programming, where success depends on a diverse set of > > possibilities, exploited via a strong model of probabilities. > > ... what you perceived as my view from a single email on the subject. > I would like to clarify that my point was regarding the historical (?) > idea that a genius possessed the ability to apply domain knowledge > from one field in an apparently unrelated field Yes, this corresponds with biological evolution's exploitation of genetic recombination. > [example omitted to > prevent confusion with an instance-level disagreement] Thanks for that. > I do think > this is an effective way to assess the ability to bring previous > experience to a new situation (which must be at least some part of > general adaptive intelligence), but I would also agree that there are > elegant (to adopt the term you used) examples of innovative > advancements in a narrow field relying solely on internally consistent > propositions and conclusions. Yes, while mutation and recombination continue to apply to both genetics and processes of human innovation, there are increasingly competent ways to model and select from that (not so random) distribution. > > > I agree that what was once considered intelligence is often lost in > > > background noise > > > > Well, that wasn't my point, and isn't my belief. I think we are still > > within the developmental window where a strong individual intelligence > > can make astounding progress, not by grasping all the relevant > > knowledge, but by having a very good grasp of sense-making. > > Can I replace "a good grasp of sense-making" with 'intuition'? To the extent that "intuition" represents heuristics evolutionarily/developmentally encoded into the agent, then yes. Again, my point is that we have at hand the recent capability to intentionally improve our heuristics. > I feel > that we would likely be in agreement with what what you are expressing > here. What mechanism is employed to somehow discover the optimal > solution with minimal trial/testing? Bayes would be an excellent beginning. > Perhaps this is an example of > the self-organizing principle I mentioned above? Does the "strong > individual intelligence" contribute as an ego-driven will, or an > efficient "sense-making" drone to a hive process? Good questions for a possible follow-up at a later time. I've exhausted my self-imposed time budget for now. For me, an effective answer to these questions requires a more extensible concept of "self" rather than trying to imagine organizations composed of discrete selves. > I don't intend to be right or to prove one point is any better than > another. To me, a good discussion is about the process of getting to > an agreement. Or rather, an understanding encompassing the separate points of view. Maybe you'll take answer the questions I've asked and > pose others in this vein - thanks in advance if you do. Thank you. And back to work for me. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 14 19:52:49 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:52:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Bullet-Swallowers Message-ID: A good discussion ongoing at Scott Aaronson's blog, of interest to many here. What's missing, in my opinion, is epistemological awareness of the role of the observer in any model (at any level.) You can never *really* account for your own prior. From kanzure at gmail.com Wed May 14 23:20:51 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:20:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption In-Reply-To: <096401c8b5e4$f9e31940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <096401c8b5e4$f9e31940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200805141820.52322.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 14 May 2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Are there broader charges of bias that people > *here* actually believe? ?A thematic bias against > Extropian thinking, futurism, or transhuman"ism"? > If so, what is the explanation of that? ?What about > this: ?our general worldwide society finds our > ideas strange and perhaps even threatening. > Can't that wholly account for it? What if you read the article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu May 15 13:36:57 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:36:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption In-Reply-To: <096401c8b5e4$f9e31940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net> <55ad6af70805081912g336fd9fh653444353847e1df@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10805091432r7137f115if6eb4c62ffd30366@mail.gmail.com> <093601c8b574$0db57a10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <096401c8b5e4$f9e31940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20805150636i660f6290tb612b12ffeabd069@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > BillK writes > > >> Can anyone further substantiate the charge that > >> Wikipedia is "corrupt", or suggest links (that you > >> endorse) that would back up this claim? > > > > I thought everyone was familiar with the news articles over the past > > year or two about the problems with Wikipedia. > > I had heard a few complaints, yes. But no, I hadn't ever > bothered to read whole articles about it. People are always > getting into political and semi-political fights over practically > nothing---turf wars, you know. Work for idle hands, you > know. > In fact, I believe that Wikipedia, like any other media, rather than a turf war is is a war turf, where different ideas and views compete on the basis of balances of sheer weight and motivation, and in principle of a few rules. They do compete on visibility, spin, language, etc. Transhumanists have an obvious interest to defend at least what may concern their own presentation and/or presence therein, but of course the story does not end here. If, say, neoluddites have more time on their hand or more willingness to make use of it, or manage to control otherwise Wikipedia in this respect, this is not the end of the war, but for sure it is a small lost battle... Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu May 15 14:50:21 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 07:50:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] humor/off-topic: When Darth Vader attacks! Message-ID: <2d6187670805150750i2b84370bl95c7e8f70553a81b@mail.gmail.com> I thought this was a very funny little news item: http://nerdvana.freedomblogging.com/2008/05/14/jedi-miss-chance-to-fulfill-destiny-when-attacked-by-vader/ Valley Tribune Jedi miss chance to fulfill destiny when attacked by Vader May 14th, 2008, 1:58 am ? 1 Comment ? posted by Chris "KeL" Adams The Associated Press is reporting that in Wales "A man who dressed up as Darth Vader, wearing a garbage bag for a cape, and assaulted the founders of a group calling itself the Jedi church was given a suspended sentence Tuesday." As far as I'm concerned, this is what they call a victimless crime. If you really and truly claim to be a Jedi master, you have to expect to come under attack by dark Sith Lords. It comes with the territory (and lightsaber). If I walked around telling everyone I was Han Solo, I would be well aware that some day, Jabba the Hutt (or an emissary acting on his behalf) might come looking for payment for that shipment of spice I had to dump. And if he did? I wouldn't cry about it. I'd stand up and say "Jabba! I was just on my way to see you, when I got a little sidetracked." I mean, you didn't hear Obi-Wan complaining when he fought Vader on the Death Star did you? No, Obi-Wan took it like a real Jedi and fulfilled his destiny and got a sweet blue ghost, not like these two sissies from England who apparently went crying to the police when their destiny came calling. Instead of going to the police, you'd think they could have called upon some of the other 390,000 other Jedi in England for some backup. But that's why Obi-Wan was a true Jedi master and these guys clearly are not. Maybe they could start up a church of Jar Jar Binks instead. I can see it now, "The Church of the Worthless Sidekick". Though come to think of it, they might get attacked even MORE often then. One Response to "Jedi miss chance to fulfill destiny when attacked by Vader" John Grigg Says: May 14th, 2008 at 7:34 am This is just too funny. I agree that those two men should have taken the attack like "real Jedi" and not gone whining and crying to the police. But then perhaps the reason why the Sith periodically crush the Jedi and take over the galaxy is because of too many wimpy Jedi like this. lol My only real concern would be large groups of Sith and Jedi wannabes getting into massive soccer hooligan-like light saber fights in the streets and parks. But then again, that would be really cool to watch! John : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 15 16:34:08 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:34:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption References: <096401c8b5e4$f9e31940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200805141820.52322.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <09a401c8b6a9$b9972dc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan writes > On Wednesday 14 May 2008, Lee Corbin wrote: >> Are there broader charges of bias that people >> *here* actually believe? A thematic bias against >> Extropian thinking, futurism, or transhuman"ism"? >> If so, what is the explanation of that? What about >> this: our general worldwide society finds our >> ideas strange and perhaps even threatening. >> Can't that wholly account for it? I still think that my question is a good one. > What if you read the article? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism That article has a lot of good information in it, IMO. Of course it's not as "pro-transhumanist" as we would like. Stefano's next post clarifies the central point. But whatever. The main focus of my concern, as indicated by the subject line, is *not* their handling of one particular subject. I was inquiring to what general extent Wikipedia and its scions can be considered "corrupt". Several people, especially BillK and Stefano, have made helpful remarks, letting me know to what degree they agree with Michael A's original accusation. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 15 16:37:51 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:37:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption References: <20080509015420.GA28552@ofb.net> <55ad6af70805081912g336fd9fh653444353847e1df@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10805091432r7137f115if6eb4c62ffd30366@mail.gmail.com> <093601c8b574$0db57a10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <096401c8b5e4$f9e31940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20805150636i660f6290tb612b12ffeabd069@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <09a701c8b6aa$6dd46230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > In fact, I believe that Wikipedia, like any other media, > rather than a turf war is is a war turf, where different > ideas and views compete on the basis of balances of > sheer weight and motivation, and in principle of a few > rules. They do compete on visibility, spin, language, etc. Makes perfect sense. > Transhumanists have an obvious interest to defend at > least what may concern their own presentation and/or > presence therein, Indeed yes! Whatever *particular* inaccuracies that exist in certain articles, such as the Transhumanism article, should be countered. > but of course the story does not end here. If, say, > neoluddites have more time on their hand or more > willingness to make use of it, or manage to control > otherwise Wikipedia in this respect, this is not the > end of the war, but for sure it is a small lost battle... Exactly. Thanks. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 15 17:34:15 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:34:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Bullet-Swallowers References: Message-ID: <09ab01c8b6b2$273b70e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> I do object to the notion that Libertarianism (with or without a capital L) can really be considered an "all or nothing" philosophy that one either accepts or does not accept, quite unlike a scientific theory or conjecture that---at least to a degree---must be critically held or critically rejected. James Madison famously wrote "Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks -- no form of government can render us secure. To suppose liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them." To me, the key ingredient is whether or not a certain amount of liberty, or democracy, or even scientific temperament can plausibly be attained by a given group of people at a certain time. Even now in Iraq, we in the West wonder if "Iraq is ready for democracy", whereas doubtless some perceptive people in Iraq wonder, "Is the West ready for complete submission to the will of Allah?". I think that the historical record is clear: the freedoms that we enjoy in the West (regardless of how much attack they're currently under) could not have been enjoyed by Europe ten centuries ago. It would have been entirely futile for some set of feudal barons to get together and say "Let's get a democracy along the Greek model going around here." Likewise, libertarians should admit that libertarianism is only a *direction* towards which many of Earth's societies today should move. Therefore the idea that we can "bite the bullet" and accept the "logic" of libertarianism is wrongheaded. If the people are not individualistic enough, if they're not law-abiding enough, or if they're *too* religious, forget about it. Meanwhile, let's endorse what memes we can to help move things towards more capacity for freedom and liberty. Lee > [Jef] A good discussion ongoing at Scott Aaronson's blog, > of interest to many here. What's missing, in my opinion, is > epistemological awareness of the role of the observer in > any model (at any level.) You can never *really* account > for your own prior. > > From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 15 20:32:20 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 23:32:20 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Under the libertarian yoke In-Reply-To: <5D6F138B-9DD6-439D-B6A8-E24F60E0890B@mac.com> References: <7641ddc60805062153qcca0ac1l9a82c91b967bb558@mail.gmail.com> <747226.93232.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60805070802q216d8c5eo41b9fdbd121e94bd@mail.gmail.com> <5D6F138B-9DD6-439D-B6A8-E24F60E0890B@mac.com> Message-ID: 2008/5/11 Samantha Atkins : > How would this cartel of companies manage to keep all would be > competitors from underselling them if they had no state power > (legalized force) backing them up? If they are truly charging more > than costs plus reasonable profit (as defined by what any other > producer would require) then they would open themselves to competitive > pressure to change their position. For a start, they might have most of the oil, or whatever it is. Rival, smaller companies could be either offered a place in the cartel or have their operations sabotaged. The illicit drug trade is a good example of how all this might work. And despite the discussions about Kritarchy, I still don't see how a legal system with power of enforcement could be maintained without the risk of creating anti-libertarian laws. You would have to rely on everyone doing the right thing, which would obviate the need for a legal system in the first place. -- Stathis Papaioannou From amara at amara.com Fri May 16 00:04:29 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:04:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Wikipedia Corruption Message-ID: Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com : >I suspect that people here are mostly unhappy simply because a few >articles related to transhumanism don't toot our horn as loudly as we >would like it tooted. Not exactly. For information dissemination, I care about accuracy, not about tooting horns. I think that it's worthwhile to read through the discussion page(s many!) for that Transhumanism article to get an idea of the background story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transhumanism Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 15 23:32:44 2008 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 19:32:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jacques Cousteau on evolution and survival Message-ID: <380-220085415233244605@M2W008.mail2web.com> Has anyone read _The Ocean World_ by Jacques-Yves Cousteau? If so, if you have a moment please explain why he believed that dying is necessary for the process of evolution, that evolution is necessary for "survival," and that whether an organism is mortal or immortal it "must die". Thx, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE From kanzure at gmail.com Fri May 16 03:43:35 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 22:43:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Re: Scenarios for the future of synthetic biology and the Proactionary Principle In-Reply-To: <0eff747e-7db2-44df-b83c-dc89a814c59f@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> References: <0eff747e-7db2-44df-b83c-dc89a814c59f@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <200805152243.36517.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 15 May 2008, Jason Bobe wrote: > Very nice article by Rob Carlson and collaborators on the future of > synthetic biology. > > See especially the four scenarios in Table 1: > (1) Underworld--A New Era of Prohibition > (2) The Gilded Lab--Slow but Steady Progress > (3) Modular Life--The Genovation Explosion > (4) Barricades--A New Manhattan Project > > Blog post: > http://synthesis.typepad.com/synthesis/2008/05/scenarios-for-t.html > > PDF: > http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ind.2008.039 Hm. I found this article to be peculiar. So I'll throw in some commentary. == On biotech and money == Page 2 mentions the exponential growth of synthetic biology and other related fields; no doubt this is because fundamentally cellular technologies are self-replicating. It mentions Money, but this is irrelevant since exponential self-replicating machines don't cost anything at all except resource accessibility [and there are lots of resources, even some that aren't on the planet]. So just be careful when talking about 'economies' and biology. Economists forget that their systems are built on biology and other physical systems, not the other way around. == On 'biosecurity' == > Geopolitics: New security concerns. Security concerns, including > worries about terrorism and weapons proliferation, are high on the US > international political agenda and that of other nations. The focus > on these issues could have significant implications for trade and > other regulatory policies in areas of ?dual-use? technologies, > including biotechnology. This is an outdated management philosophy and just simply doesn't work on the internet. No matter how strong ITER tried to be, there's still schematics of rockets floating around the internet. Same thing with biology. And another good reason this is true is because bacteria are very good carriers of genes. Whether or not the information is carried via genes or bits and bytes, the information is going to travel. Frankly, these "biosecurity" concerns are signs of *precautionary* approaches, when in truth proactionary approaches might be something more interesting to explore. http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm 1. People?s freedom to innovate technologically is valuable to humanity. The burden of proof therefore belongs to those who propose restrictive measures. All proposed measures should be closely scrutinized. 2. Evaluate risk according to available science, not popular perception, and allow for common reasoning biases. 3. Give precedence to ameliorating known and proven threats to human health and environmental quality over acting against hypothetical risks. 4. Treat technological risks on the same basis as natural risks; avoid underweighting natural risks and overweighting human-technological risks. Fully account for the benefits of technological advances. 5. Estimate the lost opportunities of abandoning a technology, and take into account the costs and risks of substituting other credible options, carefully considering widely distributed effects and follow-on effects. 6. Consider restrictive measures only if the potential impact of an activity has both significant probability and severity. In such cases, if the activity also generates benefits, discount the impacts according to the feasibility of adapting to the adverse effects. If measures to limit technological advance do appear justified, ensure that the extent of those measures is proportionate to the extent of the probable effects. 7. When choosing among measures to restrict technological innovation, prioritize decision criteria as follows: Give priority to risks to human and other intelligent life over risks to other species; give non-lethal threats to human health priority over threats limited to the environment (within reasonable limits); give priority to immediate threats over distant threats; prefer the measure with the highest expectation value by giving priority to more certain over less certain threats, and to irreversible or persistent impacts over transient impacts. == But really, security == It's not a hopeless subject. If you are concerned about sufficiently bleak futures, then why not work on technologies to serve as biofilters for people to wear and work with? Why not try to encourage them to investigate the chemicals within their foods? Within their diets, within their bodies? This is a much more personalized, responsible approach. But don't start fearing everything you touch. :) == The economics of the future == * short mention of post-scarcity and how open source philanthropism is changing the scene without many people realizing it == More == > MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES > How quickly will biological engineering advance? Researchers have > been creating engineered biological systems for decades, with the > benefit of steadily improving tools for constructing recombinant > DNA molecules and analyzing genes and their functions. Yet the > process remains costly, unpredictable, and often vexingly complex. It > remains to be seen how quickly the new engineering approach to > biology now being undertaken can achieve its goals. The process isn't too costly, and what little cost remains is going downhill fast with the do-it-yourself DNA synthesizers, bioinstrumentation, etc. For example, you can do STM machines for $100 these days, or the very cheap polonator for gene sequencing [soon]. The complexity is going down as more tutorials and guides are written out there on the net. So the price arguments are getting kind of annoying. > Will governments attempt to restrict access to advanced technolo- > gy for biological engineering? The range of possible government > actions is wide, and the outcomes could be event-driven if there were > a major accident or national security crisis. That's like saying you're going to stop bacteria from replicating. That's not going to happen. Maybe alternative strategies are needed, like backups and redundancy and making sure we're not all killed at once if something bad was to happen -- whether (unlikely) biological weapons, or asteroids that we otherwise don't see soon enough or prepare for soon enough, rather. Etc. > Will the assertion of intellectual property rights slow innovation > in the field of synthetic biology? Some experts see a significant > risk that a race to establish patent rights to key biological parts > could slow the progress of the emerging field of synthetic biology. > It is uncertain whether patent reforms can or will address these > problems. It doesn't matter what patents do or say. Free, open source alternatives are being developed for these projects. So don't worry about that. Those guys are more or less stuck in the past, big changes are happening all over the place on those fronts. > Will terrorists or governments use genome engineering techniques > to create biological weapons? The use of genome engineering to cre- > ate biological weapons could lead to severe restrictions on research > in this field. Uh, if malicious people *do* make biological weapons, then cutting research is a *bad* idea. You want to help *stop* the biological weapons from spreading, not help them. Cutting research means cutting off solutions. But you know what? People will do the research anyway, just like they code software anyway. > Growing infectious disease threats to human and animal popula- > tions. US mortality from infectious diseases began to increase in the > 1980s, after trending downward for more than 100 years. Global > emergence of new, largely zoonotic diseases is also on the rise. > Concerns about the risk of an influenza pandemic has increased in > recent years as outbreaks of H5N1 avian influenza have appeared in > bird populations around the world. Increased travel and the global > trend toward urbanization will increase the interconnectedness of > human populations. Sounds like a good reason to let as many people as they want to become medical epidemiologists and medical scientists without formal training. So let them read stuff on the internet, let them participate and build equipment, let's not leave human lives in the hand of governments and corporations, we can do it [and if they want to help, that's great]. ==== The Very Limited Scenario Logic ==== THE GILDED LAB: Public and private funding supports laboratory research programs, but biological engineer- ing meets challenging technical obstacles. Economic implications are small. Investors are disappointed. BARRICADES: Geopolitical tensions and security concerns dominate government policy. Genome engineering research is severely restricted, with limited commercial activity. Government-funded research is focused on biodefense. MODULAR LIFE: Abundant entrepreneurial entry and new product creation; application of biological engineering in many sectors of the economy; some applications create social controversy and opposition. easy/cheap side UNDERWORLD: Like the Prohibition Era. Government efforts to restrict the technology foster black markets, hacker culture, and lots of unregulated activity outside the US. ================================ That doesn't sound like a good roadmap towards making sure we don't screw ourselves over. I mean, it basically says that the government only has one option (biodefense, which we know will not work), and that's just not good. We are here to help the situation, not to make it worse. So we know that political regulations aren't going to solve these issues. Only pure, hard-core tech. Oh, educational outreach is going to be good, yes. I agree there. But if the government wants to keep up with the tech sector, it's going to have to move fast, and reform isn't really something that these massive systems are good at. Sorry. It's just an engineering issue that everybody's been meaning to address for hundreds of years, and even before that, it's a commonly known problem. Now the question is whether or not the govt is going to use this against itself, or use it to its own advantage and try to get its act together in the face of, say, a technological singularity, without shooting everybody in the foot. > ?Open source? biology community. ?Open source? access to a > library of biological parts could provide a foundation for innovation, > but the open source movement could be marginalized by other large > players. Eh? Marginalized? It's what people are seeing out there in the open. It's what you can actually go *read* about, rather than everything else which is more or less behind closed doors. Most people don't have subscriptions to scientific journals, so everything open access is what they are going to be reading, if anything at all. > Overview of the scenarios > The scenarios are framed by three critical uncertainties: > ? How will governments regulate genome synthesis and design > technologies? They will not be able to. That's like trying to regulate evolution. > ? How quickly will biological engineering advance? However the people want it to. Nobody owns engineering. > ? How will public attitudes toward biotechnology evolve? That's a good question. Let's not screw it up. > Governments promote of genome > engineering research and development. > Patent reforms are adopted that are > beneficial to synthetic biology. Government > technology policies focus on economic > value creation through innovation in > biological technology. Economics? Value creation? Eh. That's like saying you want to impose an economy on open source software. Or an economy on the mold on that piece of cheese I threw away a few weeks ago [it's long now in the local dumpster, if anybody was about to call me out on this ;-)]. > Crackdown on unauthorized biological research: Illegal activity > flourishes > Under new laws imposed to enforce the Biological Technology > Convention, law enforcement organizations confiscate equipment, > close laboratories, censor scientific publications, and restrict > patents. > Like the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, however, the effort to crack > down fosters widespread illegal activity. International enforcement of > the Convention is uneven, at best. The drug cartels, operating freely > in some countries, adapt biotech approaches to synthesize narcotics, > counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs, and other products in flourishing > black markets in major cities in the developing world. These drugs > are a significant source of revenue for terrorists, who also threaten > the use of biological weapons. The world is increasingly caught > between the tightening military and intelligence powers of the rich- > est countries and the flourishing global networks of the illegal drug > cartels and the underworld markets of urban slums. Hm. It seems to me that this is just an issue of not taking responsibility for our own health. For example, I keep on mentioning technologies that we'll have to develop even before those scenarios so that we can be kept safe from those sort of harmful environmental agents, and it's a total drag, I know, but environmental filtering is already installed in many bio labs and many HVAC systems in buildings that you walk through every day, to some extent. Just more interesting filters might have to be installed. > Key questions: How effectively could governments regulate the use > of genome engineering technology? What would be the conse- > quences of efforts to prohibit or severely restrict research in this > field? What are the advantages and disadvantages of widely dif- > fused access to the technology? Governments can't regulate genome engineering technology, that's like saying the government is going to have to stop everybody from having sex. One way or another, these genes and bits and bytes are going to be flipped. It's a natural part of human life, and for governments to try to take it away is ridiculous. To prohibit research? That would get pretty nasty. Imagine the scenarios when cops try to bust down a garage that has some harmful agents inside of it. How do they know what's in the environment? Okay, you say, send in robots. Really? It's pretty hard to purge environments that are infested with toxic bacteria. And they spread pretty easily. Dunno. Maybe instead of trying to reclaim land, we can try other solutions, like creating new environments and cut off those infected areas, kind of like a "tierring" of society based off of 'air purity'. But those scenarios can get nasty -- and fast. > Two main problems slow the progress of synthetic biology. First, > biological engineers find it difficult to insulate complex new genetic > circuits from ?cross-talk? with existing cellular pathways. Moreover, In my research I'm not having much trouble overcoming crosstalk. http://heybryan.org/winfree.html > Like the Internet bubble before it, however, the Biotech Boom col- > lapses in 2010 when financial returns from new companies in the > biotech sector fall short of expectations. Indices of leading biotech > sector stocks decline by 50?80% as bad economic news compounds > the downturn in the market. The decline leads to a significant con- > solidation in the sector as a result of failures, mergers, and > acquisitions. A small handful of major companies are able to > consolidate strong positions in key segments of the industry. These > companies dominate intellectual property in their respective domains. Oh, please. Investment costs are decreasing radically, since the knowledge on how to build the equipment and purify the chemicals is proliferating and becoming increasingly applied. Leave the economy out of this. Debian would have costed $10 billion, but yet it occured 'for free'. Ugh. They use the word 'bioeconomy'. Oh boy. I can imagine 20 years from now talking to a young school boy that I see hopping along the street: Kid: "Hey, mister!" Bryan: "Hey there." Kid: "That's a pretty awesome plant there." Bryan: "Yeah, it's a corn stalk." Kid: "How much did it cost you?" Bryan: "It just grew there." Kid: "Yeah, but didn't you pay for it?" Bryan: "No, not at all." Kid: "So you stole it?" :-( Okay. That's it from me at the moment. Feel free to forward this to Aldrich, Newcomb, and/or Carlson at Bio Economic Research Associates, bioera.net, etc. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 16 07:29:15 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:29:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Jacques Cousteau on evolution and survival In-Reply-To: <380-220085415233244605@M2W008.mail2web.com> References: <380-220085415233244605@M2W008.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:32 AM, nvitamore wrote: > Has anyone read _The Ocean World_ by Jacques-Yves Cousteau? If so, if you > have a moment please explain why he believed that dying is necessary for > the process of evolution, that evolution is necessary for "survival," and > that whether an organism is mortal or immortal it "must die". > It has been discussed on Immortality Institute forum, here: I think he is saying that immortality means being perfectly adjusted to the environment, i.e. loss of adaptive ability. When the environment changes, the immortals die. A species which still adapts, means that when the environment changes, many die, but many others adapt and survive. BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 16 15:13:27 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:13:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Jacques Cousteau on evolution and survival In-Reply-To: <380-220085415233244605@M2W008.mail2web.com> References: <380-220085415233244605@M2W008.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <1210950941_14890@S4.cableone.net> At 04:32 PM 5/15/2008, you wrote: >Has anyone read _The Ocean World_ by Jacques-Yves Cousteau? If so, if you >have a moment please explain why he believed that dying is necessary for >the process of evolution, that evolution is necessary for "survival," and >that whether an organism is mortal or immortal it "must die". I have not read it, but he is right. Evolution is the replacement over time with better adapted living things. In a finite world births and deaths have to balance in the long run. This has very little do with transhumanism of course. Keith From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri May 16 17:05:17 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:05:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Jacques Cousteau on evolution and survival Message-ID: <34229.12.77.168.247.1210957517.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > Has anyone read _The Ocean World_ by Jacques-Yves Cousteau? If so, if you > have a moment please explain why he believed that dying is necessary for > the process of evolution, that evolution is necessary for "survival," and > that whether an organism is mortal or immortal it "must die". > I have not read the book, but I've heard the comment before. When I've heard it, people mean the following: Evolution implies heritable genetic change over generations. For any change to spread through a population there need be many births/generations. There won't be room/resources for all the generations to live at the same time so some must die. (Who must die? The older ones past breeding, the genetic failures before breeding, plus accidents.) If we're talking about the natural world, then I think this may be so. That's how it has worked in the past. When we put technology and new space and new resources into the situation, it appears otherwise, at least until the room/resources problem catches up with a population again. Regards, MB From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Fri May 16 18:10:03 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:10:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Jacques Cousteau on evolution and survival In-Reply-To: <34229.12.77.168.247.1210957517.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <34229.12.77.168.247.1210957517.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <482DCDFB.90304@insightbb.com> MB wrote: >> Has anyone read _The Ocean World_ by Jacques-Yves Cousteau? If so, if you >> have a moment please explain why he believed that dying is necessary for >> the process of evolution, that evolution is necessary for "survival," and >> that whether an organism is mortal or immortal it "must die". >> >> > > I have not read the book, but I've heard the comment before. When I've heard it, > people mean the following: > > Evolution implies heritable genetic change over generations. For any change to > spread through a population there need be many births/generations. There won't be > room/resources for all the generations to live at the same time so some must die. > (Who must die? The older ones past breeding, the genetic failures before breeding, > plus accidents.) > > If we're talking about the natural world, then I think this may be so. That's how it > has worked in the past. When we put technology and new space and new resources into > the situation, it appears otherwise, at least until the room/resources problem > catches up with a population again. > > Regards, > MB > > > > It's t he death before reproduction that determines which characteristics are inherited and which are not, which over time with changes in the environment drives evolution. Being immortal just spreads those same genes around. There would be very little if any change without the environmental changes or the death of those who couldn't cope with it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 16 19:14:26 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:14:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Jacques Cousteau on evolution and survival In-Reply-To: <482DCDFB.90304@insightbb.com> References: <34229.12.77.168.247.1210957517.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <482DCDFB.90304@insightbb.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080516140553.022eed38@satx.rr.com> >There would be very little if any change without the environmental >changes or the death of those who couldn't cope with it. There might well be lots of incremental genome/phenotype changes without any environment changes at all, as first clumsy approximations to use of environmental affordances get fine tuned in generation after generation through mutation and selection; what's more, the less fit need not *die* more swiftly, just not breed as abundantly, so that their fecundity is less competitive. Americans on average die later than many African or Middle Eastern Muslims, yet the fertility of the latter might massively exceed that of the former. They inhabit different *memetic* environments, it's true, but I doubt that's what Cousteau had in mind (could be comparable, though). Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri May 16 19:21:48 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:21:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Biotech figures prominently in the Wharton Business Plan Competition Message-ID: <2d6187670805161221qe45cea2n8321c34b33ad7f10@mail.gmail.com> I'd say this is a good sign of things to come... http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1960# -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Fri May 16 20:51:04 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:51:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] CHAT: geeky stuff = be human Message-ID: I've come across a lot of materials quite recently about transhumanists being decadent 'geeks'. Hah! I'm most convinced that members of the list are open-minded. That is, intelligent, able to adapt etc. Which people who say these words might not be. Those who are given the spark and the will to learn, however, still can improve their physical self. Sport is good. Heavy physical work is good. And it is nice to be strong. The human body is really perfect in itself, if healthy. I value health because I'm an allergic and have had my own problems with that (now I'm fine). But apart from that I like the body give to me. I could always be better, but I'm among the strongest (speaking about my acquaintances). Perfect is the human body if the mind and the body are in harmony. Easterners have their way in this respect. And it works fine, I tell you. Actually, the organic human body is miraculous, despite its many defects, despite our weakness compared to a lion for example. And it is the mind which makes the difference. So, getting back to the geeks, I'd advise only one thing to all: develop your body. Up till the age of, say forty, using your own body should suffice. Provided that you don't suffer from anything terrible (like I've had a double fracture in my left arm and the muscles, the tendons are of worse quality there). Being a healthy, young human is nice and thus the term geek should be eliminated. To those sitting before the computer all day and all night (and I have some friends who do) I'd say: come on, get real! Real knowledge is knowing all you can. Going out with friends, getting drunk, falling asleep in the bus and waking up with toothpaste around your eyes. Yeah, youth is the age to do such stooooopid things. Besides, I'm less than 20 years old and I still think that impossible is nothing. I can have part of me think about transhumanism while the other engages in social life (and suffers from hangover :P). And based on my little experience, my cognition is more effective if the body hosting it is in green condition. I always say I'm not good enough for the rational approach, the empirical works far better. Like you can't eat a virtual banana, right (this was from an electrical engineer :))? I tend to haul my laptop around wherever I go but I don't really like being at home. Being mobile and free has a special feeling to it (plus broadband Wi-Fi at the plaza is faster than my crappy 3G LOL). Even though it is quite obvious that perfection is impossible, striving for perfection is not a crime. And what results is just another Homo Superior, superior to the original one. This is mostly a battle of the self against the self. Happiness always comes from the inside, right? Happy people are open to new ideas, right? I'd think so. And I still trust that a rapid improvement will begin with our generation. To end this line of thoughts, I suggest that we offer (to those unwilling to see the truth over the false veils of the system) the best we can. Why would you be more friendly, more understanding, socially more advanced than the ones who keep on yelling 'geek'? Because you can and that is all that matters. We all intend to change something for the better. Then why not do it in everyday life as well. Like Sun-Tzu said: "A leader leads by example not by force." And excuse me for the many personal references and the longevity of this message. I'm most convinced you'll agree with me in many aspects. And I trust we are most alike, regardless of age or education. Well, if you took the time to tear through all this, thank you. Thomas Pardy, M1N3R From amara at amara.com Fri May 16 22:09:01 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 16:09:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) Message-ID: Google News is making a not-so-subtle point to its English-readers, whether they are in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, UK, ... Notice under the Health section is one now fully devoted to news from Myanmar (Burma), effectively highlighting its seriousness. The non-English speaking versions do not have this extra section, perhaps because those readers already understand how serious is the situation there. Thank you, Google! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Fri May 16 22:39:39 2008 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] geeky stuff = be human Message-ID: <251834.85912.qm@web46113.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I'm a newbie too, so this reply isn't meant to be harsh but please don't apologize for being self-referential or perseveratory, just try to curb your enthusiasm.? ?Were similar, this?is?posted to get you up to speed, to save you a little of the one *thing* you cannot get back-- time. And excuse me for the many personal references and the longevity of this message. I'm most convinced you'll agree with me in many aspects. And I trust we are most alike, regardless of age or education. Well, if you took the time to tear through all this, thank you. Thomas Pardy, M1N3R -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Fri May 16 23:38:06 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 18:38:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805161838.06710.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 16 May 2008, Amara Graps wrote: > Google News is making a not-so-subtle point to its English-readers, > whether they are in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, UK, ... > > Notice under the Health section is one now fully devoted to news > from Myanmar (Burma), effectively highlighting its seriousness. > The non-English speaking versions do not have this extra section, > perhaps because those readers already understand how serious is > the situation there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_cyclone How sick. Myanmar can't issue visas fast enough, so all of the international support teams are just waiting around. How the hell is that humanitarian? And why the hell don't they just barge in? What is the international community going to think/say if that was to happen? That it was illegal? Yeah, right. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From spike66 at att.net Fri May 16 23:24:46 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 16:24:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805162353.m4GNrTta009684@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Amara Graps > Google News is making a not-so-subtle point to its > English-readers, whether they are in Australia, New Zealand, > Canada, US, UK, ... > > Notice under the Health section is one now fully devoted to > news from Myanmar (Burma), effectively highlighting its seriousness. > > Thank you, Google! > > Amara Amara I didn't see anything in the Google News health section about Myanmar, but I found these two articles among their world headlines. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/asia/17myanmar.html?ref=world http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/world/asia/14myanmar.