From scerir at libero.it Sun Nov 1 07:10:46 2009 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 08:10:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] R: syllogistic units and other stuff Message-ID: <23897388.1609671257059446952.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> > Seriously though, what do you all think? Not sure I understand, but it seems to be a "relational" approach. Try, i.e., Rovelli here http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3832 s. "Indeed, for me the most important idea behind the developments of twentieth- century physics and cosmology is that things don't have intrinsic properties at the fundamental level; all properties are about relations between things. This idea is the basic idea behind Einstein's general theory of relativity, but it has a longer history; it goes back at least to the seventeenth-century philosopher Leibniz, who opposed Newton's ideas of space and time because Newton took space and time to exist absolutely, while Leibniz wanted to understand them as arising only as aspects of the relations among things. For me, this fight between those who want the world to be made out of absolute entities and those who want it to be made only out of relations is a key theme in the story of the development of modern physics. Moreover, I'm partial. I think Leibniz and the relationalists were right, and that what's happening now in science can be understood as their triumph." -Lee Smolin From spike66 at att.net Sun Nov 1 21:10:35 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:10:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] check this, extro friends Message-ID: <9FE467CC27BF41958464C070DDA92A6E@spike> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-rel-scientology-woe s,0,2365596.story -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 2 06:07:42 2009 From: alaneugenebrooks52 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 22:07:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] how to counteract Larry Johnson Message-ID: <913834.5859.qm@web46103.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Got to keep it simple for a simple public; they only know what they hear on TV, and so forth. So you ask, "if Johnson's allegations concerning Alcor have merit, then why did he wait six years-- why did he wait until the time his book was published-- to air them? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 3 04:46:53 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:46:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] gene patent challenge Message-ID: <4B40D2F5E5CF4D579583CF4DF38ABE9E@spike> Hey some of you cluemeisters here, check this out and tell me who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and why. Do explain your reasoning assuming moderate intelligence but little specific background in the field if possible: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/genes/ Thanks, spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 3 05:07:57 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:07:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] roaches again Message-ID: Mitochondria have their own DNA. This has led me to speculate that way back in the old days when life was all single cell, the mitochondria were a separate species that infiltrated some larger cells. The two species somehow formed a mutually beneficial relationship with the mitochondria losing their defensive and motor mechanisms. The larger cells feed the mitochondria sugars, they metabolize it into ATP and give it back, together they made supercells, which were eventually able to join with other supercells to form really cool lifeforms. I need to study up on this; it might already be well understood. This commentary on roaches' relationship with their internal blattabacteria reminded me of that line of thinking. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/cockroach-recycling/ Most of the time when we think of animals, we imagine mammals, but when you really look, you realize that mammals are all pretty much the same thing. If you dissect any number of different examples, you find pretty much analogous organs in pretty analogous places. It doesn't require a dozen different degrees to be a veteranarian. Bugs are sooo cool. They seem to have so much more diversity. To bugs we must all look pretty much alike. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Nov 3 05:55:40 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:55:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] roaches again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AEFC5DC.80204@satx.rr.com> On 11/2/2009 11:07 PM, spike wrote: > Mitochondria have their own DNA. This has led me to speculate that way > back in the old days when life was all single cell, the mitochondria > were a separate species that infiltrated some larger cells. ... I need to > study up on this; it might already be well understood. A clever insight, and congratilations! But no cigar: see Lynn Margulis (of whom Carl Sagan was once the spouse), circa 40 years ago. Wiki: Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 11:11:49 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:11:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? Message-ID: The computer engineer who thinks we're doomed Quotes: Essentially, he believes that technology is the direct cause of job losses that will never return. In fact, his fear is that even in those industries that are currently still labor intensive, job losses are inevitable. Which just might mean that there will be vast numbers of people all over the world who will have no money to spend at Zara. Not even at Old Navy. Naturally, Ford has found himself in a spirited debate with economists who seem to think his arguments border on loonism. A chap named Robin Hanson seems rather hurt that Ford isn't in the thrall of economists' thinking--you know, the optimistic stuff about how technology will always produce more jobs and more wealth because we humans are, well, so clever. End quotes ----------------------- It is worth pointing out that as at June 2009 over 35 million Americans were receiving food stamps, on a dramatically upwards pointing trend line. (That's more than the whole population of Canada). And overall there has been no increase in the number of US jobs in the last ten years. So economic theory hasn't done terribly well recently. At least in Euroland we have the welfare state, so actual starvation and disease can be held at bay. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 11:41:38 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:41:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/3 BillK > The computer engineer who thinks we're doomed > > > > Quotes: > Essentially, he believes that technology is the direct cause of job > losses that will never return. > Haven't we heard this very same song since the first industrial revolution? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 3 12:16:07 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:16:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 12:41:38PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2009/11/3 BillK > > > The computer engineer who thinks we're doomed > > > > > > > > Quotes: > > Essentially, he believes that technology is the direct cause of job > > losses that will never return. > > > > Haven't we heard this very same song since the first industrial revolution? You do not seem to like the melody. I agree it's harsh and grating, but unfortunately it's also true. There are not enough paying jobs around people can do. Meaning, either they can't do it, or they can't get paid doing it. The result is the same. There's some heavy cosmetics being applied to somewhat camouflage the problem, but it's pretty obvious if you look a bit closely. There's considerable mayhem brewing if we can't resolve that conflict in the coming 10 to 20 years. That Ford dude is only voicing what many people think in private. (Of course there are arguably bigger problems ahead, some of which like peak resource and overshoot are somewhat causally related to above, but much more dangerous). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 12:49:54 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:49:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/3 Eugen Leitl > You do not seem to like the melody. I agree it's harsh and grating, but > unfortunately it's also true. > Mmhhh, technology has been evolving for quite a long time now. I do not see a very obvious trend where "unemployment" has been steadily and permanently growing alongside, in proportion to local and historical technological advances. Of course, the way we currently employ our time could have looked pretty weird to our remote predecessors. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 3 13:08:01 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:08:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091103130801.GD17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:49:54PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Mmhhh, technology has been evolving for quite a long time now. That statement, while true, is not very interesting. > I do not see a very obvious trend where "unemployment" has been steadily and You do not see much change between ~1960 and ~2010, in Europe/North America? > permanently growing alongside, in proportion to local and historical > technological advances. > Of course, the way we currently employ our time could have looked pretty > weird to our remote predecessors. No need to invoke the remote past. Reshovelling of high-skill jobs into low-skill service serf economy and the rise of precariate looks pretty weird to me. Something needs to be done about this, and fast. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sparge at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 13:44:42 2009 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:44:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] gene patent challenge In-Reply-To: <4B40D2F5E5CF4D579583CF4DF38ABE9E@spike> References: <4B40D2F5E5CF4D579583CF4DF38ABE9E@spike> Message-ID: 2009/11/2 spike : > Hey some of you cluemeisters here, check this out and tell me who?are the > good guys and who are the bad guys and why.? Do explain your reasoning > assuming moderate intelligence but little specific background in the field > if possible: > > http://www.wired..com/threatlevel/2009/11/genes/ Don't know that I qualify as a cluemeister, but I'll take a shot. Here's the gist of it: "According to the plaintiffs ? dozens of patients and researchers ? the genes cannot be patented because they exist as naturally occurring products of nature. The suit claims Myriad did not invent, create or in any way construct or engineer the genes. Rather, Myriad located them in nature and described their information content as it exists and functions in nature, the suit claims. In defense, Myriad argued that, among other things, the lawsuit should be tossed because the plaintiffs have no legal standing to bring the case, even though they were ?ready. willing and able to infringe.? Myriad also argued that there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs? claims. The judge disagreed in an 85-page filing." I find the notion of patenting genes to be absurd and think it will seriously hamper research. Imagine if explorers had been able to patent their discoveries and prevent others from making and selling maps. What if Priestly had patented oxygen? Patents should be restricted to inventions, not discoveries. -Dave From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 14:11:31 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:11:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091103130801.GD17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103130801.GD17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20911030611u19cb95d5v80f45de4bc147af2@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/3 Eugen Leitl > You do not see much change between ~1960 and ~2010, in Europe/North > America? > Do I see an obvious and regular correlation, from, say, 860 or 1860 and 2010 AD, between the degree of technological development of a given world region and age and "unemployment", however defined? No. I may be less sure within the constraints that you dictate, but of course if one selects one's sample and extrapolate what he has been looking for in the first place, I assume that everything can be demostrated. Moreover, on the same basis it could be argued that unemployment has grown along with the diffusion of English as a second language in the area and period concerned... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 3 14:16:51 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:16:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911030611u19cb95d5v80f45de4bc147af2@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103130801.GD17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030611u19cb95d5v80f45de4bc147af2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091103141651.GI17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 03:11:31PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2009/11/3 Eugen Leitl > > > You do not see much change between ~1960 and ~2010, in Europe/North > > America? > > > > Do I see an obvious and regular correlation, from, say, 860 or 1860 and 2010 > AD, between the degree of technological development of a given world region > and age and "unemployment", however defined? No. I see that you're deliberately ignoring the points I was making, so I don't think we're going anyway in this discussion. > I may be less sure within the constraints that you dictate, but of course if > one selects one's sample and extrapolate what he has been looking for in the > first place, I assume that everything can be demostrated. Moreover, on the > same basis it could be argued that unemployment has grown along with the > diffusion of English as a second language in the area and period > concerned... :-) I don't have time for this. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 3 14:21:09 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:21:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com><20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ....On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj .... Of course, the way we currently employ our time could have looked pretty weird to our remote predecessors... Stefano Vaj I once worked at an environmental test lab. We interviewed (and hired) a mechanical design engineer who had retired early in 1976, started a country store and a wilderness tour company. Both eventually failed, so he came back into the engineering world in 1985 to try to earn some actual money. In his interview he commented, "I don't understand this. Where are all the drawing boards? All these guys, and no one is actually working! They are all sitting around pecking on these little plastic typewriters!" {8^D spike From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 3 12:15:44 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Sockpuppet99@hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:15:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, and it's been true every time. There's not much call these days for handloom weavers, or for people to cut the nap on fustian cloth with giant shears. Tom D Sent from my iPod On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:41 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2009/11/3 BillK > The computer engineer who thinks we're doomed > > > > Quotes: > Essentially, he believes that technology is the direct cause of job > losses that will never return. > > Haven't we heard this very same song since the first industrial > revolution? > > -- > Stefano Vaj > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 3 15:00:15 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:00:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 06:21:09AM -0800, spike wrote: > I once worked at an environmental test lab. We interviewed (and hired) a > mechanical design engineer who had retired early in 1976, started a country > store and a wilderness tour company. Both eventually failed, so he came > back into the engineering world in 1985 to try to earn some actual money. Thanks for providing the keyword. Engineering. Noble profession, that. How many job openings in the US are left in engineering (and I mean real engineering, not inflationary-engineering like networking engineer or software engineer)? I mean, assuming the young person has the right equipment between the ears, and graduates with a good enough GPA, what are his chances to actually find a job in his field of study, e.g. rocket surgery? The young people with the right eqipment between the ears are of course quite aware of that, if you look at the statistics. The unemployment rate in the US (Europe and elsewhere is not that different or worse) is pretty close to 20%. If you look at the shift in quality from around 1970, or so, you'll see it's make-pretend work in low-skill minimal wage service serf sector. These people are not happy, strangely enough. I mean, we can pretend that nothing serious is happening, and tune the statistics until they shine, but we're not fooling anybody. Not on the long run, no-how. > In his interview he commented, "I don't understand this. Where are all the > drawing boards? All these guys, and no one is actually working! They are > all sitting around pecking on these little plastic typewriters!" -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 15:15:20 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:15:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/3 Eugen Leitl > How many job openings in the US are left in engineering (and I mean real > engineering, not inflationary-engineering like networking engineer or > software engineer)? Sorry if I am pestering you, but I think it is at least equally plausible to see things the other way around. Engineering is declining in Europe because cultural values dictate that you should be instead a banker, a lawyer or a consultant. And the view is widespread that a society can live perfectly well by simply selling financial and commercial services to one another. As a consequence, economy (and technological innovation!) slow down. This in turn creates unemployment. And ultimately poverty, for that matter. Not that this makes any easier to find a good butler or lute-maker, eg, even though in such jobs technology remains largely irrelevant. -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 3 15:24:13 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:24:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <9BD24A1DA9604E2DB34BB78FFBE24B6D@spike> > ...On Behalf Of > Eugen Leitl > ... > > Thanks for providing the keyword. Engineering. Noble profession, that. > > How many job openings in the US are left in engineering (and > I mean real engineering, not inflationary-engineering like > networking engineer or software engineer)?...Eugen I have some insights into that question, but not now, for I must flee to my job, which comes to an end this Friday, after 26 years with the company. Involuntary retirement at age 49. A number of us are in the same situation. spike From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 3 16:19:12 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:19:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 04:15:20PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Sorry if I am pestering you, but I think it is at least equally > plausible to see things the other way around. Engineering is declining > in Europe because cultural values dictate that you should be instead a > banker, a lawyer or a consultant. The distinct problem I have that smart people are moving to these professions (because of the value society puts into them, measured in terms of hard cash) that they're a symptom of an overregulated, mature, bureaucratic society. You no longer create stuff, but squabble over allocation and distribution of existing stuff. Zero-sum, not positive-sum. Hence the need for conflict resolution, arbitration, mock-property, claim and pretend-wealth management (alas, the knowledge nor money doesn't like to work very hard). > And the view is widespread that a society can live perfectly well by > simply selling financial and commercial services to one another. Well, we're seeing where such views have taken us. And it sure ain't pretty. > As a consequence, economy (and technological innovation!) slow down. > This in turn creates unemployment. And ultimately poverty, for that Worse, it creates static, brittle societies which are unable to deal with change. Coming just at the time where the need for adaptation and change is highest, as we're running into limits of resources without having achieved escape velocity yet. That is a recipe for failure, not survival. At least, for established old, I'm hoping the emerging new ones will do better, by necessity alone. > matter. Not that this makes any easier to find a good butler or > lute-maker, eg, even though in such jobs technology remains largely > irrelevant. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 16:19:23 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:19:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11/3/09, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The unemployment rate in the US (Europe and elsewhere is not that > different or worse) is pretty close to 20%. If you look at the shift > in quality from around 1970, or so, you'll see it's make-pretend > work in low-skill minimal wage service serf sector. These people are not > happy, strangely enough. > > I mean, we can pretend that nothing serious is happening, and tune > the statistics until they shine, but we're not fooling anybody. Not > on the long run, no-how. > > Ah ha! I see Eugen understands what is going on. The official unemployment figures are massaged to meaninglessness by the politicians. That's why I quoted the food stamps figures. So far as I can tell these figures are just straight totals and are not adjusted for public consumption. Even GDP stats nowadays are mostly useless. Recovery??? That's a joke - except for bankers' bonuses. Also, many people 'officially' employed are on short time and have very low take-home pay. Thus they become eligible for food stamps, which shoots upwards. It is not only computer tech that is the problem. Production has been outsourced to China and the Far East. India provides helpdesks and call-centres, cars come from Japan, etc. etc. The first world jobs are in government or the remaining services that are not yet transferred abroad. In some areas of the UK, half the population is employed by the national or local government or the national health service. They provide services to the other half who are on unemployment benefit or permanent disability benefit. Is this the wonderful future we anticipate? BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Nov 3 16:23:10 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:23:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF058EE.5010203@libero.it> BillK ha scritto: > The computer engineer who thinks we're doomed > > Maybe he is a computer engineer, but it is economically illiterate. Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage is valid and will stay. > It is worth pointing out that as at June 2009 over 35 million > Americans were receiving food stamps, on a dramatically upwards > pointing trend line. Ask "Why"? Technology is not the right answer. Welfare is. Politics is. Taxes are a way to prevent Ricardo Law to work. Regulations usually have the same effect. If A and B are persons with different jobs and they are specialized, they perform better in their own job than in the other's job. So, if A have a need that can be satisfied by B, it is rational that A hire B to do it from him instead of do it himself. Say A is able to do A1 job with 99% efficiency and B1 job with 50% efficiency. The reverse is true for B (B1 is 99% efficient and A1 is 50% efficient). A is better to work an hour and pay B for an hour of work for the B1 job and the reverse is true. Both gain from collaboration. This is without taxes. Then arrive the government and ask, at gunpoint, both people 25% of their income. Now A and B are only 75% efficient in their specialization (when working for others). A and B need to work 33% more to earn the same as before (this could be worth to do or not, but it is another problem). Now in an hour A earn enough to pay B only for 45 minutes of work, so it need to work for 40 minutes instead of 30 to pay B. His comparative advantage to hire B is gone from 50% to 33% (and B is making less than before, as he only earn 75 and not 100 for an hour of work). Move this to 33% taxation, so people need to work 50% more to earn the same and A have no more advantages to hire B as their productivity become the same. Byproduct is lower wages for all and lower tax stream for the government and lower economical development, as people is forced to work in a less efficient way. > (That's more than the whole population of > Canada). More than 1000 times the population of San Marino. So? > And overall there has been no increase in the number of US > jobs in the last ten years. So economic theory hasn't done terribly > well recently. How much economic theory do you understand? And what? Higher taxes and costs = lower employment and lower efficiency of the economy. Higher subsides to unemployed = higher number of people that prefer to stay on the dole than working (legally). > At least in Euroland we have the welfare state, so actual starvation > and disease can be held at bay. Don't appear that the US is doing much different from Europe. And the welfare state of the former communists block didn't work well enough, anyway. Economic development lagged more here than in the US in the last decades. Now immigration and unfunded pension schemes and government debts are so large that what is need is only a crisis to cause a real economic/political collapse (Argentina like). Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.698 / Database dei virus: 270.14.47/2478 - Data di rilascio: 11/03/09 08:36:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Nov 3 16:48:31 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:48:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AF05EDF.7060504@libero.it> Stefano Vaj ha scritto: > 2009/11/3 Eugen Leitl >> How many job openings in the US are left in engineering (and I mean real >> engineering, not inflationary-engineering like networking engineer or >> software engineer)? > Sorry if I am pestering you, but I think it is at least equally > plausible to see things the other way around. Engineering is declining > in Europe because cultural values dictate that you should be instead a > banker, a lawyer or a consultant. Not exactly cultural values, but the social reality make the lawyers, the accountants, the consultants, the financial manager jobs more profitable than engineering and medical degrees and other technical / scientific professions. How many engineers go working in Brazil, China, India and other places from Europe and North America? > And the view is widespread that a society can live perfectly well by > simply selling financial and commercial services to one another. It is not that they see it as a sustainable system, it is that they see it as the current best system to earn money and not be ripped-off. > As a consequence, economy (and technological innovation!) slow down. > This in turn creates unemployment. And ultimately poverty, for that > matter. Not that this makes any easier to find a good butler or > lute-maker, eg, even though in such jobs technology remains largely > irrelevant. These jobs are victims of the state run schools and regulations, that are only able to produce dumbed down drones sometimes useful as workforce in a primitive industrial society. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.698 / Database dei virus: 270.14.47/2478 - Data di rilascio: 11/03/09 08:36:00 From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 17:01:01 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:01:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20911030901j69a75f4ax631128e720a59d5e@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/3 Eugen Leitl : > Well, we're seeing where such views have taken us. And it sure ain't pretty. Absolutely. > Worse, it creates static, brittle societies which are unable to deal > with change. Coming just at the time where the need for adaptation and > change is highest, as we're running into limits of resources without > having achieved escape velocity yet. > > That is a recipe for failure, not survival. At least, for established > old, I'm hoping the emerging new ones will do better, by necessity alone. Well said. We are not really on a different page on all that. What I challenged is the idea that technological development creates unemployment. I rather suspect that the same mechanisms that create unemployment slow down technological development as well, if anything. -- Stefano Vaj From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Nov 3 17:28:09 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:28:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4AF06829.3010901@libero.it> BillK ha scritto: > On 11/3/09, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Ah ha! I see Eugen understands what is going on. > > The official unemployment figures are massaged to meaninglessness by > the politicians. That's why I quoted the food stamps figures. So far > as I can tell these figures are just straight totals and are not > adjusted for public consumption. > Even GDP stats nowadays are mostly useless. Recovery??? That's a joke > - except for bankers' bonuses. > > Also, many people 'officially' employed are on short time and have > very low take-home pay. Thus they become eligible for food stamps, > which shoots upwards. > > It is not only computer tech that is the problem. Production has been > outsourced to China and the Far East. India provides helpdesks and > call-centres, cars come from Japan, etc. etc. The first world jobs are > in government or the remaining services that are not yet transferred > abroad. > > In some areas of the UK, half the population is employed by the > national or local government or the national health service. They > provide services to the other half who are on unemployment benefit or > permanent disability benefit. > > Is this the wonderful future we anticipate? You didn't, but it is not a surprise. Solutions? Permanent disability benefits are a way to buy votes. Often they are given fraudulently. Government jobs are a way to buy votes. Often they use near all the budget to pay for the employees and there is no money to let them do their intended jobs. I bet that the areas where government jobs are larger are the areas where economic development lag or is negative. More government jobs make harder to produce real jobs because the government jobs need to be funded by taxes paid by real jobs. So, marginally employable people is put out of real jobs by high taxes and government step in for "help" them with doles or fake jobs that raise the tax burden for others and put other workers out of their jobs. Lowering taxes is the best way to create jobs. In the same way, pegging the currency to a commodity (like gold) would prevent money creation and the stealth stealing of value from people living from their wages and without hard assets like real estate. This would force interest rates much higher than now, forcing people and government to spend less and reduce lending. But would prevent bubbles and malinvestment (allocation of resources in only apparently remunerative projects). It would kill many financial jobs in the same time, as these can exist only with near zero interests rates artificially low. But I bet these solutions will not like you. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.698 / Database dei virus: 270.14.47/2478 - Data di rilascio: 11/03/09 08:36:00 From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 17:34:41 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] gene patent challenge In-Reply-To: <4B40D2F5E5CF4D579583CF4DF38ABE9E@spike> References: <4B40D2F5E5CF4D579583CF4DF38ABE9E@spike> Message-ID: <580930c20911030934v1079c402vbec50d74670e181d@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/3 spike : > Hey some of you cluemeisters here, check this out and tell me who?are the > good guys and who are the bad guys and why. > > http://www.wired..com/threatlevel/2009/11/genes/ I think the decision is mainly concerned with US legal technicalities, such as the costitutional relevance of gene patenting, which are rather immaterial to the broader discussion on who is the good guy and the bad guy from our POV. The question, which is not made IMHO for a very clear-cut answer is the following: Intellectual property is a prince-granted temporary monopoly invented in order to reward a private party for a) paying a small tax (which in the meantime has become irrelevant both for the inventor and for the prince) b) investing the money necessary for R&D rather than playing the free-rider game, thus unraveling the economic feasibility of R&D in the first place c) disclosing one's invention instead of (when possible) protect it with the alternative strategy of "industrial secret", so that at the end of the monopoly period everybody can profit from it, and inventions become a part of the "state of the art", suffering a lesser risk of going "lost" for an unpredictable time. The problem of course is that a) monopolies in free-market regimes suffer the notorious related marked efficiency losses; b) the existence of a valid and effective patent may prevent other player from improving on the tech concerned (dissuasion of "inventing over"); c) the same people may be induced to reallocate their R&D effort to equivalent or inferior solutions, simply because they are not protected (encoragement of "inventing around"), rather than in really innovative techs; d) patents may be sought, obtained or purchased simply for the purpose of *barring* the adoption of a technology, or of drawing parasitic revenues from it at the expense of the system. Moreover, patents protect inventions which have been the ultimate fruit of collective, sometimes innumerable efforts and pre-requisites, and mainly reward the capitalists who find themselves in the position to profit from the IP system. This concerns the pros and cons of the IP system per se, which is just a tool, not some kind of nature-mandated obviousness. For instance, communist countries have adopted for decades the alternative and equally plausibile system of "inventor's prize" (not sure the expression in English is the same). But the gene patents add a supplementary, specific issue which is purely internal to the latter in its present form. The traditional doctrine, much weakened by the US trend of granting patents also for apple pie recipes in the last decades, is that in fact what can exclusively be patented is an *industrial* invention. If something is not industrial, but, e.g., theoretical, commercial, artistic, etc., it should not be patentable. If something is not an invention (as in "technology"), but is a discovery (as in "science" or "technique"), it should not be patentable, nor the employment of the related knowledge can be monopolised. Now, a DNA based nanobot surely qualifies for patentability. It has been argued that genes which already exist in nature, and are simply identified, described and studied in their possible expression(s) and correlation with the remaining (epi)genetic scenario, would not. Personally, even though I am deeply concerned by the underfinancing of bio research which have no immediate military or safety dividends, I am inclined to share the mistrust towards the facile granting of bio patents in this area... -- Stefano Vaj From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Nov 3 19:51:13 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:51:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Believers In Equality Bigger Impulsive Shoppers (ParaPundit) Message-ID: <4AF089B1.5030902@libero.it> http://www.parapundit.com/archives/006644.html Believers In Equality Bigger Impulsive Shoppers http://www.rice.edu/nationalmedia/news2009-10-20-impulsive.shtml Where people do not believe in equality people exercise more control over their behavior. So has the national promotion of equality in America led to a nation of spendthrifts and credit bubbles? Power-distance belief (PDB) is the degree of power disparity the people of a culture expect and accept. It is measured on a scale of zero to 100, and the higher the PDB, the more a person accepts disparity and expects power inequality. Americans have a low PDB score relative to people in countries like China and India. The study found that people who have a high PDB score tend to exhibit more self-control and are less impulsive when shopping. Abandon the dubious belief in equality and get control of your finances. ?In our studies, people with low PDB scores spent one-and-a-half times the amount spent by high-PDB individuals when buying daily items like snacks and drinks,? Mittal said. If you reject the popular view that equality is good you'll become better able to resist candy? This effect was even more pronounced for "vice goods" -- tempting products like chocolate and candy -- than for "virtue goods" like yogurt and granola bars. The researchers hypothesized that people with low PDB scores -- who also should have lower self-control -- would show even stronger impulsive buying for vice goods because of their desire for immediate gratification. Indeed, the researchers found low-PDB people spent twice as much on vice goods as high PDB people spent. Big saving China and Japan have less belief in equality. The lower the score the higher the belief we should all be equal. On the PDB (Geert Hofstede?s Cultural Dimensions), the U.S. scores at a low 40 compared with Russia (93), the Philippines (94), Singapore (74), China (80) and India (77). Austria (11), Germany (35) and New Zealand (22) also score low, whereas Japan (54), Vietnam (45) and South Africa (49) score more in the middle. We aren't equal in intelligence, knowledge, self-control or wisdom. We aren't all equal in our ability to choose leaders or choose foods in a grocery store. Some people are walking talking disasters. Others are wise and brilliant. -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.698 / Database dei virus: 270.14.47/2478 - Data di rilascio: 11/03/09 08:36:00 From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Nov 3 20:12:25 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:12:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Immersive A-life and Media Art Practices Message-ID: <20091103151225.oq5bh18p8go44kg0@webmail.natasha.cc> I was just reading a paper "Immersive Artificial Life (A-Life) Art" (Edwina 2005) which covers new practice-based fields in the media arts which explore hybridity, emergence and symbiosis through A-life, bio-A-life, etc. available here: http://www.ekac.org/edwina.html pay to download: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-137717172.html or available at http://www.amazon.com/Immersive-artificial-life-life-art/dp/B000CR8JOU It is know that the media arts is just beginning to recognize transhumanism. It is inferred in a section which discusses N Katherine Hayles view of view of transcending and transforming the biological body as Christian-based. Other than that, it is also inferred when Kevin Kelly (who is an extropian transhumanist) is noted as saying "at the time that the logic of Bios is being imported into machines, the logic of Technos is being imported into life". I'd like to know if anyone would like to read the or at least skim it to then to have a discussion with me, and whomever is interested, on how transhumanism relates to the filds discuss and to locate links to the practices (mentioned in this article) to better draw attention to an important (and overlooked) direction of where this is headed (that of transhumanism or the vision of transhumanist future). My reason is that the practices mentioned are not addressing issues of human transformation, radical life extension and AGI, and humans merging with machines as being a self-directed practice, etc. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Nov 4 01:14:36 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:44:36 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/4 BillK : > On 11/3/09, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> ?The unemployment rate in the US (Europe and elsewhere is not that >> ?different or worse) is pretty close to 20%. If you look at the shift >> ?in quality from around 1970, or so, you'll see it's make-pretend >> ?work in low-skill minimal wage service serf sector. These people are not >> ?happy, strangely enough. >> >> ?I mean, we can pretend that nothing serious is happening, and tune >> ?the statistics until they shine, but we're not fooling anybody. Not >> ?on the long run, no-how. >> >> > > Ah ha! ?I see Eugen understands what is going on. > > The official unemployment figures are massaged to meaninglessness by > the politicians. That's why I quoted the food stamps figures. So far > as I can tell these figures are just straight totals and are not > adjusted for public consumption. > Even GDP stats nowadays are mostly useless. Recovery??? That's a joke > - except for bankers' bonuses. > > Also, many people 'officially' employed are on short time and have > very low take-home pay. Thus they become eligible for food stamps, > which shoots upwards. > > It is not only computer tech that is the problem. Production has been > outsourced to China and the Far East. India provides helpdesks and > call-centres, cars come from Japan, etc. etc. The first world jobs are > in government or the remaining services that are not yet transferred > abroad. > > In some areas of the UK, half the population is employed by the > national or local government or the national health service. They > provide services to the other half who are on unemployment benefit or > permanent disability benefit. > > Is this the wonderful future we anticipate? > > BillK Eugen's write when he says the so called "service" sector is make-work. Not only that, but much of the "creative" sector (usually cast to include management) is also makework, especially that which primarily plays a part in the upper eschelons of the service sector. The thing is this: it's not a sign of failure, per se, that this is happening. If we are doing tech civilization right, the jobs *should* be disappearing. After all, a job is something which needs doing, but which no one will volunteer to do. Somehow we often forget, in our quest for high employment levels and job security, that people, overall, fundamentally don't actually want jobs; they want financial security (ie: to be able to live), and jobs have been a necessary evil, an indirect method and usually the only way to provide that. On the other hand, a successful advanced civilization should see paid labour as a failure of automation; victory conditions are that no sentient has to do things for money rather than love in order to live (although if doing things for money instead of love voluntarily, over and above being able to survive and live a dignified life is your idea of self actualization, then that's good too of course). So we find ourselves in this bind, victims of our own success. We really are becoming vastly more efficient at running our society, enough so that we don't need everyone to toil endlessly to make that happen. But, our social & economic organisation is such that, rather than freeing people from toil, we doom them to the poor house (no, sorry, to the streets; we are too civilised for poor houses). (A quick aside: many of the "efficiencies" we see aren't from automation, but from exploiting cheap overseas labour, so we resemble at least in part the slave based empires of the past. That probably undermines a lot of my argument, as these economies don't ever seem to be sustainable. So let's hope that there is actually a good chunk of real productivity gain, real devaluing of labour, real automation, and that this can eventually entirely replace the questionable gains that come from relying on oppressed people in depressed economies.) It's time for a major shift. These societies we live in are supposed to be for the good of their participants, that's why we form the damned things. We should look at being able to live a dignified life, if not as a fundamental right, then as a fundamental goal for a good society. In a post-job capitalist world, it's got to mean a universal basic income. The alternative, that masses of people have no way to participate or even live, and have no money, is actually anathema to a market economy, because those people become inaccessible to it. The prestidigitation of the invisible hand only works if everyone has tokens with which to signal their preferences. Also I might add that if really seriously large numbers of people are left out of the formal economy, then they will go set up their own alternative economy of some form or forms, be it black markets, alternative currencies, non-monetary sharing economies, or just outright criminal enterprise. Every one of those alternatives undermines the formal market economy, and should worry anyone who cares about the market system. Either you include everyone, or you start making soylent green, but you can't just ignore this increasingly large marginalised group and hope they'll go away. Or, hell, maybe the Robin Hansons of the world are right, that the market will invent a bunch of new jobs to take up the slack. But, will those be fulfilling work, advancing the state of humanity? Or will the new new economy consist of even more disengaged people well aware of the pointlessness of their endeavours but powerless to escape them? Is that actually the way we want to deal with the fact that the universe no longer requires most of us to toil for existence? -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Nov 4 02:47:54 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:47:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AF0EB5A.1020509@satx.rr.com> On 11/3/2009 7:14 PM, Emlyn wrote: > The thing is this: it's not a sign of failure, per se, that this is > happening. If we are doing tech civilization right, the jobs*should* > be disappearing. After all, a job is something which needs doing, but > which no one will volunteer to do. Somehow we often forget, in our > quest for high employment levels and job security, that people, > overall, fundamentally don't actually want jobs; they want financial > security (ie: to be able to live), and jobs have been a necessary > evil, an indirect method and usually the only way to provide that. Spot on, the whole post, aka "what he said". I do find myself wondering whether my instant agreement with this excellent summary from Emlyn is just a side-effect of our both being Australians, from an alternative universe that's *quite like* the US but massively different as well. > (A quick aside: many of the "efficiencies" we see aren't from > automation, but from exploiting cheap overseas labour, so we resemble > at least in part the slave based empires of the past. That probably > undermines a lot of my argument The only problem I saw with Emlyn's post was that IMO this should have been the starting point in any assessment of the current problem (as seen from the privileged First World). It's a frightful shock here if your job is snatched away by some coolie in an alien land, but I wouldn't be surprised if the coolie is rather pleased by the new opportunities. If all else fails, our washing machines (made inexpensively for us by coolies) can take in their laundry... Damien Broderick From jameschoate at austin.rr.com Wed Nov 4 04:24:38 2009 From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:24:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Ant Trails Redux Message-ID: <20091104042438.PUY2P.204451.root@hrndva-web11-z01> Science Illustrated Nov/Dec 2009 pp. 36 There is an article about mob/swarm rules and one example is how some ants, Eciton burcelli in particular, use three parallel tracks for managing traffic jams. This article is an oblique reference to some of the articles on arxiv.org about ants and traffic management algorithms I had mentioned earlier. -- -- -- -- -- Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus James Choate jameschoate at austin.rr.com james.choate at twcable.com 512-657-1279 www.ssz.com http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center Adapt, Adopt, Improvise -- -- -- -- From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Nov 4 10:43:07 2009 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:43:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] roaches again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05af61bcff92082cf0021e018ffbfa90.