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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080430/a77d75c6/attachment.html 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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080501/2ba79056/attachment.html 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: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3753 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080502/ae395476/attachment.bin 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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080502/4df66def/attachment.html 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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080502/04a2d40b/attachment.html 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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080502/852754dd/attachment.html 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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080502/f0c49adf/attachment.html 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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080503/2c1d19e3/attachment.html 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