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref= slogin It isn't clear to me what was the not-so-subtle point you had in mind. > The non-English speaking versions do not have this extra > section, perhaps because those readers already understand how > serious is the situation there. An explanation I can think of is that the non-English speaking audience does not like to see the US and UN as the good guys. According to the script the English speaking world isn't supposed to fill that role. Here we have the US and the UN sending food and medical aid, but the Myanmar government refuses to let it get to those who desperately need it. spike From amara at amara.com Sat May 17 00:05:28 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 18:05:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) Message-ID: Spike, try any of these, the text version, then scroll to the bottom of the page. http://news.google.com/news?ned=tus http://news.google.com/news?ned=tau http://news.google.com/news?ned=tca http://news.google.com/news?ned=tuk Amara From amara at amara.com Sat May 17 00:12:56 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 18:12:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) Message-ID: Spike: >It isn't clear to me what was the not-so-subtle point you had in mind. The point is that this horrific tragedy is barely in the 'normal' English-speaking media (well.. business as usual). At least the Google folks are giving it some weight at their news page. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kanzure at gmail.com Sat May 17 00:27:49 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 19:27:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805161927.49486.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 16 May 2008, Amara Graps wrote: > The point is that this horrific tragedy is barely in the 'normal' > English-speaking media (well.. business as usual). At least the > Google folks are giving it some weight at their news page. Further point: Google is a massive organizing force on the internet, considering that the site is the most visited on the planet. What Google *should* be doing is throwing up a Google Groups discussion link to groups of people organizing support right now; but this is an interesting start. We can't see what the results are, but they can (link clickage analysis). - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From jef at jefallbright.net Sat May 17 00:01:12 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 17:01:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Agalmics => "The Marginalization of Scarcity" by Robert Levin In-Reply-To: <9ff585550805161453s35ad263eq4c00fc0f16ff76df@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ff585550805161453s35ad263eq4c00fc0f16ff76df@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It's been several years since an earlier version of this essay last passed this way. Highly recommended food for thought. - Jef ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael LaTorra Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM PREFACE: I went in search of the definition of the word "agalmic" which is used as an adjective in Charlie Stross's novel Accelerondo. In the context of the story, I understood the word to mean an action which directly benefits someone other than the actor. But there is more to the word than this. Read below to see how the word is used by the person who coined it. http://www.openverse.com/~dtinker/agalmics.html The Marginalization of Scarcity by Robert Levin Thanks to all who have commented thus far. The comments from working economists and sociologists were of particular interest, and I can see that they are going to produce some changes in the essay. In particular, gentle reader, realize as you read that I do not consider agalmias to be gift cultures per se; traditional gift cultures are largely pre-industrial, and based as much on scarcity as any modern technological state. Also, when you read my games-theory comments, don't infer that I believe economies are zero-sum games. While one or both "legs" of an economic transaction can most conveniently be expressed as a zero-sum game, that does not extend to economies as a whole, nor even necessarily to a single complete economic transaction. I'll plan to discuss these points in more detail in follow-ons to this essay. Finally, frequent comments have led me to conclude that an important element is missing from the definition of agalmics. Agalmic goods are non-scarce goods, but they are often produced using scarce goods as raw materials. An important example is the initial programming work which goes into a free software application. At the current state of the human lifespan, programmer time must be regarded as a scarce good. I've added the words "production and" to the definition, and I hope you'll find this to be a clear and necessary improvement. We are now at version 3.0 of the essay. Introduction The recent growth of interest in Linux and "open source" or "free" software raises questions about the nature of the "gift culture" of the Internet. Why do people give away information? What do they hope to gain? How can the Internet continue to work, in a world in which politics based on shared ownership has serious, demonstrated problems? The cooperative spirit of the Internet is not a historical fluke. If human beings allowed their aggressive, suspicious sides to dominate, we'd live in a world in which people took things by force instead of buying them. And how would anyone trust the printed word? How could education occur in the absence of cooperation? All over the world, students listen and educators teach. In a largely unrestricted market of record size, individuals freely trade goods and services for other goods and services of their choice. Ownership of private property remains largely undisputed by men with guns. We live in the cooperative state known as civilization. Not every human activity is cooperative. Wars still occur. And the existence of laws implies that people do disagree about when cooperation is a good thing. But it's clear that voluntary interaction serves important human needs. The most successful economic systems on the planet are based on voluntary interaction. Variants of the "free enterprise" model have produced wealth and plenty on a vast scale. Political systems based on involuntary interaction, such of those of the Soviet Union and various Third World nations, have not been nearly so successful at meeting the needs and desires of their citizens as have systems which emphasize freedom. But will technology change the way human beings interact over the coming decades? What trends do we need to understand in order to see where things are going? One clear trend in a technological society is the marginalization of scarcity. As time goes on, the technology of agriculture and manufacture teaches us how to produce goods with more efficiency, at less cost. The trend in technology is an exponential improvement of knowledge and capabilities. Make anything cheap enough, and it will no longer be scarce enough to be considered an economic good. Contrary trends operate in the marketplace. Intellectual property, a system of law in which access to inventions and creative output is limited in order to reward their creators, has a powerful conservative influence on the market, slowing the adoption of new ideas and inventions. Patent law rewards inventors for coming up with useful technology; but the reward often comes in the form of purchase of the right to control who may use that technology. Large corporations, with large legal and accounting staffs and access to capital, have an extraordinary advantage in accumulating exclusive rights to new technologies. The nature of such organizations is to hold onto these assets tightly and release them slowly, so that the most efficient return on investment can be achieved. But technological change continues to occur, in part because competing organizations often need the competitive advantage which new technology can provide. So we can be certain that, over time, more and more basic goods will become less and less scarce. With these changes, it becomes increasingly important to understand how human beings allocate non-scarce goods. Indeed, a sort of "economics" of non-scarcity becomes an important study. But economics is the study of the allocation of scarce goods. We need a new paradigm, and a new field of study. What we need is agalmics. Definitions agalmics (uh-GAL-miks), n. [Gr. "agalma", "a pleasing gift"] The study and practice of the production and allocation of non-scarce goods. agalmic actor, n. An individual or organization engaged in agalmic activity. agalmic software, n. Computer software written and distributed as an agalmic activity. agalmia, n. The sum of the agalmic activity in a particular region or sphere. Analogous to an "economy" in economic theory. Characteristics To understand human behavior, we must find clear examples to study. Agalmic behavior involves the exchange of non-scarce goods, goods which can be found in the modern free software community. As we examine agalmic behavior, we'll frequently use examples involving free software. We can observe the following characteristics of agalmic activity: It is transfinite. Economic trade is finite; when I give you a dollar I have one less than I did. Agalmic activity involves goods which are not scarce, so I can give you one without appreciably diminishing my supply. It is cooperative. Economic activity often involves competition. Buyers must allocate their limited funds to the supplier who best meets their needs. Since it doesn't involve scarce resources, agalmic activity rarely involves competition. Efficient agalmic actors know how to encourage cooperation and benefit from the results. It is self-interested. Agalmic activity advances personal goals, which may be charitable or profit-oriented, individual or organizational. An agalmia typically contains both individuals and organizations, with a broad mix of charitable and profit-oriented goals. Agalmic profit is measured in such things as knowledge, satisfaction, recognition and often in indirect economic benefit. It is self-stimulating. Examples can be seen in free software communities, in which new programmers, documenters and debuggers come from the ranks of free software users. It is self-directing. Free software users provide feedback to developers in the form of bug reports, patches and requests for new features. Software projects can be forked by users when an existing developer group is not responsive to their needs. Maintainers are then free to adopt the new work or go their own way. It is decentralized and non-authoritarian. In a free software community, developer groups maintain their positions only as long as they are responsive to their user bases. No one is forced to participate in a project, and the projects people participate in are the ones in which they are interested. Involuntary activity places limits on exchange and creates scarcities. As such, it is non-agalmic. A particular agalmic group may be organized in a top-down fashion, and non-agalmic groups may act agalmicly. But alternatives are available and participation is voluntary. Authoritarian systems remove personal incentives for agalmic behavior. It is positive-sum. In games theory, a 'zero-sum game' is one in which one player's gain is another player's loss. Conventional economics often describes zero-sum games. When two suppliers compete for the dollars of a single customer, or when two government agencies compete with each other for fixed budget dollars, a zero sum game is played. A 'positive-sum game' is one in which players can gain by behavior which enhances the gains of others. Efficient agalmics is a positive-sum game. For example, when a free software programmer gives his source code away, he gains a large population of users to report bugs; the users gain the use of his programs. By awarding the other players points, the player gains points. It is not new. Gift cultures have existed during much of human history, and other, non-gift cultures have clear agalmic influences. Religious communities have engaged in agalmic behavior, as have governments, businesses and individuals. Charities, standards organizations and trade associations often act agalmicly. It may be argued convincingly that civilization itself is an agalmic activity. Conclusions The behavior of agalmias gives us useful information about the ways that societies can change and grow. Open source and free software communities provide us with excellent modern day agalmias for study, as does the Internet itself. But long term trends in technology suggest that material scarcity will likely become less common, and agalmic behavior more common. In studying the behavior of agalmias we can see intimations of our technological future. Robert Levin Woodland Hills, California, US 4 April 1999 Email: levin at openprojects.net Online: lilo at Open Projects Net IRC From eric at m056832107.syzygy.com Sat May 17 00:27:01 2008 From: eric at m056832107.syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 17 May 2008 00:27:01 -0000 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080517002701.5.qmail@syzygy.com> >The point is that this horrific tragedy is barely in the 'normal' >English-speaking media (well.. business as usual). At least the Google >folks are giving it some weight at their news page. > >Amara Well, I don't know about the 'normal' media, but NPR has been all over the story. At least between pledge breaks on KQED. :-) -eric (That's (American) National Public Radio, and a San Francisco area radio station, for our international readers...) From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Fri May 16 23:31:24 2008 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 16:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] the big question Message-ID: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> The big question is how much is unspoken resentment of the status quo resentment of the cosmos itself when the cosmos is not obligated to us in any way, isn't even obliged to pay attention to us? Celebrity culture has trickled down to the grassroots so there is an insistent message of "you must pay attention to me,?I deserve it, society owes?something to me ". Those such as?Tim McVeigh commit a crime to say "the world must notice insignificant little me, so I blow up a building. Notoriety is my due. Gimme". Charles Manson?goes to trial to mug for the camera and say "Give me your attention, It's me. You must notice poor little suffering violent little me?"..?Gimme. Even the bureaucracy of an entire nation, North Korea, says "look at us, see what we're doing, we'll build the Bomb if you don't notice us and give us aid". Give us something. Or else.?Today people everywhere think they have a right to be noticed and above all often a right to do whatever they want. Isn't this is a problem with transhumanists, they think the cosmos has to acknowledge their existences? Do they secretly think the?cosmos might owe?them unlimited lifespans? Rafal, you're objective, would you respond to this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat May 17 02:01:52 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 19:01:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805170202.m4H21wcL023987@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Amara Graps > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 5:13 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) > > Spike: > >It isn't clear to me what was the not-so-subtle point you > had in mind. > > The point is that this horrific tragedy is barely in the 'normal' > English-speaking media (well.. business as usual). At least > the Google folks are giving it some weight at their news page. > > Amara Oh OK. I do not usually read the Google news, but I knew they had a hell of a storm in Burma that killed skerjillions of people. The mainstream media have been covering the story, but as you point out, not as a lede story. The angle the MSM have been reporting is that the whole world wants to go in there to lend aid, but the Burmese government is keeping them out and confiscating the food and medicine. The latest I have heard is that the US and UN are going around the government, which might be interpreted as an act of war. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat May 17 01:46:27 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 18:46:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805170213.m4H2DDpk019878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ...On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) > > Spike, try any of these, the text version, then scroll to the > bottom of the page. > > http://news.google.com/news?ned=tus > http://news.google.com/news?ned=tau > http://news.google.com/news?ned=tca > http://news.google.com/news?ned=tuk > > Amara OK cool I see it, thanks. > The non-English speaking versions do not have this extra section, > perhaps because those readers already understand how serious is the > situation there... That is one explanation but I thought of another. If Google posted Burma news in a language accessible to the Burmese, it would be contributing to destabilizing the government in that country. When I try to interpret the things that Google does with it's news section, I must keep in mind that Google is a business, but is not specifically in the news business. It is bad business to creating ire in any potential customers. All actions by any real company keeps an eye on the bottom line. spike From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Sat May 17 02:42:03 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 19:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <200805170213.m4H2DDpk019878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <272857.88663.qm@web50304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 17 03:51:30 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:51:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <272857.88663.qm@web50304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <200805170213.m4H2DDpk019878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <272857.88663.qm@web50304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080516225012.024d4ae0@satx.rr.com> At 07:42 PM 5/16/2008 -0700, Mark wrote: >--- Em sex, 16/5/08, spike escreveu Em sex, indeed! Not our Spike! From spike66 at att.net Sat May 17 04:43:40 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 04:43:40 -0000 Subject: [ExI] em sex In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080516225012.024d4ae0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200805170443.m4H4hJlI002901@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Damien Broderick > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:52 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) > > At 07:42 PM 5/16/2008 -0700, Mark wrote: > > >--- Em sex, 16/5/08, spike escreveu > > Em sex, indeed! Not our Spike! Em sex, is that like when one is doing Dorothy's Auntie Em? Well she is a cute rascal I will admit, but I wasn't going there, honest. When Uncle Henry went to town, I did see Zeke, Hickory and Hunk going in the old farmhouse apparently looking for a bit of Em sex. spike From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Sat May 17 12:20:55 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080516225012.024d4ae0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <154569.86402.qm@web50304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sat May 17 14:49:55 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 08:49:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) Message-ID: Amara: >>The point is that this horrific tragedy is barely in the 'normal' >>English-speaking media (well.. business as usual). At least the Google >>folks are giving it some weight at their news page. Eric Messick eric at m056832107.syzygy.com : >Well, I don't know about the 'normal' media, but NPR has been all over >the story. Dear Eric, Thanks for pointing that out. I consider the NPR one of the few high quality English-speaking news sources in addition to the BBC and The Economist. Beyond that, in my pickiness for truth, and if I don't have a direct contact or experience to the place or people, my remaining options are to jump around the International versions of Google News (those I can understand) and try to synthesize a 'global picture'. I'm thankful that the Internet can make this possible. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 17 16:08:00 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 09:08:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> At 05:12 PM 5/16/2008, you wrote: >Spike: > >It isn't clear to me what was the not-so-subtle point you had in mind. > >The point is that this horrific tragedy is barely in the 'normal' >English-speaking media (well.. business as usual). At least the Google >folks are giving it some weight at their news page. > >Amara Amara, some time ago I pointed this mailing list to http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm If the coupling between energy and food is as modeled then the ride down the back side of peak oil/energy is going to reduce the world's human population to a small fraction of the current level. Going "over the top" means the death rate rises to the rate of population growth and increasing well beyond that. In the worse decades, the population might fall at a hundred million a year. The problems are going to vastly exceed our ability to do anything about them, even in cases where you don't have a government like North Korea or Myanmar. The rational thing would be to develop replacement energy, and space based solar power seems to be the best bet. But you have seen how little interest there is--even on this list. The next most rational thing might be to ignore the bad news since without long lead time mega engineering projects we will lack the ability to do anything about it. It's a bad situation, no doubt about it. I wonder how many on this list have read either Clark's book or his research paper here: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf It describes how the world got to the situation we are in today, particularly the great divergence. It might help provide insights about how to get out. Or might not. Of course, the singularity will put an end to the suffering, in the worst case snuffing out the remaining population. Keith From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat May 17 18:18:34 2008 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 18:18:34 +0000 Subject: [ExI] the big question In-Reply-To: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Alan Brooks wrote: > The big question is how much is unspoken resentment of the status quo > resentment of the cosmos itself when the cosmos is not obligated to us in > any way, isn't even obliged to pay attention to us? > Celebrity culture has trickled down to the grassroots so there is an > insistent message of "you must pay attention to me, I deserve it, society > owes something to me ". Those such as Tim McVeigh commit a crime to say "the > world must notice insignificant little me, so I blow up a building. > Notoriety is my due. Gimme". Charles Manson goes to trial to mug for the > camera and say "Give me your attention, It's me. You must notice poor little > suffering violent little me ". Gimme. > The "poor little suffering me" argument disappears with the advent of nanotechnology. That was the point of my "Sapphire Mansions" paper many years ago. The "you do not notice me" argument cannot easily be eliminated. We all want to be noticed because that allows for sexual opportunities which allow for reproduction. So from the level of the genome up we have a need to be noticed. To shift that you have to say one should engineer genomes which do not crave acknowledgment [1]. That potentially creates an entirely different set of problems which we have extremely experience with (Most species on earth are defined by their ability to be noticed as potential mates.) You can eliminate "poor" from the equation, but not the "suffering" due to the fact that it may be self-defined. Robert 1. The term "sociopath" comes to mind... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat May 17 18:35:51 2008 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 18:35:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] the big question In-Reply-To: References: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry, minor typo. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > That potentially creates an entirely different set of problems which we > have extremely <> experience with (Most species on earth are > defined by their ability to be noticed as potential mates.) > The point being that one normally has to crave reproductive opportunities (which usually involve being noticed) in order to survive as a species. So it tends to be built into every genome (and any cultures derived from such genomes). If species have an indefinite lifespan and no desire to be noticed and no desire to reproduce then a lot of behavioral phenomena (within that culture) shift significantly. I know of no studies or books which explore this in detail (or with academic rigor) [1]. Robert 1. Perhaps in part due to the fact that most writers have not envisioned a culture where we live thousands of years and have no need to have children to achieve "immortality". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat May 17 19:29:13 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 12:29:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] biodata 404 Message-ID: A New Approach to Treating Alzheimer's Electrodes implanted in the brain show promise in early trials. http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/20756/?nlid=1066 Issues of personality preservation are central to uploading and cryonics. Some years back I pondered whether Alzheimer's and other conditions resulting in loss of optimal brain function was about destruction of data or, alternatively, ***loss of access*** to data. Was the data still there -- like in a hard drive that's gone south -- and still "good", just inaccessible? The cited article seems to lend support to "just inaccesible". Good news, and another data point that suggests that in their most fundamental workings, biological systems will prove to be simple and robust as opposed to enigmatic and fragile. And consequently, EASY to manipulate and maintain. Enhance me! Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 17 19:14:33 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 12:14:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the big question In-Reply-To: References: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1211051838_1832@S3.cableone.net> At 11:35 AM 5/17/2008, Robert wrote: >Sorry, minor typo. > >On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Robert Bradbury ><robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote: > >That potentially creates an entirely different set of problems which >we have extremely <> experience with (Most species on >earth are defined by their ability to be noticed as potential mates.) > >The point being that one normally has to crave reproductive >opportunities (which usually involve being noticed) in order to >survive as a species. So it tends to be built into every genome >(and any cultures derived from such genomes). Exactly. Something I have been talking about for over a decade now and have been excoriated for, even to being rebuked by a federal judge for having recognizing it as an unconscious motive in myself. >If species have an indefinite lifespan and no desire to be noticed >and no desire to reproduce then a lot of behavioral phenomena >(within that culture) shift significantly. I know of no studies or >books which explore this in detail (or with academic rigor) [1]. >Robert > >1. Perhaps in part due to the fact that most writers have not >envisioned a culture where we live thousands of years and have no >need to have children to achieve "immortality". Dr. Gregory Clark explores the tight mathematical coupling between life span and reproductive rates extensively in his research. But without the motivation to seek attention, more particularly the desire to have status in the eyes of ones peers, society would not exist. (Status is more or less the integral of attention.) I explored this in a story some time ago in giving AIs personalities: ^^^^^^^^^ The clinic had other carefully selected human personality characteristics such as seeking the good opinion of its peers (humans and other of its kind alike). It also had a few unhuman limits. ^^^^^^^^ Zaba often talked to Suskulan. She eventually acquired a top-level understanding of all of human knowledge and had access to the details through simulated memory. Suskulan warned her that she might have a difficult time in the physical world if she got out of communication because her mind had expanded well beyond what could be supported in a brain. "Why would I want to go back to being stupid?" she responded, but, after thinking about it, she warmed up her body and moved her consciousness back into her original brain. ^^^^^^^^^^ She rode up the elevator and left the clinic and the spirit world for a day. Walking beyond the reach of the local net was a disconcerting experience at first but even without the net, Zaba's mind was impressive. She remembered what Suskulan had said about staying awake and learning while being healed and how it would change her and the people of the tata. It certainly had! For better or for worse? For better in that nobody died of fevers, nasty parasites, or malnutrition since Suskulan had come into their lives. People didn't even die of old age with a clinic to regress age for them and they aged in the spirit world only to the extent they wanted. For worse in that she could not have children unless she left the clinic for their gestation. Zaba had read the design notes that led up to the creation of the clinics and their spirits and had long understood the mathematics behind Suskulan's limits. In the long run, births and deaths had to match. If you wanted no deaths, then there could be no births. ^^^^^^^^^^^ While evolution has wired in this trait, I don't think we need to get rid of it. A world where the individuals had "indefinite lifespan and no desire to be noticed" (and no desire to reproduce) would be a strange place indeed. I can't think of any reason they would interact at all. Keith From spike66 at att.net Sat May 17 09:56:43 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 02:56:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] biodata 404 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805172203.m4HM2iBl029516@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > On Behalf Of Jeff Davis... > ...whether Alzheimer's > and other conditions resulting in loss of optimal brain > function was about destruction of data or, alternatively, > ***loss of access*** to data... Best, Jeff Davis Jeff many of us who have known Alzheimer's patients can assure you, they often have good days when you can't tell anything is wrong with them. Rather I should say good parts of days, for those times often don't last a full day. Other times the same patient knows not on what planet they are. spike From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Sat May 17 22:14:13 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 00:14:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? Message-ID: Several times now the matter was put to debate within our small circles. About 80% of Europe claims themselves Christian, most of them I presume are Roman Catholic. And now it doesn't count whether they are true believers. The Roman Catholic Church shows not much of a will to change some basic things. Like: celibacy (consider the biological consequences), using cold and uncomfortable churches, very strict dogma etc. Even though 80% is a high number, in Europe internet usage is circa 20% greater than in the USA (considering the number of access points per capita I suppose). So I suppose the church might suffer greatly if they keep on like this (as people have access to more and more information). Take into consideration the Middle Ages as well. The Church continues to expand (like our school might also become Catholic), might they not slow down progress once again? Or what will be the future of religion anyways? I'm interested in material on the topic, mainly connected to the Catholic Church. If they must change, then how? And how is Christianity compatible with most of the future models presented here? I just can't imagine a posthuman believing in God... Can you? (To avoid misunderstanding I must say I value faith as faith is a great guide to a Homo Sapiens in hardships) Thomas From spike66 at att.net Sat May 17 09:52:35 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 02:52:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the big question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805172218.m4HMIYHj010494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________ On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Subject: Re: [ExI] the big question Alan Brooks wrote: The big question is how much is unspoken resentment of the status quo... The "poor little suffering me" argument disappears with the advent of nanotechnology... Robert Well Robert Bradbury! How the heck are you man? Long time since we heard from you. {8-] spike From kanzure at gmail.com Sat May 17 22:49:14 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:49:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805171749.14777.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 17 May 2008, M1N3R wrote: > Or what will be the future of religion anyways? I'm interested in > material on the topic, mainly connected to the Catholic Church. If > they must change, then how? And how is Christianity compatible with > most of the future models presented here? I just can't imagine a Suppose the singularity occurs; what then? There will be a few billion people that are behind the times. Many of them will suddenly have tools and technology that they otherwise never had before. So this would mean that you suddenly have billions of people very intensely interested in something that they have never seen before, something that offers them hope [and possibly doom] for themselves, their children, parents and their villages. What would help ease the transistion, should they want one? By transition I mean training and education about what's going on and how to upgrade their shock level. What would help the medicine go down? A spoonful of sugar? Anyway, in Zindell's novels as well as in Orion's Arm, there's no indication that Catholicism or the 'Kristians' [as Zindell calls them] are made impossible in a post-singularity scenario. But frankly, when you have a live demonstration right in front of a young kid, who are they going to believe? Prayer for a cure to a disease, or a machine that can deliver? Hm. Breaking up old, crusty social institutions is an interesting topic. How would you do this without stepping on too many toes? Reform of institutions isn't exactly something that humans are specialized in. Especially since most institutions are supposed to last forever (the U.S. Experiment didn't have a due date). > posthuman believing in God... Can you? Yes. It's very easy to imagine that. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat May 17 23:41:31 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:41:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New update In-Reply-To: <0DD4602309734390AF713824AB577528@GinaSony> References: <4AA12131B69E4FD7A9F7D94CB5C2D8AB@GinaSony><20080507171556.ZEIG9391.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <0DD4602309734390AF713824AB577528@GinaSony> Message-ID: <4F1803078246415FAC54991F899915EE@GinaSony> New update on what is going on with moving forward in treating my new MS diagnosis: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/2008/05/update-51608-ginas-new-ms-diagnosis.html Best wishes, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 00:00:02 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:00:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Argument mapping Message-ID: I don't know how related this is to transhumanism, but I wanted to procure opinions about argument mapping on the internet and it's effectness for better harnessing collective intelligence. A good example is www.debategraph.org, though my question is more aimed at the concept rather than any particular implementation. My perspective on this is the idea that our minds are, among other things, processing units but, unlike a computer, the results of this processing is rarely saved and nor is it usually accessible to other people. Okay, the previous statement isn't strictly true for in fact, humanity has been coming up with all sorts of methods for doing exactly that: from papyrus scrolls, to books and pamphlets, to the internet and wikis. Even so, I think a great deal is lost, for example, when you usually have to do a lot of research in order to even assess the primary conclusions of a given work. I think the situation is inefficient and, in most cases, not worth the effort, when much of your time reading a particular work is spent trying to identify the arguments in order to evaluate them and compare them with other arguments presented by other people. Also consider, for example, that if you were to research a subject like climate change, most of the works you'll encounter will repeat the same arguments, which is inefficient. Even on this list, I think the same subjects are brought up, and the arguments made, often by new people who haven't noticed that they've been made before; and there's no convenient method of determining what the overall development of the discussion has been other than crude text-searching through the archives (though I'm pleased that the archives exist). The point isn't to replace ordinary discourse and essay-style debates, but I think a great deal can be achieved by using an alternative format, and at a certain level even have entire discussions using argument mapping software. And think the function of argument mapping would be to provide an avenue for people to evaluate arguments as quickly and accurately as possible, so the design decisions in such software should be evaluated to those ends. The primary downside that I can see to such a method is that argument mapping will require a skill at analysis that isn't common, mainly because it isn't taught; on the other hand I think regular use of such software would have the positive benefit of developing these skills. The other downside is that with most of the debates that would, in effect, benefit from these tools, the relevant argument maps are likely to become large, complex, and unwieldy, so it's a question as to how much the software can automate and, perhaps, give us the ability to collapse and expand arguments to the desired granularity. Best regards, *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat May 17 23:42:56 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <200805171749.14777.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <269106.52927.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Saturday 17 May 2008, M1N3R wrote: > > Or what will be the future of religion anyways? I'm interested in > > material on the topic, mainly connected to the Catholic Church. If > > they must change, then how? And how is Christianity compatible with > > most of the future models presented here? I just can't imagine a > > Suppose the singularity occurs; what then? There will be a few billion > people that are behind the times. Many of them will suddenly have tools > and technology that they otherwise never had before. So this would mean > that you suddenly have billions of people very intensely interested in > something that they have never seen before, something that offers them > hope [and possibly doom] for themselves, their children, parents and > their villages. What would help ease the transistion, should they want > one? By transition I mean training and education about what's going on > and how to upgrade their shock level. What would help the medicine go > down? A spoonful of sugar? Are you suggesting sedating the masses with religion? I suppose real opium would work too. > Anyway, in Zindell's novels as well as in Orion's Arm, there's no > indication that Catholicism or the 'Kristians' [as Zindell calls them] > are made impossible in a post-singularity scenario. But frankly, when > you have a live demonstration right in front of a young kid, who are > they going to believe? Prayer for a cure to a disease, or a machine > that can deliver? Hm. On the other hand, the singularity would allow Catholocism to truly live up to it's promise in ways never before seen. There is no reason why Catholic metaphysics can't be run as a program (except for perhaps good taste). One could easily program a simulation of Pearly Gates and fluffy clouds to upload the faithful to and alternatively a simulation of Dante's Inferno to upload (download?) sinners to. In fact you could have a whole market of religions selling afterlives for the dead to be uploaded into and for the first time in history, they would actually be able to deliver. I think I would opt for Arcadia over Paradise. I tend to prefer nymphs to virgins any how. ;-) > Breaking up old, crusty social institutions is an interesting topic. How > would you do this without stepping on too many toes? Reform of > institutions isn't exactly something that humans are specialized in. > Especially since most institutions are supposed to last forever (the > U.S. Experiment didn't have a due date). Yes but if you don't change something occasionaly, it's a monument, not an experiment. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Fear is proof of a degenerate mind [...] Fortune favors the bold [...] Persevere and preserve yourselves for better circumstances [...] Love conquers all."- Virgil From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Sat May 17 22:56:23 2008 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 15:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? Message-ID: <190451.36027.qm@web46110.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> In an age of STDs celibacy makes sense for many weaker persons. This brings up the bigger issue of whether or not we've entered or are starting to enter a post- futurist interregnum wherein the necessary fiction of religion becomes a default glue holding what we optimistically call 'civilization' together.? you think? Didn't Naisbitt give it a name like "high tech, high touch"? Older people have every reason to turn to religion-- what do they have to lose? I turned to religion because the time when (if *luck* prevails) I'll be suspended at Alcor draws closer. Spent a month volunteering at Alcor last year and would gaze at the dewars, imagining being inside.. Only thing disturbing was the laboratory odors, the "smells of death" I was thinking. . [...]The Roman Catholic Church shows not much of a will to change some basic things. Like: celibacy (consider the biological consequences), using cold and uncomfortable churches, very strict dogma etc. Even though 80% is a high number, in Europe internet usage is circa 20% greater than in the USA (considering the number of access points per capita I suppose). So I suppose the church might suffer greatly if they keep on like this (as people have access to more and more information). Take into consideration the Middle Ages as well. The Church continues to expand (like our school might also become Catholic), might they not slow down progress once again? Or what will be the future of religion anyways? I'm interested in material on the topic, mainly connected to the Catholic Church. If they must change, then how? And how is Christianity compatible with most of the future models presented here? I just can't imagine a posthuman believing in God... Can you? (To avoid misunderstanding I must say I value faith as faith is a great guide to a Homo Sapiens in hardships) Thomas _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Sun May 18 02:16:18 2008 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 21:16:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Sky is Falling--Atlantic article on space rock strikes Message-ID: <20080518021620.QTWT11600.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> The Sky Is Falling The odds that a potentially devastating space rock will hit Earth this century may be as high as one in 10. So why isn't NASA trying harder to prevent catastrophe? [Web only: Video: "Target Earth"] by Gregg Easterbrook http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/asteroids From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Sun May 18 02:23:03 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 19:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <200805171749.14777.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <751118.95081.qm@web50311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Sun May 18 03:09:42 2008 From: neptune at superlink.net (Superlink) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 23:09:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? References: <190451.36027.qm@web46110.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9EECCFDDF88E47AF8D634575358D8CBC@technotr9881e5> Was there an age without STDs? Your comment strikes me like "In an age of the flu, staying locked in a clear room makes sense for many weaker persons." :) Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Brooks To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:56 PM Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In an age of STDs celibacy makes sense for many weaker persons. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 03:44:58 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 20:44:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: I'm keenly interested in any proposals you might have, I've been getting anxious about the peak oil issue myself. I think either we need to rethink things at drastic levels, or we're going back to the horse and buggy age, at least those who survive. I'm no engineer, but if you say that orbital solar power stations will work, that sounds great. I don't really have the time or the education to follow you on most points, but I think the main question is: who would be willing to fund such a project? You're basically talking about something with high investment costs on an unproven technology. But it sounds like a great idea, as long as you don't burn any buildings down by missing the receptor site. But, I think transitioning to a post-oil economy is going to require efforts on all fronts, because we know that many of the strategies won't work out for one reason or another. Algae oil is something that I've been hearing a lot about; it's something that's being researched and they say that there's quite a bit of potential there. I'm speaking out of complete ignorance here so help me: but is this something that synthetic biology can at all contribute with? Okay, ignore this post if it's all hogwash, I'm just starting to get a grasp of things. But the main point of this is just to show that at least I am interested, and I think it's something that we should all be interested in. Transhumanists, of all people, are the ones who are the most optimistic about technology. We're the ones who watch an episode of Star Trek and, instead of laughing it off, wonder how it can be done. And I don't know if anyone has been listening to the peak oil people, but this is something that primitivists are realling sinking their claws into; this is their proof in the pudding about how evil technology is, and how evil mankind has become with it. So I don't know what unsettles me more: the drastic die off, the crash in standards of living, the return to agriculture and the elimination of virtually all powered devices; or proving *them* right, as childish as it sounds. I don't think our fate is necessarily sealed, but I don't want future humanity looking back at the industrial-technological age as a *mistake*. And they would never know whether everything could have been different if we had just a little more fortitude, were a little more unified, were a little less risk adverse, were just a little brighter; that is, a little more than human when it really counted. *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 18 03:34:44 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 20:34:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <200805171749.14777.