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The interesting thing about the cockroach-bacterium symbiosis is that it is so complete. Another favourite case is Wolbachia, infecting around 16% of *all insects*. It is probably the most successful parasite in the biosphere next to the bacteriophages. It even determines sexual differentiation of the host, and a few species are dependent on it to reproduce. spike wrote: > Bugs are sooo cool. They seem to have so much more diversity. To bugs we > must all look pretty much alike. And our antennas are so boring! I want a pair of flabellate antennas like maybugs got. And maybe some Dynastinae horns. And optical crystal elytra! -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Wed Nov 4 11:00:51 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:00:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:44:36AM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > Eugen's write when he says the so called "service" sector is > make-work. Not only that, but much of the "creative" sector (usually > cast to include management) is also makework, especially that which > primarily plays a part in the upper eschelons of the service sector. It would to better if we eliminate unproductive make-pretend work, and leave such people at home. They can pick up hobbies, do gardening, and no longer burn up resources and clog up infrastructure commuting. Speaking about telecommunting and telepresence, why is nobody mentioning that bete noire, ubiquitous symmetric broadband? It's not just for pirates anymore. > The thing is this: it's not a sign of failure, per se, that this is > happening. If we are doing tech civilization right, the jobs *should* The problem is that we're not doing tech civilisation right. We're regressing in our capabilities. Our infrastructure is degrading, since we no longer have the financial wherewithal nor skilled manpower to keep it where it was. I'm not talking about developing countries, most of them climb up. We slide; I guess we'll meet more than halfway in the middle. What then? How can we start ascending again, this time, together? > be disappearing. After all, a job is something which needs doing, but > which no one will volunteer to do. Somehow we often forget, in our > quest for high employment levels and job security, that people, > overall, fundamentally don't actually want jobs; they want financial > security (ie: to be able to live), and jobs have been a necessary > evil, an indirect method and usually the only way to provide that. Speaking about another failure: it's pretty obvious that the current retirement model is dead, having lasted only one generation of retirees. This was pretty clear in 1980s already, but you'll notice that's another simple fact nobody will publicly voice. > On the other hand, a successful advanced civilization should see paid > labour as a failure of automation; victory conditions are that no Current automation is not worth much outside of structured environments. We're getting some advances in simple environments (air, sea) and nowadays nonrugged terrain, almost all of them from the military, but it's not obvious they're advancing quickly enough, given that our time window to further push advanced technology is slowly (or not so slowly, should we get resource wars) closing. It would be interesting to see how Japan fares with assisted living automation, it's not obvious they can pull this off in time. > sentient has to do things for money rather than love in order to live > (although if doing things for money instead of love voluntarily, over > and above being able to survive and live a dignified life is your idea > of self actualization, then that's good too of course). That's how things were supposed to pan out, yes. > So we find ourselves in this bind, victims of our own success. We > really are becoming vastly more efficient at running our society, > enough so that we don't need everyone to toil endlessly to make that I personally find that a little personal agriculture on plots of lands would do a lot in keeping retirees healthy, occupied and providing a fair fraction of baseline calories and vitamins, and recycle organic phosphate and nitrate. Win/win, but not officially on anyone's horizont yet. If we're regressing technically in places, it doesn't mean we can't do it in an uncontrolled, unsophisticated fashion. > happen. But, our social & economic organisation is such that, rather > than freeing people from toil, we doom them to the poor house (no, > sorry, to the streets; we are too civilised for poor houses). What is strange is that this apparently still has political support, though of course the preparation for crowd control and civil-war like settings is pretty obvious, both on-record and off-record (atlas of hate, and the like). > (A quick aside: many of the "efficiencies" we see aren't from > automation, but from exploiting cheap overseas labour, so we resemble > at least in part the slave based empires of the past. That probably > undermines a lot of my argument, as these economies don't ever seem to Yep. We're cutting corners everywhere, especially out of sight. This is no way to run a planet. > be sustainable. So let's hope that there is actually a good chunk of > real productivity gain, real devaluing of labour, real automation, and > that this can eventually entirely replace the questionable gains that > come from relying on oppressed people in depressed economies.) The more you outsource or automate the more people are out of work and more askew the wealth distribution flow is. Crowd control is not a good way of dealing with this. Once it starts escalating, there's no halting. > It's time for a major shift. These societies we live in are supposed > to be for the good of their participants, that's why we form the > damned things. We should look at being able to live a dignified life, > if not as a fundamental right, then as a fundamental goal for a good > society. In a post-job capitalist world, it's got to mean a universal > basic income. The alternative, that masses of people have no way to There's surprisingly little political support for this. > participate or even live, and have no money, is actually anathema to a > market economy, because those people become inaccessible to it. The > prestidigitation of the invisible hand only works if everyone has > tokens with which to signal their preferences. > > Also I might add that if really seriously large numbers of people are > left out of the formal economy, then they will go set up their own > alternative economy of some form or forms, be it black markets, > alternative currencies, non-monetary sharing economies, or just > outright criminal enterprise. Every one of those alternatives Right now this is happening, but is increasingly addressed by extremely intrusive surveillance, especially as tax revenue continues to go south. > undermines the formal market economy, and should worry anyone who > cares about the market system. Either you include everyone, or you > start making soylent green, but you can't just ignore this > increasingly large marginalised group and hope they'll go away. Increasingly large, increasingly angry marginalized group. Thankfully, not sophisticated nor organized, yet. > Or, hell, maybe the Robin Hansons of the world are right, that the > market will invent a bunch of new jobs to take up the slack. But, will A bunch of pointless new jobs which just help us advance resource entropy and calcify society is exactly our problem. The market is not exactly helping. > those be fulfilling work, advancing the state of humanity? Or will the > new new economy consist of even more disengaged people well aware of > the pointlessness of their endeavours but powerless to escape them? Is > that actually the way we want to deal with the fact that the universe > no longer requires most of us to toil for existence? I believe you already mentioned soylent green as an option. What I'm missing is that it's pretty obvious what needs to be done. But nobody is doing it, and not even talking about doing it. Politically, it looks like a bad case of rigor mortis. Not much seem to be happening at the grassroots either. We're overdue for another revolutionary movement, but there's a curious silence in the room. I don't get it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Wed Nov 4 11:24:20 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:24:20 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11/4/09, Eugen Leitl wrote: > What I'm missing is that it's pretty obvious what needs to be done. > But nobody is doing it, and not even talking about doing it. > Politically, it looks like a bad case of rigor mortis. Not much > seem to be happening at the grassroots either. > > We're overdue for another revolutionary movement, but there's a > curious silence in the room. I don't get it. > > Simple answer. Things haven't got bad enough yet. Revolutionary changes won't happen until enough people are backed into a corner and they have nothing left to lose. At present, they can't even stop the reckless profiteering of financial crooks even when they are driving the rest of the economy into the ground. Papering over the cracks and hoping things will get better (or at least postponed until it is somebody else's problem) is the business of the day. 'Real life' gets slowly worse month by month, while statistics are manipulated to pretend otherwise. Cheer-up speeches are made by the rich leaders while they desperately try to secure their wealth away from the looming disaster. Big changes are coming, but it is going to messy. Revolutions usually are. BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Nov 4 13:58:16 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:58:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4AF18878.7050400@libero.it> Eugen Leitl ha scritto: >> those be fulfilling work, advancing the state of humanity? Or will the >> new new economy consist of even more disengaged people well aware of >> the pointlessness of their endeavours but powerless to escape them? Is >> that actually the way we want to deal with the fact that the universe >> no longer requires most of us to toil for existence? > I believe you already mentioned soylent green as an option. I hope we keep it as last. > What I'm missing is that it's pretty obvious what needs to be done. What do need to be done? What is obvious for you could not be obvious for me or someone else. But, mainly, what is obvious often can not be told. > But nobody is doing it, and not even talking about doing it. Is not what to do, is how to do. In Italy they talk about reducing the tax burden, but no one dare to speak "reduction of the expenditure". Someone speak about reduction/elimination of the primary deficit, but no one explain how obtain it (apart vacuous hand waving). > Politically, it looks like a bad case of rigor mortis. Not much > seem to be happening at the grassroots either. Well, the leftist parties in Europe are reaping what they have sowed in the last years and decades. They are in disarray. The bigger problem is that too many statists exist in the center right and they are in important positions. Now, with the EC Stealth Constitution in place, we risk to be entangled in a ever enlarging bureaucracy accountable to no one. > We're overdue for another revolutionary movement, but there's a > curious silence in the room. I don't get it. The problem is "What revolutionary movement?". There are a few competing groups that would be more than happy to seize the moment. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.698 / Database dei virus: 270.14.48/2479 - Data di rilascio: 11/03/09 20:38:00 From brentn at freeshell.org Wed Nov 4 14:35:27 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:35:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <555CD308-2A57-4484-8736-DD38A139A953@freeshell.org> On 4 Nov, 2009, at 6:00, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:44:36AM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > >> Eugen's write when he says the so called "service" sector is >> make-work. Not only that, but much of the "creative" sector (usually >> cast to include management) is also makework, especially that which >> primarily plays a part in the upper eschelons of the service sector. > > It would to better if we eliminate unproductive make-pretend > work, and leave such people at home. They can pick up hobbies, do > gardening, and no longer burn up resources and clog up infrastructure > commuting. Speaking about telecommunting and telepresence, why is > nobody mentioning that bete noire, ubiquitous symmetric broadband? > It's not just for pirates anymore. > >> The thing is this: it's not a sign of failure, per se, that this is >> happening. If we are doing tech civilization right, the jobs *should* > > The problem is that we're not doing tech civilisation right. > We're regressing in our capabilities. Our infrastructure is degrading, > since we no longer have the financial wherewithal nor skilled > manpower to keep it where it was. I'm not talking about developing > countries, > most of them climb up. We slide; I guess we'll meet more than halfway > in the middle. What then? How can we start ascending again, this > time, together? Eugen - I think you'll find that the decline in employment in all levels of the ecocnomy and the degradation of infrastructure are linked. Infrastructure, at least in our current economic model, gets built when there is either money to do so, or overwhelming political pressure to take on debt to do so. We built a LOT of infrastructure in the post-WWII boom. Now, its time to repair, retrofit, or replace it and we're discovering that this will be more expensive than we expected it to be. Couple that with an utter lack of vision about how to replace old infrastructure with more efficient, but different infrastructure, and well, you'll find that there's both a lack of money AND a lack of political will, the ARRA funds in the US notwithstanding. B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Nov 4 15:54:22 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:54:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Humanity + Summit - December Message-ID: <20CDE1EC1D074F688E636A58F59FB602@DFC68LF1> The new poster for the Summit is *stunning*. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/eventinfo/hsummit09/ If you have not registered for the event yet, and IEET's "Biopolitics of Popular Culture Seminar" http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/eventinfo/bpcs09/ please do! Love to see you there! Natasha Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Nov 4 23:19:45 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:19:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Silk Electronic Implants Message-ID: <580930c20911041519v114fdcfw826e30c673c0b011@mail.gmail.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/silk_electronic_implants/ Boffins working on biodegradable flexi LED implantsSilky hand-tattoo displays to replace watches, PDAs? By Lewis Page? Get more from this author Boffins in America are working on biodegradable, flexible electronic devices printed on silk, which could be implanted in the human body and would decay naturally over time. Applications could include LED displays inlaid beneath the skin, or direct nerve-controlled interfaces. *MIT Tech Review* reports on the new in-body tech, which is seen as much more practical and less invasive than current implants. These have rigid structures and have to be "canned" or encased to protect them from body fluids and vice versa. Rather, Professor Brian Litt of Pennsylvania Uni plans to build devices laid on flexible, foldable, rollable thin silk sheets. The silk backing is gradually absorbed without difficulty by the body - Litt and his fellow boffins can design for a period of months or years as required - leaving only microscopic amounts of silicon, as the circuitry is only nanometres thick. Silicon is "biocompatible" rather than "biodegradable", but in such tiny amounts it isn't an issue. All this means that an electronic device can be rolled up or folded and slipped into place through a relatively small incision. Litt and his colleagues believe they will soon have working silk-backed LEDs, for instance, allowing one to have an LED "tattoo" beneath one's skin able to display anything from the time to one's current blood-sugar count. Other ploys might include connections to the nerves, perhaps wirelessly linked to computers or other devices. Other researchershave also proposed using such hookups to "jumpwire" past broken or damaged nerve connections, so restoring control over a paralysed limb. The flexibility of wetted silk might even allow circuitry to conform to the contours of the brain, according to the scientists, perhaps allowing deep-brain stimulation techniques of the sort used to keep Parkinson's disease under control. Obstacles that lie ahead before we all get our under-skin bluetooth OLED displays, brain-to-computer direct interfaces, nerve jumpwire links and so on include the elimination of gold and titanium from the flexi-circuitry tech, and in many cases the matter of power supplies. "It would be nice to see the sophistication of [implant] devices start to catch up with the sophistication of our basic science, and this technology could really close that gap," Litt told *Tech Review*. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 00:28:24 2009 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:28:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] roaches again In-Reply-To: <05af61bcff92082cf0021e018ffbfa90.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <05af61bcff92082cf0021e018ffbfa90.