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200805171749.14777.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1211081820_2500@s2.cableone.net> At 03:49 PM 5/17/2008, Brian wrote: >On Saturday 17 May 2008, M1N3R wrote: snip > > I just can't imagine a posthuman believing in God... Can you? > >Yes. It's very easy to imagine that. Especially when you can call up a god of your choice and chat on the phone. Keith Henson From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Sun May 18 03:45:45 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 20:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <9EECCFDDF88E47AF8D634575358D8CBC@technotr9881e5> Message-ID: <824261.87324.qm@web50305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 18 03:55:05 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 20:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <190451.36027.qm@web46110.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <542944.70285.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Alan Brooks wrote: > In an age of STDs celibacy makes sense for many weaker persons. > This brings up the bigger issue of whether or not we've entered or are > starting to enter a post- futurist interregnum wherein the necessary fiction > of religion becomes a default glue holding what we optimistically call > 'civilization' together.? you think? And how would that be different from mostg of human history? > Didn't Naisbitt give it a name like "high tech, high touch"? > Older people have every reason to turn to religion-- what do they have to > lose? Their sense of reality and their children: "Oh what the hell, by xian eschatology the world is about due to end any way. Why don't we start World War III early this time?" One can't live forever and experience time. Time is our gift as mortals, we should use it wisely. We should also realize that for it to have any value to us, it must be finite. I have been alive for a few decades and I hope to be hundreds of years old someday. But if I die tonight in my sleep, I will not be bothered one bit. Time has existed for 13.5 billion years, I have been dead for most of that time. Being dead is my default state. If it didn't bother me before I was alive, why would it bother me after? > I turned to religion because the time when (if *luck* prevails) I'll be > suspended at Alcor draws closer. Spent a month volunteering at Alcor last > year and would gaze at the dewars, imagining being inside.. Only thing > disturbing was the laboratory odors, the "smells of death" I was thinking. Death is like being under anaesthesia for the rest of time. But after time is finished, all bets are off. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Fear is proof of a degenerate mind [...] Fortune favors the bold [...] Persevere and preserve yourselves for better circumstances [...] Love conquers all."- Virgil From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Sun May 18 04:06:04 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 21:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <1211081820_2500@s2.cableone.net> Message-ID: <583392.79494.qm@web50308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 18 04:30:35 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 21:30:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> At 08:44 PM 5/17/2008, you wrote: >I'm keenly interested in any proposals you might have, I've been >getting anxious about the peak oil issue myself. I think either we >need to rethink things at drastic levels, or we're going back to the >horse and buggy age, at least those who survive. > >I'm no engineer, but if you say that orbital solar power stations >will work, that sounds great. I don't really have the time or the >education to follow you on most points, There is no question about them working. They are based on simple engineering that has many decades of experience. >but I think the main question is: who would be willing to fund such >a project? The first thing is to show the project has a reasonable ROI and a rapid repayment of energy invested in it. The second is reasonable, the first is going to take some serious thinking. >You're basically talking about something with high investment costs >on an unproven technology. On a scale of the Iraq war. >But it sounds like a great idea, as long as you don't burn any >buildings down by missing the receptor site. The original design uses low density microwaves that can't be focused sharper because of fundamental optics limits. >But, I think transitioning to a post-oil economy is going to require >efforts on all fronts, because we know that many of the strategies >won't work out for one reason or another. Algae oil is something >that I've been hearing a lot about; it's something that's being >researched and they say that there's quite a bit of potential >there. I'm speaking out of complete ignorance here so help me: but >is this something that synthetic biology can at all contribute with? Possibly. But the low efficiency means you tie up vast areas with glassed over waterways. >Okay, ignore this post if it's all hogwash, I'm just starting to get >a grasp of things. But the main point of this is just to show that >at least I am interested, and I think it's something that we should >all be interested in. Transhumanists, of all people, are the ones >who are the most optimistic about technology. We're the ones who >watch an episode of Star Trek and, instead of laughing it off, >wonder how it can be done. > >And I don't know if anyone has been listening to the peak oil >people, but this is something that primitivists are realling sinking >their claws into; this is their proof in the pudding about how evil >technology is, and how evil mankind has become with it. So I don't >know what unsettles me more: the drastic die off, the crash in >standards of living, the return to agriculture and the elimination >of virtually all powered devices; or proving *them* right, as >childish as it sounds. I don't think our fate is necessarily >sealed, but I don't want future humanity looking back at the >industrial-technological age as a *mistake*. > >And they would never know whether everything could have been >different if we had just a little more fortitude, were a little more >unified, were a little less risk adverse, were just a little >brighter; that is, a little more than human when it really counted. Yeah, all of those. I hate to say it, but when it comes down to choices, there are going to be some really hard ones. Since a substantial number of cultures don't limit the number of children they have, one way or the other those populations will be cut back, by famines, wars or epidemics. Take your choice. Of course in the middle of all this we can expect to see the singularity. Will that be a blessing or simply kill off the remainer? Did you read my clinic seed short story? Keith From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 04:43:57 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 23:43:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200805172343.57510.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 17 May 2008, Kevin H wrote: > I'm no engineer, but if you say that orbital solar power stations > will work, that sounds great. ?I don't really have the time or the > education to follow you on most points, but I think the main question > is: who would be willing to fund such a project? ?You're basically > talking about something with high investment costs on an unproven > technology. ?But it sounds like a great idea, as long as you don't > burn any buildings down by missing the receptor site. Look, stop talking about money and just design the thing. Then build the thing. And if you can't, and even if you can, release the designs on the internet, and say that you need funding. This will make a lot of commotion. Funding will come, resources will come. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From eric at m056832107.syzygy.com Sun May 18 05:00:56 2008 From: eric at m056832107.syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 18 May 2008 05:00:56 -0000 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> Amara: >>>The point is that this horrific tragedy is barely in the 'normal' >>>English-speaking media (well.. business as usual). At least the Google >>>folks are giving it some weight at their news page. Eric Messick: >>Well, I don't know about the 'normal' media, but NPR has been all over >>the story. Amara: >Dear Eric, Thanks for pointing that out. I consider the NPR one of the >few high quality English-speaking news sources in addition to the BBC and >The Economist. Same here, although I don't generally listen unless I'm driving somewhere. Just after I sent the above, I hopped in the car again. I only caught one segment of "All Things Considered", and I noticed that Myanmar had been pushed out of the spotlight in favor of the Chinese earthquake. Perhaps they had a segment on Myanmar in one of the other half hours, I don't know. Something else I found curious was the pattern of naming of the country. The typical report would go like this: Reporter: ...in Myanmar, formerly (or sometimes "also") known as Burma ... U.S. Official: ... Burma ... [Never a mention of Myanmar] Others: [Mixtures of the two usages] It's like U.S. politicians can't bring themselves to utter the name of the country. "We don't like the new government there, so we're going to pretend they didn't change their name." It just sounds childish to me. Reporters are forced to put this awkward a.k.a. on the front of every story, to keep from confusing the poor listening public. Strange. -eric From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 18 05:44:30 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 22:44:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith wrote in (English-speaking Google News....) > If the coupling between energy and food is as modeled then the ride > down the back side of peak oil/energy is going to reduce the world's > human population to a small fraction of the current level... > ... > The rational thing would be to develop replacement energy, and space > based solar power seems to be the best bet. Perhaps you've addressed this before, but I missed it. Having described the high initial investment costs regarding space based solar power, why exactly do you believe this to be a more feasible solution than further development of conventional nuclear power? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 18 05:57:09 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 22:57:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality via Begetting Offspring References: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1da401c8b8ac$28eaeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robert Bradbury alludes to the contention that > most writers have not envisioned a culture where > we live thousands of years and have no need to > have children to achieve "immortality". Anyone who thinks he or she will achieve immortality by having children is an idiot. I can tell you from my own extensive acquaintance with my father that his current condition (he's dead) is not at all ameliorated by the existence of my brother or me. What an extreme example of desperately wishing that something were true! As anyone who has had a parent die will tell you, his or her parent really is dead. Lee P.S. Spike wrote > Well Robert Bradbury! How the heck > are you man? Long time since we heard > from you. > > {8-] > > spike Ditto! From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 05:59:04 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 00:59:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200805180059.04793.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Having described the high initial investment costs regarding > space based solar power, why exactly do you believe this > to be a more feasible solution than further development of > conventional nuclear power? Why can't (well, won't) Keith Henson use his uber-awesome [engineering] contacts and assemble the space-based solar power plans, and then go from there ? I'll host the schematics and the shell servers for people to dump git repos on and so on. Cost stuff can be done later. Research stuff can be mapped out and minimized via dumping the content out on a wiki and letting other eyes glance over it. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 18 06:31:11 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 23:31:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200805180059.04793.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1db001c8b8b0$c6888610$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan writes > Why can't [use of engineering] contacts and [the assembly] > of space-based solar power plans [be undertaken on-line]? I hope I didn't mangle your sentence too badly :-) I doubt if I understand your plan/campaign very well--- you may need to elaborate, but I think that it's true that you can point to certain software projects having come to fruition in this manner. Right? > I'll host the schematics and the shell servers for people > to dump git repos on and so on. Cost stuff can be done > later. Research stuff can be mapped out and minimized > via dumping the content out on a wiki and letting other > eyes glance over it. But are there examples of *manufacturing* projects successfully materializing in this kind of grass-roots fashion? Nobody would be happier than I'd be to read about (or at least know that there were) such successful projects. Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 06:44:00 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 01:44:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1db001c8b8b0$c6888610$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200805180059.04793.kanzure@gmail.com> <1db001c8b8b0$c6888610$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200805180144.00126.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Bryan writes > > > Why can't [use of engineering] contacts and [the assembly] > > of space-based solar power plans [be undertaken on-line]? > > I hope I didn't mangle your sentence too badly :-) > > I doubt if I understand your plan/campaign very well--- > you may need to elaborate, but I think that it's true Yes, I do need to elaborate. I'm working on it. ;-) > that you can point to certain software projects having > come to fruition in this manner. Right? Yes. > > I'll host the schematics and the shell servers for people > > to dump git repos on and so on. Cost stuff can be done > > later. Research stuff can be mapped out and minimized > > via dumping the content out on a wiki and letting other > > eyes glance over it. > > But are there examples of *manufacturing* projects > successfully materializing in this kind of grass-roots > fashion? Nobody would be happier than I'd be to > read about (or at least know that there were) such > successful projects. No, not that I know of. However, it's totally unnecessary, since if you have the plans floating around the internet, anybody -- even the big fish -- can bite down on it and implement it. http://laptop.org/ is an example of getting some stuff out there. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 06:40:45 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 23:40:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <200805172343.57510.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <200805172343.57510.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Okay Bryan, I'm with you. I'm starting to partake in the same thing I criticize. We should focus our attention on things we have the power to directly accomplish; and it turns out those are the only people who merit funding anyway :) Keith, okay, thanks. I'll have to start researching the solar power satellite strategy :) Thanks, *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 06:49:03 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 01:49:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Immortality via Begetting Offspring In-Reply-To: <1da401c8b8ac$28eaeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <1da401c8b8ac$28eaeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200805180149.03243.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Anyone who thinks he or she will achieve immortality > by having children is an idiot. With enough little researchers running around, maybe you can have enough kids going around the place to assemble the necessary research and tools to get it all done. In a less literal manner, yes, I understand that you refer to the "living on through children" scenarios. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 18 06:49:32 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 23:49:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? References: <542944.70285.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1dbe01c8b8b3$94824040$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes From: "The Avantguardian" Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 8:55 PM > One can't live forever and experience time. On the face of it, that's an absurd claim! After, what if there are now people (who can't possibly know it, of course but) who in fact will never die? It's not logically impossible! You surely cannot be saying that such persons actually experience time differently from the rest of us! > Time is our gift as mortals, we should use it wisely. > We should also realize that for it to have any value to > us, it must be finite. Let me see if I follow you. Yes, it's true that people less than 20 years old often seem to never regret time wasted. The illusion, is, of course, that they still have infinitely much time left. Alexander Solzhenitsyn once remarked in a book that once when he was quite elderly, a visitor had unexpectedly shown up at his door "at a time in my life in which every half-hour is precious". But I have known people much less than 20 years old who hated "wasting time". But this, your second statement, also seems flat-out false. Suppose that we have X, a given person who knows or strongly believes that he is immortal. How likely would X react to the proposal that he be asleep for the next two centuries? You will find that if you ask most people, most people will prefer being awake rather than asleep or dead. > Time has existed for 13.5 billion years, I have been > dead for most of that time. Being dead is my default > state. If it didn't bother me before I was alive, why > would it bother me after? Does having an IQ less than 200 bother you? Does not having quite a number of other H+ abilities bother you? Okay, so you want to live to be several hundred years old. Why that figure? Why wouldn't you be just as happy to die tonight? Or tomorrow night? Your claims aren't really believeable to me, sorry. If being dead (your "default state") was so great from 13.7 billion B.C. to the late 20th century, and won't be so bad after "a few hundred years", why not be dead now and get it over with? > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "Fear is proof of a degenerate mind [...] > Fortune favors the bold [...] Persevere > and preserve yourselves for better > circumstances [...] Love conquers all."- Virgil Lee (who being afraid of many things, must evidently be degenerate) From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 06:54:04 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 01:54:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <200805172343.57510.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200805180154.04242.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, Kevin H wrote: > Okay Bryan, I'm with you. ?I'm starting to partake in the same thing > I criticize. ?We should focus our attention on things we have the > power to directly accomplish; and it turns out those are the only > people who merit funding anyway :) http://heybryan.org/mediawiki/index.php/Roadmap Among other things for transhuman projects. Repositories coming soon. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From amara at amara.com Sun May 18 07:12:52 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 01:12:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the big question Message-ID: Robert Bradbury: >If species have an indefinite lifespan and no desire to be noticed and no >desire to reproduce then a lot of behavioral phenomena (within that culture) >shift significantly. Certainly the behavioral phenomena _could_ change: "Frozen egg birth begins a reproduction revolution for women" http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/1022c.html However, such technology (egg freezing uses the same preparation processes as IVF) has barely changed in 10 years, and smart women are _not_ flocking to these new methods because they are not designed for ease-of-use. The assisted reproductive methods are cumbersome, painful, expensive, unreliable, the woman must be like a pharmacist and accept that her body will resemble a black-and-blue pin cushion after 50-100 injections at the end. And that is just _one_ IVF cycle (many women go through several before success). And that doesn't count the psychological upheavals and trauma associated with the procedures. For this reason, I don't encourage young women to go into technology/science career fields, unless they don't care very much about having children. Today's technology doesn't support them well. BTW, Robert, there are other reasons to have children than the idea of immortality, and reproducing does not need a desire to be noticed. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 07:18:05 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 00:18:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <200805180154.04242.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <200805172343.57510.kanzure@gmail.com> <200805180154.04242.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah, actually I've been looking over your roadmap for the past couple of days :) *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 08:16:45 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 01:16:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Having described the high initial investment costs regarding > space based solar power, why exactly do you believe this > to be a more feasible solution than further development of > conventional nuclear power? Good question, and I'm interested in an answer. But just for clarification, I just wanted to add that I think we should be pursuing *both*. I think with the consequences of an energy crisis, we need to try every play in the book, even if it has other risks/damage associated with it. IMHO. *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 18 09:58:10 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:58:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Kevin H wrote: > Good question, and I'm interested in an answer. But just for clarification, > I just wanted to add that I think we should be pursuing *both*. I think > with the consequences of an energy crisis, we need to try every play in the > book, even if it has other risks/damage associated with it. IMHO. > Giant projects are OK, if they ever get done. But then they also become single point of failure risks. If you are really worried about the energy crisis, you have to DIY. First, get your home off the grid, as far as is economical. More insulation in loft and walls, double or triple glazing windows. The economies of solar power and wind power are improving every year. i.e. A roof of solar cells is too costly this year, but soon......... New wind power designs are appearing regularly. A small Massachusetts-based start-up, FloDesign Wind Turbine, this week won two clean-energy competitions with a "shrouded turbine" design that it says can generate three to four times more electricity than today's hulking wind turbines. Vertical axis windmills are also an improvement, some using magnetic levitation for efficiency. Move your personal transport away from oil. More economical cars, bikes, public transport. It is all about self-sufficiency. Don't wait for the guvmint to provide. If every individual home does it, who cares about the price of oil? BillK From jedwebb at hotmail.com Sun May 18 10:02:33 2008 From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 10:02:33 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Immortality via Begetting Offspring In-Reply-To: <200805180149.03243.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <1da401c8b8ac$28eaeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200805180149.03243.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Technically, imortallity is acheived through being trothed into a tree by a tuton / heathen vitki - it's the same in all hackoff religions. Jeremy Webb> From: kanzure at gmail.com> To: lcorbin at rawbw.com; extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 01:49:03 -0500> Subject: Re: [ExI] Immortality via Begetting Offspring> > On Sunday 18 May 2008, Lee Corbin wrote:> > Anyone who thinks he or she will achieve immortality> > by having children is an idiot.> > With enough little researchers running around, maybe you can have enough > kids going around the place to assemble the necessary research and > tools to get it all done. In a less literal manner, yes, I understand > that you refer to the "living on through children" scenarios.> > - Bryan> ________________________________________> http://heybryan.org/> _______________________________________________> extropy-chat mailing list> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 14:28:02 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 07:28:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality via Begetting Offspring In-Reply-To: References: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <1da401c8b8ac$28eaeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200805180149.03243.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805180728r3d4471adn1b0e67b95ec4d2c0@mail.gmail.com> Bryan Bishop wrote: > With enough little researchers running around, maybe you can have enough > kids going around the place to assemble the necessary research and > tools to get it all done. In a less literal manner, yes, I understand > that you refer to the "living on through children" scenarios. You, Ray Kurzweil, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Michael Annisimov, and others better start cranking out the high IQ little kids to get the whole Singularity thing kicked into high gear! We could give the next Singularity Institute Conference a speed dating event and/or a bachelor auction! And a Transhumanist sperm/egg donor clinic could be the next logical step. Oh, and an "E-Transhumanist" personals website might be great, except for the ten guys for every one women. I would think a person with indefinite lifespan would probably still very much want to have children. The richness of family life could be greatly magnified for people who live many centuries (imagine Adam and Eve having a family reunion!). But dysfunctional social dynamics might also reach new heights. I still say it would be worth it. And when you include animal uplifts, wet and dry bots, AI, splices, clones, uploads, xox's, gene mods, etc., I could envision diversity that would make future family trees and reunions something wonderous to behold! John : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 14:43:58 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 07:43:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the big question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d6187670805180743i7c827b0bra6d4251c73076f33@mail.gmail.com> Keith Henson wrote: But without the motivation to seek attention, more particularly the desire to have status in the eyes of ones peers, society would not exist. (Status is more or less the integral of attention.) I explored this in a story some time ago in giving AIs personalities: >>> Look at sexual desire, it was built into us to make sure the species perpetuated itself, but due to birth control we can now have the pleasure without the unwanted children. We have outsmarted nature/evolution. Similarly, I see human beings still competing for recognition to obtain and keep attractive (mentally, socially, physically, etc.) mates/sex partners, even if the "big pay-off" of having offspring is no longer always in effect, as it used to be. What fascinates me is when everyone (of course in differerent ways based on preferences) gets to be very physically attractive. The "tyranny of physical beauty" has held sway for so long that I wonder how things will really be when the playing field is much more even. I think when we get to this point we will see the "finer qualities" of people such as character, intelligence, interesting personality, etc., being much more valued. But I also envision social/professional status becoming even more important in a world of nothing but "beautiful people." What do you think? John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun May 18 15:06:47 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:06:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Sky is Falling--Atlantic article on space rock strikes Message-ID: Max forwarded the following article: >by Gregg Easterbrook >http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/asteroids >"The odds that a potentially devastating space rock will hit Earth >this century may be as high as one in 10. So why isn't NASA trying >harder to prevent catastrophe?" Dear Max, The first comment that I have about this article is that the author assumes that the newly discovered outer solar system bodies (TNOs, Kuiper Belt bodies) have the same impact probability to intersect the Earth as the inner solar system bodies. They don't. It takes a lot more energy (and time) to bring a body from 40+ AU to be on an Earth intersecting orbit. The author also missed that NASA _does_ fund, in part, some observational campaigns, for example: SpaceWatch: http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/ http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/funding.html Observational campaigns _could_ fit in the mandate of several of NASA's yearly offerings of grants: https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=129172/TABLE%202%20Amend10.html (I suspect Spacewatch is funded by one of these programs, for example) But it's true that the focus of NASA research funding has changed in a way that makes many planetary scientists unhappy. Moon and Mars gets the chunk of attention. I doubt that it will change very much with a new Federal government, however. What has been put in place since 2003 is deeply entrenched now. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 15:07:27 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 08:07:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <1dbe01c8b8b3$94824040$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <542944.70285.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1dbe01c8b8b3$94824040$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <2d6187670805180807k595e001uba6bf6c372692bf1@mail.gmail.com> Bryan Bishop wrote: But frankly, when you have a live demonstration right in front of a young kid, who are they going to believe? Prayer for a cure to a disease, or a machine that can deliver? Hmm. >>> I don't think it is an either/or proposition. They will (for example...) more likely accept the machine and then later pray and thank their higher power for receiving it. Bryan Bishop continues: Breaking up old, crusty social institutions is an interesting topic. How would you do this without stepping on too many toes? Reform of institutions isn't exactly something that humans are specialized in. Especially since most institutions are supposed to last forever (the U.S. Experiment didn't have a due date). >>> Religion has an amazing power to adapt to the changing times. It can be a painful and drawn out process, but still necessary for it's survival and success. The coming century/possible Singularity will *greatly* speed this up. M1N3R wrote: > posthuman believing in God... Can you? Bryan replied: Yes. It's very easy to imagine that. >>> I agree. I think the old saying, "the more we know, the more we realize we don't know," may help to explain the future religiousosity of the coming generations/sentient forms. But how they envision a higher power may be quite different from the average citizen of Earth, circa 2008. I was fascinated by Richard Dawkins, speaking in my area, saying that he envisioned a SETI-like program decades/centuries from now that would actually try to scientifically contact "God/god." John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidmc at gmail.com Sun May 18 15:36:27 2008 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:36:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the big question In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805180743i7c827b0bra6d4251c73076f33@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d6187670805180743i7c827b0bra6d4251c73076f33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM, John Grigg wrote: > What fascinates me is when everyone (of course in differerent ways based on > preferences) gets to be very physically attractive. The "tyranny of > physical beauty" has held sway for so long that I wonder how things will > really be when the playing field is much more even. This experiment is currently being performed in Second Life where everyone has a very high degree of control over how they appear to others. What I have observed so far is that when beauty is very common many residents incorporate (literally) fantastic elements in order to differentiate themselves in the ongoing quest for attention and recognition. It is becoming a Red Queen's race that is continually pushing the technology and creativity of the world. From neptune at superlink.net Sun May 18 15:38:39 2008 From: neptune at superlink.net (Superlink) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:38:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? References: <824261.87324.qm@web50305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No, I'm only suggesting what Avantguardian later chimed in with: "And how would that be different from mostg of human history?" In other words, STDs have always been around. To talk about advocating celibacy to avoid them strikes me as ridiculous. Ditto for advocating religion. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Antonio Marcos To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? >Was there an age without STDs? Your comment strikes me like "In an age of the flu, > staying locked in a clear room makes sense for many weaker persons." :) Are you suggesting one could go without breathing for decades? :) One would have to be quite strong indeeeeed xD (i should have said breathing socially hehehe) oh, i guess he was contrasting with the future, post-singularity age, of STD free breathing =D hahahahahahahahaha >Regards, >Dan regards, mark. PS.: I know it was a joke, but since im here: the flu have much less unpleasant effects, and can be prevented just by boosting your immune system ... (though one might be considered 'weak' by not doing it? =] so maybe not quite a joke... many people do seem to prefer getting it =/) --- Em dom, 18/5/08, Superlink escreveu: De: Superlink Assunto: Re: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? Para: "ExI chat list" Data: Domingo, 18 de Maio de 2008, 0:09 Was there an age without STDs? Your comment strikes me like "In an age of the flu, staying locked in a clear room makes sense for many weaker persons." :) Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Brooks To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:56 PM Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In an age of STDs celibacy makes sense for many weaker persons. _______________________________________________extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 15:41:50 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 08:41:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> I found it interesting that the latest Rambo film (I admit it, I'm a big fan of the series) had John Rambo take on the army of the militarily controlled Burmese government, when Christian missionaries are kidnapped and tortured (despite Rambo telling them many times, "stay out of Burma!"). Sylvester Stallone knows how to pick a good enemy for his popular character to fight! lol I suppose having Rambo fight Muslim terrorists would have been in very bad taste, due to Western troops in the Middle East doing the real thing. In this film the modern-day "demigod" of war actually shows signs of mortality & advancing age and has his life saved by a merc sniper. The violent climax is when Rambo captures an enemy 50 cal and cuts to pieces at least a battalion of enemy troops. The CGI work was incredible (in terms of realism) as countless Burmese soldiers were shown being literally torn in half by the bullets. But I kept on thinking, "this should be rated X for violence!" lol I guess Americans are comfortable with war but not sex. Fortunately, Rambo did not have an explicit sex scene... John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 15:56:53 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 08:56:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the big question In-Reply-To: References: <2d6187670805180743i7c827b0bra6d4251c73076f33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805180856l1b367584x14b6ffed72ddddf7@mail.gmail.com> David McFadzean wrote: This experiment is currently being performed in Second Life where everyone has a very high degree of control over how they appear to others. What I have observed so far is that when beauty is very common many residents incorporate (literally) fantastic elements in order to differentiate themselves in the ongoing quest for attention and recognition. It is becoming a Red Queen's race that is continually pushing the technology and creativity of the world. >>> As the technology to morph the basic human form gets to be inexpensive, very safe and quick to utilize, I can imagine the body being viewed as clothes/costumes are today, but only more so. I can't wait for Halloween, a century from now! : ) Yes, just being very physically attractive, circa 2008, will probably be seen as a sign of having little personal creativity and being just plain dull. And that just won't do when that very special person you're crazy about is so effervescently gifted in the way they shape their form, and you want to catch their eye... A state of the art nightclub, circa 2100, set in the Transhuman Space universe: http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-1141 http://e23.sjgames.com/media/SJG37-1141_preview.pdf John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 16:13:28 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:13:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: References: <824261.87324.qm@web50305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805180913i2b6eabees84bf7a7948267bba@mail.gmail.com> Dan wrote: In other words, STDs have always been around. To talk about advocating celibacy to avoid them strikes me as ridiculous. Ditto for advocating religion. >>> I would say *abstinence* before entering into marriage/a longterm relationship could be a very smart thing to do and religion can help to reinforce this desire. The bulk of human history had us at the mercy of horrible STD's that could damage or even outright destroy our health and that of our children. But *celibacy* in terms of never marrying/never being sexual/having no offspring just for the cause of avoiding any chance of contracting STD's would be (at least to me) very sad and depressing. But even in a relationship you must be able to trust your partner to not infect you with an STD due to their (mis)behavior. John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 16:28:19 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:28:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Argument mapping In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d6187670805180928q5abd6bf0nf8ca632694ce01a7@mail.gmail.com> Please check this out (designed by Brent Allsop, Transhumanist), if you have not already. http://canonizer.com/ How would you/anyone compare it to debategraph? John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Sun May 18 16:57:34 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 18:57:34 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <200805171749.14777.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200805171749.14777.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: From: "Bryan Bishop" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 12:49 AM > Suppose the singularity occurs; what then? Now what came to my mind instantly was a most dangerous scenario: making a church out of transhumanism. Building a vast system of humbug around technology. Hm, have you played Syndicate Wars? There the Church of the New Epoch does something like that. Not as if Eurocorp were any better. Ownership of technology might entitle the few to oppress the many, once again in human history. Not an alternative to have when we so value democracy (and would like to bring about a better humanity). > Especially since most institutions are supposed to last forever (the > U.S. Experiment didn't have a due date). Eh, what are you referring to here? Sorry, I don't understand. From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Sun May 18 17:01:09 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 19:01:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <269106.52927.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <269106.52927.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: "The Avantguardian" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:42 AM > On the other hand, the singularity would allow Catholocism to truly live > up to > it's promise in ways never before seen. There is no reason why Catholic > metaphysics can't be run as a program (except for perhaps good taste). One > could easily program a simulation of Pearly Gates and fluffy clouds to > upload > the faithful to and alternatively a simulation of Dante's Inferno to > upload > (download?) sinners to. In fact you could have a whole market of religions > selling afterlives for the dead to be uploaded into and for the first time > in > history, they would actually be able to deliver. I share your opinion on that. Nice thought :D Put a smile on my face... And may God bless you all! You know, as Asimov said: "the best in the magic of science is that it works" :D From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 18:04:10 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805181304.10867.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, BillK wrote: > It is all about self-sufficiency. Don't wait for the guvmint to > provide. If every individual home does it, who cares about the price > of oil? Well, yes, but there is something to be said of cooperation -- wouldn't it be great if a bunch of people could get together and locally solve the energy problem? They could get more work done and have more energy accessible to them, as long as they can work together. But this only works for sufficiently small groups. I'm thinking on the scale of 3 to 7. "The best place to store [energy] is in a friend's belly." - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Sun May 18 17:35:46 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 10:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <737542.21788.qm@web50310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 18:15:25 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:15:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <737542.21788.qm@web50310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <737542.21788.qm@web50310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805181115j7f3206fcw3d2b7c54e1a174e0@mail.gmail.com> Antonio Marcos wrote: >Interesting analogy, because I was going to use that exact idea in a game. But more like XCOM 3.. remember the >factions? The factions of the terrific Sid Meier game, "Alpha Centauri" comes to mind for me. And when you are defeated your rival stuffs you into the sphere of torture! M1N3R wrote: >Now what came to my mind instantly was a most dangerous scenario: making a >church out of transhumanism. Antonio Marcos wrote: >You can expect that to pretty much happen, yes. But actually, guys, there is ALREADY a Transhumanist Church! You better watch out... ; ) http://www.croftpress.com/david/archives/transhumanistchurch/ John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Sun May 18 18:36:37 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 20:36:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <737542.21788.qm@web50310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2d6187670805181115j7f3206fcw3d2b7c54e1a174e0@mail.gmail.com> References: <737542.21788.qm@web50310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2d6187670805181115j7f3206fcw3d2b7c54e1a174e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: John Grigg Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:15 PM To: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br ; ExI chat list But actually, guys, there is ALREADY a Transhumanist Church! You better watch out... ; ) >>> LOL. I took a quick glance at their statement. Oh my God Is cryonics a viable thing indeed? I think not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Emoticon2.gif Type: image/gif Size: 258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 18:40:19 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:40:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Argument mapping In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805180928q5abd6bf0nf8ca632694ce01a7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d6187670805180928q5abd6bf0nf8ca632694ce01a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >From what I can tell, canonizer is about consensus and finding views that agree or cohere with your own pre-established beliefs. Argument mapping is more about finding the logical structure of arguments so they can be assessed. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun May 18 18:47:32 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:47:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: References: <737542.21788.qm@web50310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2d6187670805181115j7f3206fcw3d2b7c54e1a174e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805181147i3f455770g14538fa276e79139@mail.gmail.com> M1N3R wrote: Oh my God[image: Arc nagy mosollyal Hangulatjel] Is cryonics a viable thing indeed? I think not. >>> It is a very viable option when you consider the alternatives... And even a teenager who might *think* they have many decades ahead of them (and so they believe they will live to see the Singularity and the era of indefinite lifespan) may become terminally ill or get into a lethal car accident. At that point purchasing health insurance will be impossible. I view cryonics as the ultimate smart gamble. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Emoticon2.gif Type: image/gif Size: 258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 18:56:53 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:56:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:58 AM, BillK wrote: > If you are really worried about the energy crisis, you have to DIY. Agreed as far as it goes, but it won't be enough. I'm dependent on cheap sources of food, water, and a job to provide these things. Even with all the solar and wind power I can put together, all I'd have is basically electricity. Increases in fuel costs leads, eventually, to mass unemployment *and* higher prices for food, water, and shelter. Doing my own gardening is *not* going to provide me with enough food year round unless I have my own multi-acre farm, and even then, what am I going to do in the winter? That's the thing: a space based solar power station, even if the project is successful, is only one link in the change. We still need to find some way to, basically, turn electricity into fuel that can be used to power tractors and automobiles. And how about industrial plants? Do they use grid electricity or do they use an oil derivative? *Kevin* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Sun May 18 18:56:11 2008 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 19:56:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48307BCB.5040404@lineone.net> The is my personal, unresearched, unsupported opinion, so take it with as big a grain of salt as you think appropriate, but i do think it explains what happens in these cases: "The West" just doesn't understand that the Burmese people are the property of the Burmese government, and nobody else's business. Aid agencies are banging on the door shouting "let us in, we urgently need to mess about with how you are dealing with your own property". It's as if some stranger tried to come into your house and tell you how you should cook your pasta. Now, even if you were cooking pasta in a wasteful and sub-optimal way, most people's reaction would be to tell the apparently well-meaning stranger to fuck right off. It's my pasta, i'll cook it how i like. Maybe that's an overly cynical view, and maybe i'm dead wrong, but it does seem to fit in with how many governments behave. What's the Great Firewall of China but an attempt to keep a tight control over the property of the Chinese government by keeping it (the people) ignorant of certain information and ideas? (I just found out recently that apparently there is no mention of the Tiananmen Square massacre in any Chinese history books, and a whole generation of Chinese are growing up totally ignorant of it). Maybe it's only the english-speaking part of the world who have this crazy idea that people should belong to themselves, and everybody else understands that people belong to their respective states, mind, body and, er, mind again. ben zaiboc PS just in case anyone might think from the wording of this post that i endorse these mediaeval concepts of people-ownership, I DONT!. And i don't apologise for shouting that out. It shouldn't need saying, but misunderstandings happen. From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 18 19:17:44 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 20:17:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805181147i3f455770g14538fa276e79139@mail.gmail.com> References: <737542.21788.qm@web50310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2d6187670805181115j7f3206fcw3d2b7c54e1a174e0@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670805181147i3f455770g14538fa276e79139@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 7:47 PM, John Grigg wrote: > I view cryonics as the ultimate smart gamble. > Well, it's more like being on a cliff edge with the forest fire rapidly approaching. There is no choice. Die or jump. Might as well jump. Except that cryonics costs money that may be better spent elsewhere (e.g. on family, or life's necessities) By the way, did you catch the speculation on warm biostasis as an alternative to vitrification? They are speculating that nanotech will enable this process. And NASA would find it useful for long space journeys. So research money might be available. Of course, nanotech will enable a lot more than biostasis, so it may be irrelevant. BillK From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 19:26:35 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 12:26:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <200805172343.57510.kanzure@gmail.com> <200805180154.04242.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: If anyone is interested, here's a library of papers, studies, articles about space solar power: http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htm . Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun May 18 20:19:22 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 22:19:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:30 AM, hkhenson wrote: >>but I think the main question is: who would be willing to fund such >>a project? > > The first thing is to show the project has a reasonable ROI and a > rapid repayment of energy invested in it. The second is reasonable, > the first is going to take some serious thinking. > >>You're basically talking about something with high investment costs >>on an unproven technology. > > On a scale of the Iraq war. Come one, Iraq war was proven technology with a high ROI... :-) Seriously, I think that both space-based solar power *and* fusion reactors are the ways to go (something which does not mean that fission could not be to some extent a stop-gag measures, at least on a equal foot with energy saving and "alternative" sources). The beauty of all that is that once you have unlimited, cheap energy, you might well go on synthesizing and using... oil, if you fell like doing that, because, say, you like the smell. The technology exists since the thirties. And imagining that you really would like to reduce warmhouse gases in the atmosphere, the fundamentals would be in place to engage in geoengineering projects to this effect anyway. Stefano Vaj From amara at amara.com Sun May 18 20:34:24 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 14:34:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest (solar power from the Moon) Message-ID: Regarding solar power from the Moon, I've given this link here before (the most recently in ApriL) and to the wta-talk list a couple of times too. There is a lot of good information and data and discussion and plans regarding exactly what Keith was talking about. (I believe that he's seen this already.) It came out of conversations with some of my former colleagues at the Planetary Science Institute, and I asked their permission to post what they said in the comment section of Clifford's PBS wiredscience blog: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/blogs/2007/10/deep-impact-sputnik.html#comment-373 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun May 18 20:41:42 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:41:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nanomachine progress Message-ID: I'm probably a little late with this pointer, but here it is... On April 28th, Michael Annisimov, on his blog(?) Accelerating Future, at: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?cat=6 posts this: Are nanobots on their way? US researchers have built a proto-prototype nano assembler Which comments on this article. International Journal of Nanomanufacturing - "Design of an on-chip microscale nanoassembly system", Vol 1, Issue 6, pp 710-721 I can't find the above article full text, so if anyone has access to it, could you send me a copy or a link? Thanks. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 20:49:30 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 15:49:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest (solar power from the Moon) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805181549.31162.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, Amara Graps wrote: > Regarding solar power from the Moon, I've given this link here before > (the most recently in ApriL) and to the wta-talk list a couple of > times too. There is a lot of good information and data and discussion > and plans regarding exactly what Keith was talking about. (I believe > that he's seen this already.) It came out of conversations with some > of my former colleagues at the Planetary Science Institute, and I > asked their permission to post what they said in the comment section > of Clifford's PBS wiredscience blog: So since Keith provided some links, here are some more from my collection. The problem is that no matter what, these links remain like static content, and what we need is the semantic content so that we can assemble the data and compile different plug-and-play solutions, like described in: http://heybryan.org/exp.html so on to the SPS links: http://atlas.estec.esa.int/SPS/index.php/Main_Page http://www.freemars.org/history/sps.html Not directly SPS: Spacecraft design http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/academics/akins_laws.html http://www.asi.org/adb/04/02/ http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3e.html http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/ http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/publications/pub_index.html http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/design_lib.html http://www.hellsgeriatrics.co.uk/diy-spacecraft.htm http://www.contexo.info/DNA_Basics/microsatellite_analysis.htm http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/62859-1st-question-how-apollo-space-craft-cooled.html http://www.developspace.net/wiki/InterestingLinks http://www.stmary.ws/physics/97/KGALLAG.HTM http://web.archive.org/web/20070208102032/http://www.mse.cornell.edu/courses/engri111/space.htm http://astronauticsnow.com/AstroSpace/ http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-851Fall2003/CourseHome/index.htm http://www.satnews.com/stories2007/4256/ http://spacecraft.sourceforge.net/ http://www.opensourcespacecraft.org/wiki/Main_Page http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/mmm/msx-related/td1701/huebsch.pdf http://www.amsat.org/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200404/msg00179.html http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/22/1422230 http://centaur.sstl.co.uk/SSHP/index.html http://krishl.us/spacecraft/ http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/Space/archives/cat_design.html http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/general/bib.html http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/dward/sao/ceres/design.htm http://spacelist.org/design.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_design http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/design_lib/SC_design_library.html http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/subject-listing/craft3.html http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/62936-thermal-control-spacecraft.html http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/subsystems/ http://gps.csr.utexas.edu/sdl/index.html Teams and Companies http://www.2xllunarproject.com/Lunar/Welcome.html http://acme-robotics.org/index.html http://www.andrews-space.com/ http://wiki.developspace.net//Apophis_Mission_Design_Project http://www.atk.com/ http://www.lunarrover.org/ http://faamt.org/ http://www.menominee.edu/RocketWebsite/5clans/home.htm http://www.frozenfury.und.edu/ http://www.harding.edu/wilson/usli.html http://www.interplanetaryventures.org/ http://www.lasermotive.com/blog/ http://www.teamcringely.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page http://www.ae.msstate.edu/~msuslp/spacecowboys/ http://www.odysseymoon.com/ http://www.orbital.com/ http://planetarydefense.blogspot.com/2007/10/estimate-at-submissions-for-planetary.html http://planetarydefense.blogspot.com/2007/01/georgia-tech-undergraduate-teams.html http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm http://www.spacedev.com/ http://www.spacex.com/ http://www.speedupworld.com/ http://xprize.frednet.com/ http://www.eng.auburn.edu/organizations/USLI/index_content.html http://www.transformspace.com/ http://www.eng.uah.edu/~sli/ http://web.umr.edu/~aavg/usli/index.html http://unreasonablerocket.blogspot.com/ http://chimaera.usu.edu/usli/index.htm http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/ http://astrobotictechnology.com/ http://www.xcor.com/ Rocketry http://armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home http://www.aarg.org/ http://users.telenet.be/H2O2rocketengine/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_v#Astrodynamics http://ed-thelen.org/rocket-eq.html http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/rocket_pump/rocketpump.htm http://www.interfacecontrol.com/microX/ http://www.nar.org/ http://www.osaerospace.com/ http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/index.html http://www.tripoli.org/ http://www.redyns.com/Projects/WhyBotherLauncher.html http://www.wfvisser.dds.nl/indexEN.html Mars http://spacecraftkits.com/MGSFacts.html http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/ http://www.marspedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page http://web.mit.edu/mars/ http://www.abc.com.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1955437.htm http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm http://www.marssociety.org/portal Luna / Our moon http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Introduction Competitions http://regolith.csewi.org/ http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=221 http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/apophis_competition/ http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ http://education.msfc.nasa.gov/docs/127_usli.htm http://pisces.uhh.hawaii.edu/competitions.php http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/challenge/competitions.html http://www.xprize.org/ http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-challenge/ Aerospace http://www.airtoi.com/ljet.htm http://www.airtoi.nl/turbines.php3 http://web.archive.org/web/19970126103321/http://banzai.apana.org.au/projects/ausroc/index.html http://web.archive.org/web/20070410011649/http://www.home.no/andreas.sunnhordvik/English/mechanical/valveless_e.htm http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Propulsion/3-how-you-calculate-specific-impulse.html http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ejust/SITCL.html http://www.pfranc.com/projects/turbine/top.htm http://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/ http://www.rcdon.com/ http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Bishop/ http://www.nlm.nih.gov/databases/databases_space.html http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/specimp.html Other random spacetech stuff: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/ http://www.megazone.org/ANP/biblio.shtml http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A-level_Physics/Cosmology/Models_of_the_known_universe http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/astr123.html http://www.astronomy.net/ http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#energy http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#height_table http://www.astronomynotes.com/ http://www.astronomy.ch/home.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/astro/ http://track.sfo.jaxa.jp/spaceops98/contribution/nakayama/nfe_nakayama.html http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html http://autopilot.sourceforge.net/ http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/guide.html http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bga.html http://bdaugherty.tripod.com/astronomy/berlin.html http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=31134&cid=3347919 http://www.space.edu/projects/book/chapter7.html http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/bibliography.html http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812046 http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206622&cid=16849502 http://www.developspace.net/wiki/Main_Page http://www.stecf.org/~ralbrech/amico/papers/albrechtr/albrechtr.html http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Nowicki/ http://www.astronautix.com/ http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMKINZ990E_index_0.html http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Smap.htm http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~ejb/faq.html http://www.gemini.edu/ http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/SpecialTopics/Events/2006/XPrizeCup-2006.html http://jersey.uoregon.edu/vlab/ http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/Dic/iau-spec.htx http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath585/kmath585.htm http://www.islap.org/ http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9610076 http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/ http://www.islandone.org/ http://www.openvirgle.info/wiki/index.php/Martian_Oxygen_Production http://archive.stsci.edu/ http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/TRC/Rockets/match_rocket.html http://www.microlaunchers.com/ http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=248651&cid=19831747 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ http://www.stsci.edu/hst/nicmos/documents/handbooks/current_NEW/nicmos_instr_handbookTOC.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm http://openvirgle.net/ http://www.openvirgle.info/ http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/space/planets/planorbi.html http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.3454v1.pdf http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31 http://pisces.uhh.hawaii.edu/competitions.php http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa http://www.onera.fr/conferences/ramjet-scramjet-pde/ http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2004-02-06/features/index.html http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=22865 http://sciastro.net/ http://www.synapses.co.uk/science/moonwat.html http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27289 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spacephy/papers/yos1/yos1.html http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/16/1845220 http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/12/0559250 http://solar.physics.montana.edu/cgi-bin/eprint/index.pl http://spacepetition.com/ http://richard.hofer.com/electric_propulsion.html http://electricpropulsion.blogspot.com/ http://spacelawprobe.blogspot.com/2007/12/v-prize-vision.html http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/ http://www.spacepowerassociation.org/ http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/ http://www.solstation.com/habitable.htm http://www.primidi.com/2004/10/20.html http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/our_solar_system/planets_table.html http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/97/solar/index.htm http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040119/nuclear.shtml http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/satellite_database.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=428 http://www.keckobservatory.org/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRNS2Dcyyhw - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 20:55:10 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 15:55:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] nanomachine progress In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805181555.10260.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, Jeff Davis wrote: > I'm probably a little late with this pointer, but here it is... > > On April 28th, Michael Annisimov, on his blog(?) Accelerating Future, > at: > http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?cat=6 > US researchers have built a proto-prototype nano assembler > International Journal of Nanomanufacturing - "Design of an on-chip > microscale nanoassembly system", Vol 1, Issue 6, pp 710-721 > > I can't find the above article full text, so if anyone has access to > it, could you send me a copy or a link? Yes, I posted some fulltext on my blog: http://heybryan.org/~bbishop/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/nanotech/ http://heybryan.org/~bbishop/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/sci/nano/ Full text is at: http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/meso_micro/GormanISNM2006.pdf "In this paper, the design and proposed operation of a MEMS-based nanoassembly system is presented. The nanoassembly system is comprised of four nanomanipulators that can work independently or cooperatively. The design of the nanomanipulators will be discussed and experimental characterization results for one nanomanipulator will be presented. Three critical research issues for this project are then discussed: nanomanipulation strategies using the nanoassembly system; MEMS precision motion control; and integration of the on-chip nanoassembly system with a scanning electron microscope / focused ion beam instrument to obtain a complete nanomanufacturing environment." - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 18 20:53:33 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:53:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1211144149_4397@s2.cableone.net> At 10:44 PM 5/17/2008, Lee wrote: >Keith wrote in (English-speaking Google News....) > > > If the coupling between energy and food is as modeled then the ride > > down the back side of peak oil/energy is going to reduce the world's > > human population to a small fraction of the current level... > > ... > > The rational thing would be to develop replacement energy, and space > > based solar power seems to be the best bet. > >Perhaps you've addressed this before, but I missed it. > >Having described the high initial investment costs regarding >space based solar power, why exactly do you believe this >to be a more feasible solution than further development of >conventional nuclear power? It may not be. If we could build a space elevator, the energy payback time is incredibly short--at least for the energy needed to lift a power sat to GEO. Specific orbital energy is u/2r, (398,600/42,000)/2 or -4.75Mj/kg Potential is -9.5Mk/kg and kinetic is 4.75Mj/kg Potential at the earth's surface is -62.6 MJ/kg; the difference is 53.1Mj/kg. Using a space elevator, the rotation of the earth provides the kinetic energy. Since a joule is a watt-second; 53,100 kW-s/kg/3600kW-s/kWh is 14.75 kWh/kg A kW/kg power sat repays its lift energy 14 hour and 45 minutes after being turned on. A 2kg/kW power sat would take 29.5 hours. There is a heck of a lot of sunlight out there, and you don't need much structure to capture it in zero g. Whatever rate you get for paying off solar cells on the ground, they will repay it at least three times faster in orbit. With rockets, it's still not too bad. http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/koelle/Neptun/NEP2015.pdf Neptune is about 3 times the capacity of a Saturn 5, and this design was done by some of the same people so it's solid engineering. This vehicle delivers 350 mt to LEO, and 100 mt to lunar orbit or GEO. To lift 100 mt to GEO Neptune uses 3762-mt of propellant for the first stage, 1072 mt second stage and 249 mt for the third totaling 5077 mt. SSME O2 to H2 ratio is 6 to 1. http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextrefresh=1&vgnextoid=75a0184c712de010VgnVCM100000c45a529fRCRD I.e., 1 part in 7 of the propellant is LH. or about 725 mt of LH. The launch site would make electrolytic hydrogen out of water (the only long term source). That costs about 50 kWh/kg plus another 15 kWh to liquefy the H2. Add 5 kWh for liquefying oxygen at 6 x .8 kWh/kg. That would be 70 MWh per mt, or 70 GW hours for 1000 tons, or 50.8 GWh for 725 mt. At a kg/kW, 100 tons of satellite produces 100,000 kW, or 0.1 GW. Thus it would take 508 hours to pay back the lift energy or 21.2 days, 42.4 days for 2kg/kW. Rocket efficiency here would be 14.75/508 or 2.9%. A nuclear tug stage shuttling between LEO and GEO might double this efficiency raising the payload from 100 mt to 200 mt. That is the consequences of a 15 km/sec exhaust velocity. It's the high cost of rocket hardware, not lift energy payback, that makes power sats expensive. If we could get that down . . . As for conventional nuclear power, I can't see it being built fast enough. The need for replacement energy as oil fades out of the picture is around a GW/day. That's in addition to the problem of neutrons being diverted to make plutonium 239 out of DU. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 18 21:39:46 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 14:39:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1211146927_4632@S3.cableone.net> At 11:56 AM 5/18/2008, Kevin wrote: >On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:58 AM, BillK ><pharos at gmail.com> wrote: >If you are really worried about the energy crisis, you have to DIY. > >Agreed as far as it goes, but it won't be enough. I'm dependent on >cheap sources of food, water, and a job to provide these >things. Even with all the solar and wind power I can put together, >all I'd have is basically electricity. Increases in fuel costs >leads, eventually, to mass unemployment *and* higher prices for >food, water, and shelter. Doing my own gardening is *not* going to >provide me with enough food year round unless I have my own >multi-acre farm, and even then, what am I going to do in the winter? Having raised a lot of the family's food back in the 1970s, I can tell you it's a way to keep very busy. It is also inefficient in its own way. >That's the thing: a space based solar power station, even if the >project is successful, is only one link in the change. We still >need to find some way to, basically, turn electricity into fuel that >can be used to power tractors and automobiles. It isn't *a* power station, it's a new 5 GW one every 5 days for the next 50 years. And that's just to replace fossil fuels and a little growth the bring China and India up. But it isn't hard to use penny a kWh electricity to make low cost liquid fuels. The first big use would be making hydrogen so the Canadian tar sands can be upgraded to synthetic petroleum without having to burn half to make the hydrogen. Anything containing carbon can be turned into liquid fuels if there is lots of energy available. Bio mass and even limestone could be used for carbon sources. Eventually synthetic fuel plants could suck carbon dioxide out of the air. But I doubt things will develop that far before the singularity. At that point (assuming people still exist in a form where they would want cars) you could get a seed that you plant next to your driveway. It grows into a tree that makes 100 octane gasoline--hose and nozzle grow right out of the tree. >And how about industrial plants? Do they use grid electricity or do >they use an oil derivative? It depends on what they are making. Besides being burned to make electricity, coal (and oil) are feed stocks to make all sorts of things like plastics. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 18 21:51:23 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 14:51:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest (solar power from the Moon) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1211147620_4842@S4.cableone.net> At 01:34 PM 5/18/2008, you wrote: >Regarding solar power from the Moon, I've given this link here before >(the most recently in ApriL) and to the wta-talk list a couple of times >too. There is a lot of good information and data and discussion and >plans regarding exactly what Keith was talking about. (I believe that >he's seen this already.) It came out of conversations with some of >my former colleagues at the Planetary Science Institute, and I asked >their permission to post what they said in the comment section of >Clifford's PBS wiredscience blog: > >http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/blogs/2007/10/deep-impact-sputnik.html#comment-373 It's not physically impossible, it just a lot harder to do than power sats at GEO because the moon is so much further away. The idea also suffers from the same problem as solar panels on earth, poor usage because a lot of dirt is between the panel and the sun much of the time. And the moon is in the sky no more than the sun is, so you have a big energy storage problem unless you were using relay stations in GEO or somewhere to redirect the microwave beam. I think even if you had an enormous use for power on the moon you would be better off to put the power sats in space and beam down the energy. Keith From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 22:50:00 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 15:50:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1211146927_4632@S3.cableone.net> References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1211146927_4632@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 5/18/08, hkhenson wrote: > > It isn't *a* power station, it's a new 5 GW one every 5 days for the > next 50 years. And that's just to replace fossil fuels and a little > growth the bring China and India up. I don't quite understand how that works. Are you saying that somehow these power satellites bring in an exponential amount of power with respect to time? Or are you just talking about adding additional units? But that brings up another question: is there really any limit to the number of SPS's we can stick up there? Once we have enough to meet our current needs, why stop there? We could be swimming in energy, enough to make $1/gal for gas sound expensive, and we could pretty much do anything we want. A lot of the projects that now seem to expensive and infeasable would suddenly seem--easy. And the bottleneck would again be human ingenuity. Not to mention that such a project would put both government and commercial interests into space in a big way, making space colonialism practical: afterall, *someone* has to maintain those satellites, and it would be somewhat cheaper to have workers living up there. But I doubt things will develop that far before the singularity. Why not? And a singularity isn't really on my radar right now; and if not enough is done and the world does go into an energy crash and we return to subsistance living, I'm pretty sure that destroys any chances of a singularity happening. > It depends on what they are making. Besides being burned to make > electricity, coal (and oil) are feed stocks to make all sorts of > things like plastics. That's the thing, fossil oil is going to become scarce no matter what, and I wonder if we're talking about the end of plastics. Besides, what are those photoelectric cells made of? are they oil products? We'll basically have to find an alternative method for making plastic, or an alternative to plastic. Transitioning from oil products to electricity as our primary source of energy is going to mean a great deal of transitioning in our economies and national infrastructures. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Sun May 18 22:51:54 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <140882.95019.qm@web50305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Sun May 18 23:38:56 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 18:38:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: References: <1211146927_4632@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200805181838.57016.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, Kevin H wrote: > Not to mention that such a project would put both government and > commercial interests into space in a big way, making space > colonialism practical: afterall, *someone* has to maintain those > satellites, and it would be somewhat cheaper to have workers living > up there. http://google.com/virgle http://openvirgle.net/ for spacepod development http:/www.isdc2008.org/ http://nss.org/ http://ssi.org/ (maybe- they've changed to deflecting asteroids really) - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From brentn at freeshell.org Sun May 18 23:38:03 2008 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 19:38:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1211146927_4632@S3.cableone.net> References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1211146927_4632@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <6F9AADBF-5584-44E3-BF11-6033F51F01B7@freeshell.org> On 18 May, 2008, at 17:39, hkhenson wrote: > It depends on what they are making. Besides being burned to make > electricity, coal (and oil) are feed stocks to make all sorts of > things like plastics. In terms of -power-, most american manufacturing plants are on the grid, however if your process has ovens or steamers or some such, those are usually gas-fired. In the global scale of things, a fairly small fraction of world oil is turned into plastic in the US. The LBL chart of US energy inputs and outputs shows this quite clearly. In 2002, out of ~41 exajoules worth of energy from petroleum used in the US, about 5.5 exajoules were used in non-fuel applications, and a fraction of this is the production of plastics. (Source: https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/USEnFlow02-exaj.pdf) The economics of plastics production has pushed the major polymer reactor sites closer to large gas fields and oil fields - Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc. It is also interesting that the two highest volume plastics by world production, polyethylene and polypropylene, are not sourced from crude oil, but from natural gas. Same with polyvinylchloride. Polystyrene is the largest volume polymer that is synthesized from crude oil products (benzene from crude and ethylene from gas are reacted to form styrene) and all styrenics are under displacement pressures from olefinics - partially for this reason. Amusingly, the production of PE and PP could be considered a green endeavor. When you drill a new oil well, you typically flare the natural gas off, contributing to atmospheric CO2. Its very wasteful, too, and folks are just now starting to use that gas to power the wells on site, but separating the methane for burning from the higher alkenes means that all of a sudden the Saudis and the Indonesians have the potential to make a whole hell of a lot of polyolefins. Still, the folk wisdom in the plastics industry is that the oilfield operators flare off more ethylene and propylene in a month than the plastics industry uses in a year. :) B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Sun May 18 23:42:16 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 16:42:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/18/08, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Seriously, I think that both space-based solar power *and* fusion > reactors are the ways to go (something which does not mean that > fission could not be to some extent a stop-gag measures, at least on a > equal foot with energy saving and "alternative" sources). I think people get so enamored with futurism that they forget presentism: fusion isn't here yet. It's still experimental, and what I call over the horizon technology. Not that it is *just* over the horizon, but that we really don't know how far away it is, nor do we know if it is there at all. All we know is that they've been putting incredible resources into developing it and, I'm hopeful, but I think it deserves less confidence than *proven* technology. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 18 23:23:57 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 23:23:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] STDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <50061.59678.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dan wrote: >Was there an age without STDs? Your comment strikes me like "In an age >of the flu, staying locked in a clear room makes sense for many weaker >persons." :) >Regards, >Dan Well, there definitely was an age before HIV, and the coming of HIV altered people's sexual behaviour (less of the "swingers parties" and the wilder edge of the gay community than was seen in 1970s). There was an age before syphilis (didn't show up in Europe until circa 1500, which is why one leading theory is that Columbus' sailors brought it to Europe). Given how the descriptions of ancient diseases don't quite match those of modern diseases, it's hard to be sure if it's inaccurate recording of disease by ancient observers or if the diseases have genuinely mutated and changed in human history. The current "bird flu" that has people worried is nothing compared to the 1918 epidemic - diseases do change considerably. Tom __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 19 00:00:34 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 17:00:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: References: <737542.21788.qm@web50310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2d6187670805181115j7f3206fcw3d2b7c54e1a174e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1211155378_4870@s6.cableone.net> At 11:36 AM 5/18/2008, M1N3R wrote: snip > Oh my God >Arc nagy mosollyal Hangulatjel > Is cryonics a viable thing indeed? I think not. I think that you might be posting to the wrong list. People here take it seriously, many of us are signed up, some have put our friends into cryonic suspension. http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=1621 I was on the teams that did 18 of them, lead surgeon on the last few. Keith -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 521db252.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 18 23:48:36 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 16:48:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1211146927_4632@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1211154654_4936@s8.cableone.net> At 03:50 PM 5/18/2008, Kevin wrote: >On 5/18/08, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote: >It isn't *a* power station, it's a new 5 GW one every 5 days for the >next 50 years. And that's just to replace fossil fuels and a little >growth the bring China and India up. > >I don't quite understand how that works. Are you saying that >somehow these power satellites bring in an exponential amount of >power with respect to time? Linear. I am taking the wedge of 13,000 GW at the peak (about now) that we lose as fossil fuels give out and replacing it plus some over the next 50 years. In rough terms that's 20,000 GW over the next 50 years or 400 GW a year. Roughly a GW/day needs to be added, most of that to replace failing oil. >Or are you just talking about adding additional units? > >But that brings up another question: is there really any limit to >the number of SPS's we can stick up there? Sure, eventually they start shading each other. Space 250 miles apart there is room for 3000 of them around GEO. At 10 GW each, that's 30,000 GW. So you do run out of space at GEO. >Once we have enough to meet our current needs, why stop there? We >could be swimming in energy, enough to make $1/gal for gas sound >expensive, and we could pretty much do anything we want. A lot of >the projects that now seem to expensive and infeasable would >suddenly seem--easy. And the bottleneck would again be human ingenuity. That's usually the case. >Not to mention that such a project would put both government and >commercial interests into space in a big way, making space >colonialism practical: afterall, *someone* has to maintain those >satellites, and it would be somewhat cheaper to have workers living up there. Of course. >But I doubt things will develop that far before the singularity. > >Why not? Not enough time. >And a singularity isn't really on my radar right now; and if not >enough is done and the world does go into an energy crash and we >return to subsistance living, I'm pretty sure that destroys any >chances of a singularity happening. It depends largely on how much continuing support science gets and what areas are worst affected. There are places in the world where the entire population could die without having much effect on the timing of the singularity. >It depends on what they are making. Besides being burned to make >electricity, coal (and oil) are feed stocks to make all sorts of >things like plastics. > >That's the thing, fossil oil is going to become scarce no matter >what, and I wonder if we're talking about the end of plastics. No. You can make plastics out of anything with carbon. >Besides, what are those photoelectric cells made of? are they oil products? No. Silicon, next element over. It's obvious you have not had chemistry yet, take it next year. Or read a textbook. Or both. >We'll basically have to find an alternative method for making >plastic, or an alternative to plastic. > >Transitioning from oil products to electricity as our primary source >of energy is going to mean a great deal of transitioning in our >economies and national infrastructures. Yes and no. It's easy to substitute electricity for process heat. Electricity is the best energy source for a lot of uses. Keith From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Mon May 19 00:27:50 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 19:27:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> > > In this film the modern-day "demigod" of war actually shows signs of > mortality & advancing age and has his life saved by a merc sniper. > The violent climax is when Rambo captures an enemy 50 cal and cuts to > pieces at least a battalion of enemy troops. The CGI work > was incredible (in terms of realism) as countless Burmese > soldiers were shown being literally torn in half by the bullets. But > I kept on thinking, "this should be rated X for violence!" lol I > guess Americans are comfortable with war but not sex. Fortunately, > Rambo did not have an explicit sex scene... > > John Grigg > That's a valid statement about the US. We see it all the time. PG-13 is OK if you kill off hundreds of people with machine guns, but if you show a woman's boob it had better have an R rating. Of course the production companies also know that Americans are more likely to watch an R movie than any other. I recall a Monty Mython movie where one of them broke into the middle of the film like a news announcer and said something along the lines of "this movie so far would probably by rated PG and we know that to get good ratings we need an R rating so we just wanted to take a moment and say 'f**k you". I know thiis isn't the actual quote but you get the general idea. From brent.allsop at comcast.net Mon May 19 00:58:18 2008 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 18:58:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Argument mapping In-Reply-To: References: <2d6187670805180928q5abd6bf0nf8ca632694ce01a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4830D0AA.80009@comcast.net> Kevin, I think this is a good surface comparison. Thanks. Canonizer is more of a survey system, and seeks to concisely state and measure consensus (or lack thereof) with all interested people. While debate graph just collects all related ideas to any controversial issue and showing lots of relationships between them. With debate graph, the ideas and arguments tend to replicate and multiply and be repeated in myriad different ways, while with the Canonizer, the goal is to murge and unify all the most important arguments, as concisely stated as possible, into camps to acheive the greatest possible membership in any particular camp. Also, while debate graph has a primitive average voting system for individual ideas or arguments, canonizer has the ability to know a persons reputation. For example, a goal of the canonizer is to have various canonization algorithms that can measure consensus in different ways. For example, what is the consensus in the general population (one person one vote) vs what is the consensuses of reputable scientists (i.e. those that have a PhD from a reputable institution on the subject.) or perhaps what is the consensus amongst people of a particular religious persuasion. Thanks Brent Allsop Kevin H wrote: > >From what I can tell, canonizer is about consensus and finding views > that agree or cohere with your own pre-established beliefs. Argument > mapping is more about finding the logical structure of arguments so > they can be assessed. > > Kevin > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Mon May 19 01:12:25 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 20:12:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Argument mapping In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805182012.26114.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 17 May 2008, Kevin H wrote: > I don't know how related this is to transhumanism, but I wanted to > procure opinions about argument mapping on the internet I think you may be interested in: http://heybryan.org/docs/cheat_sheet_writing.pdf It's a document that lists fallacious argumentation structures. I developed this document a few years ago when I was becoming fed up with the silly arguments I was seeing in papers for the literature arts classes in the high school. And since I couldn't bring myself to use fallacious reasoning without knowing how to be cleverly fallacious, I did a broad overview of most of the ways to do fallacious reasoning. That's the result of it. It doesn't go over constructive arguments, but I am sure that you can come up with a taxonomy for those too, i.e. certain ways of leading and guiding arguments, much like the basic logical propositions. There's also a mathematics database out there on the internet that starts with the 11 axioms of mathematics (ZRG axiom theory?) and starts from well-formed proofs and moves all the way up to 2+2=4, as a proof. This same logic style can probably be used in argumentation, but the trick is finding the mapping between what you're talking about and the structures within the database, the structures are the patterns - like the recursive Koch snowflakes that go over the same proofs over and over again on slightly permutated proofs/theorems. Don't know where it is anymore. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Mon May 19 01:56:24 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 18:56:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Argument mapping In-Reply-To: <4830D0AA.80009@comcast.net> References: <2d6187670805180928q5abd6bf0nf8ca632694ce01a7@mail.gmail.com> <4830D0AA.80009@comcast.net> Message-ID: Yeah, I guess I don't see much utility for such a system. I think canonizer could be useful for cases in which argumentation doesn't make much sense: like preference for look and feel, like the aesthetic appeal of a new model of car, or a new brand of ice cream. Otherwise, it looks like it is fit for measuring cases of a priori conviction and allegiances: like ideologies or religions; and at worst, breeding conformity. If I hold belief P and I learn on canonizer that most people hold opposing belief Q, I might be tempted to doubt my own belief based on it's unpopularity. At the very least, the canonizer and argument mapping serve distinct purposes: the canonizer *measures* opinion, but doesn't offer any means to help *acquire* an opinion, except for those cases in which popularity is a somewhat useful measurement for evaluating an opinion, which I can think of few examples of. In any case, I don't think canonizer serves the expressed goals of my OP. Thanks, Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 19 01:41:10 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 18:41:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Argument mapping In-Reply-To: <200805182012.26114.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200805182012.26114.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Saturday 17 May 2008, Kevin H wrote: >> I don't know how related this is to transhumanism, but I wanted to >> procure opinions about argument mapping on the internet I'm recently motivated to look into this again, and I'm considering investing some time in Compendium. Anyone here familiar with this or comparable? Must be open-source and Linux-compatible. - Jef From kanzure at gmail.com Mon May 19 02:43:24 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 21:43:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Immortality via Begetting Offspring In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805180728r3d4471adn1b0e67b95ec4d2c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <589099.94672.qm@web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2d6187670805180728r3d4471adn1b0e67b95ec4d2c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200805182143.24349.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 18 May 2008, John Grigg wrote: > Bryan Bishop wrote: > > With enough little researchers running around, maybe you can have > > enough kids going around the place to assemble the necessary > > research and tools to get it all done. In a less literal manner, > > yes, I understand that you refer to the "living on through > > children" scenarios. > > You, Ray Kurzweil, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Michael Annisimov, and others > better start cranking out the high IQ little kids to get the whole > Singularity thing kicked into high gear! We could give the next > Singularity Institute Conference a speed dating event and/or a > bachelor auction! And a Transhumanist sperm/egg donor clinic could > be the next logical step. Oh, and an "E-Transhumanist" personals > website might be great, except for the ten guys for every one women. Though I appreciate the humor, and the undoubtedly hot chick, I'm thinking that the whole human self-replication process is rather intensely drawn out -- 12 to 15 years to get a little guy, or even many little guys and girls, up to speed, just to get to the singularity? Jeesh, wasn't the singularity scheduled to occur before then? Disclaimers: [Also, I don't generally support the idea of having (using) children to advance goals like that, although it would be interesting if it turned out that way.] - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon May 19 03:09:56 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 20:09:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next Nature Message-ID: <29666bf30805182009ia472548pfcb770eb726cb460@mail.gmail.com> Billed as "More than 25 visionary statements from artists, scientist, designer, filmers, writers?" the Biggest Visual Power Show presentation of "Next Nature" http://nextnature.net/ http://www.nextnature.net/powershow2008/ came to the historic Million Dollar Theater in Downtown Los Angeles this Saturday night, May 17th, appropriately across from the utopian architectural landmark, the Bradbury Building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradbury_Building http://leblog.exuberance.com/2007/08/the-bradbury-bu.html "Next Nature is the nature caused by human culture," a very h+ concept. What initially interested me was that Kevin Kelly (Out of Control) and Erik Davis (Techgnosis) would be among the presenters. However, it turned out I had read Kelly's presentation essay, "The Seventh Kingdom of Life" before and Davis' talk on the mythological relationship between our conceptions of analog and digital was not one of his strongest, especially since the visuals by Niels Schrader overwhelmed Davis' thoughts. However, what got me to stay were all the other artists, predominantly Dutch and all previously unknown to me, whose work was profound, funny, cutting edge and a thought-provoking step in understanding humanity's relationship with nature and technology. Our emcee for the evening was artist/scientist/organizer/curator Koert van Mensvoort, http://www.koert.com/work/ who explained why the Dutch have such a profound appreciation of the manipulation of nature. The Netherlands is a country that only exists by dint of nature-changing technology. Reclaimed from the sea, the land is a densely populated bulwark against the encroachment of the natural world. The Dutch understand perhaps better than most that people design and craft the world around us to suit our ends. My date for the evening was Norman Gilmore, tech entrepreneur/futurist/software architect/business analyst and fellow avantgardist. He enjoyed the show as much as I did. My personal highlights out of over two dozen presentations were: Joris Van Gelder's magical interaction technology. This young man just graduated from Eindhoven University of Technology. From his early studies observing how people bring magical expectations to their interactions with technology, he developed a "magical" remote control for Bang & Olufsen which is one of the cleverest, sexiest devices I've seen. As Norman said, if Steven Jobs doesn't kidnap the boy and ferry him (magically) back to the Apple kingdom, he's crazy. http://www.student.tue.nl/n/j.m.v.gelder/flash/#/BandORemote_Perspective/ http://www.student.tue.nl/n/j.m.v.gelder/flash/#/BandORemote_Balance/ Katinka Simonse aka Tinkebell, an animal rights artist/filmmaker, "mockumented" her slaughtering and skinning her pet cat to make into a purse. Her fabulous faux-na?vet? and sweetness, her political incorrectness and the gory, graphic how-to images of the all-too-real skinned dead cat made Sarah Silverman look like a complete wimpy wannabe. http://www.tinkebell.com/ Filmmakers Rene Daalder and Folkert Gorter, who lead Space Collective, "where forward thinking terrestrials exchange ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction today." It looks like a fun and stimulating creative community. http://spacecollective.org/ Casey Alt's fabulously slick and disturbing "Slightly Sociopathic Software" digital presentation called "Vasillogix" was a very American presentation! Part American Psycho, part Gattaca, part Dale Carnegie, I highly recommend watching it once he posts the completed film. http://caseyalt.com/s3.html Floris Kaayk's film "Metalosis Maligna was another cute mockumentary about the spread of post implantation infection from metal implants, causing bodies to sprout chaotic metal structures like a Meccano set on acid. http://www.microbia.nl/index_new.html Christian Bramsiepe made a snappy graphic short on intelligent design (or the lack thereof). [Click on "arbeitsproben" and it should be the first film] http://bramfolio.de/ Extreme Green Guerillas, a mockumentary on the ultimate green martyrs: http://www.myportfolio.me.uk/EGGs.htm Even the two dozen or so interstitial videos designed by Arnoud Van Den Heuvel, depicting a generic car graphic doing clever and technologically ironic things were well executed. http://arnoudvandenheuvel.nl/pag/losangeles.html I expected a bigger turn out for such a wide-reaching program, but I'm not sure how much PR was done to promote it. It deserved a bigger audience than it got. Let's hope "Next Nature" travels and gets more exposure. PJ From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Mon May 19 03:42:59 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 22:42:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805180807k595e001uba6bf6c372692bf1@mail.gmail.com> References: <542944.70285.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1dbe01c8b8b3$94824040$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670805180807k595e001uba6bf6c372692bf1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4830F743.8000307@insightbb.com> > > Religion has an amazing power to adapt to the changing times. It can > be a painful and drawn out process, but still necessary for it's > survival and success. The coming century/possible Singularity will > *greatly* speed this up. I'm not sure who posted this comment, but I just wanted to add that the Catholic church is an excellent example of this. In 1633 Galileo was forced by the church to recant heliocentric material he wrote. Fast-forward; A couple the pope stated that evolution didn't contradict the bible, and the other day he stated that alien life was perfectly fine as well. I have to give Benedict XVI credit - at least he's making an attempt to stay ahead of the curve. From spike66 at att.net Sun May 18 15:39:26 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 08:39:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <1211155378_4870@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200805190405.m4J45PTl013220@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > At 11:36 AM 5/18/2008, M1N3R wrote: ... > > ... > > Is cryonics a viable thing indeed? I think not. > > I think that you might be posting to the wrong list. People > here take it seriously, many of us are signed up... Keith M1N3R, are you familiar with the extropian principles? http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm Everyone here who isn't up on this, do educate yourselves. These principles are what this chat group is about. spike From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Mon May 19 05:26:57 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 07:26:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <200805190405.m4J45PTl013220@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200805190405.m4J45PTl013220@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: From: "spike" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 5:39 PM > Everyone here who isn't up on this, do educate yourselves. These > principles > are what this chat group is about. Yeah, I'm sorry, never quite did that. But I will. In the light of a possible uploading process, however, uploading would seem better to me. As today as I know it, there is no method for revival of those frozen (and there are some whackos who have no reason to be frozen, right? I'm not talking about people with fatal diseases, please understand) That is all, provided that I live to see the singularity. If not, then put me into the refrigerator :) Once a friend of mine said: In Europe you can die from two things: heart attack or cancer, make your choice. Yeah, I'd say heart attack :D Thomas From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Mon May 19 06:04:27 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 08:04:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> Message-ID: From: "Kevin Freels" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:27 AM > PG-13 is > OK if you kill off hundreds of people with machine guns, but if you show > a woman's boob it had better have an R rating. Something I don't understand about U.S. It's quite a bit of hypocrisy, is it not? When a really vast amount of the internet is about sex and much of the porn is right from the U.S. Why conceal it then? A level designer (I think Levelord) wrote once (might not be 100% accurate): You may go about blasting prams but it is totally against the rules to show a boob of several pixels (talking about the game Sin and Elexis Sinclaire, and indeed she looked quite dumb with bikini on in her own bathroom :D) Thomas From spike66 at att.net Sun May 18 18:12:53 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:12:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] extropian principles again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805190612.m4J6CCvn015096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of M1N3R ... > > PG-13 is > > OK if you kill off hundreds of people with machine guns, but if you > > show a woman's boob it had better have an R rating. > > Something I don't understand about U.S. It's quite a bit of > hypocrisy, is it not? When a really vast amount of the... Thomas Thomas I am giving you a little assignment. You mentioned you had not read the Extropian principles, so I am more than merely inviting but strongly encouraging you to go off and study that document for a few days, ponder, then when you return after having thought about it, post your comments thereon please. All others are welcome to do likewise. http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm Thanks M1N3R. spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon May 19 07:22:24 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 16:52:24 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Amputee Sprinter Wins Olympic Appeal to Compete Message-ID: <710b78fc0805190022s700156d7maa701a7fef95d4c5@mail.gmail.com> Amputee Sprinter Wins Olympic Appeal to Compete http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/16/210229 "Oscar Pistorius, a 21-year-old South African double-amputee sprinter, has won his appeal filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This overturns a ban imposed by the International Association of Athletics Federations, and allows Mr. Pistorius the chance to compete against other able-bodied athletes for a chance at a place on the South African team for the Beijing Olympics. He currently holds the 400-meter Paralympic world sprinting record, but must improve on his time by 1.01 seconds to meet the Olympic qualification standard. However, even if Pistorius fails to get the qualifying time, South African selectors could add Oscar to the Olympic 1,600-meter relay squad." -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Mon May 19 09:00:23 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:00:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] SOCIAL: Self-direction in Hungary Message-ID: Something that's been keeping me thinking was affirmed while reading Max More: Extropian Principles. Setting goals for one's self, controlling ourselves to ensure lasting positive thinking, so self-direction in general is a magnificent thing indeed. Easterners (China, Japan) have their traditional way in this (I'd be glad to share my knowledge on that as well, that is, on Karate mainly if it is of interest to you). However, and here comes the bad part, the vast majority is simply unable to practice self-direction due to a lack of understanding. Of intelligence, if I may say that. Being open-minded requires intelligence, right? I'm most convinced that Intelligence Enhancement has been put to debate already. Priority one, I think. I hope it will be achieved. But there is something else as well... I'd like to add something that bothers me most. I prefer empirical methods and have, so to say, conducted my own research in Hungary. I've worked in factories (and generally workplaces considered... low) and spoken to as many people as I could. Conclusion was: people were generally disinterested, not caring about anything apart from 1. what is immediately before them (interval of 1-2 weeks, or even days) and 2. what was BAD. It was easier to talk about death, the lack of money, the lack of anything than of a way to improve the situation or of happy things (pretty dumb if I put it like this but I'm sure you understand nevertheless). Tell me, are Hungarians the only people who would rather cry than laugh? Despite the fact that we have food to eat, pretty much water to drink, nothing to fear of (no tornadoes, no floods, no earthquakes, no nothing). Even our National Anthem is about death and losing battle and sadness etc. I'd just as soon give everything I can to improve this situation. And I'm most convinced this has never been put to debate. If you are interested, I'll share all information there is about the situation. What I think is this: to make the movement successful, to ensure a good democracy, to ensure that people are able to build on their innate abilities and practice self-direction, there is a great need for 'spreading the word' (in Hungary). And that is not equals forcing it on people. Like I haven't been aware of you until a bit more than two months. I'm so convinced that I could find a lot of people, who, after their eye was opened, could make a valuable addition to the list. I just don't know how to do that. M1N3R From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 19 09:48:45 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:48:45 +0000 Subject: [ExI] SOCIAL: Self-direction in Hungary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:00 AM, M1N3R wrote: > What I think is this: to make the movement successful, to ensure a good > democracy, to ensure that people are able to build on their innate abilities > and practice self-direction, there is a great need for 'spreading the word' > (in Hungary). And that is not equals forcing it on people. Like I haven't > been aware of you until a bit more than two months. I'm so convinced that I > could find a lot of people, who, after their eye was opened, could make a > valuable addition to the list. I just don't know how to do that. > According to your IP address, you are in Buda?rs, a small town in Hungary. The wikipedia article hints at the disturbed history of Hungary. Even now there are many German and Croat speakers in Buda?rs Hungary is a strange nation. The language is 'impossible' with no European relatives. But they have produced many famous scientists. One famous Hungarian scientist once commented that he did indeed believe that there were aliens living among us. They were called Hungarians. Istv?n Szab? (1938-), the Oscar winner Hungarian director, recently made a film for the BBC about the capital city of Hungary. - I called this film "Staying Afloat" because to me Budapest is like a boat trying not to capsize as it is buffeted by waves from all directions. We've been lashed by history and we mustn't let it suck us under. The very air of Budapest exudes this daily struggle for survival, this feeling that we're clinging to the rails; this is why I love my city. BillK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon May 19 09:57:43 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:57:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Kevin H wrote: > I think people get so enamored with futurism that they forget presentism: fusion isn't here yet. It's still experimental, and what I call over the horizon technology. Not that it is *just* over the horizon, but that we really don't know how far away it is, nor do we know if it is there at all. All we know is that they've been putting incredible resources into developing it and, I'm hopeful, but I think it deserves less confidence than *proven* technology. "Fusion" per se is abundantly proven, e.g., exactly in solar power (not to mention in H bombs). Sure, we are still far away from the details of a workable, sustainable fusion reactor, but there again space solar power is not exactly any technological bread-and-butter of your average energy company these days; and as for the "incredible resources" devoted to fusion reactor research, it took decades and ten different countries to put together the cheap change of the ITER project (*one hundredth* of the cost of the Iraq campaign). Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon May 19 10:11:08 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 12:11:08 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1211144149_4397@s2.cableone.net> References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1211144149_4397@s2.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20805190311u521e381ey5b4ce0d957a815aa@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM, hkhenson wrote: > It may not be. If we could build a space elevator, the energy > payback time is incredibly short--at least for the energy needed to > lift a power sat to GEO. Speaken of unproven, or rather non-existing, technologies... :-) Having said that, needless to say I am absolutely in favour of investigating and implementing both satellite- or moon-based solar energy and researching the fundamentals that might lead to a space elevator. Speaking of lowest hanging fruits, I do not see such things as very rapid-deployment solutions, however. Please note however that I am much better informed of the state-of-the art of nuclear fusion. Stefano Vaj > Specific orbital energy is u/2r, (398,600/42,000)/2 or -4.75Mj/kg > > Potential is -9.5Mk/kg and kinetic is 4.75Mj/kg > > Potential at the earth's surface is -62.6 MJ/kg; the difference is 53.1Mj/kg. > > Using a space elevator, the rotation of the earth provides the > kinetic energy. Since a joule is a watt-second; 53,100 > kW-s/kg/3600kW-s/kWh is 14.75 kWh/kg > > A kW/kg power sat repays its lift energy 14 hour and 45 minutes after > being turned on. A 2kg/kW power sat would take 29.5 hours. > > There is a heck of a lot of sunlight out there, and you don't need > much structure to capture it in zero g. Whatever rate you get for > paying off solar cells on the ground, they will repay it at least > three times faster in orbit. > > With rockets, it's still not too bad. > > http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/koelle/Neptun/NEP2015.pdf > > Neptune is about 3 times the capacity of a Saturn 5, and this design > was done by some of the same people so it's solid engineering. > > This vehicle delivers 350 mt to LEO, and 100 mt to lunar orbit or > GEO. To lift 100 mt to GEO Neptune uses 3762-mt of propellant for the > first stage, 1072 mt second stage and 249 mt for the third totaling 5077 mt. > > SSME O2 to H2 ratio is 6 to > 1. > http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextrefresh=1&vgnextoid=75a0184c712de010VgnVCM100000c45a529fRCRD > > I.e., 1 part in 7 of the propellant is LH. or about 725 mt of > LH. The launch site would make electrolytic hydrogen out of water > (the only long term source). That costs about 50 kWh/kg plus another > 15 kWh to liquefy the H2. Add 5 kWh for liquefying oxygen at 6 x .8 kWh/kg. > > That would be 70 MWh per mt, or 70 GW hours for 1000 tons, or 50.8 > GWh for 725 mt. At a kg/kW, 100 tons of satellite produces 100,000 > kW, or 0.1 GW. Thus it would take 508 hours to pay back the lift > energy or 21.2 days, 42.4 days for 2kg/kW. > > Rocket efficiency here would be 14.75/508 or 2.9%. > > A nuclear tug stage shuttling between LEO and GEO might double this > efficiency raising the payload from 100 mt to 200 mt. That is the > consequences of a 15 km/sec exhaust velocity. > > It's the high cost of rocket hardware, not lift energy payback, that > makes power sats expensive. If we could get that down . . . > > As for conventional nuclear power, I can't see it being built fast > enough. The need for replacement energy as oil fades out of the > picture is around a GW/day. That's in addition to the problem of > neutrons being diverted to make plutonium 239 out of DU. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon May 19 14:11:59 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:11:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. References: Message-ID: <003201c8b9ba$5864dd40$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "M1N3R" > I'm interested in material on the topic, > mainly connected to the Catholic Church. > If they must change, then how? Generally I think the Catholic Church should just keep on doing what it's been doing; certainly the last thing in the world I'd want to see is them allowing priests to marry or letting women to take Holy Orders. If asked for advice I'd just tell them to become a little more conservative. It's all very well to make pre-marital sex a sin but they should make post-marital sex a sin too. And insisting that priests be celibate is just not good enough, they should be castrated. I know a number of young boys who are very clear on that last point. So in short they should keep on a steady course because they are heading in the right direction, straight for extinction. If they take my advice that diabolical church will be destroyed even sooner. John K Clark From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Mon May 19 14:32:55 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 16:32:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] SOCIAL: Self-direction in Hungary Message-ID: I think I might be able to translate the Extropian Principles of Max More into Hungarian. Actually, I'd be quite glad to see others reading it. This should give a great start to future spread of these ideas in this area (as most people don't know enough English to understand the original). Now why am I telling this? Because I need permission to do so. And if given, I'd also need some help on how to make it public (I'll find the place for it). I thank you in advance. PS: Is anybody on the list Hungarian or do you list members have connections to somebody I may personally contact in Hungary (ExI and WTA as well)? From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon May 19 14:33:11 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 16:33:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. In-Reply-To: <003201c8b9ba$5864dd40$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <003201c8b9ba$5864dd40$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <580930c20805190733k5898b3b1x495a56425fb2b721@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:11 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "M1N3R" > So in short they should keep on a steady course because they are > heading in the right direction, straight for extinction. If they take my > advice that diabolical church will be destroyed even sooner. And, speaking of "diabolical", probably on the path to extinction they will take along Satanists as well... :-) Stefano Vaj From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Mon May 19 14:35:16 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 07:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. In-Reply-To: <003201c8b9ba$5864dd40$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <57400.46845.qm@web50308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 19 14:57:00 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:57:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Flying across Mars Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080519095536.025db4b8@satx.rr.com> Amazing stuff: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080519m.html From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 19 15:17:43 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 08:17:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: References: <200805190405.m4J45PTl013220@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1211210402_8053@s2.cableone.net> At 10:26 PM 5/18/2008, Thomas wrote: >From: "spike" >Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 5:39 PM > > > Everyone here who isn't up on this, do educate yourselves. These > > principles > > are what this chat group is about. > >Yeah, I'm sorry, never quite did that. But I will. In the light of a >possible uploading process, however, uploading would seem better to me. As >today as I know it, there is no method for revival of those frozen (and >there are some whackos who have no reason to be frozen, right? I'm not >talking about people with fatal diseases, please understand) That is all, >provided that I live to see the singularity. If not, then put me into the >refrigerator :) Once a friend of mine said: In Europe you can die from two >things: heart attack or cancer, make your choice. Yeah, I'd say heart attack >:D If you are into cryonics, cancer is better unless it is brain cancer. Point being, you can get a better suspension if you die slowly when people are ready to process you (vitrify your brain). Dying from a heart attack is a much more chancy way to go. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 19 15:29:37 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 08:29:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Against the Empire Message-ID: A worthwhile paper arguing against the widespread assumption of ongoing evolutionary expansion, in contrast with the more general imperative of ongoing evolutionary development. By Milan M. Cirkovic Abstract: It is argued that the "generic" evolutionary pathway of advanced technological civilizations are more likely to be optimization-driven than expansion-driven, in contrast to the prevailing opinions and attitudes in both future studies on one side and astrobiology/SETI studies on the other. Two toy-models of postbiological evolution of advanced technological civilizations are considered and several arguments supporting the optimization-driven, spatially compact model are briefly discussed. In addition, it is pointed out that there is a subtle contradiction in most of the tech-optimist and transhumanist accounts of future human/alien civilizations' motivations in its postbiological stages. This may have important ramifications for both practical SETI projects and the future (of humanity) studies - Jef From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Mon May 19 15:45:17 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:45:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> Message-ID: <4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com> M1N3R wrote: > From: "Kevin Freels" > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:27 AM > > >> PG-13 is >> OK if you kill off hundreds of people with machine guns, but if you show >> a woman's boob it had better have an R rating. >> > > Something I don't understand about U.S. It's quite a bit of hypocrisy, is it > not? When a really vast amount of the internet is about sex and much of the > porn is right from the U.S. Why conceal it then? A level designer (I think > Levelord) wrote once (might not be 100% accurate): You may go about blasting > prams but it is totally against the rules to show a boob of several pixels > (talking about the game Sin and Elexis Sinclaire, and indeed she looked > quite dumb with bikini on in her own bathroom :D) > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > Hypocrisy it is. The worst of it is that almost every American I talk to about it agrees that it's silly, yet the condition persists. Everyone is infatuated with sex and doesn't want anyone else to know it - almost ashamed to admit to liking sex. Of course no one ever accused Americans, or most humans for that matter, of being over logical. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 19 15:47:05 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:47:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Against the Empire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080519104408.025dc350@satx.rr.com> At 08:29 AM 5/19/2008 -0700, Jef wrote: >A worthwhile paper arguing against the widespread assumption of >ongoing evolutionary expansion, in contrast with the more general >imperative of ongoing evolutionary development. > >By Milan M. Cirkovic > > A contrary view, in reply, is Robin Hanson's blog entry url'd below, which draws upon his argument in YEAR MILLION (today is publication day): Damien Broderick From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon May 19 16:04:28 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:04:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:04 PM, M1N3R wrote: > From: "Kevin Freels" > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:27 AM > >> PG-13 is >> OK if you kill off hundreds of people with machine guns, but if you show >> a woman's boob it had better have an R rating. > > Something I don't understand about U.S. It's quite a bit of hypocrisy, is it > not? When a really vast amount of the internet is about sex and much of the > porn is right from the U.S. Why conceal it then? A level designer (I think > Levelord) wrote once (might not be 100% accurate): You may go about blasting > prams but it is totally against the rules to show a boob of several pixels > (talking about the game Sin and Elexis Sinclaire, and indeed she looked > quite dumb with bikini on in her own bathroom :D) It's not quite hypocrisy. It's because American culture is underpinned by our Puritan past. "According to Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American People, the Puritans 'were deeply impressed by a story that their favorite church father, St. Augustine, told in his Confessions. He heard a voice saying, tolle et lege, 'Pick up and read.' Opening the Bible, his eyes lit on Romans xiii:12-14: 'The night is far spent, the day is at hand; not in carousing and drunkenness, not in debauchery and lust, not in strife and jealousy. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts therof''"(62). http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/purdef.htm Doesn't say anything in Augustine's quote about refraining from violence. Just sex. Also American culture is historically based on violence. We were created in violence (fleeing death in the old world and then against native peoples in the new), grew in violence (our own revolution and further native genocide and immigrant/class upheavals) and continue to influence the rest of the world through violence. The concept is referred to as "regeneration through violence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Slotkin http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA02/freed/fightclub/myth_viol.html http://www.americanpopularculture.com/archive/politics/cowboy_myth.htm PJ From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 19 15:58:10 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 08:58:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian Ocean Colonies Message-ID: A recurrent theme on the extropy list, recent developments benefit from some serious financial and intellectual backing. I personally tend to prefer techno-nomadism, but would like to be a welcome guest and contributor to such projects. My interest is not so much on the level of building ocean-based dominions, but on the level of maximizing the growth of a variety of modes of self-expression. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 19 16:40:49 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:40:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.co m> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080519113633.0243b4e8@satx.rr.com> At 09:04 AM 5/19/2008 -0700, PJ wrote: >"According to Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American >People, the Puritans 'were deeply impressed by a story that their >favorite church father, St. Augustine, told in his Confessions. He >heard a voice saying, tolle et lege, 'Pick up and read.' Opening the >Bible, his eyes lit on Romans xiii:12-14: 'The night is far spent, the >day is at hand; not in carousing and drunkenness, not in debauchery >and lust, not in strife > >Doesn't say anything in Augustine's quote about refraining from >violence. Just sex. "Strife" sounds like violence to me. Granted, in the context, not *military* violence (Yahweh was a battle god) but the kind stirred up by intoxication, sexual excitement and jealousy. Still, isn't that the kind mostly portrayed in movies? Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 19 17:36:25 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:36:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <580930c20805190311u521e381ey5b4ce0d957a815aa@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1211144149_4397@s2.cableone.net> <580930c20805190311u521e381ey5b4ce0d957a815aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1211218723_462@s5.cableone.net> At 03:11 AM 5/19/2008, you wrote: >On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > It may not be. If we could build a space elevator, the energy > > payback time is incredibly short--at least for the energy needed to > > lift a power sat to GEO. > >Speaken of unproven, or rather non-existing, technologies... :-) The major problem is the cable. It's obvious that nanotech would be up to building the cable, and there are other ways that might do it such as enzymatic dehydrating of tri-hydroxy-benzine or using iron as a solvent that offer a chance we could make 100,000 tons of strong enough nanotube cable even before the singularity. (The singularity is nanotechnology and AI. It is almost impossible to imagine getting either one without the other element coming on line in a time measured in weeks.) But the main reason to look at a space elevator is to see how other methods compare to the minimum lift cost. >Having said that, needless to say I am absolutely in favour of >investigating and implementing both satellite- or moon-based solar >energy and researching the fundamentals that might lead to a space >elevator. > >Speaking of lowest hanging fruits, I do not see such things as very >rapid-deployment solutions, however. If you want rapid deployment, then rockets are the way to go. 800,000 tons per year is a gigantic project perhaps on a par with the Iraq war, but we can put numbers on it and they are within reason. For example, the production for rocket hardware is a bit less than the high point Boeing reached for one aircraft, the 747. >Please note however that I am >much better informed of the state-of-the art of nuclear fusion. Unless you are talking about exotic reactions, fusion has the same problem as fission; it generates neutrons. I have come to look at neutron sources and DU as a nasty combination, especially after figuring out ways to make nukes that are so simple a well funded street gang could make them. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/10/30/18253/301 The other problem is the incredible number of power plants of any kind it takes to replace the energy we get from oil and other fossil fuels. It's about a GW a day of new capacity. I can make a case, even with rockets, for putting in a GW a day of solar power satellites. As I recall, fusion plants are estimated in the 10 GW range. Even if we knew how to make them, can you see starting up one every ten days? Keith >Stefano Vaj > > > Specific orbital energy is u/2r, (398,600/42,000)/2 or -4.75Mj/kg > > > > Potential is -9.5Mk/kg and kinetic is 4.75Mj/kg > > > > Potential at the earth's surface is -62.6 MJ/kg; the difference > is 53.1Mj/kg. > > > > Using a space elevator, the rotation of the earth provides the > > kinetic energy. Since a joule is a watt-second; 53,100 > > kW-s/kg/3600kW-s/kWh is 14.75 kWh/kg > > > > A kW/kg power sat repays its lift energy 14 hour and 45 minutes after > > being turned on. A 2kg/kW power sat would take 29.5 hours. > > > > There is a heck of a lot of sunlight out there, and you don't need > > much structure to capture it in zero g. Whatever rate you get for > > paying off solar cells on the ground, they will repay it at least > > three times faster in orbit. > > > > With rockets, it's still not too bad. > > > > http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/koelle/Neptun/NEP2015.pdf > > > > Neptune is about 3 times the capacity of a Saturn 5, and this design > > was done by some of the same people so it's solid engineering. > > > > This vehicle delivers 350 mt to LEO, and 100 mt to lunar orbit or > > GEO. To lift 100 mt to GEO Neptune uses 3762-mt of propellant for the > > first stage, 1072 mt second stage and 249 mt for the third > totaling 5077 mt. > > > > SSME O2 to H2 ratio is 6 to > > 1. > > > http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextrefresh=1&vgnextoid=75a0184c712de010VgnVCM100000c45a529fRCRD > > > > I.e., 1 part in 7 of the propellant is LH. or about 725 mt of > > LH. The launch site would make electrolytic hydrogen out of water > > (the only long term source). That costs about 50 kWh/kg plus another > > 15 kWh to liquefy the H2. Add 5 kWh for liquefying oxygen at 6 x > .8 kWh/kg. > > > > That would be 70 MWh per mt, or 70 GW hours for 1000 tons, or 50.8 > > GWh for 725 mt. At a kg/kW, 100 tons of satellite produces 100,000 > > kW, or 0.1 GW. Thus it would take 508 hours to pay back the lift > > energy or 21.2 days, 42.4 days for 2kg/kW. > > > > Rocket efficiency here would be 14.75/508 or 2.9%. > > > > A nuclear tug stage shuttling between LEO and GEO might double this > > efficiency raising the payload from 100 mt to 200 mt. That is the > > consequences of a 15 km/sec exhaust velocity. > > > > It's the high cost of rocket hardware, not lift energy payback, that > > makes power sats expensive. If we could get that down . . . > > > > As for conventional nuclear power, I can't see it being built fast > > enough. The need for replacement energy as oil fades out of the > > picture is around a GW/day. That's in addition to the problem of > > neutrons being diverted to make plutonium 239 out of DU. > > > > Keith > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 moses2k at gmail.com Mon May 19 19:01:09 2008 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:01:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Flying across Mars In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080519095536.025db4b8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080519095536.025db4b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3aff9e290805191201q32446123r9717a96f89c58b16@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Amazing stuff: > > http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080519m.html > You might enjoy this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctis I'd warn you that the interface takes some getting used to (and, of course, it's fictional, if that's a concern :) ). -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 19 18:50:17 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. In-Reply-To: <580930c20805190733k5898b3b1x495a56425fb2b721@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <553835.41699.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:11 PM, John K Clark wrote: > > "M1N3R" > > So in short they should keep on a steady course because they are > > heading in the right direction, straight for extinction. If they take my > > advice that diabolical church will be destroyed even sooner. > > And, speaking of "diabolical", probably on the path to extinction they > will take along Satanists as well... :-) Yes. It is strange irony that a religion which claims to be monotheistic has a god of evil that is not called a god because because he isn't the alpha male, despite the fact that he is acknowledged to control the world and is the admin of his own afterlife. Not to mention a goddess that isn't acknowledged as a goddess despite giving birth to someone who was supposedly God. It is a glorification of the male half of the primate heiarchy and a ridiculous anthropomorphization of nature. The universe is not a monkey! Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Fear is proof of a degenerate mind [...] Fortune favors the bold [...] Persevere and preserve yourselves for better circumstances [...] Love conquers all."- Virgil From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Mon May 19 19:23:56 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 21:23:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: "PJ Manney" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:04 PM > Also American culture is historically based on violence. We were > created in violence (fleeing death in the old world and then against > native peoples in the new), grew in violence (our own revolution and > further native genocide and immigrant/class upheavals) and continue to > influence the rest of the world through violence. The concept is > referred to as "regeneration through violence." This phrase is most interesting. Even though I am not willing to agree with today's America in several aspects, the history of America has lots of interesting points. The struggle those few people put up and the way they win is, I think an example to all. And yes, the usage of guns originates from the frontier times too. I've learned about that. But it is necessary to ask a question, since this is an extropian chat list. It is quite simple: does it have to be like that? I mean, it is the 21st century now. I've put the Christianity topic to debate with an aim. Now the same aim stands for the U.S. The usage of guns is a most controversial issue (even our American teacher told us so) but is only one among many problems. What stood ground well in previous times might not stand in a globalised world, right? What do you think of this? Thomas From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Mon May 19 19:29:27 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 21:29:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. In-Reply-To: <553835.41699.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <553835.41699.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: "The Avantguardian" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 8:50 PM > (...) goddess despite giving birth to someone who was supposedly God. It > is a > glorification of the male half of the primate heiarchy and a ridiculous > anthropomorphization of nature. The universe is not a monkey! Granted, but then think of the society from which the Bible originates. Women weren't treated as equals then (and particularly in THAT society). What do you mean by the "ridiculous anthropomorphization of nature", if I may inquire? Thomas From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 19 19:43:45 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:43:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com> At 09:23 PM 5/19/2008 +0200, Thomas wrote: >I've put >the Christianity topic to debate with an aim. Now the same aim stands for >the U.S. The usage of guns is a most controversial issue (even our American >teacher told us so) but is only one among many problems. What stood ground >well in previous times might not stand in a globalised world, right? What do >you think of this? Thomas, I'm afraid you are showing an unerring talent for picking exactly the wrong topics. Historically, this list has been convulsed by episodes of increasingly vehement and unproductive abusive exchanges on the topic of gun ownership. Let's not go there again. (I agree the topic is important, but experience informs us that nothing is gained, and much can be lost, by trying to resolve it here.) Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 19 19:46:02 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <1dbe01c8b8b3$94824040$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <147911.3227.