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <2d6187670911041628k3ad517c0pdc026d3dfa3df762@mail.gmail.com> Anders wrote: And our antennas are so boring! I want a pair of flabellate antennas like maybugs got. And maybe some Dynastinae horns. And optical crystal elytra! >>> Anders, I suspect I will not be able to recognize you, post-singularity, or even before then! lol John : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 02:52:39 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:22:39 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911041852mead600vcbb659ac40fccff3@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/4 Eugen Leitl : > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:44:36AM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > >> Eugen's write when he says the so called "service" sector is >> make-work. Not only that, but much of the "creative" sector (usually >> cast to include management) is also makework, especially that which >> primarily plays a part in the upper eschelons of the service sector. > > It would to better if we eliminate unproductive make-pretend > work, and leave such people at home. They can pick up hobbies, do > gardening, and no longer burn up resources and clog up infrastructure > commuting. Sure, yes. It's a cultural bias, the work ethic. The idea that an endeavour that looks like productive work might actually be negative (wastes resources, clogs infrastructure, possibly deals direct damage to other parts of society) doesn't really compute for us. So the rational evaluation, that it would be better to pay that person to do nothing than to pay them to do what they are doing, doesn't get through. The work ethic is wrong. Work (as in toil) is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. Now, it might be the wrong means to the end we want. We think work is necessary for people to live dignified lives, but this is false. I interact with a lot of retired people, and they give the lie to it; they're healthy active people, very valuable to the community. But no one that I can think of, none, still does what they were employed to do in their working life, even though many are really very skilled in that area. Instead, they volunteer in areas where they feel they are needed, and where they enjoy what they are doing. Many in fact pay money to do those things (providing their own equipment, donating where they can, or doing voluntary organisational work for groups like choirs where they are also paying to be members). Active retirees are a great template right now for how a universal basic income world could look. Speaking about telecommunting and telepresence, why is > nobody mentioning that bete noire, ubiquitous symmetric broadband? > It's not just for pirates anymore. I hadn't noticed anyone really talking about it one way or another. > >> The thing is this: it's not a sign of failure, per se, that this is >> happening. If we are doing tech civilization right, the jobs *should* > > The problem is that we're not doing tech civilisation right. > We're regressing in our capabilities. Our infrastructure is degrading, > since we no longer have the financial wherewithal nor skilled > manpower to keep it where it was. I'm not talking about developing countries, > most of them climb up. We slide; I guess we'll meet more than halfway > in the middle. What then? How can we start ascending again, this > time, together? Well we'll meet them, and then likely after a dip below we'll climb with them. After all, too great a gap the other way will lead them to outsource to us, and things will turn around. Hopefully we're moving into a future where national boundaries are much more leaky economically than they have been. As to infrastructure, I'm becoming more skeptical about it. More and better centralised infrastructure seems to lead to more top down management and control. Also, it shapes the way we live; a certain kind of infrastructure is imposed, and we change our way of lives, even our identities, around it. I'd like to see us really minimizing centralised infrastructure, and instead going for decentralised solutions; solar houses rather than large power plants, on site waste treatment rather than massive sewage infrastructure, teleworking and/or local economies rather than massive road infrastructure based mega city stuff, etc etc. >> be disappearing. After all, a job is something which needs doing, but >> which no one will volunteer to do. Somehow we often forget, in our >> quest for high employment levels and job security, that people, >> overall, fundamentally don't actually want jobs; they want financial >> security (ie: to be able to live), and jobs have been a necessary >> evil, an indirect method and usually the only way to provide that. > > Speaking about another failure: it's pretty obvious that the current > retirement model is dead, having lasted only one generation of retirees. > This was pretty clear in 1980s already, but you'll notice that's another > simple fact nobody will publicly voice. Well, it doesn't look good in the face of the boomer retirement. It's a pity, because it'd be one model for getting a universal basic income going; that is, just keep lowering retirement age until finally anyone can retire whenever they like; better memetically than trying to build outwards from the dole. >> On the other hand, a successful advanced civilization should see paid >> labour as a failure of automation; victory conditions are that no > > Current automation is not worth much outside of structured environments. > We're getting some advances in simple environments (air, sea) and nowadays > nonrugged terrain, almost all of them from the military, but it's not > obvious they're advancing quickly enough, given that our time window > to further push advanced technology is slowly (or not so slowly, should > we get resource wars) closing. It would be interesting to see how Japan > fares with assisted living automation, it's not obvious they can pull > this off in time. I didn't just mean automating physical work. What we've been automating that really matters has been distribution of information and information like things, and social organisation. Some argue that this is what's breaking our money based economies. >> sentient has to do things for money rather than love in order to live >> (although if doing things for money instead of love voluntarily, over >> and above being able to survive and live a dignified life is your idea >> of self actualization, then that's good too of course). > > That's how things were supposed to pan out, yes. > >> So we find ourselves in this bind, victims of our own success. We >> really are becoming vastly more efficient at running our society, >> enough so that we don't need everyone to toil endlessly to make that > > I personally find that a little personal agriculture on plots of lands > would do a lot in keeping retirees healthy, occupied and providing a > fair fraction of baseline calories and vitamins, and recycle > organic phosphate and nitrate. Win/win, but not officially on anyone's > horizont yet. > > If we're regressing technically in places, it doesn't mean we can't > do it in an uncontrolled, unsophisticated fashion. Well in fact that doesn't need to be regressing at all really, does it? We can do the high tech version of that; the new kind of off-the-grid living becoming en vogue in techy fashion circles. I must admit a personal attraction to that approach to life! >> happen. But, our social & economic organisation is such that, rather >> than freeing people from toil, we doom them to the poor house (no, >> sorry, to the streets; we are too civilised for poor houses). > > What is strange is that this apparently still has political support, > though of course the preparation for crowd control and civil-war like > settings is pretty obvious, both on-record and off-record (atlas of hate, > and the like). > Weirdly, I think this kind of explains it: Research shows chronically ill might be happier if they gave up hope http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1359 It seems that no matter how much you crush modern westerners with unemployment, debt, and lack of prospects, they can still maintain the false hope that one day they too will be able to shit on the little guy. So many are against welfare even as they are on welfare, against health insurance for all even when they can't and wont ever be able to get health insurance, etc. >> (A quick aside: many of the "efficiencies" we see aren't from >> automation, but from exploiting cheap overseas labour, so we resemble >> at least in part the slave based empires of the past. That probably >> undermines a lot of my argument, as these economies don't ever seem to > > Yep. We're cutting corners everywhere, especially out of sight. This > is no way to run a planet. > >> be sustainable. So let's hope that there is actually a good chunk of >> real productivity gain, real devaluing of labour, real automation, and >> that this can eventually entirely replace the questionable gains that >> come from relying on oppressed people in depressed economies.) > > The more you outsource or automate the more people are out of work > and more askew the wealth distribution flow is. Crowd control is > not a good way of dealing with this. Once it starts escalating, there's > no halting. > >> It's time for a major shift. These societies we live in are supposed >> to be for the good of their participants, that's why we form the >> damned things. We should look at being able to live a dignified life, >> if not as a fundamental right, then as a fundamental goal for a good >> society. In a post-job capitalist world, it's got to mean a universal >> basic income. The alternative, that masses of people have no way to > > There's surprisingly little political support for this. Yes. I wonder how that can change? Do you think this stuff is likely to fly in parts of Europe earlier than in say US/UK/Australia? >> participate or even live, and have no money, is actually anathema to a >> market economy, because those people become inaccessible to it. The >> prestidigitation of the invisible hand only works if everyone has >> tokens with which to signal their preferences. >> >> Also I might add that if really seriously large numbers of people are >> left out of the formal economy, then they will go set up their own >> alternative economy of some form or forms, be it black markets, >> alternative currencies, non-monetary sharing economies, or just >> outright criminal enterprise. Every one of those alternatives > > Right now this is happening, but is increasingly addressed by > extremely intrusive surveillance, especially as tax revenue continues > to go south. Yep. wtf is going on in the UK at the moment, btw? Orwell seems to be being taken the same way as Machiavelli. >> undermines the formal market economy, and should worry anyone who >> cares about the market system. Either you include everyone, or you >> start making soylent green, but you can't just ignore this >> increasingly large marginalised group and hope they'll go away. > > Increasingly large, increasingly angry marginalized group. > Thankfully, not sophisticated nor organized, yet. Actually, sophisticated would be bloody excellent. We now have the tools to organise, work, and live together in totally new ways, ways never seen before under the sun that aren't mediated by the money economy, if only we can figure out how to use them. >> Or, hell, maybe the Robin Hansons of the world are right, that the >> market will invent a bunch of new jobs to take up the slack. But, will > > A bunch of pointless new jobs which just help us advance resource > entropy and calcify society is exactly our problem. The market is not > exactly helping. > >> those be fulfilling work, advancing the state of humanity? Or will the >> new new economy consist of even more disengaged people well aware of >> the pointlessness of their endeavours but powerless to escape them? Is >> that actually the way we want to deal with the fact that the universe >> no longer requires most of us to toil for existence? > > I believe you already mentioned soylent green as an option. > > What I'm missing is that it's pretty obvious what needs to be done. > But nobody is doing it, and not even talking about doing it. > Politically, it looks like a bad case of rigor mortis. Not much > seem to be happening at the grassroots either. > > We're overdue for another revolutionary movement, but there's a > curious silence in the room. I don't get it. > This is probably what it is like at the fall of empires, I guess. And you know, screw the empire, we never really liked it anyway. But, the zero dollar questions are, where to next, and how do we make it happen? -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From nanite1018 at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 04:48:28 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 23:48:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911041852mead600vcbb659ac40fccff3@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911041852mead600vcbb659ac40fccff3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <788BF5FB-9136-4B25-854C-5E226FDDAC6D@GMAIL.COM> Sorry to jump in, but I feel I need to speak up about some problems I see with the arguments below. > On Nov 4, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Emlyn wrote: > The work ethic is wrong. Work (as in toil) is not an end in itself, it > is a means to an end.... We think work is necessary for people to > live dignified lives, but > this is false. Work is the means to survival. You have to produce values of some kind (almost always material values, in some manner, in most sectors of the economy) in order to survive. So having a desire to be productive (i.e. a work ethic) is a good thing. Work is definitely not an end in itself, it is a means to the end of furthering your life. So some work is necessary to live a dignified life, absolutely. Even your example of retired seniors doesn't support your points, it doesn't seem. They are all doing productive things, volunteering and the like. They aren't sitting around doing nothing. So while you certainly don't have to be in a formal job, or be employed at that moment in time (though you had to be before, in order to have the capacity to forego that now), you still have to be productive in order to live a meaningful and dignified life. >>> be disappearing. After all, a job is something which needs doing, >>> but >>> which no one will volunteer to do. Somehow we often forget, in our >>> quest for high employment levels and job security, that people, >>> overall, fundamentally don't actually want jobs; they want financial >>> security (ie: to be able to live), and jobs have been a necessary >>> evil, an indirect method and usually the only way to provide that. >> >> Speaking about another failure: it's pretty obvious that the current >> retirement model is dead, having lasted only one generation of >> retirees. >> This was pretty clear in 1980s already, but you'll notice that's >> another >> simple fact nobody will publicly voice. > > Well, it doesn't look good in the face of the boomer retirement. It's > a pity, because it'd be one model for getting a universal basic income > going; that is, just keep lowering retirement age until finally anyone > can retire whenever they like; better memetically than trying to build > outwards from the dole. There is a major issue with the above. In order for your statement that a universal basic income is desirable you must make the assumption that you can force other people do things they don't want to do. That idea violates the principle of self-direction and rational thinking. The two go hand in hand of course, you have to think rationally to be truly self-directed, and vice versa. So you can't force people to help others if they have decided it is in their rational interest not to do so; you have to respect their ability to make decisions just as much as they have to respect your ability to do the same. If you reject the ability to initiate force on those grounds (as it seems to me one should, logically), then you are left with simply an argument that charities are good things. I'll leave that question alone, but I certainly think that any sort of guaranteed (through the state) minimum income can be rejected based on fundamental principles. I also don't see a reason to be concerned about that. After all, if some models of the economic growth that is likely to result of advanced AIs and nanotechnology are correct, charitable giving at current percentages would result in the elimination of poverty in terms of our modern definitions, giving the "benefits" of basic income without the issues with principle. > >>> (A quick aside: many of the "efficiencies" we see aren't from >>> automation, but from exploiting cheap overseas labour, so we >>> resemble >>> at least in part the slave based empires of the past. That probably >>> undermines a lot of my argument, as these economies don't ever >>> seem to >> >> Yep. We're cutting corners everywhere, especially out of sight. This >> is no way to run a planet. >> >>> be sustainable. So let's hope that there is actually a good chunk of >>> real productivity gain, real devaluing of labour, real automation, >>> and >>> that this can eventually entirely replace the questionable gains >>> that >>> come from relying on oppressed people in depressed economies.) >> >> The more you outsource or automate the more people are out of work >> and more askew the wealth distribution flow is. Crowd control is >> not a good way of dealing with this. Once it starts escalating, >> there's >> no halting. >> >>> It's time for a major shift. These societies we live in are supposed >>> to be for the good of their participants, that's why we form the >>> damned things. We should look at being able to live a dignified >>> life, >>> if not as a fundamental right, then as a fundamental goal for a good >>> society. In a post-job capitalist world, it's got to mean a >>> universal >>> basic income. The alternative, that masses of people have no way to >> >> There's surprisingly little political support for this. > > Yes. I wonder how that can change? Do you think this stuff is likely > to fly in parts of Europe earlier than in say US/UK/Australia? > >>> participate or even live, and have no money, is actually anathema >>> to a >>> market economy, because those people become inaccessible to it. The >>> prestidigitation of the invisible hand only works if everyone has >>> tokens with which to signal their preferences. >>> >>> Also I might add that if really seriously large numbers of people >>> are >>> left out of the formal economy, then they will go set up their own >>> alternative economy of some form or forms, be it black markets, >>> alternative currencies, non-monetary sharing economies, or just >>> outright criminal enterprise. Every one of those alternatives >> >> Right now this is happening, but is increasingly addressed by >> extremely intrusive surveillance, especially as tax revenue continues >> to go south. > > Yep. wtf is going on in the UK at the moment, btw? Orwell seems to be > being taken the same way as Machiavelli. > >>> undermines the formal market economy, and should worry anyone who >>> cares about the market system. Either you include everyone, or you >>> start making soylent green, but you can't just ignore this >>> increasingly large marginalised group and hope they'll go away. >> >> Increasingly large, increasingly angry marginalized group. >> Thankfully, not sophisticated nor organized, yet. > > Actually, sophisticated would be bloody excellent. We now have the > tools to organise, work, and live together in totally new ways, ways > never seen before under the sun that aren't mediated by the money > economy, if only we can figure out how to use them. A couple of things here. First: What is the problem if portions of the world are "marginalized?" They are by powerless. On principle, they aren't allowed to do anything. They can't attack the formal economy using violence, they can't steal, they can't defraud people, they can't take away their property (legitimately). So what is the issue? Just that some people won't have what some others will? That's the case to day, and for good reason. It provides a strong incentive structure which increases productivity. Also, the existence of multiple sub-markets is a good thing, not a bad one. There are different markets now for different groups. Wealthy people primarily operate in a different market than the people in developing countries (for the most part). They certainly purchase vastly different things. That isn't a problem, but is actually a strength of the market. Free markets allow people to supply whatever people want or need (signaled by willingness to pay). So if the needs of some group aren't being met by the market dominated by the super- wealthy or the transhumans, etc., the poorer people can start their own thing, making quilts or whatever like the Amish. This a reason why markets are a positive thing, and why they will always adapt to the needs of people. The other thing I wanted to question was: What type of society could exist totally without money? Money is what allows people to a) not have to barter which is extremely inefficient and b) not use force against each other in order to get what they want. It is the single greatest invention in the history of the world, it allowed the blossoming of civilization and reason as opposed to poverty, barbarism, and mysticism. Now I might imagine a society in the semi- far future (perhaps by the end of the century) in which extremely powerful AIs might be able to provide basically everything without any human involvement. They might be something like the Minds in Iain M. Banks' "The Culture" novels. Perhaps such a society would have no need of money, but it isn't really a society of people anymore, so much as a world dominated by nearly godlike entities. The production is done by these superbeings who use a microscopic amount of their power to provide everything we mere mortals and less intelligent beings may desire. A world where people are interacting on anything approaching equal terms is going to have to be dominated by money in some form or another in order to function peacefully and efficiently. > >>> Or, hell, maybe the Robin Hansons of the world are right, that the >>> market will invent a bunch of new jobs to take up the slack. But, >>> will >> >> A bunch of pointless new jobs which just help us advance resource >> entropy and calcify society is exactly our problem. The market is not >> exactly helping. >> >>> those be fulfilling work, advancing the state of humanity? Or will >>> the >>> new new economy consist of even more disengaged people well aware of >>> the pointlessness of their endeavours but powerless to escape >>> them? Is >>> that actually the way we want to deal with the fact that the >>> universe >>> no longer requires most of us to toil for existence? >> >> I believe you already mentioned soylent green as an option. >> >> What I'm missing is that it's pretty obvious what needs to be done. >> But nobody is doing it, and not even talking about doing it. >> Politically, it looks like a bad case of rigor mortis. Not much >> seem to be happening at the grassroots either. >> >> We're overdue for another revolutionary movement, but there's a >> curious silence in the room. I don't get it. >> > > This is probably what it is like at the fall of empires, I guess. And > you know, screw the empire, we never really liked it anyway. But, the > zero dollar questions are, where to next, and how do we make it > happen? > > -- > Emlyn I will say that the empire will fall. The empire won't of work, productiveness, and laissez-faire capitalism won't be what falls however. It will be the mixed economy, socialism, and the world dominated by force and compulsion which falls. Where to next? Well back to capitalism. What we need isn't force and regulation and universal basic incomes to make sure everyone is included. We need to set people free to follow their own lights, do what they deem best for themselves, and think independently. A society which bans all forms of force is one which will enable everyone to be free to do whatever they wish. Technology will advance more rapidly, people will get what they desire more quickly and more efficiently than under a centrally organized system, and we will reach the day when the results everyone seems to strive for (a world where people don't have to be productive if they don't want to; even if I think that would be a horrible thing to do) will be a reality without any force of compulsion involved. Free actions of free individuals will create it. And its the only way to attain that end without violating at the very least the principle of self-direction. This was my first post, hope its okay. Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 06:36:53 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:06:53 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <788BF5FB-9136-4B25-854C-5E226FDDAC6D@GMAIL.COM> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911041852mead600vcbb659ac40fccff3@mail.gmail.com> <788BF5FB-9136-4B25-854C-5E226FDDAC6D@GMAIL.COM> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911042236w5657546k30e684f44e9be9d8@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/5 JOSHUA JOB : > Sorry to jump in, but I feel I need to speak up about some problems I see > with the arguments below. >> >> On Nov 4, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Emlyn wrote: >> The work ethic is wrong. Work (as in toil) is not an end in itself, it >> is a means to an end.... We think work is necessary for people to live >> dignified lives, but >> this is false. > > Work is the means to survival. You have to produce values of some kind > (almost always material values, in some manner, in most sectors of the > economy) in order to survive. Well, you have to have food, shelter, companionship to live (plus a few more things on this list?). "Producing value" is a method of getting tokens to trade with other people to get those things. > So having a desire to be productive (i.e. a > work ethic) is a good thing. Good? It is useful to the individual, in a society organised to require tokens, because it helps the individual get tokens. If the "productive" work the individual has to do to get those tokens turns out to be a negative though (either through indulging in important looking makework like service work and middle management, which do nothing useful but consume extra resources, or through indulging in outright destructive behaviour like working in scams such as much of the finance work, or marketing/advertising), then it looks like the opposite of useful to the group, and the morality of the endeavour is questionable. > Work is definitely not an end in itself, it is > a means to the end of furthering your life. Yes > So some work is necessary to > live a dignified life, absolutely. "Work" is conflating two things here: - what I would call "toil", ie: work done largely to get tokens (money), or to further future ability to get tokens, say by increasing reputation, and - voluntary effort (better word here?), work done primarily for some non-monetary satisfaction Toil is required now, in the current system, unless you are self sufficient for tokens. Work of some kind, which provides a sense of meaning, is probably required to live a dignified life, but that is not the same as "toil". > Even your example of retired seniors > doesn't support your points, it doesn't seem. They are all doing productive > things, volunteering and the like. They aren't sitting around doing nothing. Well the point is that they don't toil, especially not in makework paid jobs. This is meant to highlight that people with the choice will not toil, so any suggestions that we need to create toil in order for people to live a dignified life is wrong. We might need to create toil because we are structurally unable to assign them tokens in any other way, but that doesn't seem like something to crow about. > So while you certainly don't have to be in a formal job, or be employed at > that moment in time (though you had to be before, in order to have the > capacity to forego that now), you still have to be productive in order to > live a meaningful and dignified life. I agree that you have to do meaningful work or action to live a dignified life, but I think it is error to confuse that with paid labour (which is toil, where the person wouldn't otherwise do it). As to these people having had to store up money in order to do that now, this is true; they are not people on a universal basic income, just a good model of what such people might be like. It's a good life, even on a pretty low income, from what I can see. >>>> >>>> be disappearing. After all, a job is something which needs doing, but >>>> which no one will volunteer to do. Somehow we often forget, in our >>>> quest for high employment levels and job security, that people, >>>> overall, fundamentally don't actually want jobs; they want financial >>>> security (ie: to be able to live), and jobs have been a necessary >>>> evil, an indirect method and usually the only way to provide that. >>> >>> Speaking about another failure: it's pretty obvious that the current >>> retirement model is dead, having lasted only one generation of retirees. >>> This was pretty clear in 1980s already, but you'll notice that's another >>> simple fact nobody will publicly voice. >> >> Well, it doesn't look good in the face of the boomer retirement. It's >> a pity, because it'd be one model for getting a universal basic income >> going; that is, just keep lowering retirement age until finally anyone >> can retire whenever they like; better memetically than trying to build >> outwards from the dole. > > There is a major issue with the above. In order for your statement that a > universal basic income is desirable you must make the assumption that you > can force other people do things they don't want to do. That idea violates > the principle of self-direction and rational thinking. The two go hand in > hand of course, you have to think rationally to be truly self-directed, and > vice versa. So you can't force people to help others if they have decided it > is in their rational interest not to do so; you have to respect their > ability to make decisions just as much as they have to respect your ability > to do the same. So you mean you shouldn't force people to pay taxes to support other people? Actually I partly agree with this; I find it difficult to stomach the idea of big new taxes. Especially income taxes, it's kind of the point that selling ones' labour as a means of participating in the market is failing as an idea, because technology is reducing the value of labour. If you are a government, whose job it is to look after the interests of the people (a fraught concept to be sure, and hopefully we can come up with something a bit more self organising and useful, but it's what we've got), there are other ways to raise money than to tax the working stiffs. For instance, the government hands out monopolies all over the place, especially on IP. If we are going to stay with IP (and there's another tar baby), then charge like wounded bulls for the privellege of these monopolies! If companies want to have exclusive rights over abstract ideas, make them pay for the privellege; after all, these monopolies damage us all. Property rights are also artificial grants, if you think about it, guaranteed by he with the biggest stick (that's the government, maintaining its monopoly on violence so we don't all need armed gangs). It could charge handsomely for those privelleges too; after all, it's expensive to guarantee that stuff. Or, you know, you could view the matter in the universe as belonging primarily to the collective of all humanity. Perhaps private property shouldn't be able to be owned at all? Perhaps it should be more like a subscription system? Hmm... > If you reject the ability to initiate force on those grounds > (as it seems to me one should, logically), then you are left with simply an > argument that charities are good things. I'll leave that question alone, but > I certainly think that any sort of guaranteed (through the state) minimum > income can be rejected based on fundamental principles. Unless you argue that the state should be entirely abolished (you might! Large collections of people acting together and imposing their will on others tend to be pretty shit), then how do you draw the line between when the state can use its based-in-force powers and when it can't? > > I also don't see a reason to be concerned about that. After all, if some > models of the economic growth that is likely to result of advanced AIs and > nanotechnology are correct, charitable giving at current percentages would > result in the elimination of poverty in terms of our modern definitions, > giving the "benefits" of basic income without the issues with principle. Well, that's a different game, ey? >>>> (A quick aside: many of the "efficiencies" we see aren't from >>>> automation, but from exploiting cheap overseas labour, so we resemble >>>> at least in part the slave based empires of the past. That probably >>>> undermines a lot of my argument, as these economies don't ever seem to >>> >>> Yep. We're cutting corners everywhere, especially out of sight. This >>> is no way to run a planet. >>> >>>> be sustainable. So let's hope that there is actually a good chunk of >>>> real productivity gain, real devaluing of labour, real automation, and >>>> that this can eventually entirely replace the questionable gains that >>>> come from relying on oppressed people in depressed economies.) >>> >>> The more you outsource or automate the more people are out of work >>> and more askew the wealth distribution flow is. Crowd control is >>> not a good way of dealing with this. Once it starts escalating, there's >>> no halting. >>> >>>> It's time for a major shift. These societies we live in are supposed >>>> to be for the good of their participants, that's why we form the >>>> damned things. We should look at being able to live a dignified life, >>>> if not as a fundamental right, then as a fundamental goal for a good >>>> society. In a post-job capitalist world, it's got to mean a universal >>>> basic income. The alternative, that masses of people have no way to >>> >>> There's surprisingly little political support for this. >> >> Yes. I wonder how that can change? Do you think this stuff is likely >> to fly in parts of Europe earlier than in say US/UK/Australia? >> >>>> participate or even live, and have no money, is actually anathema to a >>>> market economy, because those people become inaccessible to it. The >>>> prestidigitation of the invisible hand only works if everyone has >>>> tokens with which to signal their preferences. >>>> >>>> Also I might add that if really seriously large numbers of people are >>>> left out of the formal economy, then they will go set up their own >>>> alternative economy of some form or forms, be it black markets, >>>> alternative currencies, non-monetary sharing economies, or just >>>> outright criminal enterprise. Every one of those alternatives >>> >>> Right now this is happening, but is increasingly addressed by >>> extremely intrusive surveillance, especially as tax revenue continues >>> to go south. >> >> Yep. wtf is going on in the UK at the moment, btw? Orwell seems to be >> being taken the same way as Machiavelli. >> >>>> undermines the formal market economy, and should worry anyone who >>>> cares about the market system. Either you include everyone, or you >>>> start making soylent green, but you can't just ignore this >>>> increasingly large marginalised group and hope they'll go away. >>> >>> Increasingly large, increasingly angry marginalized group. >>> Thankfully, not sophisticated nor organized, yet. >> >> Actually, sophisticated would be bloody excellent. We now have the >> tools to organise, work, and live together in totally new ways, ways >> never seen before under the sun that aren't mediated by the money >> economy, if only we can figure out how to use them. > > A couple of things here. First: What is the problem if portions of the world > are "marginalized?" They are by powerless. Why do you say "they"? The only moral way to my mind of judging any system of social organisation, is to imagine yourself as part of the least well off group. Unless you can be ok with being that person, how can you support that system? To be clear here, would you be ok being one of those powerless people? > On principle, they aren't allowed > to do anything. They can't attack the formal economy using violence, they > can't steal, they can't defraud people, they can't take away their property > (legitimately). So what is the issue? Marginalised doesn't mean powerless, just deprived of an ability to be involved in the "legitimate" economy. They can indeed use violence, steal, fraud. People can do whatever people can do, not just whatever they are legally allowed to. They might also be punished, but that's a different issue. Bleeding heart issues aside, these actions are increasingly possible and powerful and threatening to the existing order, as the percentage of people in that marginalised group increases. The issue is this increasingly is an example of a broken system. > Just that some people won't have what > some others will? That's the case to day, and for good reason. It provides a > strong incentive structure which increases productivity. That's a matter of faith really. > Also, the existence of multiple sub-markets is a good thing, not a bad one. > There are different markets now for different groups. Wealthy people > primarily operate in a different market than the people in developing > countries (for the most part). They certainly purchase vastly different > things. That isn't a problem, but is actually a strength of the market. Free > markets allow people to supply whatever people want or need (signaled by > willingness to pay). People can only pay, if they have tokens to pay with. Marginalised people can't signal their preferences, because they don't have tokens. So, how can the market do its magic for these people? > So if the needs of some group aren't being met by the > market dominated by the super-wealthy or the transhumans, etc., the poorer > people can start their own thing, making quilts or whatever like the Amish. > This a reason why markets are a positive thing, and why they will always > adapt to the needs of people. There are indeed lots of grassroots efforts to create local and alternative currencies around, for just this reason. But this seems to be quite hard, to often not sit entirely comfortably with the law, and is an example not of markets adapting to meet the needs of people, but of people trying to wrench new markets into being to escape the depredations of existing, non adapting ones. > > The other thing I wanted to question was: What type of society could exist > totally without money? Money is what allows people to a) not have to barter > which is extremely inefficient and b) not use force against each other in > order to get what they want. > It is the single greatest invention in the > history of the world, it allowed the blossoming of civilization and reason > as opposed to poverty, barbarism, and mysticism. Entirely without money is a tall order, I'll admit. I suspect it's very difficult for anyone presently alive to truly imagine a technologically advanced society without money (the Federation doesn't count, it never made sense :-) ). But consider that in the modern world, everything we would think of as useful above the level of raw commodity is largely information and social value. An iPhone isn't valuable to us because of the value of the raw materials in it, neither is a car. It's because of the arrangement of the atoms, and the social context of that arrangement (iPhones allow us to compute and communicate, and they work on a world communications network and in the context of Apple's iTunes; cars allow us to travel and act as peacock tails, and have value because the western world is largely paved for them). The raw materials are usually cheap, the social context actually costs nothing, and information is distributable endlessly for close enough to free that it doesn't matter. Yet the prices we pay don't reflect that; we pay a lot of money because the people who provide these things need also to pay for inputs (stuff and information) which can be expensive even though it is also mostly made of things which really cost very little, and labour which costs because the people supplying the labour want tokens to trade for overly expensive things mostly made of information and social context, and they want profits because they too want to be able to buy things mostly made of information and social context. Information and social context are both essentially free, and we can have as much of them as we can stomach without costing anyone else. They are non scarce. Yet we continually price things made out of them in a non-free way, ie: we make them scarce. Because we need tokens. So, another way to look at this is to say, we could just let all the information and social context go free, remove the mediation of money. There is still the matter of resources, atoms, which might require a scarcity economy or might not (but lets say they do for now - one day we will realise that everything in the entire universe is made of atoms and we shouldn't get so hung up on them, but today is not that day). There is also the matter of the human creative input to create physical things, and to create new information and social context. But do we need money to motivate this actual work? The great body of the internet says no. People will do things for money, but we see increasingly that enough people will do even more, far more, for reputation and just for the love of it, if they are not otherwise required to spend their time toiling. If the things they need to live have zero or almost zero cost, for the reasons stated above, then that will be the case; you don't need to financially reward people who have no use for that reward. And, you don't need (and can't use) the work of everyone, just of a few, which can be endlessly distributed to anyone who can use it. The great strength of the market is its signalling aspects, but you can still have that, because you can still have reputation markets. The social internet, if it is anything, is almost wholely an unimaginably large collection of variously sized reputation markets. These markets aren't command economy; they're bonefide distributed organisations of free actors. I'd like to think that we could eventually replace government with mechanisms that arise out of this sphere. > Now I might imagine a > society in the semi-far future (perhaps by the end of the century) in which > extremely powerful AIs might be able to provide basically everything without > any human involvement. They might be something like the Minds in Iain M. > Banks' "The Culture" novels. Perhaps such a society would have no need of > money, but it isn't really a society of people anymore, so much as a world > dominated by nearly godlike entities. The production is done by these > superbeings who use a microscopic amount of their power to provide > everything we mere mortals and less intelligent beings may desire. A world > where people are interacting on anything approaching equal terms is going to > have to be dominated by money in some form or another in order to function > peacefully and efficiently. Are you sure? >> >>>> Or, hell, maybe the Robin Hansons of the world are right, that the >>>> market will invent a bunch of new jobs to take up the slack. But, will >>> >>> A bunch of pointless new jobs which just help us advance resource >>> entropy and calcify society is exactly our problem. The market is not >>> exactly helping. >>> >>>> those be fulfilling work, advancing the state of humanity? Or will the >>>> new new economy consist of even more disengaged people well aware of >>>> the pointlessness of their endeavours but powerless to escape them? Is >>>> that actually the way we want to deal with the fact that the universe >>>> no longer requires most of us to toil for existence? >>> >>> I believe you already mentioned soylent green as an option. >>> >>> What I'm missing is that it's pretty obvious what needs to be done. >>> But nobody is doing it, and not even talking about doing it. >>> Politically, it looks like a bad case of rigor mortis. Not much >>> seem to be happening at the grassroots either. >>> >>> We're overdue for another revolutionary movement, but there's a >>> curious silence in the room. I don't get it. >>> >> >> This is probably what it is like at the fall of empires, I guess. And >> you know, screw the empire, we never really liked it anyway. But, the >> zero dollar questions are, where to next, and how do we make it >> happen? >> >> -- >> Emlyn > > I will say that the empire will fall. The empire won't of work, > productiveness, and laissez-faire capitalism won't be what falls however. It > will be the mixed economy, socialism, and the world dominated by force and > compulsion which falls. Where to next? Well back to capitalism. What we need > isn't force and regulation and universal basic incomes to make sure everyone > is included. We need to set people free to follow their own lights, do what > they deem best for themselves, and think independently. A society which bans > all forms of force is one which will enable everyone to be free to do > whatever they wish. Technology will advance more rapidly, people will get > what they desire more quickly and more efficiently than under a centrally > organized system, and we will reach the day when the results everyone seems > to strive for (a world where people don't have to be productive if they > don't want to; even if I think that would be a horrible thing to do) will be > a reality without any force of compulsion involved. Free actions of free > individuals will create it. And its the only way to attain that end without > violating at the very least the principle of self-direction. I hope you're wrong. The 20th century seemed to be all about capitalism vs socialism, various mixes of these showing up, and no one being particularly happy about most of the results. The 21st century dawns with a new connected humanity, with a new set of possibilities for living together, collaborating or not, communicating or not, helping each other or not, which invalidate the core assumptions of the previous ideologies. We have new possibilities for productivity, ones that don't require human toil (in fact which increasingly wont be able to find a use for it), yet we find ourselves mired in a pre-existing system which requires money purely for organizational reasons. The universal basic income is a kludge to tide us over while we sort out the new stuff, because people don't deserve to die in the streets just because things have gotten better. > > This was my first post, hope its okay. Yep, thanks for posting! -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Nov 5 07:08:53 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:08:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911042236w5657546k30e684f44e9be9d8@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911041852mead600vcbb659ac40fccff3@mail.gmail.com> <788BF5FB-9136-4B25-854C-5E226FDDAC6D@GMAIL.COM> <710b78fc0911042236w5657546k30e684f44e9be9d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AF27A05.9090406@satx.rr.com> On 11/5/2009 12:36 AM, Emlyn wrote: > people don't deserve to die in the streets just because things > have gotten better. Another great line! Damien Broderick [of the Emlyn cheer squad] From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 08:31:47 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:31:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <788BF5FB-9136-4B25-854C-5E226FDDAC6D@GMAIL.COM> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911041852mead600vcbb659ac40fccff3@mail.gmail.com> <788BF5FB-9136-4B25-854C-5E226FDDAC6D@GMAIL.COM> Message-ID: <580930c20911050031g5522ccady7c604360c4f30b5@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/5 JOSHUA JOB : > Work is the means to survival. You have to produce values of some kind > (almost always material values, in some manner, in most sectors of the > economy) in order to survive. So having a desire to be productive (i.e. a > work ethic) is a good thing. Yes. But I think a great deal of discussion may confuse work with employment in the sense of being employed by Ford or IBM and getting a salary at the end of the month, the framework of a more or less declining capitalist society. Now, it is perfectly possible that unemployment is growing in the second sense in the US and Europe, even though it may depend on an economic scenario of which technological stagnation and ignorance, as opposed to developments, is an ingredient; and has little to do with an abundance of offer (large-scale mass immigration, as the modern version of slave trade, is, e.g., often justified with the insufficient availability of semi-skilled manpower). As to "work" in general, I think that competition for scarce resources and trade thereof are going to stay, so that most of us will continue to be involved in all that one way or another. Even though the resources that are scarce are of course going to change with time, in the long term possibly for the best. -- Stefano Vaj From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 5 13:24:48 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:24:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Poll: Americans' belief in global warming cools Message-ID: <521388.13198.