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart writes > > From: "The Avantguardian" > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 8:55 PM > > > > One can't live forever and experience time. > > On the face of it, that's an absurd claim! After, what if > there are now people (who can't possibly know it, of course > but) who in fact will never die? It's not logically impossible! Angels dancing on pins are logically possible too, doesn't mean I would care to debate them with you. Do you understand the mathematical concept of infinity? If you bring me three examples of infinity actually found in nature, then I may entertain having this discussion with you. > You surely cannot be saying that such persons actually > experience time differently from the rest of us! Yes that is exactly what I am saying, Lee. > > Time is our gift as mortals, we should use it wisely. > > We should also realize that for it to have any value to > > us, it must be finite. > > Let me see if I follow you. Yes, it's true that people less > than 20 years old often seem to never regret time wasted. > The illusion, is, of course, that they still have infinitely > much time left. Alexander Solzhenitsyn once remarked > in a book that once when he was quite elderly, a visitor > had unexpectedly shown up at his door "at a time in my > life in which every half-hour is precious". > > But I have known people much less than 20 years old > who hated "wasting time". It is impossible to waste anything of which there is an infinite amount. If someone lived forever, any fraction of their lives would still be forever. So they could be awake forever, asleep forever, and go to the bathroom forever. There would be no time, just one long *now* where everything happened concurrently. Time would cease to be a dynamic narrative and instead be like a static painting. In short, to live forever is not to live at all. > But this, your second statement, also seems flat-out false. > Suppose that we have X, a given person who knows or > strongly believes that he is immortal. How likely would > X react to the proposal that he be asleep for the next > two centuries? You will find that if you ask most people, > most people will prefer being awake rather than asleep > or dead. So let me get this straight: you are saying that in imaginary surveys you conduct in your own mind, nine out of ten people with delusions of immortality prefer being awake to being asleep or dead? And this relates to what I said how? > > Time has existed for 13.5 billion years, I have been > > dead for most of that time. Being dead is my default > > state. If it didn't bother me before I was alive, why > > would it bother me after? > > Does having an IQ less than 200 bother you? Does > not having quite a number of other H+ abilities bother you? Not really, Lee. More IQ points would not improve the quality of my life much. But if 200+ IQs were common, I would want to be able to converse with them. I am not sure what you mean by "H+ abilities". Am I bothered because I can't grow extra limbs? Not as much as I am bothered that people would try to stop me from developing a way to do so should I want to. Do I think not being able to grow extra limbs qualifies me for victim status? Certainly not. > Okay, so you want to live to be several hundred years > old. Why that figure? Why wouldn't you be just as > happy to die tonight? Or tomorrow night? Your > claims aren't really believeable to me, sorry. Did I ask for your belief? > If being dead (your "default state") was so great from > 13.7 billion B.C. to the late 20th century, and won't > be so bad after "a few hundred years", why not be > dead now and get it over with? Some experience life as a pleasant dream that they are reluctant to awaken from. Others experience life as a nightmare that they fear will end. You own your own persective on the world, Lee, and strangely, living in fear appears to be your comfort zone. Wallow away. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Fear is proof of a degenerate mind [...] Fortune favors the bold [...] Persevere and preserve yourselves for better circumstances [...] Love conquers all."- Virgil From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Mon May 19 20:08:47 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 22:08:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: From: "Damien Broderick" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 9:43 PM > Thomas, I'm afraid you are showing an unerring talent for picking > exactly the wrong topics. Historically, this list has been convulsed > by episodes of increasingly vehement and unproductive abusive > exchanges on the topic of gun ownership. Let's not go there again. (I > agree the topic is important, but experience informs us that nothing > is gained, and much can be lost, by trying to resolve it here.) I'm sorry, I made an ambiguous sentence once again. I tried to use the ownership of guns as a starting point. I find other aspects just as interesting. Namely, changes in the way the United States is. I've learned about U.S. history and I must say I loved the Declaration for example. The New Deal, etc. Great works of great people. How they reached independence is a good example of cooperation of the many for a common goal, I think. Anyway, I always feel better when reading such amazing results of human team work. What I was trying to ask was: how, if ever, could the United States change to ensure their lasting existence as superpower? Actually, this might well have been put to debate already, but it is a most recent issue I assume. Seeing the rapid development the Chinese show and the relative stagnation of Europe (too bad...). As I gather, what is at stake is no less than the status quo of the States as leading superpower. This is nothing compared to the Singularity, of course, but is an issue. The elections in the U.S. show a most fascinating end, right? If you don't like politics, I agree. Me neither. Then we should dump this mail and forget about it. So, to sum up, I did not intend to speak about guns (although I'm interested in small arms :)). Just read some thoughts about improving the situation in the States. And granted, I've touched several sore points these days. I'll keep an eye out in the future. Thomas From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Mon May 19 20:19:36 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 13:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? In-Reply-To: <147911.3227.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <758678.70717.qm@web50301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Mon May 19 21:02:03 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:02:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > "Fusion" per se is abundantly proven, e.g., exactly in solar power > (not to mention in H bombs). Granted, and that's why I'm optimistic about human-controlled nuclear fusion as a power source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER is an interesting and exciting project. Unfortunately, it isn't scheduled to begin operation until 2017. Yeah, every star in the universe is an enormous fusion reactor, which actually causes me to wonder if fusion is something that would be more achievable in space. Controlling plasma would, at least, be simpler out of the gravity well of the earth. Sure, we are still far away from the details of a workable, > sustainable fusion reactor, but there again space solar power is not > exactly any technological bread-and-butter of your average energy > company these days; and as for the "incredible resources" devoted to > fusion reactor research, it took decades and ten different countries > to put together the cheap change of the ITER project (*one hundredth* > of the cost of the Iraq campaign). Now it sounds like you're equivocating. I think the difference is that solar power isn't experimental, it's a proven technology. We still haven't been able to extract more power from a fusion reactor than we put into it (according to Wikipedia). I think it is unwise to equivocate the degree of confidence we have in these technologies to serve our near term needs. And that's the thing: peak oil is a near term scenario; estimates put it around 2010 to 2012, other estimates claim it has already occurred. Even if it will occur later on, the earlier we begin an alternative energy project, the better off we will be. This is really a do or die situation. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 19 21:03:47 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <322107.92669.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- M1N3R wrote: > From: "The Avantguardian" > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 8:50 PM > > > (...) goddess despite giving birth to someone who was supposedly God. It > > is a > > glorification of the male half of the primate heiarchy and a ridiculous > > anthropomorphization of nature. The universe is not a monkey! > > Granted, but then think of the society from which the Bible originates. > Women weren't treated as equals then (and particularly in THAT society). > What do you mean by the "ridiculous anthropomorphization of nature", if I > may inquire? I mean simply the psychological projection of human traits onto natural phenomenon. The belief that some guy got hit by lightning because God was angry at him rather than because he was an idiot who played golf during a thundershower. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Fear is proof of a degenerate mind [...] Fortune favors the bold [...] Persevere and preserve yourselves for better circumstances [...] Love conquers all."- Virgil From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 19 21:31:30 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 22:31:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Kevin H wrote: > Now it sounds like you're equivocating. I think the difference is that > solar power isn't experimental, it's a proven technology. We still haven't > been able to extract more power from a fusion reactor than we put into it > (according to Wikipedia). I think it is unwise to equivocate the degree of > confidence we have in these technologies to serve our near term needs. > > And that's the thing: peak oil is a near term scenario; estimates put it > around 2010 to 2012, other estimates claim it has already occurred. Even if > it will occur later on, the earlier we begin an alternative energy project, > the better off we will be. This is really a do or die situation. > Solar power is not just proven technology. Kurzweil claims it is on an exponential path heading for a solar singularity within 20 years. Quote: Now futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil is part of distinguished panel of engineers that says solar power will scale up to produce all the energy needs of Earth's people in 20 years. There is 10,000 times more sunlight than we need to meet 100 percent of our energy needs, he says, and the technology needed for collecting and storing it is about to emerge as the field of solar energy is going to advance exponentially in accordance with Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. ----------- And Google is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in wind and solar power for it's server farms. ----------------- And then there's this guy in California building multi-rotor miniature windmills that can power your house (while the wind blows). Quote: Today's largest wind farms are the size of small towns, made up of turbines 30 stories tall with blades the size of 747 wings. Those behemoths produce a great deal of power, but manufacturing, transporting, and installing them is both expensive and difficult, and back orders are common as the industry grows by more than 40 percent a year. The solution, says inventor Doug Selsam, is to think smaller: Capture more power with less material by putting 2, 10, someday dozens of smaller rotors on the same shaft linked to the same generator. -------------- Alternative energy is just starting. You ain't seen nuthin' yet! BillK From brian at posthuman.com Mon May 19 21:44:02 2008 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 16:44:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <4831F4A2.4010409@posthuman.com> Three years ago Hal made some interesting posts regarding oil. Hal, are you still reading the list? Anyway, one of the signs he was looking for of peak oil, contango in the futures markets, seems to be emerging. We'll see if it lasts. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3997 Hal Finney wrote: > Samantha asks a good question: what would it take to persuade me, as > a skeptic, of the truth of the Peak Oil theory? And for that matter, > why am I skeptical? > > The first thing I can say is, it's a complicated issue. I have spent > probably hundreds of hours in the past few months reading and thinking > about Peak Oil. I've read two books about it, one pro and one con, > many web pages, and I closely follow such web sites as theoildrum.com > and energybulletin.net. But I honestly can't say that I have a good > understanding of the matter even after that much study. > > When will the peak happen? And what will be the consequences? There are > an enormous number of unknowns. Probably the biggest question mark > is the state of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. The Saudis are quite > secretive about their oil situation, but publicly they claim that they > can pump oil and increase the quantity as much as the world needs, for > many years to come. Some experts are skeptical, but no one has access > to the details necessary to get a firm answer to the question. > > That fact alone, in my opinion, renders any firm statements about when > any peak will occur nonsensical. There is simply not enough public > information to make a well founded judgement of the potential oil supply > over the next decade or two. > > There are other complications as well. Chinese demand has grown > incredibly fast the past few years, but this year its growth has fallen > off precipitously. What will happen in the future? The Peak Oil > situation is highly sensitive to what happens in the Chinese economy the > next few years. How on earth can a layman claim to have expertise in > such an esoteric subject? The Chinese government is another secretive > and opaque institution; again there are no strong grounds for making > firm predictions about what will happen there. > > As I have written before in other contexts, I don't believe it > is practical or feasible for the lay person to come up with a well > founded judgement on such difficult matters, where even the experts > can't agree. My approach is not to try to learn all the details of a > difficult subject and try to become enough of an "instant expert" to > make a judgement myself. Instead, I look elsewhere and try to learn > from the expertise of others. > > The best institution for such purposes, in my opinion, is academia. > It has a good track record of success and strong institutional > incentives to seek out and correct errors. Unfortunately, I haven't > been able to determine an academic consensus on the Peak Oil situation. > There doesn't seem to be much study of the issue. It combines aspects > of geology, international finance, economic modelling, and other fields > in a complex way. Cross disciplinary questions like these seem to be > difficult for academics to handle. > > There are a few professors who have published opinions that generally > favor the Peak Oil scenario, but most of them are elderly and/or retired. > In my experience, retired professors are less reliable as a source > of informed opinion than ones who are still actively engaged in the > intellectual life of their academic communities. > > We can also look at other institutions, those more directly involved > in the oil business, such as oil companies and the governments that > regulate and in many cases nationalize them. Generally, these groups > downplay Peak Oil scenarios. Their public statements recognize that > there are challenges ahead in meeting the growth in oil demand but > express confidence that these challenges can be met. Unfortunately these > assurances seem in some cases to be largely a matter of public relations. > Internally these organizations are quite opaque and it is hard to know > if they are being frank in their actions. > > The U.S. government does publish a number of analyses and predictions > of oil supply and demand issues, and they generally forecast adequate > supplies for at least the next several years. As far as I can tell, > these are good faith estimates, but ultimately they rely on public > sources of information which, as I noted above, are highly unreliable. > > I do put considerable faith in one other institution, which is the market. > When people are putting their own money behind what they say I am much > more inclined to listen and believe them than when they are making empty > statements. Fortunately we have a number of commodities markets in the > energy field, including crude oil of different grades, gasoline, natural > gas and heating oil. The crude oil market goes out six years or so and > is in my opinion the best source of unbiased information about the beliefs > of the "smart money" as to the future course of oil supply and demand. > > If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, > we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. > For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price > differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is easy to > move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so we would expect > high future prices to drag up present-day prices. This is actually > one of the great services of commodity markets, that they make the > high prices of future shortages felt in the present day, encouraging > conservation and searches for alternatives well in advance of an actual > supply/demand mismatch. > > But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily > for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. > Rather, future prices three to six years ahead have consistantly lagged. > Those future prices are being dragged up by high present-day prices, > rather than vice versa. This is exactly the opposite of what we would > expect to see in a Peak Oil scenario. > > Another great feature of futures markets is that they encourage insiders > to bet on the basis of their private information. This rewards them > with healthy profits while informing the marketplace indirectly of their > information through its effects on prices. Even if such insiders as oil > companies, or the Saudi and other national governments, were forced for > P.R. reasons to put on a happy face about a future oil supply problem, > they would be able to make enormous profits in the commodity markets > by betting (through proxies if necessary) on the high prices they would > know were ahead. This would drive up those future prices and we would > see the phenomenon I described above, the situation futures traders call > "contango" where future prices are higher than present day ones. > > To sum up, the answer to Samantha's question is that I am skeptical > about Peak Oil because none of these institutions seem to show the signs > of an impending shortage. There is no academic consensus on the issue; > industry and government seem to be downplaying the problem even when it > would seemingly be to their advantage to make people see that there is a > good reason for high prices; and market prices don't have the structure > we would expect if insiders knew about a shortage ahead. And I would > become more convinced of the reality of the Peak Oil scenario if these > various institutions started showing the signs I have outlined. > > There are of course limitations to this analysis; for one thing, the > commodities markets only go out six years or so. While the markets are > forward looking and they will anticipate shortages even beyond that time > frame, to some degree, the effect is somewhat weak. The current data > can't rule out a significant Peak Oil scenario much past the 2010 to > 2015 time frame. Of course the further out we go, the more the chances > that some kind of wild card will appear, a new technology or some such, > that could change the nature of the situation we face. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Mon May 19 22:19:26 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:19:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1211218723_462@s5.cableone.net> References: <580930c20805190311u521e381ey5b4ce0d957a815aa@mail.gmail.com> <1211218723_462@s5.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200805191719.26524.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 19 May 2008, hkhenson wrote: > (The singularity is nanotechnology and AI. ?It is almost impossible > to imagine getting either one without the other element coming on > line in a time measured in weeks.) My current projects are calling this emphasis on nanotech out into the open and replacing it with any solid state, programmable self-replicating machine, including clanking replicators. I don't see the need for nano SR. http://heybryan.org/exp.html http://heybryan.org/mediawiki/index.php/2008-05-19 (it's a WIP) [I ignore biology here because it's not solid state, and I'm still working out ways to hijack this pre-existing exponential process.] - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 19 23:23:23 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 23:23:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] solar power satellites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <740690.66936.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Thinking about the recent posts on the subject, how small could you make a decent proof of concept? I mean, the figures given on this list are 10,000 metric tonnes for a 4GW satellite beaming microwaves to a rectenna 1km x 1.4km. Now the ARES V launcher proposed by NASA will lift 130 metric tonnes to LEO. Would it be possible to make a one-hundredth scale satellite and tow it to GEO on an ARES V? Coupled with the development of a mobile, easily erected one-hundredth scale rectenna (100m x 140m for 1% area) you would have a proof of concept that could be used to supply 40MW wherever it was needed. Seeing as the most recent official interest in solar power satellites came from a US department of defense study, it might be possible to get this proving mission paid for by the DoD. Does this sound like a worthwhile step in advancing the technology? Tom __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From kanzure at gmail.com Tue May 20 00:33:45 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 19:33:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] solar power satellites In-Reply-To: <740690.66936.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <740690.66936.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200805191933.45444.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 19 May 2008, Tom Nowell wrote: > Thinking about the recent posts on the subject, how small could you > make a decent proof of concept? Charles F. Radley has been getting a small proof of concept going. It was recently rejected by the FDA, however he plans to get this taken care of. He's been posting over to the Artemis mailing list and a few others, so I'm ccing this to see if he can get us an update. :) - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 20 01:30:29 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 18:30:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net><1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><1211144149_4397@s2.cableone.net> <580930c20805190311u521e381ey5b4ce0d957a815aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1f1e01c8ba19$3fbae1e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM, hkhenson wrote: >> It may not be. If we could build a space elevator, the energy >> payback time is incredibly short--at least for the energy needed to >> lift a power sat to GEO. > > Speaken of unproven, or rather non-existing, technologies... :-) Yes, that's true, however foreseeable and practical and important and beneficial the space elevator and the powers sats at GEO will be. > Having said that, needless to say I am absolutely in favour of > investigating and implementing both satellite- or moon-based solar > energy and researching the fundamentals that might lead to a space > elevator. Right on. > Speaking of lowest hanging fruits, I do not see such things as very > rapid-deployment solutions, however. Please note however that I am > much better informed of the state-of-the art of nuclear fusion. Nuclear *fusion*??? Speaking of unproven, or rather non-existing technologies... :-) Again, what about nuclear *fission*, which has been a proven and existing technology for some five decades. I could hardly believe that your sentence ended with the word that it did. Keith says that "there isn't time" to build enough fission plants, though green resistance is collapsing, and we simply don't know how much time it will take for space elevators and your nuclear fusion. Please explain, thanks. You evidently really do know a lot that I've missed. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 20 01:50:51 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 18:50:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prudes, Protestants, Progress, and Profit References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com> Message-ID: <1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Kevin writes (in that awfully named "English-speaking Google News and Myanmar...") > Thomas wrote > > > Something I don't understand about U.S. > > It's quite a bit of hypocrisy, is it not? When > > a really vast amount of the internet is about > > sex and much of the porn is right from the U.S. > > Why conceal it then? > > Hypocrisy it is. The worst of it is that almost every > American I talk to about it agrees that it's silly, yet > the condition persists. Everyone is infatuated with > sex and doesn't want anyone else to know it - > almost ashamed to admit to liking sex. Outside the West, it's noticed that we are not just preoccupied with hiding from sex. It strikes people from Asia and Africa that we tend to demean fun of any kind. Our oldest traditions, e.g. our religions, are not only "against sex" (except under authorized conditions for the express purpose of procreation) but also seem to have something against simply having a good time. For example, Catholicism and especially Protestantism strongly tend to regard having fun as being frivolous. Running around and having fun is for... children. Well---okay, *after* a hard day's work where things got done and stuff was produced, well, then, yes, some fun is okay as a justified reward. Now I do *not* think that it's just a coincidence that the West has also been preeminent in the last five hundred years. This attitude towards serious work and against frivolity can pay off in terms, again, of getting stuff done and technical progress and all. Isaac Newton *deliberately* painted his rooms red, just so that it would put him in an irascible mood every day, so that he could be more productive. No fun for Mr. Newton. And he did accomplish a great deal for us. But as Extropians, our goal, as always, should be to have our cake and eat it too. Let's be as productive as possible as much of the time as possible, and, in the immortal words of Maxwell Smart, be "loving every moment of it". What has sex (or violence, for that matter), ever done for progress, or for bottom line profit? Lee, studying math diligently and loving it From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 20 02:59:19 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 19:59:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] solar power satellites In-Reply-To: <740690.66936.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <740690.66936.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1211252498_2920@s5.cableone.net> At 04:23 PM 5/19/2008, you wrote: >Thinking about the recent posts on the subject, how small could you >make a decent proof of concept? I mean, the figures given on this >list are 10,000 metric tonnes for a 4GW satellite beaming microwaves >to a rectenna 1km x 1.4km. Bigger. 5,000,000 kw x 4 sq m/kw is 20,000,000 sq meters. that's more like 5,000 meters in diameter, and that does not count the gaussian distribution. For a 1k transmitting antenna and 2.45 GHz the usual size of the ground stations at 45 degree latitude is about 10 x 14 km. >Now the ARES V launcher proposed by NASA will lift 130 metric tonnes >to LEO. Would it be possible to make a one-hundredth scale satellite >and tow it to GEO on an ARES V? Unfortunately, no. And the lift from LEO to GEO takes about 70% of the mass in LEO to get it up to GEO. So 130 tons in LEO would only get you 39 tons in GEO. It's a big step, it's as much effort to get to lunar orbit as it it to get to GEO. I have spent the last few days immersed in orbital mechanics. I couldn't find my 50 year old physics text books but hhere is a ton of stuff about it on the Wikipedia. >Coupled with the development of a mobile, easily erected >one-hundredth scale rectenna (100m x 140m for 1% area) you would >have a proof of concept that could be used to supply 40MW wherever >it was needed. Seeing as the most recent official interest in solar >power satellites came from a US department of defense study, it >might be possible to get this proving mission paid for by the DoD. > Does this sound like a worthwhile step in advancing the technology? Unfortunately no. A small system can't focus the microwaves into an area where they can be picked up in useful amounts. It's a pure optics problem. Fortunately, this is physics that's been understood for 200 years. So there isn't much risk in just doing it. But unless we can come up with a way to get the cost to GEO down to a good deal less than $100 a kg, there isn't any point in doing it at all. It's an interesting design to cost problem. Keith From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com Tue May 20 03:56:26 2008 From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 20:56:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM, BillK wrote: > Solar power is not just proven technology. Kurzweil claims it is on an > exponential path heading for a solar singularity within 20 years. > > Quote: > Now futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil is part of distinguished panel > of engineers that says solar power will scale up to produce all the > energy needs of Earth's people in 20 years. > There is 10,000 times more sunlight than we need to meet 100 percent > of our energy needs, he says, and the technology needed for collecting > and storing it is about to emerge as the field of solar energy is > going to advance exponentially in accordance with Kurzweil's Law of > Accelerating Returns. That's awesome if it occurs. But just like the original Moore's Law, you never know when they'll hit technical or physical limitations. > And Google is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in wind and > solar power for it's server farms. > Thanks for linking to this. My appreciation for Google never stops increasing. One gigawatt is a lot of power, though the article wasn't too specific. Is Google planning on generating *all* of it's power needs plus excess to sell to others? > And then there's this guy in California building multi-rotor miniature > windmills that can power your house (while the wind blows). > > Quote: > Today's largest wind farms are the size of small towns, made up of > turbines 30 stories tall with blades the size of 747 wings. Those > behemoths produce a great deal of power, but manufacturing, > transporting, and installing them is both expensive and difficult, and > back orders are common as the industry grows by more than 40 percent a > year. The solution, says inventor Doug Selsam, is to think smaller: > Capture more power with less material by putting 2, 10, someday dozens > of smaller rotors on the same shaft linked to the same generator. Yeah, I've already seen this. But it's one of those articles that make me wonder, most of it is hype. It's an article about a prototype so it's sort of wait and see. Alternative energy is just starting. You ain't seen nuthin' yet! I hope so. But I think one thing to consider is that the population is also increasing exponentially, and so are living standards and the amount of energy used per capita. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon May 19 16:20:40 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:20:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200805200446.m4K4kb5I022795@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK ... > And then there's this guy in California building multi-rotor > miniature windmills that can power your house (while the wind blows). > > Quote: ... > BillK Thanks BillK! I can think of a variation on his theme. Instead of having a tower on one end and a balloon holding the other end aloft, we could have towers at both ends and a tension cable supporting the turbines. We could have vertical rigid supports about every 10 meters with a turbine on either end, blades about 4 meters (radius)with the turbines on a pivot so they can always point into the wind. A 100 meter span would give you twenty turbines using two towers of about 20 meters height. We could have a series of towers spaced at about 100 meters, with a continuous tension cable supported at each tower, with each span between supporting about 20 turbines. The sag in the middle of the cable might necessitate replacing the middle couple of lower turbines with counterweights, which would end up perhaps 5 meters above the ground. It wouldn't be very efficient if the wind direction is parallel to the tension cable, but it could be arranged such that the cable is perpendicular to the prevailing wind. I need to estimate some weights and wind loads in order to estimate the size of cable needed to support the load, but this sounds like a good possibility. Anyone have a good source that can tell me the approximate weight of a 4 meter radius turbine. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Tue May 20 04:50:15 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 06:50:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian Ocean Colonies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520805192150t1ef7bf1dmf2a6d13250620d2f@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > A recurrent theme on the extropy list, recent developments benefit > from some serious financial and intellectual backing. > > I personally tend to prefer techno-nomadism, but would like to be a > welcome guest and contributor to such projects. My interest is not so > much on the level of building ocean-based dominions, but on the level > of maximizing the growth of a variety of modes of self-expression. > > > > - Jef Though I am not a libertarian, I think this is a very important project that should be supported. I believe one of the main problems of our 21st century world is that old, entrenched power structures in nation states are fighting to retain power against all new citizen driven communities. Projects like this are steps in the right direction. From eric at m056832107.syzygy.com Tue May 20 03:28:35 2008 From: eric at m056832107.syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 20 May 2008 03:28:35 -0000 Subject: [ExI] solar power satellites In-Reply-To: <1211252498_2920@s5.cableone.net> References: <740690.66936.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1211252498_2920@s5.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20080520032835.5.qmail@syzygy.com> Keith: >Unfortunately, no. And the lift from LEO to GEO takes about 70% of >the mass in LEO to get it up to GEO. Any help from partially deploying your solar panels and using ion thrust to do the transfer to GEO? Also, a small prototype in LEO might be acceptable, and could provide intermittant power for disaster recovery, for example. -eric From spike66 at att.net Mon May 19 17:09:45 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:09:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] turbine idea.ppt Message-ID: <200805200509.m4K594NN000148@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Added a second page showing turbines pivot on the vertical axis. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: turbine idea.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 55296 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon May 19 16:50:57 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:50:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] turbine idea.ppt Message-ID: <200805200517.m4K5GuhC014788@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Check out enclosed power point sketch for wind turbine idea. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: turbine idea.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From max at maxmore.com Tue May 20 05:11:21 2008 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 00:11:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <4831F4A2.4010409@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <4831F4A2.4010409@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20080520051123.BWRJ25757.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> I think Hal's posts were at the time I wrote a piece on peak oil: http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO51605116448 I'm only guessing, but I expect that contango in oil futures is NOT a sign of peak oil. I suspect it a temporary overreaction of markets. Bad policy could turn peak oil into a reality, but otherwise I expect technology powered by profit-seeking behavior will eventually reverse the situation. Unfortunately, bad policy is much more likely than it should be, since so much oil production currently takes place in areas controlled by heavily interventionist states. Max At 04:44 PM 5/19/2008, you wrote: >Three years ago Hal made some interesting posts regarding oil. Hal, are you >still reading the list? Anyway, one of the signs he was looking for >of peak oil, >contango in the futures markets, seems to be emerging. We'll see if it lasts. > >http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3997 > >Hal Finney wrote: > > Samantha asks a good question: what would it take to persuade me, as > > a skeptic, of the truth of the Peak Oil theory? And for that matter, > > why am I skeptical? > > > > The first thing I can say is, it's a complicated issue. I have spent > > probably hundreds of hours in the past few months reading and thinking > > about Peak Oil. I've read two books about it, one pro and one con, > > many web pages, and I closely follow such web sites as theoildrum.com > > and energybulletin.net. But I honestly can't say that I have a good > > understanding of the matter even after that much study. > > > > When will the peak happen? And what will be the consequences? There are > > an enormous number of unknowns. Probably the biggest question mark > > is the state of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. The Saudis are quite > > secretive about their oil situation, but publicly they claim that they > > can pump oil and increase the quantity as much as the world needs, for > > many years to come. Some experts are skeptical, but no one has access > > to the details necessary to get a firm answer to the question. > > > > That fact alone, in my opinion, renders any firm statements about when > > any peak will occur nonsensical. There is simply not enough public > > information to make a well founded judgement of the potential oil supply > > over the next decade or two. > > > > There are other complications as well. Chinese demand has grown > > incredibly fast the past few years, but this year its growth has fallen > > off precipitously. What will happen in the future? The Peak Oil > > situation is highly sensitive to what happens in the Chinese economy the > > next few years. How on earth can a layman claim to have expertise in > > such an esoteric subject? The Chinese government is another secretive > > and opaque institution; again there are no strong grounds for making > > firm predictions about what will happen there. > > > > As I have written before in other contexts, I don't believe it > > is practical or feasible for the lay person to come up with a well > > founded judgement on such difficult matters, where even the experts > > can't agree. My approach is not to try to learn all the details of a > > difficult subject and try to become enough of an "instant expert" to > > make a judgement myself. Instead, I look elsewhere and try to learn > > from the expertise of others. > > > > The best institution for such purposes, in my opinion, is academia. > > It has a good track record of success and strong institutional > > incentives to seek out and correct errors. Unfortunately, I haven't > > been able to determine an academic consensus on the Peak Oil situation. > > There doesn't seem to be much study of the issue. It combines aspects > > of geology, international finance, economic modelling, and other fields > > in a complex way. Cross disciplinary questions like these seem to be > > difficult for academics to handle. > > > > There are a few professors who have published opinions that generally > > favor the Peak Oil scenario, but most of them are elderly and/or retired. > > In my experience, retired professors are less reliable as a source > > of informed opinion than ones who are still actively engaged in the > > intellectual life of their academic communities. > > > > We can also look at other institutions, those more directly involved > > in the oil business, such as oil companies and the governments that > > regulate and in many cases nationalize them. Generally, these groups > > downplay Peak Oil scenarios. Their public statements recognize that > > there are challenges ahead in meeting the growth in oil demand but > > express confidence that these challenges can be met. Unfortunately these > > assurances seem in some cases to be largely a matter of public relations. > > Internally these organizations are quite opaque and it is hard to know > > if they are being frank in their actions. > > > > The U.S. government does publish a number of analyses and predictions > > of oil supply and demand issues, and they generally forecast adequate > > supplies for at least the next several years. As far as I can tell, > > these are good faith estimates, but ultimately they rely on public > > sources of information which, as I noted above, are highly unreliable. > > > > I do put considerable faith in one other institution, which is the market. > > When people are putting their own money behind what they say I am much > > more inclined to listen and believe them than when they are making empty > > statements. Fortunately we have a number of commodities markets in the > > energy field, including crude oil of different grades, gasoline, natural > > gas and heating oil. The crude oil market goes out six years or so and > > is in my opinion the best source of unbiased information about the beliefs > > of the "smart money" as to the future course of oil supply and demand. > > > > If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, > > we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. > > For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price > > differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is easy to > > move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so we would expect > > high future prices to drag up present-day prices. This is actually > > one of the great services of commodity markets, that they make the > > high prices of future shortages felt in the present day, encouraging > > conservation and searches for alternatives well in advance of an actual > > supply/demand mismatch. > > > > But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily > > for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. > > Rather, future prices three to six years ahead have consistantly lagged. > > Those future prices are being dragged up by high present-day prices, > > rather than vice versa. This is exactly the opposite of what we would > > expect to see in a Peak Oil scenario. > > > > Another great feature of futures markets is that they encourage insiders > > to bet on the basis of their private information. This rewards them > > with healthy profits while informing the marketplace indirectly of their > > information through its effects on prices. Even if such insiders as oil > > companies, or the Saudi and other national governments, were forced for > > P.R. reasons to put on a happy face about a future oil supply problem, > > they would be able to make enormous profits in the commodity markets > > by betting (through proxies if necessary) on the high prices they would > > know were ahead. This would drive up those future prices and we would > > see the phenomenon I described above, the situation futures traders call > > "contango" where future prices are higher than present day ones. > > > > To sum up, the answer to Samantha's question is that I am skeptical > > about Peak Oil because none of these institutions seem to show the signs > > of an impending shortage. There is no academic consensus on the issue; > > industry and government seem to be downplaying the problem even when it > > would seemingly be to their advantage to make people see that there is a > > good reason for high prices; and market prices don't have the structure > > we would expect if insiders knew about a shortage ahead. And I would > > become more convinced of the reality of the Peak Oil scenario if these > > various institutions started showing the signs I have outlined. > > > > There are of course limitations to this analysis; for one thing, the > > commodities markets only go out six years or so. While the markets are > > forward looking and they will anticipate shortages even beyond that time > > frame, to some degree, the effect is somewhat weak. The current data > > can't rule out a significant Peak Oil scenario much past the 2010 to > > 2015 time frame. Of course the further out we go, the more the chances > > that some kind of wild card will appear, a new technology or some such, > > that could change the nature of the situation we face. > > > > Hal > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > >-- >Brian Atkins >Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence >http://www.singinst.org/ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 20 06:36:38 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 23:36:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality, Absolute and Potential References: <147911.3227.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes From: "The Avantguardian" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? > Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Stuart writes >> >> > One can't live forever and experience time. >> >> On the face of it, that's an absurd claim! After, what if >> there are now people (who can't possibly know it, of course >> but) who in fact will never die? It's not logically impossible! > > Angels dancing on pins are logically possible too, doesn't mean I would care to > debate them with you. Do you understand the mathematical concept of infinity? Oh yes, investigations of infinity is one of my main math interests. I do all right up to measurable cardinals, (some people who're really good at math will scoff), at which point it all gets a bit too vague for me. The most relevant notion for our discussion here is the distinction between absolute infinity and potential infinity. Aristotle and most people before Georg Cantor abhorred the idea of an absolute infinity, but were quite comfortable (as you probably know) with potential infinity. In other words, they credited the notion of some process going on forever, or some enumeration continuing past any finite stopping place, but declared that the idea of a "completed infinity" to be nuts. Cantor, in the opinion of Hilbert and also practically everybody, proved them wrong. But that's actually beside the point, since I totally agree with you about any kind of "completed infinity" making any sense with regard to immortality. In the ordinary sense of *days*, alas, it can't even mathematically be obtained that there could exist some "day omega", that is, a day infinitely far away from today. But I renamed this thread to discuss the idea of a *potential* immortality, if you will, following the mathematical analogy. What this simply means is that (depending on cosmology) some processes may never cease. For example, it could turn out that protons are "immortal"---and by that is meant nothing more than the conception that they never decay. And you know very well that this is a possibility according to our best theories of modern physics. > If you bring me three examples of infinity actually found in > nature, then I may entertain having this discussion with you. Well :-) how about the theory of protons? And Andrei Linde, among many others, has speculated that outside our own bubble universe, other "bubbles" have been undergoing creation arbitrarily far in the past (again, that's *potential* infinity, not actual infinity). >> You surely cannot be saying that such persons >> [assuming that some person's process never >> ceases, i.e., is coterminous with a proton that >> never decays] actually experience time differently >> from the rest of us! > > Yes that is exactly what I am saying, Lee. I don't follow. If such persons existed, we would have absolutely no way of distinguishing them from the rest of us who won't go on and on forever. In what way would their experience at this time be any different? (Perhaps I was seeing "at this time" and you were not talking about that? Thanks for any clarification.) >> But I have known people much less than 20 years old >> who hated "wasting time". > > It is impossible to waste anything of which there is > an infinite amount. If someone lived forever, any > fraction of their lives would still be forever. So > they could be awake forever, asleep forever, and > go to the bathroom forever. There would be no time, > just one long *now* where everything happened > concurrently. Time would cease to be a dynamic > narrative and instead be like a static painting. In short, > to live forever is not to live at all. "It is impossible to waste anything of which there is an infinite amount." I doubt that we should raise that to the status of an axiom. Clearly you and I are using the word "waste" a little differently. For example, I consider it a waste that I'm not also concurrently living in Istanbul, since (as you know) I believe I could be in two places at once. More pertinently, even if it does turn out that I get to live forever---i.e., don't ever quite die just like (in some theories) a proton never dies, then I would still consider it a waste of time to engage in certain pointless activities. (I guess you're embracing a different concept of waste. I guess we have to stop using the word in this discussion! :-) "There would be no time, just one long *now* where everything happened concurrently. Time would cease to be a dynamic narrative and instead be like a static painting." But there again, unless we have a communication difficulty, it sounds as though you think that *how* long someone is *going* to live in an unknown future impacts their experience now. Or have I misunderstood? Perhaps if you answer this, it will help: suppose person X is slated to live a trillion years, and person Y, sadly, is going to be killed next year in an automobile accident. Are their experiences *now* any different? >> Okay, so you want to live to be several hundred years >> old. Why that figure? Why wouldn't you be just as >> happy to die tonight? Or tomorrow night? Your >> claims aren't really believable to me, sorry. > > Did I ask for your belief? Stuart, I'm very sorry for the hostile tone that our discussion seems to have brought about. Whatever I did to make you a bit touchy, I really do wish I hadn't done it :-) I meant to say that I disagreed. It would have been better for me not to have said that, since it is obvious. Sorry. > Some experience life as a pleasant dream that they are > reluctant to awaken from. Others experience life as a > nightmare that they fear will end. You own your own > perspective on the world, Lee, and strangely, living in > fear appears to be your comfort zone. Wallow away. Oh come now. Yes, at the top of my list, I do fear earthquakes, nuclear terrorism, and economic collapse. But I don't really fear death, for example. (I've said before that dying before your time is like not getting to go to some great party---nothing to be afraid of, just a missed opportunity.) And in the case of many of us on this list, "before our time" means "ever!". So far as I can tell, I'm not wallowing :-) I think that I'm having a good time! Best regards, Lee From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Tue May 20 07:17:17 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:17:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Prudes, Protestants, Progress, and Profit In-Reply-To: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com> <1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com> <1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: From: "Lee Corbin" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:50 AM > Outside the West, it's noticed that we are not just > preoccupied with hiding from sex. It strikes people > from Asia and Africa that we tend to demean fun > of any kind. Our oldest traditions, e.g. our religions, > are not only "against sex" (except under authorized > conditions for the express purpose of procreation) > but also seem to have something against simply having > a good time. This might be a little far-fetched, but 1984 came to my mind instantly. There was the love of the party as the sole purpose for all party members. They also avoided having fun of any kind, well they had violence to act against the sexual urge. Yeah, most people will just frown upon such a book but it was most interesting. Have you read it? From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 20 09:30:07 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:30:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. In-Reply-To: References: <553835.41699.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805200230t5cdfb9ccg2c2255aa10fa3388@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:29 PM, M1N3R wrote: > From: "The Avantguardian" > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 8:50 PM > Granted, but then think of the society from which the Bible originates. > Women weren't treated as equals then (and particularly in THAT society). In fact, monotheism is more about the denial of differences than about the number of gods. Gender differences included, so that women ultimately can only be a kind of diminished man in that perspective. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 20 09:48:59 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:48:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Space Based Solar Power vs. Nuclear Fission In-Reply-To: <1211218723_462@s5.cableone.net> References: <1211040618_1469@s6.cableone.net> <1d8f01c8b8aa$c0dbf1d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1211144149_4397@s2.cableone.net> <580930c20805190311u521e381ey5b4ce0d957a815aa@mail.gmail.com> <1211218723_462@s5.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20805200248j4fcedbb8ifdeaef6e7fdda347@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:36 PM, hkhenson wrote: > The major problem is the cable. It's obvious that nanotech would be > up to building the cable, and there are other ways that might do it > such as enzymatic dehydrating of tri-hydroxy-benzine or using iron as > a solvent that offer a chance we could make 100,000 tons of strong > enough nanotube cable even before the singularity. I "hear" that carbon nanotubes come pretty close (actually, dramatically closer than anything else), but that one or two last orders of magnitude are still not there, and that there are no obvious ways to overcome them, meaning that it would not be a matter of manufacturing technology, but some more fundamental issue. In other terms, a nanotube cable would work quite nicely, say, for a moon-based space elevator... > If you want rapid deployment, then rockets are the way to > go. 800,000 tons per year is a gigantic project perhaps on a par > with the Iraq war, but we can put numbers on it and they are within > reason. Personally, I would not be reluctant, but I remark that ITER is going to cost two orders of magnitude less than such a sum, and wonder what would be possible to do with that kind of resources in the fields of tokamaks and inertial-contained fusion. > Unless you are talking about exotic reactions, fusion has the same > problem as fission; it generates neutrons. > It's about a GW a day of new capacity. I can make a case, > even with rockets, for putting in a GW a day of solar power > satellites. As I recall, fusion plants are estimated in the 10 GW > range. Even if we knew how to make them, can you see starting up one > every ten days? Meaning that we could increase space-based solar energy collection and transmission and distribution at such a rate and at a much lower cost through rockets and earth-based receiving antennas able to output that energy in the grid? This is a serious question, because I do not really know the accounting (and the externalities) related to such a scenario. Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 20 09:50:23 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:50:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. In-Reply-To: <580930c20805200230t5cdfb9ccg2c2255aa10fa3388@mail.gmail.com> References: <553835.41699.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <580930c20805200230t5cdfb9ccg2c2255aa10fa3388@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > In fact, monotheism is more about the denial of differences than about > the number of gods. Gender differences included, so that women > ultimately can only be a kind of diminished man in that perspective. > Where did that come from? 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' Exodus 20:3 (Deuteronomy 5:7, Judges 6:10, Hosea 13:4) is pretty clear. For thou shalt worship no other god: for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Exodus 34:14-16 (Deuteronomy 6:14,15) The Old Testament also *emphasized* gender differences with all the different laws relating to men and women. You must be putting a very modern interpretation on the Old Testament. It certainly wasn't what they meant when it was written thousands of years ago. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 20 09:51:04 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:51:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805200251q170e8fcer26115f10e01b7f8d@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Kevin H wrote: > And that's the thing: peak oil is a near term scenario; estimates put it > around 2010 to 2012, other estimates claim it has already occurred. Even if > it will occur later on, the earlier we begin an alternative energy project, > the better off we will be. This is really a do or die situation. I tend to agree here. And it might even be the case that ultimately we shall have to commit to a single project, or at least establish strong priorities... Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 20 09:55:44 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:55:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805200255t6e1fc299sda27fbabf1953119@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Kevin H wrote: > That's awesome if it occurs. But just like the original Moore's Law, you > never know when they'll hit technical or physical limitations. Moreover, this is not about (possibly unlimited) technological progress, is about making use of finite resources. *Terrestrial* sun power implies wasting large surfaces, influencing ecosystems, changing the earth albedo, engaging in industrial manufacturing which in turns has an impact on all that, etc. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 20 10:09:13 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:09:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Christianity: where to now?. In-Reply-To: References: <553835.41699.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <580930c20805200230t5cdfb9ccg2c2255aa10fa3388@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805200309j2b72d15dw7667ce461cdf1495@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:50 AM, BillK wrote: > 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' Exodus 20:3 (Deuteronomy > 5:7, Judges 6:10, Hosea 13:4) is pretty clear. > For thou shalt worship no other god: for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, > is a jealous God: Exodus 34:14-16 (Deuteronomy 6:14,15) > > The Old Testament also *emphasized* gender differences with all the > different laws relating to men and women. > > You must be putting a very modern interpretation on the Old Testament. > It certainly wasn't what they meant when it was written thousands of years ago. Actually, I did not mean anything different, "denial of difference" in my precedent post referring not to the idea that differences would not exist, but that they should not or are simply imperfections, as there is a single principle and model and view which is the "good", "true" one. As a consequence, no goddesses, no community or family gods, no plurality of gods at all, no "different but equivalent" value and role for women and no priestesses, Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 20 10:12:00 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:12:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <580930c20805200255t6e1fc299sda27fbabf1953119@mail.gmail.com> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805200255t6e1fc299sda27fbabf1953119@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Moreover, this is not about (possibly unlimited) technological > progress, is about making use of finite resources. *Terrestrial* sun > power implies wasting large surfaces, influencing ecosystems, changing > the earth albedo, engaging in industrial manufacturing which in turns > has an impact on all that, etc. > You're in a very negative mood this nice sunny morning! :) Did you read the article I linked to? Quote: There is 10,000 times more sunlight than we need to meet 100 percent of our energy needs, Kurxweil says, and the technology needed for collecting and storing it is about to emerge as the field of solar energy is going to advance exponentially in accordance with Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. ----------------- All the roofs of buildings are already wasted space and in five or ten years time the solar panel efficiency will have improved enough to enable everyone to power their homes cheaply by painting the roof and walls with solar cells. Even offices will probably be self sufficient in power. Leaving only heavy industry requiring additional power. (And that will all be in China anyway). BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 20 10:26:16 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:26:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805200255t6e1fc299sda27fbabf1953119@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805200326l37f8e685kee3c8d77c31da13c@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:12 PM, BillK wrote: > You're in a very negative mood this nice sunny morning! :) Yes, possibly... :-) However, layman as I may be in this field, the idea of satellites collecting unfiltered solar power in space through unlimited (say, short of a Dyson sphere...) surfaces sounds better to my ears. Stefano Vaj From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 20 10:49:03 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 06:49:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Prudes, Protestants, Progress, and Profit In-Reply-To: References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com> <1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <36642.12.77.169.44.1211280543.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > This might be a little far-fetched, but 1984 came to my mind instantly. > There was the love of the party as the sole purpose for all party members. > They also avoided having fun of any kind, well they had violence to act > against the sexual urge. Yeah, most people will just frown upon such a book > but it was most interesting. Have you read it? > > When I was in grade school (*many* years ago!!) it was required reading in 8th grade. That was in a public school in New York. I'd never read such a thing before in my life and was absolutely horrified. IIRC both my children also had to read this book for school - so it has not completely fallen out of favor. ;) Regards, MB From neptune at superlink.net Tue May 20 11:53:03 2008 From: neptune at superlink.net (Superlink) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 07:53:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Amazon Mechanical Turk Message-ID: <5CA7D6DE9CED4648913EC4BB374415B9@technotr9881e5> See http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome Not sure if any of you are aware of this or of similar things. If the latter, please let me know about them. Naturally: comments please. :) Regards, Dan From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 20 13:49:30 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 06:49:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality, Absolute and Potential In-Reply-To: <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <147911.3227.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart writes > > From: "The Avantguardian" > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? > > >> Lee Corbin wrote: >> >>> Stuart writes >>> >>> > One can't live forever and experience time. >>> >>> On the face of it, that's an absurd claim! After, what if >>> there are now people (who can't possibly know it, of course >>> but) who in fact will never die? It's not logically impossible! Lee, when someone you recognize as thoughtful and intelligent makes what appears to an absurd claim, you might consider exploring what broader or different context they have in mind. Yesterday, I heard someone say "I'm going to get my tires rebalanced, and it's free at the place where I bought them." I thought to myself that it's certainly not "free" then, but that it wouldn't serve any purpose to point it out to this person, who knows what she meant and is absolutely right. I was also strongly reminded of you -- same principle, different scale. When I was about 18, a pretty girl approached me in a shopping mall and asked whether I'd ever heard of Dianetics. She was pleasant and engaging, and the conversation lead to me agreeing to attend a "communication" class at the Church of $cientology. I did go for a few weeks and found it fascinating to observe the behaviors there. But the last time I went, one of the more senior people introduced the subject of "Operating Thetans" and said that they had unlimited ability to change things around them. I responded, asking "If they each have infinite power, then how is that different from each having no power at all?" Shortly thereafter, this professed "Clear" visibly lost his cool. Same logical pattern Stuart initially expressed to you. - Jef From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 20 14:04:33 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 07:04:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] solar power satellites In-Reply-To: <20080520032835.5.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <740690.66936.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1211252498_2920@s5.cableone.net> <20080520032835.5.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <1211292412_5672@s6.cableone.net> At 08:28 PM 5/19/2008, you wrote: >Keith: > >Unfortunately, no. And the lift from LEO to GEO takes about 70% of > >the mass in LEO to get it up to GEO. > >Any help from partially deploying your solar panels and using ion >thrust to do the transfer to GEO? The trouble with ion engines is that they generate so little thrust that it takes more than a year to get to GEO. I suspect the bankers are not going to like the delay. The other problem is that a power sat is huge. Going up slow means it gets bashed by space junk. Still, most of the work on power sats to date assumes constructing them in LEO and doing exactly that. >Also, a small prototype in LEO might be acceptable, and could provide >intermittant power for disaster recovery, for example. It's been discussed. The Japanese have been doing most of the work. I don't think it is worth the trouble because LEO has problems with ionized gas that you just don't get at GEO. Most of the advocates talk about a 20 year program to build a one GW test power sat. It's interesting as a research project but in terms of solving the energy crisis it's useless. Just way too slow. We need to be deploying these things at a very high rate in the next 5-7 years. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 20 14:13:52 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 07:13:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1211292977_12880@S3.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 20 13:50:34 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 06:50:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality, Absolute and Potential In-Reply-To: <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <147911.3227.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart writes > > From: "The Avantguardian" > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? > > >> Lee Corbin wrote: >> >>> Stuart writes >>> >>> > One can't live forever and experience time. >>> >>> On the face of it, that's an absurd claim! After, what if >>> there are now people (who can't possibly know it, of course >>> but) who in fact will never die? It's not logically impossible! Lee, when someone you recognize as thoughtful and intelligent makes what appears to an absurd claim, you might consider exploring what broader or different context they have in mind. Yesterday, I heard someone say "I'm going to get my tires rebalanced, and it's free at the place where I bought them." I thought to myself that it's certainly not "free" then, but that it wouldn't serve any purpose to point it out to this person, who knows what she meant and is absolutely right. I was also strongly reminded of you -- same principle, different scale. When I was about 18, a pretty girl approached me in a shopping mall and asked whether I'd ever heard of Dianetics. She was pleasant and engaging, and the conversation lead to me agreeing to attend a "communication" class at the Church of $cientology. I did go for a few weeks and found it fascinating to observe the behaviors there. But the last time I went, one of the more senior people introduced the subject of "Operating Thetans" and said that they had unlimited ability to change things around them. I responded, asking "If they each have infinite power, then how is that different from each having no power at all?" Shortly thereafter, this professed "Clear" visibly lost his cool. Same logical pattern Stuart initially expressed to you. - Jef From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 20 14:16:49 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 07:16:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian Ocean Colonies In-Reply-To: <470a3c520805192150t1ef7bf1dmf2a6d13250620d2f@mail.gmail.co m> References: <470a3c520805192150t1ef7bf1dmf2a6d13250620d2f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1211293148_12894@S3.cableone.net> At 09:50 PM 5/19/2008, you wrote: >On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > A recurrent theme on the extropy list, recent developments benefit > > from some serious financial and intellectual backing. > > > > I personally tend to prefer techno-nomadism, but would like to be a > > welcome guest and contributor to such projects. My interest is not so > > much on the level of building ocean-based dominions, but on the level > > of maximizing the growth of a variety of modes of self-expression. > > > > > > > > - Jef > >Though I am not a libertarian, I think this is a very important >project that should be supported. > >I believe one of the main problems of our 21st century world is that >old, entrenched power structures in nation states are fighting to >retain power against all new citizen driven communities. Projects like >this are steps in the right direction. Unfortunately these projects seem no more likely today than when they were discussed by libertarians back in the 1960s. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 20 14:27:26 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:27:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] turbine idea.ppt In-Reply-To: <200805200517.m4K5GuhC014788@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200805200517.m4K5GuhC014788@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM, spike wrote: > Check out enclosed power point sketch for wind turbine idea. spike > _______________________________________________ powerpoint!!! Remember us poor third world folk don't run MS software. Luckily, Open Office Impress opened it just fine. I think you might have a wobble problem where the fans hang from the cable. Selsam is still trying out new versions himself. You're in California. You could go visit his factory at 2600 Porter Avenue, Unit B, Fullerton CA 92833 714-992-5594 email: doug at selsam.com You can buy his twin rotor version now for 2000 USD. And a low wind speed version with bigger blades for 2300 USD Your ranch might be a good place for something like this. Here is another test version with small multiple rotors. His web site has some far-out ideas for giant turbines atop skyscrapers and floating turbines that look like giant fishing rods. No harm in speculating! :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 20 14:34:15 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:34:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <1211292977_12880@S3.cableone.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> <1211292977_12880@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:13 PM, hkhenson wrote: > The amount of power you get is more or less proportional to the area the > blades intercepting the wind. This does not make engineering sense. > Yes, that's the theory. But he's actually doing it and selling machines. See his FAQ at Q1. Doesn't the wind shadow from one rotor inhibit the next rotor from getting wind? A: That's definitely a factor to consider. Our driveshaft is at an angle from horizontal, with the nose pointing slightly downward so that, with proper spacing, each rotor gets its own wind. In addition, the forward tilt of the rotors tends to direct the wind downward, pulling more fresh wind through the machine from above... Any slight losses of power from wind shadow effects are more than made up for by the overwhelming combined power of a multiplicity of rotors. -------------------- I think he's trying to get the effect like a V-shaped formation of geese all helping each other fly along. BillK From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue May 20 14:43:28 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 07:43:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805200743s1137191cj1f1258b734a12ec9@mail.gmail.com> Thomas wrote: What I was trying to ask was: how, if ever, could the United States change to ensure their lasting existence as superpower? Actually, this might well have been put to debate already, but it is a most recent issue I assume. Seeing the rapid development the Chinese show and the relative stagnation of Europe (too bad...). As I gather, what is at stake is no less than the status quo of the States as leading superpower. This is nothing compared to the Singularity, of course, but is an issue. The elections in the U.S. show a most fascinating end, right? If you don't like politics, I agree. Me neither. Then we should dump this mail and forget about it. >>> This question greatly concerns me. China, whether the U.S. likes it or not, is going to become a superpower to be reckoned with. A huge challenge to the U.S. is how to handle this matter wisely. On the one hand, we could have a massive arms race/cold war, which could waste untold billions/trillions of dollars and lead to a horrific war, or we could at least try to peacefully engage the Chinese government and people, of course all the while maintaining a sufficiently strong military. And I think for the latter course we need strong military alliances with Europe, Russia and India, so we don't go it alone. Considering the Neocon bungling of the Iraq war, I cringe to consider whether such thinking/people could handle the subject of a resurgent Communist China. The current Chinese government is a very ruthless one to be sure, that must be dealt with from a position of strength, but that does not mean we should play into their hands by escalating things unnecessarily. I hope the China's rising generation will be more open to Western values and principles of civil liberty and not see us as the "enemy." John Grigg From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 20 14:49:27 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:49:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <1211292977_12880@S3.cableone.net> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> <1211292977_12880@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20805200749y5c592457w5fade17f88476d13@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM, hkhenson wrote: > I find that possible that solar will fill the gap between falling oil > production and growing demand for the next 50 years. But I don't see it > being done with ground based installations. Meaning earth-based solar? Because I thought that in principle space-based solar power could be increased to demand for millennia and still remain an infinitesimal fraction of the total solar energetic output... :-/// For earth-based solar, on the contrary, I wonder how many square meters would we be talking of in a 50 years-time, taking also into account the energy necessary for manufacturing, deployment, maintenance and safe disposal of the solar units. Stefano Vaj From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 20 13:49:30 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 06:49:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality, Absolute and Potential In-Reply-To: <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <147911.3227.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart writes > > From: "The Avantguardian" > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Christianity: where to now? > > >> Lee Corbin wrote: >> >>> Stuart writes >>> >>> > One can't live forever and experience time. >>> >>> On the face of it, that's an absurd claim! After, what if >>> there are now people (who can't possibly know it, of course >>> but) who in fact will never die? It's not logically impossible! Lee, when someone you recognize as thoughtful and intelligent makes what appears to an absurd claim, you might consider exploring what broader or different context they have in mind. Yesterday, I heard someone say "I'm going to get my tires rebalanced, and it's free at the place where I bought them." I thought to myself that it's certainly not "free" then, but that it wouldn't serve any purpose to point it out to this person, who knows what she meant and is absolutely right. I was also strongly reminded of you -- same principle, different scale. When I was about 18, a pretty girl approached me in a shopping mall and asked whether I'd ever heard of Dianetics. She was pleasant and engaging, and the conversation lead to me agreeing to attend a "communication" class at the Church of $cientology. I did go for a few weeks and found it fascinating to observe the behaviors there. But the last time I went, one of the more senior people introduced the subject of "Operating Thetans" and said that they had unlimited ability to change things around them. I responded, asking "If they each have infinite power, then how is that different from each having no power at all?" Shortly thereafter, this professed "Clear" visibly lost his cool. Same logical pattern Stuart initially expressed to you. - Jef From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 20 16:03:57 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:03:57 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: <580930c20805200749y5c592457w5fade17f88476d13@mail.gmail.com> References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <1211085171_2613@s6.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> <1211292977_12880@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20805200749y5c592457w5fade17f88476d13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > For earth-based solar, on the contrary, I wonder how many square > meters would we be talking of in a 50 years-time, taking also into > account the energy necessary for manufacturing, deployment, > maintenance and safe disposal of the solar units. > You are assuming no change in solar cell technology in 50 years. That's not realistic. They won't be manufacturing solar panels for much longer. What's coming is a spray on plastic coating containing solar sells. You will be able to paint your roof and walls with solar cells. Probably windows as well, if it is made transparent. Google on something like 'spray on solar cells'. BillK From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 20 15:46:32 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 08:46:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian Ocean Colonies In-Reply-To: <1211293148_12894@S3.cableone.net> References: <470a3c520805192150t1ef7bf1dmf2a6d13250620d2f@mail.gmail.com> <1211293148_12894@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 7:16 AM, hkhenson wrote: >>On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: >>> I personally tend to prefer techno-nomadism, but would like to be a >>> welcome guest and contributor to such projects. My interest is not so >>> much on the level of building ocean-based dominions, but on the level >>> of maximizing the growth of a variety of modes of self-expression. >>> >>> > Unfortunately these projects seem no more likely today than when they > were discussed by libertarians back in the 1960s. To the extent such developments are perceived as "concentration of power" they will remain unlikely due to their relatively high physical vulnerability. This is the basis for my initial comment supporting the principle more than the edifice. The space elevator concept is susceptible to the same formulation but with different coefficients. It is inherently more vulnerable, but somewhat more likely to be seen as a more widely distributed good. - Jef From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 20 16:17:16 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:17:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Lack of interest In-Reply-To: References: <1210224986_5409@S4.cableone.net> <580930c20805181319g857469buc6917ced2b94a2bb@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20805190257w292f5da2s846132b7aadfacb8@mail.gmail.com> <1211292977_12880@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20805200749y5c592457w5fade17f88476d13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20805200917g4a988fc5oec268a54d4127fa@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM, BillK wrote: > You are assuming no change in solar cell technology in 50 years. > That's not realistic. Sure. But I assume that in 50 years an ever changing half of the earth will still be off-sun at any given moment, an atmosphere will still be there filtrating and reflecting the solar radiation for the half exposed, clouds will still act rather impredictably, the total terrestrial surface will not have increased much, solar panels will still require raw materials and produce pollution, and the second law of thermodynamics will still be in force. :-) Space-based solar power sounds less prone to practical limits and externalities... Stefano Vaj From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Tue May 20 16:25:07 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:25:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Extropian Principles 3.0 Message-ID: 1. practical optimism: nicely put. Ok as it is. My personal experience is: faith in yourself and faith in what you do does the job. I believe that if I do everything right and behave well, it'll reward itself later on. Like hard work brings luck. That is faith, right? No, I'm not religious. I believe we have 6,5 billion gods... 2. self-transformation: besides scientific methods, I'd add Eastern philosophy and martial arts. I do Karate and I must say if you have a good Master you can really evolve. Physical work to evolve the mind. Strange, isn't it? But I can feel the potential of it. And of the thinking that comes with it. It is a harmony between brain and body that results. 3. self-direction: the first probably useful comment here. Self-direction is a really effective method, I've been practicing it without ever knowing what I did (Easterners again). However, it is only effective if one has the proper cognitive abilities. If one is, to put it like that, intelligent enough to grasp the essence. So, intelligence enhancement, no matter how it is done, is a priority if we wish to have a well-working liberal democracy. Aggression to suppress those unwilling to accept the ideals of others is really no good. Violence will give birth to even more violence. But in a world where each citizen understands what they can do and what they cannot only due to their intelligence would be quite right, would it not? Main reason why I put up collective consciousness (which also requires intelligence augmentation). With that, violence could be completely avoided. Thomas From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Tue May 20 16:28:16 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:28:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Extropian principles 3.0 Message-ID: Umm, 'scuse me I never knew that a key combination could send a message. I wanted to write some starter to the previous letter but it was left off. So, I am writing about the ideas that came when reading the text in question. I know there is a newer version, which I will also read (and translate in some time). So this is the title for my previous message:) Thomas From max at maxmore.com Tue May 20 16:33:37 2008 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:33:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Immortality, Absolute and Potential In-Reply-To: <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <147911.3227.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080520163339.MZKZ24153.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> What Lee Corbin said. I would only add two points that I didn't see made. First, even for someone who will live a (potential) infinity of years, the sense of "wasting time" will often be perfectly reasonable for another reason: Many particular events in their specific circumstances will be *unique*. If that person misses any of these events, that would be a real loss (for the events the person cares about). True, it may be possible to simulate those missed events in the future. However, you might be missing other such events while doing so. In addition, the person might care about *actually* experiencing those events and situations, rather than simulations of them. The second point I would make is this: According to the view of personal identity that I favor, one individual can exist over very long periods of time (from a human perspective), even over a potential infinity. At the same time, that individual can undergo enormous change (so long as it is continuous rather than disrupting the essential continuity of self). What interests and matters to an earlier stage of a person may not interest and matter to a later stage of the same person. The person may exist throughout a potential infinity but the person-stage not. That introduces another reason for a potentially infinitely-long lived person to have a sense of urgency and time-wasting. I detailed my view--informed by that of Derek Parfit--of continuity and person-stages here: http://www.maxmore.com/chapter1.htm Max P.S. Last night I wrote a blog piece on the ethics and anti-immortalism of Doctor Who (in the third season). The Doctor is very long lived but not immortal. However, he can travel to any point in time, making it possible to experience events well beyond his life span if confined to the regular timestream. http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/ Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Tue May 20 16:48:19 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:48:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Prudes, Protestants, Progress, and Profit In-Reply-To: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com><1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <36642.12.77.169.44.1211280543.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com><1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <36642.12.77.169.44.1211280543.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: From: "MB" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:49 PM > IIRC both my children also had to read this book for school - so it has > not > completely fallen out of favor. ;) When it is compulsory to read something the true value is missed out, I think (had my own experience with Hungarian stuff :D). Besides, I read the book at the age of 17. And certainly in an age where I began to 'think out of the box'. I'd say this book and Animal Farm got me started... These two are among the basics for over-system global thinking, which is sometimes what I/we need (not every single day but often enough). By the way, who has seen the film? Thomas From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Tue May 20 17:00:57 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 19:00:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670805200743s1137191cj1f1258b734a12ec9@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670805200743s1137191cj1f1258b734a12ec9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: "John Grigg" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:43 PM > This question greatly concerns me. China, whether the U.S. likes it > or not, is going to become a superpower to be reckoned with. A huge > challenge to the U.S. is how to handle this matter wisely. On the one > hand, we could have a massive arms race/cold war, which could waste > untold billions/trillions of dollars and lead to a horrific war, or we > could at least try to peacefully engage the Chinese government and > people, of course all the while maintaining a sufficiently strong > military. And I think for the latter course we need strong military > alliances with Europe, Russia and India, so we don't go it alone. Just why I put up the topic. I was into building a 'training space probe' at school, so to say (Hunveyor project if that rings a bell to anyone) and was told lots of things from highly educated people (after they made their visit to the Lunar Planetary Science Conference). I'd say after hearing the plan of the U.S. to go to the Moon and set up a base some things immediately clicked to place. I'm not an economist but my parents work as entrepreneurs, well, sort-of. So I always get little pieces of information and sometimes I read the stuff available. Conclusion is: world economy is pretty unstable. There is an overproduction. The European Union tries to sell the 'crap' to less advanced countries like us but someday it will have to end. Such a problem would surely lead to war. But there is something else: China will also send their probe to the Moon. The ESA does theoretical jobs as well. Result? Yeah, Space Race. Or I hope it will be a colonization race. This is sort-of sci-fi today but the idea is, to a certain extent comforting. The world is rather bipolar and becoming ever more so. The, say, Western block includes USA, Canada and the European Union (though that Union is still pretty much in the state of infancy) and several others. The Eastern block is mostly China now but I'm sure the Russians would just as soon join their cause if need be. And the Arabs, well, I wouldn't consider them Westerners. Now it is spheres of influence I'm talking about. My questions are: what do you know about the Moon base? Does it have anything to do with 'Moon Base Alpha'? I think I should propose starting a new thread about the matter (Moon, US, immediate future etc.). If you agree, please do so. Thanks M1N3R From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue May 20 17:07:51 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:07:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805200743s1137191cj1f1258b734a12ec9@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670805200743s1137191cj1f1258b734a12ec9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48330567.3020200@insightbb.com> John Grigg Said: > I hope the China's rising generation will be > more open to Western values and principles of civil liberty and not > see us as the "enemy." > > I don't think this will be the big problem everyone is worried about. The very thing that is turning China into a superpower is it's gradual opening to western ideas and influence. By the time China becomes the enormous powerhouse that it could be, it's leadership will be a slave to it's economy and to the buying power of the rest of the world just like the US. We can't even effectively tackle a small backwards country unless there is a significant threat to our ability to buy fast-food at the drive thru. Kevin Freels From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue May 20 17:56:36 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:56:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20080520051123.BWRJ25757.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <4831F4A2.4010409@posthuman.com> <20080520051123.BWRJ25757.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670805201056v3f41d477g4fa60a79fb0ee5ab@mail.gmail.com> What about the supposedly monstrous offshore oil reserves Russia will be privy to when national coastal boundaries are expanded? The U.S. may have to deal with a resurgent Russian superpower (and so China would not be alone on our "future scary superpower" list) based on what I have read about how this will fill to near bursting the coffers of Russia. John Grigg From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue May 20 18:10:10 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:10:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prudes, Protestants, Progress, and Profit In-Reply-To: References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com> <1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <36642.12.77.169.44.1211280543.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <2d6187670805201110h4000acbdl82878b9395ad1656@mail.gmail.com> M1N3R wrote: This might be a little far-fetched, but 1984 came to my mind instantly. There was the love of the party as the sole purpose for all party members. They also avoided having fun of any kind, well they had violence to act against the sexual urge. Yeah, most people will just frown upon such a book but it was most interesting. Have you read it? >>> "our scientists, even now, work to eliminate the orgasm!" Yes, I read it in a highschool class I took on science fiction (the english teacher who taught the class & developed the curriculum had an uphill battle to get the course approved, because it was seen as frivolous). And after reading the book we saw the film that starred Richard Burton and Ian McKellen (which I thought was very good). At least in "Brave New World" they had fun, but probably too much fun, and with the purpose of keeping their minds off their social and technological stagnation. John Grigg From amara at amara.com Tue May 20 20:29:17 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:29:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Kaguya - Terrain Camera captures Apollo 15 landing site Message-ID: From the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). JAXA announced today that Kaguya successfully captured images of Apollo 15 landing site. And they confirmed some remnant of thrusted gas (helo) near the landing point. This is the world's first of discovery of Apollo evidence since the cessation of the mission. * JAXA press release (Japanese, as usual) http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_j.html The image captured on 24 Feb 2008. Also, they released composite 3D images of the landing site using stereo pairs. The images show remarkable coincidence with photographs taken in Apollo 15 mission. Brief explanations of each image.