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-ZiXMrCMn_Vo2QQJncPTUGp-sJAD9BG7BE80 >From the Associated Press: WASHINGTON ? The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years, according to a survey released Thursday. The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the problem as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006.... Rob Masters -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanite1018 at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 22:52:34 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:52:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911042236w5657546k30e684f44e9be9d8@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911041852mead600vcbb659ac40fccff3@mail.gmail.com> <788BF5FB-9136-4B25-854C-5E226FDDAC6D@GMAIL.COM> <710b78fc0911042236w5657546k30e684f44e9be9d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4374135F-5D64-443E-ADB0-8C296D38727B@GMAIL.COM> On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:36 AM, Emlyn wrote: > Well, you have to have food, shelter, companionship to live (plus a > few more things on this list?). "Producing value" is a method of > getting tokens to trade with other people to get those things. > >> So having a desire to be productive (i.e. a >> work ethic) is a good thing. > > Good? It is useful to the individual, in a society organised to > require tokens, because it helps the individual get tokens. If the > "productive" work the individual has to do to get those tokens turns > out to be a negative though (either through indulging in important > looking makework like service work and middle management, which do > nothing useful but consume extra resources, or through indulging in > outright destructive behaviour like working in scams such as much of > the finance work, or marketing/advertising), then it looks like the > opposite of useful to the group, and the morality of the endeavour is > questionable. Well, if people thought the work was useless or negative (that it didn't somehow benefit them), then no one would be employed in such positions. Having middle management, for example, is one way to organize a company. If a company with it outcompetes a company without it on a free market, then clearly middle management serves a productive purpose. If not, then middle management is dumped to make companies more profitable. Scams are punished in the market and by law (you aren't allowed to defraud people, lie, etc.). They might run for a while, but they always fail eventually. So, any form of work is useful or at least potentially useful (only time can tell whether it is optimally useful compared to other possible activities or organization types). Being productive is moral however, because it serves your life. >> So some work is necessary to >> live a dignified life, absolutely. > .....Toil is required now, in the current system, unless you are self > sufficient for tokens. Work of some kind, which provides a sense of > meaning, is probably required to live a dignified life, but that is > not the same as "toil". What is the purpose of the distinction between non-token work vs. work for tokens? Both are voluntary (you always have a choice in a free society about what you do, and can always decide to go hungry or be homeless, etc. if you really hate working). There is no real difference between the two, except one is for something that isn't money. But money is merely a means to getting certain types of values, like food, shelter, entertainment like video games or movies, education, etc. Some things we don't really use money to acquire like companionship and friendship and sex. Those sorts of things we have to acquire through means that don't involve money (such as having integrity, being rational, friendly, listening, etc.). But the end goal is the same: the attainment of values. So splitting work into work for money and work for "pleasure" doesn't really make sense. Many people love their jobs (that's how it should be for everyone, and would be more so if our society was freer). Many hate them. Some love volunteering, others hate it. There are people who would go to work even if they weren't being paid, because they love their job. There are some who would only go to a homeless shelter only if they were being paid. So the two categories you are discussing aren't exhaustive or even mutually exclusive. And in the end, everyone chooses what they want to do, even if they wouldn't choose that particular activity if they had superpowers or had magic powers like Harry Potter and could do whatever they wanted without any restriction (which is a standard which is totally disconnected from reality, and therefore irrational) > So you mean you shouldn't force people to pay taxes to support other > people? Actually I partly agree with this; I find it difficult to > stomach the > idea of big new taxes. Especially income taxes, it's kind of the point > that selling ones' labour as a means of participating in the market is > failing as an idea, because technology is reducing the value of > labour. > > If you are a government, whose job it is to look after the interests > of the people (a fraught concept to be sure, and hopefully we can come > up with something a bit more self organising and useful, but it's what > we've got), there are other ways to raise money than to tax the > working stiffs. For instance, the government hands out monopolies all > over the place, especially on IP. If we are going to stay with IP (and > there's another tar baby), then charge like wounded bulls for the > privellege of these monopolies! If companies want to have exclusive > rights over abstract ideas, make them pay for the privellege; after > all, these monopolies damage us all. > > Property rights are also artificial grants, if you think about it, > guaranteed by he with the biggest stick (that's the government, > maintaining its monopoly on violence so we don't all need armed > gangs). It could charge handsomely for those privelleges too; after > all, it's expensive to guarantee that stuff. > > Or, you know, you could view the matter in the universe as belonging > primarily to the collective of all humanity. Perhaps private property > shouldn't be able to be owned at all? Perhaps it should be more like a > subscription system? Hmm... >> If you reject the ability to initiate force on those grounds >> (as it seems to me one should, logically), then you are left with >> simply an >> argument that charities are good things. I'll leave that question >> alone, but >> I certainly think that any sort of guaranteed (through the state) >> minimum >> income can be rejected based on fundamental principles. > > Unless you argue that the state should be entirely abolished (you > might! Large collections of people acting together and imposing their > will on others tend to be pretty shit), then how do you draw the line > between when the state can use its based-in-force powers and when it > can't? Well, you might be interested in Georgism, its says all land should be held in common. I disagree with it but I'm not going to get into that. Just thought you might want to know about it in case you hadn't heard of it. I do not believe any form of initiation of force against another person is justified in any circumstances, except perhaps (and it should be minimized) in an emergency situation (a situation where life without force is quite literally impossible, like if you are on a sinking boat and you have to throw someone overboard to prevent everyone's drowning). So taxes are illegitimate in my opinion. Government can instead by funded in exactly the way you suggested: fees for contracts of all kinds. It would be something like charging a tiny percentage of the value of a contract (defined in some manner, not going to go into legal theory, I haven't considered it in that detail), which would pay for the costs of enforcement as well as other functions of government (the criminal justice system and military). That way government is funded voluntarily (no one is making you pay the fee to the government, but if you don't, your contract won't be enforced by any court of law). Along with my principle against the non-initiation of force, the only legitimate functions of government are those which do no initiate force, and those are courts, police and the military (which is used defensively to prevent force, almost solely being used for direct defense). The justice system doesn't initiate any force, it instead settles disputes people voluntarily bring to it, and punishes people who have initiated force (taking over the self-defense functions from people, effectively). Government is, it seems, necessary to settle disputes. The nice thing about my way of funding it, etc., is that it will allow it to wither away and disappear if at some point humanity somehow outgrows it (people won't need to have their contracts insured, private arbitration services take over in the criminal justice arena and civil arena, etc.). >> A couple of things here. First: What is the problem if portions of >> the world >> are "marginalized?" They are by powerless. > > Why do you say "they"? The only moral way to my mind of judging any > system of social organisation, is to imagine yourself as part of the > least well off group. Unless you can be ok with being that person, how > can you support that system? To be clear here, would you be ok being > one of those powerless people? Well I disagree with your assertion that that is the way to judge the morality of a society. Even so, I would be unhappy that I did have cybernetic implants and my own nanotech factory and AI home computer, etc. just like I am now that I don't have an iPhone because it costs too much for me to think its worth it to buy it. I'd love a satellite phone, but I don't have one because they're too expensive. I would love a Ferrari, but I don't because its too expensive. Do I think its unfair that I don't have those things? Absolutely not. That is how society is and should be organized in my view, so it really doesn't matter where I am on the scale, I wouldn't think the system immoral. Might I not like my position? Sure. Might I want to change it? Absolutely. Does that make the system immoral? Definitely not. >> On principle, they aren't allowed >> to do anything. They can't attack the formal economy using >> violence, they >> can't steal, they can't defraud people, they can't take away their >> property >> (legitimately). So what is the issue? > > Marginalised doesn't mean powerless, just deprived of an ability to be > involved in the "legitimate" economy. They can indeed use violence, > steal, fraud. People can do whatever people can do, not just whatever > they are legally allowed to. They might also be punished, but that's a > different issue. > > Bleeding heart issues aside, these actions are increasingly possible > and powerful and threatening to the existing order, as the percentage > of people in that marginalised group increases. The issue is this > increasingly is an example of a broken system. Well preventing people from slaughtering millions, blowing things up, stealing lots of money, etc. is the job of government. That's exactly what its there for. In my opinion, you don't allow evil to determine how you live your life. Murderers, thieves, etc. are evil and/or committing evil acts. I won't allow them to blackmail me into giving them what they want. The proper response is to use whatever force is necessary to make them stop killing, stealing, etc. (locking them up, increasing fines, having more police, perhaps declaring a war if that is appropriate). Like the President in the movie "Air Force One," I say "We don't negotiate with terrorists" of any kind. >> So if the needs of some group aren't being met by the >> market dominated by the super-wealthy or the transhumans, etc., the >> poorer >> people can start their own thing, making quilts or whatever like >> the Amish. >> This a reason why markets are a positive thing, and why they will >> always >> adapt to the needs of people. > > There are indeed lots of grassroots efforts to create local and > alternative currencies around, for just this reason. But this seems to > be quite hard, to often not sit entirely comfortably with the law, and > is an example not of markets adapting to meet the needs of people, but > of people trying to wrench new markets into being to escape the > depredations of existing, non adapting ones. I wholeheartedly support those grassroots efforts and alternative currencies. Just the problems you are discussing is why they should be totally legal and allowed to compete on the open market (have multiple currencies seems to work just fine for certain countries today, and worked fine for America back in the 1800s). Monetary systems, market structures etc. that aren't serving people will die off and be replaced by better ones. We may end up with two very separate and different markets for the transhumans or wealthy and another for the normal people or poor. But that isn't a problem, its one of the nice things about freeing people to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't involve force: they can solve problems in unique ways. > ....There is also the matter of the human creative input to create > physical things, and to create new information and social context. But > do we need money to motivate this actual work? The great body of the > internet says no. People will do things for money, but we see > increasingly that enough people will do even more, far more, for > reputation and just for the love of it, if they are not otherwise > required to spend their time toiling. If the things they need to live > have zero or almost zero cost, for the reasons stated above, then that > will be the case; you don't need to financially reward people who have > no use for that reward. And, you don't need (and can't use) the work > of everyone, just of a few, which can be endlessly distributed to > anyone who can use it. > > The great strength of the market is its signalling aspects, but you > can still have that, because you can still have reputation markets. > The social internet, if it is anything, is almost wholely an > unimaginably large collection of variously sized reputation markets. > These markets aren't command economy; they're bonefide distributed > organisations of free actors. I'd like to think that we could > eventually replace government with mechanisms that arise out of this > sphere. I am going to sort of steal an argument from F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" here, because it applies really really well to your criticism that I quoted. The scarcity isn't information or material in the economy (well not in almost all cases). The scarcity that causes prices is the scarcity of time (there are only so many people-hours in a day). That's why we live in a world where things are scarce and thus need a distribution mechanism. Could it be something like a reputation market? Well let's examine that (and see if its any different from money, if applied to a whole economy). In a capitalist economy, the market is totally impartial. People deal with each other based on the quality of products, and there are prices determined not by individual people but by all sorts of people, buyers and sellers, together resulting in the price (which is fairly constant across all transactions for a given good at a given time all around the market area). Things like individual prejudices are punished harshly (if you purposely only higher whites, even though some minority people would do a better job, you'll get hurt because your business won't be as efficient as the competitors who aren't racist). Grudges are overwhelmed by market forces, by pure rational assessment of costs and benefits. A system based on central planning cannot have that (as it won't have numerous people deciding things on a low level, but a central planner who will inevitably have some such biases). Now, lets look at a social reputation market like you are talking about. First, this means that grudges, personal prejudices, etc. all have a role to play, and quite possibly a big one at that. Besides that, what exactly is the difference between your reputation market and a money market? The only conceivable difference is that in one I am doing something for money and one without. But in a capitalist market, you get paid more for the better work you do, the more innovative you are, etc. In a reputation market, same thing. You have more pull if you have more money. Same with a reputation market. In fact, I can't think of any fundamental difference between the two in terms of how they work (other than giving more room for personal prejudice and grudges in a reputation market than a capitalist one). The end result would be basically the same. You have to manage distribution (assuming we aren't in a post-scarcity economy which would make this whole discussion moot anyway). That would, likely, end up being based on reputation (hardest/best workers get things first, etc.). What does that sound like? Oh yeah, capitalism. Haha. You can call it what you want, but I really think that the basic structure of capitalism, whether something absolute like money or a reputation market, will remain as long as we ban force and still have scarcity. > I hope you're wrong. The 20th century seemed to be all about > capitalism vs socialism, various mixes of these showing up, and no one > being particularly happy about most of the results. The 21st century > dawns with a new connected humanity, with a new set of possibilities > for living together, collaborating or not, communicating or not, > helping each other or not, which invalidate the core assumptions of > the previous ideologies. > > We have new possibilities for productivity, ones that don't require > human toil (in fact which increasingly wont be able to find a use for > it), yet we find ourselves mired in a pre-existing system which > requires money purely for organizational reasons. The universal basic > income is a kludge to tide us over while we sort out the new stuff, > because people don't deserve to die in the streets just because things > have gotten better. Well you are right that we will find new ways to organize things, I totally agree with you there. So the capitalism of 2050 or 2100 won't look like todays (just like todays isn't like 1950s or 1900s or 1850s). Like I've said before, my problem with the universal basic income is that it involves force to take from some people to give it to others. And that I can't see how it can be reconciled with the principles of extropy, which explicitly talk about the need for an open society, self-direction, and rational thinking (and force goes against all of them). Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Nov 5 23:36:08 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:36:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911031714o28f99b41k734fcc1fe3373a51@mail.gmail.com> <20091104110051.GU17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20091105233608.GC11306@ofb.net> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:51PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > We're regressing in our capabilities. Our infrastructure is degrading, > since we no longer have the financial wherewithal nor skilled > manpower to keep it where it was. I'm not talking about developing We have twice the per-capita income we had when we built it; it's ridiculous to say we don't have the financial wherewithal to maintain it. Don't have the willingness to pay the taxes needed, maybe. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Nov 5 23:25:43 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:25:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:16:07PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > There are not enough paying jobs around people can do. Meaning, either > they can't do it, or they can't get paid doing it. The result is the same. That's a big difference though. "Can't get paid" may simply mean that the people with money aren't willing to pay for it. Looking around, I see shortages of teachers, nurses, doctors, environmental cleanup crews, public transit bus drivers, people building non-fossil fuel power plants, road and sidewalk maintenance or upgrades (they get patched, not sent to mint condition), good science journalists and cross-field integrators, people working on anti-aging an other research, port inspectors if we're seriously worried about container nukes... Lots and lots and lots of jobs that need doing and that AI is nowhere close to handling. Of course, a lot of them involve government. -xx- Damien X-) From pharos at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 11:07:55 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:07:55 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 11/5/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > That's a big difference though. "Can't get paid" may simply mean that > the people with money aren't willing to pay for it. Looking around, I > see shortages of teachers, nurses, doctors, environmental cleanup crews, > public transit bus drivers, people building non-fossil fuel power > plants, road and sidewalk maintenance or upgrades (they get patched, > not sent to mint condition), good science journalists and cross-field > integrators, people working on anti-aging an other research, port > inspectors if we're seriously worried about container nukes... > > Lots and lots and lots of jobs that need doing and that AI is nowhere > close to handling. Of course, a lot of them involve > government. > > 'Looking around' eh? I don't know where you're looking but it obviously isn't where the 1 in 5 desperate for work are looking. As you say, the few jobs that are increasing are government-funded jobs. What does that tell you about the economy? And the lost jobs aren't coming back. That's the point of this discussion. That's why some people talk about a 'jobless recovery' for the economy. i.e the bankers and the stock market recover, but that's all. For another example see: Monday, Nov 2, 2009 17:30 PST Why Dilbert is doomed The jobs of tomorrow are not what you'd expect Where are tomorrow's jobs going to come from? The question is more urgent than ever, with official unemployment hovering around 10 percent and with nearly one in five Americans unemployed, if you count part-time workers who want full-time jobs and people so desperate that they have given up looking for work entirely. Most job growth in the last decade has been concentrated in three sectors: healthcare, education and government, mostly state and local government. Since the recession began, healthcare has added 559,000 jobs. Even more remarkable, the average monthly gain of 22,000 jobs during 2009 has been only slightly lower than the average increase of 30,000 jobs a month in 2008. etc...... --------------- That sums up the future. People will work in personal services, for each other. you cut my hair and I'll do your tax reclaim letter. What the effects of this change will be is unpredictable. Will GDP mean anything at all in this future world? BillK