The stereoscopic view of the Apollo 15 landing site. You can clearly see the meandering Hadley rille in the middle of the photograph.
The topographic map of the landing site (LPI). The red arrow shows the viewing direction of Figure 1.
Magnified view of the image near the landing site. The area surrounded by red lines are considered as the remnant of the halo, the exposed surface after blowing of the thrusted gas.
The difference of the landing site before and after the landing, from the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report. Left one is AS15-87-11719, taken before landing. Right one is AS15-9430, taken from the command module after two circulation of the moon.
The comparison between stereoscopic view composed from Kaguya images (left) and Apollo 15 view (right). As any viewpoint is available from Kaguya TC images, JAXA staff composed the image simulated the view from Apollo 15 landing site. Hills and other topography are remarkably same.
A HDTV image of Apollo 15 landing site.
Close-up view of the Hadley rille. The stacked lava flows are clearly seen. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue May 20 20:35:01 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:35:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <2d6187670805201056v3f41d477g4fa60a79fb0ee5ab@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <4831F4A2.4010409@posthuman.com> <20080520051123.BWRJ25757.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> <2d6187670805201056v3f41d477g4fa60a79fb0ee5ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483335F5.2000301@insightbb.com> John Grigg wrote: > What about the supposedly monstrous offshore oil reserves Russia will > be privy to when national coastal boundaries are expanded? The U.S. > may have to deal with a resurgent Russian superpower (and so China > would not be alone on our "future scary superpower" list) based on > what I have read about how this will fill to near bursting the coffers > of Russia. > > John Grigg > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > Don't worry so much John. It's just war and power. Humanity always seems to find a way to muddle through. Russians with money don't really scare me. They need it and with their history, they deserve a break. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue May 20 21:06:15 2008 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:06:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Next Nature Message-ID: <380-22008522021615368@M2W026.mail2web.com> From: John Grigg >So if I understand correctly, she did not actually kill her cat, >because this was a mockumentary/fake documentary? And so her cat had >actually died of natural causes? I looked at her website but many of >the photo links regarding this were not functional. I got the >impression from her website that she uses edgy artistic endeavors like >this to make statements about how people need to be more aware of >animal cruelty. Katinka Simonse is concerned with "... the issues of contemporary populist movements, including animal rights activism, and their strategies. Hypocrisy within these movements and discourses is the main focus point of her work." This is a good research topic. However, I find that Simonse, like many bioartists, promote their ideology in making broard assumptions and generalizations. But she is not alone in this. Many artists have and continue to find fault with modern sodicety and damn anyone who looks like a consumer. For example, according to Simonse, "[t]he pet is developing from 'man's best friend' into a completely commodified article of consumption and the way in which the animal will fit its (future) urban environment. Hypoallergenic cats and phospholuminescent fish are just some of the tragic examples of this process." I have three animal companison I adore and are my family. Yes, my dog is one of my best friends, and I feel privilged to enjoy such a close and loving relationship. Now, let me say that I think it is vastly important to criticize society and the fact that there is such an imbalance in the world and there is a massive need for solutions to the problems of hunger, disease, war, violence. I'm not sure that the pet consumer actually deserves so much ridicule in light the issues illustrating the bigger global picture. >In some ways this reminds me of the science museum tour of plasticized >human bodies that are put in various everyday poses. On a news >program they discussed how some of the bodies had been obtained from >disreputable sources in China and in life they had been prisoners. http://www.bodyworlds.com/en.html I am very familiar with Von Hagen's amazing "body" of work. And yes, you are right that there may be some question as to how he obtains his dead bodies. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 20 20:40:31 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 20:40:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] peak oil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <695577.65099.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Peak oil has recently gone mainstream - Shell's CEO said that the industry faced severe difficulties if they didn't diversify, which is why they were upping their investments in wind and solar. Peak Oil becomes mainstream according to the Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c9d05aa-25ca-11dd-b510-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=f2b40164-cfea-11dc-9309-0000779fd2ac.html That link mentions that people are concerned that the Saudi Arabian oil either cannot or will not be increased. Checking the wikipedia article it seems some authorities reckon the Saudi oil reserves are grossly overestimated. On the other hand, an article I read in the paper FT on Saturday mentioned that some enterprising researcher checked out the budget projections for OPEC countries and their income from oil - it turns out Iran and Venezuela *need* high oil revenues ($60/barrel plus) to avoid going broke if they don't want to slash their programmes for economic development and poverty relief. Saudi Arabia may not be as short of cash but may see the opportunity to gain cash which they can use to by foreign investments with. (By the way, the wikipedia article for peak oil seems longer, and there seem to be more related articles - obviously people who contribute to wikipedia are taking this seriously too.) Also, Russia may not be able to provide an increase in oil: Russia & Oil http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332313 I think Max mentioned a very important point when he said that he thought politics may be causing the current oil problem. Looking at the areas for expansion, the ongoing trouble in the Niger delta has shut down many oil wells. The hideous mess that is Darfur and Southern Sudan is stopping foreign companies (mostly Chinese) from drilling for oil there. Iraqi insurgency prevents the oil industry from recovering from the damage done by looters following the invasion. There hasn't been sufficient progress in technology for drilling of the arctic ocean and south atlantic (around the Falkland Islands) to be viable. The political issues around the Spratly islands are making some progress, but this area with a reserve larger than Kuwait is still awaiting development until the politics are solved. Unless a mass outbreak of world reasonableness occurs, we may be facing peak oil now, in defiance of how much we could actually be extracting. Of course, "Peak oil" refers to global peak oil production. The US has already had its peak, and currently over 50% of its oil is imported, creating problems for balance of trade and foreign policy issues. The UK and Norway hit their peaks in 2000, so they face increasing imported energy and a hole in their national budgets (especially Norway). I'll post tomorrow about looking at energy in a wider sense, but I'll leave on a few high spots I discovered while trying to find good links: Biotech for biodiesel http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348990&story_id=113165137 Renault-Nissan's plans for electric cars http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1133242 Battery technology for cars http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789409 There's still some hope we can keep vehicles running in a petroleum-scarce future. Tom __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue May 20 21:11:56 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:11:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670805200743s1137191cj1f1258b734a12ec9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48333E9C.2080906@insightbb.com> > Conclusion is: world economy is pretty unstable. It's a stable instability. It has its ups and downs but over the long term the trend has always been upwards. > > There is an overproduction. > The European Union tries to sell the 'crap' to > less advanced countries like us but someday it will have to end. Such a > problem would surely lead to war. Not sure where you get this idea. No country buys more "crap" than the US. Less advanced countries generally stick to necessities. If they truly are less advanced as you indicate, then they don't represent a very profitable market so I doubt anyone manufactures crap with a goal to sell it to you. Expansion of the ability to manufacture crap is a good thing. Not sure why it would end in war. The only way to end the buying of crap from other countries is to manufacture your own ...unless you cease to exist. War just shifts the type of crap t hat is manufactured. > But there is something else: China will > also send their probe to the Moon. The ESA does theoretical jobs as well. > Result? Yeah, Space Race. Or I hope it will be a colonization race. This is > sort-of sci-fi today but the idea is, to a certain extent comforting. > Not sure what the concern is here. Someone needs to go and it really doesn't matter who. > The world is rather bipolar and becoming ever more so. The, say, Western > block includes USA, Canada and the European Union (though that Union is > still pretty much in the state of infancy) and several others. The Eastern > block is mostly China now but I'm sure the Russians would just as soon join > their cause if need be. And the Arabs, well, I wouldn't consider them > Westerners. Now it is spheres of influence I'm talking about. My questions > are: what do you know about the Moon base? Does it have anything to do with > 'Moon Base Alpha'? > You need to take a step back and look at all of humanity as if you are from another planet. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the world being "bi-polar" but I always question people when they make statements that the world is somehow worse off today than it was in the past. Human beings haven't changed much over the last several thousand years. I would be careful putting them into groups such as "arabs". Each country has it's unique heritage and the people inside those borders also are very different from each other. Kuwait is very western like. Cuba is in the "west" and is a communist government. From m1n3r2 at hotmail.com Tue May 20 21:28:42 2008 From: m1n3r2 at hotmail.com (M1N3R) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 23:28:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] English-speaking Google News and Myanmar (Burma) In-Reply-To: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com><2d6187670805200743s1137191cj1f1258b734a12ec9@mail.gmail.com> <48333E9C.2080906@insightbb.com> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><29666bf30805190904v13c2cbe1l166b9e16c817d913@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080519144034.024f2838@satx.rr.com><2d6187670805200743s1137191cj1f1258b734a12ec9@mail.gmail.com> <48333E9C.2080906@insightbb.com> Message-ID: From: "Kevin Freels" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:11 PM >> The European Union tries to sell the 'crap' to >> less advanced countries like us but someday it will have to end. Such a >> problem would surely lead to war. I was pretty unclear here. Sorry. I was talking about more developed members selling stuff to less developed members. Stuff they don't use, don't eat etc. But we still jump at the cheap fruit for example because we might not have money to buy Hungarian stuff. Plus we have not much industry, really. That is sad but true. So we buy the crap and produce none. > Not sure what the concern is here. Someone needs to go and it really > doesn't matter who. It might if a Space Race begins. Such a race would surely make a war unnecessary. Or at least making a violent bloodshed. > but I always question people when they make statements that the world > is somehow worse off today than it was in the past. Human beings haven't > changed much over the last several thousand years. Granted and that is what this list is about, also granted. I did not say anything like that. I'm sorry if there was misunderstanding. Yes, Asimov's Foundation reveals exactly the same. And it is quite interesting to see how circular human history might be. However, living it is not quite fun. There really is no need for another big war (which the war cycle would suggest). There must be some other way. > I would be careful > putting them into groups such as "arabs". Each country has it's unique > heritage and the people inside those borders also are very different > from each other. Kuwait is very western like. Cuba is in the "west" and > is a communist government. I do not wish to put people into categories. The bi-polar world is just a tendency. Spheres of interest etc. I don't agree with forming nation-states either. I truly believe in the European Union and would vote 'yes' for a European super state instantly if given the chance. Preserving ideals and qualities is, I think also as easy or as hard in a united Europe as in separate states. I try to follow the news as much as I can to see whether there is something moving. So, to be exact, I do not wish to see a war-ridden Europe (if there is anything to be stolen from the Good Old Europe), let alone be recruited into an army. I hope these remarks help understanding. M1N3R From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed May 21 00:21:25 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:21:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Reality-based non-hysterical oil YMMV Message-ID: Calm, broad, reality-based, Occam-approved. http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Oil%20Prices%20Prediction.txt Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 20 23:57:23 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Immortality, Absolute and Potential In-Reply-To: <20080520163339.MZKZ24153.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> Message-ID: <673915.93001.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Max More wrote: > What Lee Corbin said. > > I would only add two points that I didn't see made. First, even for > someone who will live a (potential) infinity of years, the sense of > "wasting time" will often be perfectly reasonable for another reason: > Many particular events in their specific circumstances will be > *unique*. If that person misses any of these events, that would be a > real loss (for the events the person cares about). > > True, it may be possible to simulate those missed events in the > future. However, you might be missing other such events while doing > so. In addition, the person might care about *actually* experiencing > those events and situations, rather than simulations of them. Would then you be satisfied with being a prescient mayfly. Doomed to live but 24 hours but knowing everything that would ever happen and never "missing" an event? > The second point I would make is this: According to the view of > personal identity that I favor, one individual can exist over very > long periods of time (from a human perspective), even over a > potential infinity. At the same time, that individual can undergo > enormous change (so long as it is continuous rather than disrupting > the essential continuity of self). What interests and matters to an > earlier stage of a person may not interest and matter to a later > stage of the same person. The person may exist throughout a potential > infinity but the person-stage not. That introduces another reason for > a potentially infinitely-long lived person to have a sense of urgency > and time-wasting. So you think there might be some sort of gradual replacement of identity that may occur in some potentially infinitely long-lived being? Something like V'ger (the Voyager probe) from the first Star Trek movie? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Fear is proof of a degenerate mind [...] Fortune favors the bold [...] Persevere and preserve yourselves for better circumstances [...] Love conquers all."- Virgil From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 21 00:29:21 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:29:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality, Absolute and Potential References: <147911.3227.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><1f6e01c8ba44$085cc8a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1fdb01c8bad9$f9667490$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > Lee wrote (to Stuart) > >> On the face of it, that's an absurd claim! After, what if >> there are now people (who can't possibly know it, of course >> but) who in fact will never die? It's not logically impossible! > > Lee, when someone you recognize as thoughtful and intelligent makes > what appears to an absurd claim, you might consider exploring what > broader or different context they have in mind. Yes, good idea. I did eventually get around to that by suggesting that we were using some words differently, like "waste" for example. On the other hand, sometimes But you'll notice that I did put in the qualifier "On the face of it", so my instincts aren't too bad! :-) We all need to constantly rehearse M. N. Plano's immortal: "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume your opponent is the ignorant one-until you can show it isn't you." the memorization of which should be a requirement for joining this list (just kidding). > Yesterday, I heard someone say "I'm going to get my tires rebalanced, > and it's free at the place where I bought them." I thought to myself > that it's certainly not "free" then, but that it wouldn't serve any > purpose to point it out to this person, who knows what she meant and > is absolutely right. I was also strongly reminded of you -- same > principle, different scale. Well, thanks, I'm glad I'm in your thoughts a lot, LOL. But seriously, I have taken to heart your suggestion that perhaps I ignore context more than I should. I do welcome any such criticism, so long as it says FAR removed from name-calling and personal attack. > But the last time I went, one of the more senior people introduced the > subject of "Operating Thetans" and said that they had unlimited > ability to change things around them. I responded, asking "If they > each have infinite power, then how is that different from each having > no power at all?" Shortly thereafter, this professed "Clear" visibly > lost his cool. Same logical pattern Stuart initially expressed to > you. Weird coincidence. Still, you probably *knew* what she meant just as you assert that you knew what the person meant who said that he or she was going to get a free tire rebalancing. That $scientology type could more charitably have been understood to mean "vast" or "immeasurably great" or something. As a general rule, as you know, we save time and enhance communication by using the Principle of Charity as applied to speech, and attempt to take the most positive or meaningful interpretation that we can of what has been said. Later on in my email to Stuart, I did probe for what he was probably trying to say that I simply wasn't getting. Lee P.S. Your post FYI showed up twice on the list FWIW. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 21 00:36:42 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:36:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prudes, Protestants, Progress, and Profit References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com><1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><36642.12.77.169.44.1211280543.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <1fe101c8badb$60e195e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Ah, once again a carefully phrased subject line---my "Prudes, Protestants, Progress, and Profit"---has been hijacked to talk about something entirely different! I wanted criticism concerning the idea that the West's relative dismissal of fun (i.e. frivolity, playfulness, uninhibited conduct, sexual activity, etc.)---think Amish farmer or Puritan---may correlate with the greater technical progress of the West, and its domination (1600-2012) of the world. Unfortunately, no takers, so far. I would even like criticism of my (somewhat admittedly ignorant) claim that the West truly is this way. In one post I read later, PJ did discourse on Puritanism as an alternative explanation or description of American "hypocracy" (I think that she was right on). Oh, well, if we're going to talk Orwell, I'll just start a thread on that. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "M1N3R" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Prudes, Protestants, Progress, and Profit > From: "MB" > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:49 PM > >> IIRC both my children also had to read this book for school - so it has >> not >> completely fallen out of favor. ;) > > When it is compulsory to read something the true value is missed out, I > think (had my own experience with Hungarian stuff :D). Besides, I read the > book at the age of 17. And certainly in an age where I began to 'think out > of the box'. I'd say this book and Animal Farm got me started... These two > are among the basics for over-system global thinking, which is sometimes > what I/we need (not every single day but often enough). By the way, who has > seen the film? > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 21 00:59:14 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:59:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com><1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><36642.12.77.169.44.1211280543.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <1fe801c8bade$30cb1220$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Thomas had asked if I ever read 1984. Oh, yes, indeed. I did read it---on my own (not in a class), the first time at age thirteen, and then twice more about every three years through high school and college. I read it for the fourth (and so far last) time in 1983. The book certainly warped my 13-year-old brain, and it's not clear that I have entirely recovered :-) "He who controls the present controls the past", opened my eyes to some real possibilities in terms of the way the world actually (sadly) works. And the triple IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY got rationalized by a too-charitable reading just as is so common among the young. I could sort of follow O'Brien's explanations. I'm afraid that I didn't get entirely over believing that "truth was relative", e.g., truth might be whatever the Party says is true (or whatever we find convenient to believe), that is, I didn't get past the dreadful notion that the truth is not something objective, until I was almost 18. Of course now---as it should be for anyone---Orwell's nightmare scenario simply should serve (as does Animal Farm) as a warning against certain horrific tendencies in society, especially prominent since 1917. The doctrine of "Newspeak" and "He who controls the present controls the past" can be seen in evidence all around us. For example: Even though I am a devout, practicing, orthodox, and upstanding atheist, I go ballistic whenever I see someone trying to drop "B.C." down the memory-hole so that we can replace it with "B.C.E.". This is the totalitarian tendency at work, to not only repudiate outworn concepts such as God (which of course I agree with) but to DESTROY EVERY LAST VESTIGE OF OLDSPEAK, and erase anything that might even incidentally remind people of "incorrect" thinking. For so many, It is not enough to deny God and to repudiate religion and to completely reject such mysticism and prescientific thinking. Oh no, they *must* go for much more: the Politically Correct instinct demands that every trace of "incorrect thought" be obliterated, and that absolutely no reminder whatsoever of any older way of thinking be allowed to endure. He who controls the present does *not* control the past, not really! Not if you have any real regard for the truth. Lee > MB wrote > >> IIRC both my children also had to read this book for school - so it has >> not >> completely fallen out of favor. ;) > > When it is compulsory to read something the true value is missed out, I > think (had my own experience with Hungarian stuff :D). Besides, I read the > book at the age of 17. And certainly in an age where I began to 'think out > of the box'. I'd say this book and Animal Farm got me started... These two > are among the basics for over-system global thinking, which is sometimes > what I/we need (not every single day but often enough). By the way, who has > seen the film? > > Thomas From kanzure at gmail.com Wed May 21 01:11:08 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 20:11:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Extropian Principles 3.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805202011.08987.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 20 May 2008, M1N3R wrote: > 3. self-direction: the first probably useful comment here. > Self-direction is a really effective method, I've been practicing it > without ever knowing what I did (Easterners again). However, it is > only effective if one has the proper cognitive abilities. If one is, Who is to say what Proper is? > to put it like that, intelligent enough to grasp the essence. So, > intelligence enhancement, no matter how it is done, is a priority if > we wish to have a well-working liberal democracy. Aggression to This sounds like something more for wta-talk than extropy-chat since self-direction is ultimately about the self, and to a lesser extent the direction of society, which we can of course influence via selfhood. > suppress those unwilling to accept the ideals of others is really no > good. Violence will give birth to even more violence. But in a world > where each citizen understands what they can do and what they cannot > only due to their intelligence would be quite right, would it not? What? Citizenship? Can/cannot do - this isn't determined by politics. > Main reason why I put up collective consciousness (which also > requires intelligence augmentation). With that, violence could be > completely avoided. Not as long as you have scarcity memes running around. You'll still try to fight over the land etc., but in truth there is quite a lot of surface area if only you look upwards towards the other +99.9999% of the local galaxy. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 21 01:11:52 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:11:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality, Absolute and Potential References: <673915.93001.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1fec01c8badf$a9b31ba0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart asks Max one good question: > Max wrote > >> The second point I would make is this: According to the view of >> personal identity that I favor, one individual can exist over very >> long periods of time (from a human perspective), even over a >> potential infinity. At the same time, that individual can undergo >> enormous change (so long as it is continuous rather than disrupting >> the essential continuity of self). What interests and matters to an >> earlier stage of a person may not interest and matter to a later >> stage of the same person. The person may exist throughout a potential >> infinity but the person-stage not. That introduces another reason for >> a potentially infinitely-long lived person to have a sense of urgency >> and time-wasting. > > So you think there might be some sort of gradual replacement of > identity that may occur in some potentially infinitely long-lived being? I'd like to see Max's take on that too! And here is my objection that separates me from Ralph Merkle and so very, very many people (as testified to by recent discussions of PI here). Namely, about the "enormous change" that you speak of above---is there no limit to it before we must conclude that the original person has failed to be immortal, i.e., that the original person is "dead"? My proof is simple: suppose that over many eons you gradually adopt all the beliefs that Steven Pinker has, and incidentally also changes in your values and habits cause them to become identical to Pinker's. Were these transformation to continue---you may assume some catastrophes to help it along---to the ultimate point that you become physically identical with Steven Pinker, then isn't Max More dead, and aren't there two Steven Pinkers? So mustn't we conclude that too much change can be dangerous? Lee From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed May 21 01:26:54 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:26:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com><2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com><4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com><4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com><1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><36642.12.77.169.44.1211280543.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <1fe801c8bade$30cb1220$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <002601c8bae1$c16b1ed0$6601a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "Lee Corbin" > Even though I am a devout, practicing, orthodox, and > upstanding atheist, I go ballistic whenever I see > someone trying to drop "B.C." down the memory-hole > so that we can replace it with "B.C.E.". This is the > totalitarian tendency at work, to not only repudiate > outworn concepts such as God (which of course I > agree with) but to DESTROY EVERY LAST > VESTIGE OF OLDSPEAK, and erase anything > that might even incidentally remind people of > "incorrect" thinking. Really ... you go ballistic? Because you want to keep "Anno Domini?" And you expect people like Jews and Muslims and atheists to like using that designation? I don't understand. I've noticed some museums have started using BCE and CE to date their displays. I think that's wonderful and modern and inclusive. So, you think museums in China should use "in the Year of our Lord?" Some Oldspeak is simply that ... old and irrelevant and oh-so-tribalistic. Olga From spike66 at att.net Tue May 20 15:10:23 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 08:10:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings In-Reply-To: <002601c8bae1$c16b1ed0$6601a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <200805210310.m4L39iAe005740@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Olga Bourlin > Subject: Re: [ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings > > From: "Lee Corbin" > > > Even though I am a devout, practicing, orthodox, and upstanding > > atheist, I go ballistic whenever I see someone trying to > drop "B.C." > > down the memory-hole so that we can replace it with > "B.C.E.". ... > > Really ... you go ballistic? Because you want to keep "Anno > Domini?" ... Olga I would recommend BP (Before Present) to be used for long term retrodating and BPC for Before Present Calendar in place of BC, and CE for less than 2008 BP. A lot of us have hardwired into our brains the whole BC concept, but we can relearn. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 21 03:30:14 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 22:30:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings In-Reply-To: <1fe801c8bade$30cb1220$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20080518050056.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <2d6187670805180841v4e117e4as8ce6033735e50704@mail.gmail.com> <4830C986.6070506@insightbb.com> <4831A08D.7090104@insightbb.com> <1f2401c8ba1c$0da16230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <36642.12.77.169.44.1211280543.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <1fe801c8bade$30cb1220$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080520222316.023601a8@satx.rr.com> At 05:59 PM 5/20/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >For so many, It is not enough to deny God and to >repudiate religion and to completely reject such >mysticism and prescientific thinking. Oh no, they >*must* go for much more: the Politically Correct >instinct demands that every trace of "incorrect thought" >be obliterated My sense of this is that many Jewish scholars (who are, as we know, hugely more influential than their numbers might suggest, and who are not notorious for denying God) recommended BCE [before common era] because AD and BC are so palpably partisan, even if only as a fossilized metaphor. Fair enough, I say. Oh, wait. Wikipedia says otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era [8] Common Era notation has been adopted in several non-Christian cultures, by many scholars in religious studies and other academic fields,[9][10] and by others wishing to be sensitive to non-Christians.[11] > Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 21 03:30:32 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 20:30:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org><4831F4A2.4010409@posthuman.com><20080520051123.BWRJ25757.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com><2d6187670805201056v3f41d477g4fa60a79fb0ee5ab@mail.gmail.com> <483335F5.2000301@insightbb.com> Message-ID: <202c01c8baf3$4d1992c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Kevin writes > John Grigg wrote: > >> What about the supposedly monstrous offshore oil reserves Russia will >> be privy to when national coastal boundaries are expanded? The U.S. >> may have to deal with a resurgent Russian superpower...this will fill to >> near bursting the coffers of Russia. Oh yes. The Russians are back to their very big and very imposing military parades for May Day. All it took was enough oil money, and they're back to their big scary bad selves. The book "The Bottom Billion" (highly recommended by almost everybody) describes how mineral wealth hurts nations in the long run. Today the Arab petrostates are the prime example. Their economies (along with that of Venezuela) are noticeable retarded *because* of oil wealth. Paul Collier makes the argument impeccably. I wonder if it's really so different from Spain's mineral wealth in the 16th and 17th centuries. Mining mineral wealth doesn't seem to count for the kind of *real* wealth creation that ultimately benefits nations. > Don't worry so much John. It's just war and power. > Humanity always seems to find a way to muddle through. > Russians with money don't really scare me. They need it > and with their history, they deserve a break. I agree that it's always war and power. (I've been reading the history of Catherine the Great and her contemporaries in Jay Winik's absolutely fabulous book "The Great Upheaval" http://www.amazon.com/Great-Upheaval-America-Modern-1788-1800/dp/0060083131 That'll dispel any lingering idealism one has about great power behavior. No, the Russians are *not* getting a break. Quite the reverse. Their vast oil wealth is only making them more corrupt, making them more miserable in the long run, retarding their economy, and, if all that wasn't bad enough, turning them back into a frightening menace. I hope you all don't get to see what Russia or China will do as the world's sole superpower. Then you'll long for the good old days of intolerable U.S. domination. Lee From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed May 21 03:22:25 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 20:22:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings References: <200805210310.m4L39iAe005740@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001201c8baf1$e449ddf0$6601a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" > I would recommend BP (Before Present) to be used for long term retrodating > and BPC for Before Present Calendar in place of BC, and CE for less than > 2008 BP. A lot of us have hardwired into our brains the whole BC concept, > but we can relearn. ... anything but "Anno Domini" ... aiiiiiiiiii! :) Olga From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 21 04:03:31 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 21:03:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings References: <200805210310.m4L39iAe005740@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <202d01c8baf8$38956630$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Olga and Spike write > Olga wrote > > > [you like A.D.] Because you want to keep > > "Anno Domini?" A label is a *label*. It need not constantly remind everyone of anything. A convention is merely a *convention*. There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, for such changes. No, I do not think of "Anno Domini" every time I see "A.D." and I hope that for your sake you don't either, and I don't want to use that Latin anyway. It has become meaningless, except for the ideological pure. Remember the impulse of the Acad?mie Fran?aise intent on keeping out foreign words out of France? Well, all through history sensible groups have not been resistant to adopting foreign conventions when they served a *real*, as opposed to symbolic, purpose. The important thing is to not let idiotic conventions get political! Then---you see---all the Christians will be going for "A.D." and "B.C.", and so we will just *have* to go with the opposite, since every darned date will carry a political message. Big wasted struggle over what is really nothing. Labels are not tha