From brentn at freeshell.org Fri Nov 6 11:24:07 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:24:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 6 Nov, 2009, at 6:07, BillK wrote: > > > What the effects of this change will be is unpredictable. > Will GDP mean anything at all in this future world? > GDP doesn't mean anything in this current world. :) But that's a different discussion... B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sat Nov 7 00:19:10 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:19:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com> <20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20091107001910.GA9827@ofb.net> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 11:07:55AM +0000, BillK wrote: > On 11/5/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > That's a big difference though. "Can't get paid" may simply mean that > > the people with money aren't willing to pay for it. Looking around, I > > see shortages of teachers, nurses, doctors, environmental cleanup crews, > > public transit bus drivers, people building non-fossil fuel power > > plants, road and sidewalk maintenance or upgrades (they get patched, > > not sent to mint condition), good science journalists and cross-field > > integrators, people working on anti-aging an other research, port > > inspectors if we're seriously worried about container nukes... > > > > Lots and lots and lots of jobs that need doing and that AI is nowhere > > close to handling. Of course, a lot of them involve > > government. > > 'Looking around' eh? I don't know where you're looking but it > obviously isn't where the 1 in 5 desperate for work are looking. As I didn't mean that there were lots of job postings in the newspapers advertising for new teachers etc. I meant that there is work that should be done but isn't: kids aren't getting well educated, polluted sites are still polluted, food and other inspection is haphazard, my town doesn't have proper gutters and sort of floods every rain, etc. People being idle is not because there's nothing useful they *could* be doing. > you say, the few jobs that are increasing are government-funded jobs. > What does that tell you about the economy? That agriculture and manufacturing are really labor-efficient and it's time to move on? No one every complains about the massive lost of agricultural jobs. > And the lost jobs aren't coming back. That's the point of this > discussion. That's why some people talk about a 'jobless recovery' for I'm not sure that's been settled. Jobless recovery started with the last recession, around 2000; in light of the bubble and crash, one can wonder if the economy every really recovered, vs. getting papered over by bad assets math. Are the jobs gone, or have we been in Keynesian demand shortfall for the past decade? > That sums up the future. People will work in personal services, for > each other. you cut my hair and I'll do your tax reclaim letter. Services can be important, though. Maintenance is *important* yet typically undervalued. Education and research are important. Inspection and accounting is important. -xx- Damien X-) From mlatorra at gmail.com Sat Nov 7 18:39:58 2009 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:39:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> FYI: While reading an article in SCIENCE magazine about renewable energy projects in China, I was struck most of all by the mention, made in passing, that the majority of the leaders of the Chinese government/Communist Party are engineers. They may be terrible on issues of human rights. But their management of the Chinese economy and development of infrastructure show a much better grasp on reality than what we see in the USA among our leaders. I'd like to see more scientists and engineers in our government, rather than the lawyers and bankers who control the United States of Goldman Sachs. Regards, Mike LaTorra On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 04:15:20PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > Sorry if I am pestering you, but I think it is at least equally > > plausible to see things the other way around. Engineering is declining > > in Europe because cultural values dictate that you should be instead a > > banker, a lawyer or a consultant. > > The distinct problem I have that smart people are moving to these > professions (because of the value society puts into them, measured > in terms of hard cash) that they're a symptom of an overregulated, > mature, bureaucratic society. You no longer create stuff, but squabble > over allocation and distribution of existing stuff. Zero-sum, not > positive-sum. > Hence the need for conflict resolution, arbitration, mock-property, claim > and pretend-wealth management (alas, the knowledge nor money > doesn't like to work very hard). > > > And the view is widespread that a society can live perfectly well by > > simply selling financial and commercial services to one another. > > Well, we're seeing where such views have taken us. And it sure ain't > pretty. > > > As a consequence, economy (and technological innovation!) slow down. > > This in turn creates unemployment. And ultimately poverty, for that > > Worse, it creates static, brittle societies which are unable to deal > with change. Coming just at the time where the need for adaptation and > change is highest, as we're running into limits of resources without > having achieved escape velocity yet. > > That is a recipe for failure, not survival. At least, for established > old, I'm hoping the emerging new ones will do better, by necessity alone. > > > matter. Not that this makes any easier to find a good butler or > > lute-maker, eg, even though in such jobs technology remains largely > > irrelevant. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Nov 7 19:04:04 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:04:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com><20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org><580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com><20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> ...On Behalf Of Michael LaTorra ... I'd like to see more scientists and engineers in our government, rather than the lawyers and bankers who control the United States of Goldman Sachs. Regards, Mike LaTorra Mike I would agree in principle, but our experience with it so far has been mostly bad. We have had two presidents which could properly be credited with a background in engineering and sciences: Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. Both were failures. spike From mlatorra at gmail.com Sat Nov 7 19:46:26 2009 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:46:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> Message-ID: <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> Hi Spike, In our system of tripartite government structure, our presidents do not wield the same unchecked power that the Chinese leaders do. The US Congress (mostly lawyers) and the Supereme Court (entirely lawyers) can block, undo, or dillute whatever a president proposes to do. In the case of President Carter, we had a man who understood the long-term energy problem and tried to take steps to avert it. He had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. "In 1977, Carter convinced the Democratic Congress to create the United States Department of Energy (DoE) with the goal of conserving energy. Carter also signed the National Energy Act (NEA) and the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). The purpose of these watershed laws was to encourage energy conservation and the development of national energy resources, including renewables such as wind and solar energy." (from Wikipedia.org) In the case of President Hoover, we had a man who eschewed the engineer's penchant for design and process control, opting instead for minimal government the time of the Great Depression, when precisely the opposite was needed. Hoover acted too-little like an engineer when he most needed to. "President Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. >From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach. Critics, such as liberal economist Paul Krugman, who wrote *The Conscience of a Liberal*, contend that Hoover shared Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint." (from Wikipedia.org) Regards, Mike On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM, spike wrote: > ...On Behalf Of Michael LaTorra > ... > > I'd like to see more scientists and engineers in our government, > rather than the lawyers and bankers who control the United States of > Goldman > Sachs. > > Regards, > Mike LaTorra > > > > Mike I would agree in principle, but our experience with it so far has been > mostly bad. We have had two presidents which could properly be credited > with a background in engineering and sciences: Herbert Hoover and Jimmy > Carter. Both were failures. > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 7 21:04:47 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Sockpuppet99@hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:04:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: All this indicates, Mike, is that engineers are imbedded in the social context of their time and you are no more likely to get a good result out of an engineer than out of anyone else. In fact, I would argue that Carter was a horrible, micromanaging president precisely because he was an engineer. Tom D Sent from my iPod On Nov 7, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Michael LaTorra wrote: > Hi Spike, > In our system of tripartite government structure, our presidents do > not wield the same unchecked power that the Chinese leaders do. The > US Congress (mostly lawyers) and the Supereme Court (entirely > lawyers) can block, undo, or dillute whatever a president proposes > to do. > > In the case of President Carter, we had a man who understood the > long-term energy problem and tried to take steps to avert it. He had > solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. > "In 1977, Carter convinced the Democratic Congress to create the > United States Department of Energy (DoE) with the goal of conserving > energy. Carter also signed the National Energy Act (NEA) and the > Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). The purpose of these > watershed laws was to encourage energy conservation and the > development of national energy resources, including renewables such > as wind and solar energy." (from Wikipedia.org) > > In the case of President Hoover, we had a man who eschewed the > engineer's penchant for design and process control, opting instead > for minimal government the time of the Great Depression, when > precisely the opposite was needed. Hoover acted too-little like an > engineer when he most needed to. > "President Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on > volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a > proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way > to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much > intervention or coercion by the government would destroy > individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important > American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the > test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the > Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury > Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach. Critics, > such as liberal economist Paul Krugman, who wrote The Conscience of > a Liberal, contend that Hoover shared Mellon's laissez-faire > viewpoint." (from Wikipedia.org) > Regards, > Mike > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM, spike wrote: > ...On Behalf Of Michael LaTorra > ... > > I'd like to see more scientists and engineers in our > government, > rather than the lawyers and bankers who control the United States of > Goldman > Sachs. > > Regards, > Mike LaTorra > > > > Mike I would agree in principle, but our experience with it so far > has been > mostly bad. We have had two presidents which could properly be > credited > with a background in engineering and sciences: Herbert Hoover and > Jimmy > Carter. Both were failures. > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 7 21:07:27 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Sockpuppet99@hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:07:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Interesting whiff of anti-Semitism here, although you could not possibly have meant such. Would you like to add that the should not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold? Tom D Sent from my iPod On Nov 7, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Michael LaTorra wrote: > FYI: > While reading an article in SCIENCE magazine about renewable energy > projects in China, I was struck most of all by the mention, made in > passing, that the majority of the leaders of the Chinese government/ > Communist Party are engineers. > > They may be terrible on issues of human rights. But their management > of the Chinese economy and development of infrastructure show a much > better grasp on reality than what we see in the USA among our leaders. > > I'd like to see more scientists and engineers in our government, > rather than the lawyers and bankers who control the United States of > Goldman Sachs. > > Regards, > Mike LaTorra > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 04:15:20PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > Sorry if I am pestering you, but I think it is at least equally > > plausible to see things the other way around. Engineering is > declining > > in Europe because cultural values dictate that you should be > instead a > > banker, a lawyer or a consultant. > > The distinct problem I have that smart people are moving to these > professions (because of the value society puts into them, measured > in terms of hard cash) that they're a symptom of an overregulated, > mature, bureaucratic society. You no longer create stuff, but squabble > over allocation and distribution of existing stuff. Zero-sum, not > positive-sum. > Hence the need for conflict resolution, arbitration, mock-property, > claim > and pretend-wealth management (alas, the knowledge nor money > doesn't like to work very hard). > > > And the view is widespread that a society can live perfectly well by > > simply selling financial and commercial services to one another. > > Well, we're seeing where such views have taken us. And it sure ain't > pretty. > > > As a consequence, economy (and technological innovation!) slow down. > > This in turn creates unemployment. And ultimately poverty, for that > > Worse, it creates static, brittle societies which are unable to deal > with change. Coming just at the time where the need for adaptation and > change is highest, as we're running into limits of resources without > having achieved escape velocity yet. > > That is a recipe for failure, not survival. At least, for established > old, I'm hoping the emerging new ones will do better, by necessity > alone. > > > matter. Not that this makes any easier to find a good butler or > > lute-maker, eg, even though in such jobs technology remains largely > > irrelevant. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Nov 7 22:38:35 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:38:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/7/09, Sockpuppet99 wrote: > > Interesting whiff of anti-Semitism here, although you could not possibly > have meant such. Would you like to add that the should not crucify mankind > upon a cross of gold? > > What has antisemitism got to do with it? Are you not allowed to criticize someone if they are Jewish? or Muslim? or Greek? or American even? Very strange comment. BillK From max at maxmore.com Sat Nov 7 22:48:48 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:48:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Myth of Stagnation Message-ID: <200911072319.nA7NJvlL028321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> The philosopher Bernard Williams once wrote a piece on "The Tedium of Immortality". Although I have long thought his view reeked of sour grapes, he expressed similar sentiments to those I've heard many times over the years. "The Myth of Stagnation" is my rebuttal to those sentiments. http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/11/myth-of-stagnation.html ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From pharos at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 00:23:26 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:23:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Myth of Stagnation In-Reply-To: <200911072319.nA7NJvlL028321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911072319.nA7NJvlL028321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 11/7/09, Max More wrote: > The philosopher Bernard Williams once wrote a piece on "The Tedium of > Immortality". Although I have long thought his view reeked of sour grapes, > he expressed similar sentiments to those I've heard many times over the > years. "The Myth of Stagnation" is my rebuttal to those sentiments. > > http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/11/myth-of-stagnation.html > > Interesting article. You're the optimistic type, aren't you? :) (I'm more the 'glass half-empty' type). I don't see immortality as an either / or situation. I see it as the usual bell-curve of humanity. Some people already commit suicide before their old age, because they don't want to live any longer. Some people might last 150 years, some 500 years, and perhaps a few for a very long time indeed. As you say, avoiding arthritis and other disabling diseases of old age will do a lot to encourage people to want to live longer. The next problem is how to fund longer lives. Will 200 year-old people still be working 9 to 5 jobs to get an income? Most people have lives of work, eat, watch tv, and sleep, with a few weeks break each year. How long to you expect them to want to continue? I think immortality becomes more feasible if you assume other changes in human society. i.e. Always good health, work ethic abolished and all the essentials of life provided by machines, no starvation, poverty or disease, nanotech empowering everyone, no wars,..... You can see why immortality is traditionally associated with heaven. BillK From nanite1018 at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 06:35:14 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:35:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> Just a quick point about the Depression: Hoover's policies weren't really a problem (though I don't think they helped any). The Federal Reserve turned what would have been an average recession into the greatest economic disaster in history, by severely and artificially restricting credit. It did the exact opposite of what it "should" have done (that is, they made it worse). Massive restriction on the money supply reduced bank liquidity, causing some failures, which caused runs (which couldn't be dealt with because of the low liquidity), and on and on. Ben Bernanke has studied the Depression extensively and is considered an expert on the subject, and he said at a talk he gave a couple years back "We did it, we're sorry, and we won't let it happen again," referring to the Great Depression. Laissez-faire didn't have anything really to do with the Depression, it was the Fed which created that catastrophe. On Nov 7, 2009, at 2:46 PM, Michael LaTorra wrote: > Hi Spike, > In our system of tripartite government structure, our presidents do > not wield the same unchecked power that the Chinese leaders do. The > US Congress (mostly lawyers) and the Supereme Court (entirely > lawyers) can block, undo, or dillute whatever a president proposes > to do. > > In the case of President Carter, we had a man who understood the > long-term energy problem and tried to take steps to avert it. He had > solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. > "In 1977, Carter convinced the Democratic Congress to create the > United States Department of Energy (DoE) with the goal of conserving > energy. Carter also signed the National Energy Act (NEA) and the > Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). The purpose of these > watershed laws was to encourage energy conservation and the > development of national energy resources, including renewables such > as wind and solar energy." (from Wikipedia.org) > > In the case of President Hoover, we had a man who eschewed the > engineer's penchant for design and process control, opting instead > for minimal government the time of the Great Depression, when > precisely the opposite was needed. Hoover acted too-little like an > engineer when he most needed to. > "President Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on > volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a > proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way > to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much > intervention or coercion by the government would destroy > individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important > American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the > test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the > Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury > Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach. Critics, > such as liberal economist Paul Krugman, who wrote The Conscience of > a Liberal, contend that Hoover shared Mellon's laissez-faire > viewpoint." (from Wikipedia.org) > Regards, > Mike > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM, spike wrote: > ...On Behalf Of Michael LaTorra > ... > > I'd like to see more scientists and engineers in our > government, > rather than the lawyers and bankers who control the United States of > Goldman > Sachs. > > Regards, > Mike LaTorra > > > > Mike I would agree in principle, but our experience with it so far > has been > mostly bad. We have had two presidents which could properly be > credited > with a background in engineering and sciences: Herbert Hoover and > Jimmy > Carter. Both were failures. > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Nov 8 06:49:05 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:49:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> Message-ID: <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> On 11/8/2009 12:35 AM, JOSHUA JOB wrote: > The Federal Reserve turned what would have been an average recession > into the greatest economic disaster in history, by severely and > artificially restricting credit. It did the exact opposite of what it > "should" have done (that is, they made it That is, they were (if I understand this at all) savagely anti-Keynesian. But from your previous remarks I took you for an Objectivist, and wouldn't their policy be consistent with Rand's anti-Keynesianism? Damien Broderick From nanite1018 at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 07:03:47 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 02:03:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I'm definitely heavily influenced by Objectivism, though not entirely convinced by the epistemology of it (though I think its pretty close to right). Rand wasn't really anti-Keynesian so much as pro-laissez- faire. So the Federal Reserve shouldn't even exist in her view (and mine). Even so, that doesn't mean that anyone wants the Fed to intentionally cause harm. They didn't merely not act appropriately, or just maintain the status quo. They did the dumbest and most damaging thing they could possibly have done (granted, without meaning to do so, but the point remains, it was their fault). In fact, the Depression is one example of why trying to manage the economy is a bad idea, you'll always make mistakes. Another one would be the present recession, which was predominantly caused by Keynesian monetary policies such as super-low interest rates back in 03-04, which caused the housing bubble and the present crash. So when its being anti- Keynesian or Keynesian, the Fed still causes major catastrophes. But yeah, politically Objectivism is all about a laissez-faire market economy. So anything the Fed does, "right" or "wrong", is undesirable (though, in my opinion, doing something which damages the market more than anything else you could possibly have done, is way way more undesirable than any other course of action, haha). On Nov 8, 2009, at 1:49 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 11/8/2009 12:35 AM, JOSHUA JOB wrote: > >> The Federal Reserve turned what would have been an average recession >> into the greatest economic disaster in history, by severely and >> artificially restricting credit. It did the exact opposite of what it >> "should" have done (that is, they made it > > That is, they were (if I understand this at all) savagely anti- > Keynesian. But from your previous remarks I took you for an > Objectivist, and wouldn't their policy be consistent with Rand's > anti-Keynesianism? > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From nanite1018 at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 07:13:08 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 02:13:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Myth of Stagnation In-Reply-To: <200911072319.nA7NJvlL028321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911072319.nA7NJvlL028321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <585A3D39-4597-4DCF-B749-C10434C11645@GMAIL.COM> On Nov 7, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Max More wrote: > The philosopher Bernard Williams once wrote a piece on "The Tedium > of Immortality". Although I have long thought his view reeked of > sour grapes, he expressed similar sentiments to those I've heard > many times over the years. "The Myth of Stagnation" is my rebuttal > to those sentiments. > > http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/11/myth-of- > stagnation.html This was a very good article. What I found most interesting was the discussion of the end-game for life, what the limits actually are on consciousness in the Universe. There was a great novel, "Manifold: Time" by Stephen Baxter, which deals with what life at the "end" of the Universe would look like. We'd be squeaking energy out of black holes, managing their coalescence so that we could have the sweet spot between maximum survival time and our energy needs. It was both exciting and sad, watching as life reshapes the whole of existence to survive (exciting), and watching as entropy inexorably creeps up across the eons (sad). Of course, in our Universe none of that could happen. Our best understanding of the cosmos is that its expansion is not decelerating, as we would expect, but has been accelerating for the last 7 billion years. Estimates suggest that we will lose contact with everything but the Local Group within a trillion years (because all other galaxies in the Universe will be traveling away at faster than the speed of light). Others place an uncomfortably short timeline of 30 billion years before a Big Rip (based on one explanation for the acceleration, in that timescale every point of space-time will move away from every other at the speed of light, ending any chance of life or consciousness or structure). But I don't feel any of these pose problems for someone who wants to live forever. As a character in "Manifold: Time" says when faced with the "inevitability" of the destruction of life in the Universe eons hence, "The game itself is worth playing!" I don't think there is any reason to think we will face any such end however. As you suggest in your paper, we may be able to build universes (ideally then entering them, and escaping from our present one). Depending on where physics leads, there are some hints that we might even be able to travel to other, already existing, universes (which will likely have other laws of physics, which may pose a problem). I am confident that if there is a way to escape the death of the Universe, we will find it. And if there isn't one, than I want to have the knowledge that I survived until the end of all existence. What more could you possibly ask for than that? On a psychological note: Humans are amazingly adaptable creatures, and when we want to, we can provide meaning to our lives. It will certainly take some major changes in our psychology and outlook to incorporate an indefinite lifespan into our lives, but I see no reason to think we couldn't. The most any person could argue is that everyone would find a point at which life just isn't worth living anymore. While I can't guarantee that is not the case, it certainly is no argument against life-extension. There is one thing we know for sure: age 100 certainly isn't it. Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com From pharos at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 12:15:27 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:15:27 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 11/8/09, JOSHUA JOB wrote: > But yeah, politically Objectivism is all about a laissez-faire market > economy. So anything the Fed does, "right" or "wrong", is undesirable > (though, in my opinion, doing something which damages the market more than > anything else you could possibly have done, is way way more undesirable than > any other course of action, haha). > > The Fed was the facilitator, but your mythical 'free-market' was damaged far more by the opportunist crooks that jumped in and traded garbage all round the world, snagging millions in commissions and bonuses until the house of cards collapsed. So laissez-faire was a great deal for financial crooks. The rest of the US lost their jobs and houses. Great deal if you work in the finance industry. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 22:10:31 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:10:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911081410y41c092f1lee271c97fccf149b@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/7 Michael LaTorra > I'd like to see more scientists and engineers in our government, rather > than the lawyers and bankers who control the United States of Goldman > Sachs. As a practising lawyer, and the managing partner of a rather large law firm... I heartily second that. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 22:32:41 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:32:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Myth of Stagnation In-Reply-To: <200911072319.nA7NJvlL028321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911072319.nA7NJvlL028321@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911081432g2f25bbc5w3e9bc624f179eede@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/7 Max More > The philosopher Bernard Williams once wrote a piece on "The Tedium of > Immortality". Although I have long thought his view reeked of sour grapes, > he expressed similar sentiments to those I've heard many times over the > years. "The Myth of Stagnation" is my rebuttal to those sentiments. > http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/11/myth-of-stagnation.html > Excellent post. Concise, simple, eloquent, to the point. Not to mention reflecting exactly what are my own ideas on the subject. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Nov 8 23:19:11 2009 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:19:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] The Myth of Stagnation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <443067.48733.qm@web27008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Max, I applaud any work that name-checks obscure works by Karel Capek I haven't read. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy in English to buy on Amazon and when I try searching online, I get directed to a mis-labelled copy of "The Golden Remains of the Ever-Memorable Mr. John Hales of Eton College". Oh well, looks like I'll have to try seeing if my mind can be broadened through listening to Janacek's operatic version. A question - have you actually read Capek's original, or are you just quoting it because Bernard Williams essay named after it is a famous philosophical treatment of immortality? Tom Nowell (who now wants to go raid his sister's bookshelf for the copy of "War with the Newts) From max at maxmore.com Mon Nov 9 00:21:49 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:21:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Myth of Stagnation Message-ID: <200911090022.nA90M2Jo000682@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >Max, I applaud any work that name-checks obscure works by Karel >Capek I haven't read. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy in English >to buy on Amazon and when I try searching online, I get directed to >a mis-labelled copy of "The Golden Remains of the Ever-Memorable Mr. >John Hales of Eton College". Oh well, looks like I'll have to try >seeing if my mind can be broadened through listening to Janacek's >operatic version. I think this is what you want: Toward the Radical Center: A Karel Capek Reader (Paperback) http://www.amazon.com/Toward-Radical-Center-Karel-Reader/dp/0945774079/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257725827&sr=1-10 Not clear, but it may also appear in this collection: http://www.amazon.com/Capek-Four-Plays-Karel/dp/0413771903/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257725827&sr=1-4 >A question - have you actually read Capek's original, or are you >just quoting it because Bernard Williams essay named after it is a >famous philosophical treatment of immortality? Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 9 01:43:27 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:43:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com><4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I am deeply reluctant to bring up once more a hot button issue, but a funny thought occurred to me. The US house of reps approved a bill yesterday with a weak version of the public option but a strong version of the individual mandate to buy health insurance. What if... you are a member of Christian Science? Do not confuse Christian Science with Scientology, two very different things. In CS, your own church teaches you that it is wrong to visit the medics. So now your government is demanding that you buy health insurance, and since the public option is very expensive, they demand that you purchase a very expensive plan you refuse to use. {8^D So do those guys get a hall pass from the teacher? If so, what if the young indestructibles suddenly discover the wonderful church of Christian Science and how wise are the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy? Would the millions of late comers to CS have their hall passes withheld? Or would the government be forced to recogize they have this little clause in the first amendment to the constitution, and let the hundred million new CSers go their way? spike From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 02:49:42 2009 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:49:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:43 PM, spike wrote: > > I am deeply reluctant to bring up once more a hot button issue, but a funny > thought occurred to me. ?The US house of reps approved a bill yesterday with > a weak version of the public option but a strong version of the individual > mandate to buy health insurance. > > What if... you are a member of Christian Science? ?Do not confuse Christian > Science with Scientology, two very different things. ?In CS, your own church > teaches you that it is wrong to visit the medics. ?So now your government is > demanding that you buy health insurance, and since the public option is very > expensive, they demand that you purchase a very expensive plan you refuse to > use. ?{8^D > > So do those guys get a hall pass from the teacher? ?If so, what if the young > indestructibles suddenly discover the wonderful church of Christian Science > and how wise are the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy? ?Would the millions of > late comers to CS have their hall passes withheld? ?Or would the government > be forced to recogize they have this little clause in the first amendment to > the constitution, and let the hundred million new CSers go their way? > I don't see this being much different from "car insurance" and Amish buggy-drivers. Interestingly, the people who provide automobile rides for the Amish need special insurance to do so. In the case of health care coverage for faithful followers of Christian Science, the government answer is likely to be, "Think of it as just another tax that everyone has to pay" - then it won't matter if you use the healthcare service or not, but the expense is shared by everyone. Same as how I am asked to pay school taxes but have no children to use the school service. From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Nov 9 03:14:17 2009 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:14:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New stuff In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com><20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> Message-ID: I have some (a lot of) new work up for you to check out, this is a different kind of work than what you have seen from me before, it is not three dimensional work it is - Typography work: http://www.nanogirl.com/typography/index.htm and Photo manipulation work: http://www.nanogirl.com/photoedits/index.htm Here are two that are a little extropian: Technology: http://www.nanogirl.com/typography/technologytypo.html Charles Babbage: http://www.nanogirl.com/photoedits/charlesbabbageedit.html Please take a look and let me know your thoughts, I am especially eager to hear them since these are new types of work. You can also comment at the blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-work-for-you-to-look-at.html Best wishes, Gina From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 03:34:24 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:34:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is unemployment the future? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911081934k3baf1e83tbb743301b0974205@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:15 AM, BillK wrote: > > So laissez-faire was a great deal for financial crooks. ### But Bill, can't you see there hasn't been any "laissez-faire" in the US at least since the Whiskey Wars, or maybe there hasn't been any ever? Oops, I broke my self-imposed vow of economico-political silence. Bad boy. Crawling back into my lair, to continue reading "A Farewell to Alms" (great book), "Spent" (lots of silly yuppie leftist crap but some good stuff too), and to fondly reminisce about "Superfreakonomics" (absolutely magnificent, especially the parts about whores and global warming). Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Nov 9 03:46:22 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:46:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] New stuff In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com><20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4AF7908E.2010706@satx.rr.com> I'd like to see an "American Gothic" with two robot heads, and/or maybe two Gray UFO alien heads. Damien Broderick From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Nov 9 04:00:03 2009 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:00:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New stuff In-Reply-To: <4AF7908E.2010706@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com><20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> <4AF7908E.2010706@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: That's a good idea Damien! Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] New stuff > I'd like to see an "American Gothic" with two robot heads, and/or maybe > two Gray UFO alien heads. > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 9 03:46:23 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 19:46:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com><20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org><580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com><20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org><9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com><01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike><9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com><4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM><4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:43 PM, spike wrote: > > ...the individual mandate to buy health insurance. > > ...but... > > What if... you are a member of Christian Science?... > > > > I don't see this being much different from "car insurance" > and Amish buggy-drivers... The difference is the Amish need not drive buggies, and we need not drive cars. When one takes to the public road, one accepts the legal liabilities that go with it. Yes, technically we do have the option to not live, however I do not recommend that option. > ...Interestingly, the people who > provide automobile rides for the Amish need special insurance > to do so... Sure, but drivers have the option to not offer rides to the Amish. Agreed again, we have the option to not live, however... > ...In the case of health care coverage for faithful > followers of Christian Science, the government answer is > likely to be, "Think of it as just another tax that everyone > has to pay" ... No. Obama has already assured us there will be no tax increases for those earning under 250K per year, a solemn promise, never to be broken. On top of that, he repeatedly and specifically requested that we not think of the individual mandate as a tax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__MGyw The relevant bits are at 3:08, 3:56 and 5:01. So if the mandate not a tax, how is it applicable to those whose religion specifically requires non-use of the service? And if those guys get to slide, what about all the new believers? In any case, where in the constitution does it say the fed has the authority to make any such demand? The SCOTUS will boot this into oblivion. > Same as how I am asked... Asked? >...to pay school taxes but have no > children to use the school service... Ja, the state's argument is you use the children who use the school service. We educate them in the hopes it reduces the probability they will slay us. It is not as clear to me that this argument could be extended to the Christian Sciencers using those who are serviced by our medical system. Perhaps very vaguely so. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Nov 9 04:24:49 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:24:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] New stuff In-Reply-To: <4AF7908E.2010706@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com><20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> <4AF7908E.2010706@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4AF79991.7010606@satx.rr.com> On 11/8/2009 9:46 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > I'd like to see an "American Gothic" with two robot heads, and/or maybe > two Gray UFO alien heads. some nice ones: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Nov 9 04:58:55 2009 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:58:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New stuff In-Reply-To: <4AF79991.7010606@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20911030341n52dc3a9ak1e759b4cac649312@mail.gmail.com><20091103121607.GY17686@leitl.org> <20091105232542.GA11306@ofb.net> <4AF7908E.2010706@satx.rr.com> <4AF79991.7010606@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Very entertaining! Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] New stuff > On 11/8/2009 9:46 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > >> I'd like to see an "American Gothic" with two robot heads, and/or maybe >> two Gray UFO alien heads. > > some nice ones: > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 10:51:57 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:51:57 +0000 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/9/09, spike wrote: > Ja, the state's argument is you use the children who use the school service. > We educate them in the hopes it reduces the probability they will slay us. > It is not as clear to me that this argument could be extended to the > Christian Sciencers using those who are serviced by our medical system. > Perhaps very vaguely so. > > As you probably know, this issue has been much discussed in CS forums. Officially, the CS site says that some followers already have health insurance and most probably have life insurance. But there is still much debate going on. Immunizations should probably be made compulsory for the whole population to avoid pockets of disease developing in unprotected groups. (This is already happening in towns where a popular fear of certain jabs develops). CS seems to say that serious illness, e.g broken bones, appendicitis, should get hospital treatment. CSers then have the problem of paying for medical treatment, as do all Americans, so private health insurance is not objected to, to avoid them becoming a burden on their family or friends. The CS prayer system can still be done as well. There is also a move afoot to get payment for the CS prayer system into Obama's healthcare bill. (This is controversial, as it can be seen as government support for religious practices). As the bill is about 2000 pages long, there is probably a lot in there that has little to do with healthcare and a lot to do with pork and lobbying. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 13:08:48 2009 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:08:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:46 PM, spike wrote: >> Same as how I am asked... > Asked? Yeah, "asked" in the pleasant head-nodding expectation of compliance. I can certainly opt to not pay taxes if I am willing to risk the consequences. Maybe it's a path of least resistance to pay to live a certain lifestyle over another. >>...to pay school taxes but have no >> children to use the school service... > > Ja, the state's argument is you use the children who use the school service. > We educate them in the hopes it reduces the probability they will slay us. > It is not as clear to me that this argument could be extended to the > Christian Sciencers using those who are serviced by our medical system. > Perhaps very vaguely so. I mentioned car insurance as an example of the theory that if everyone is forced to have it then the costs will be lower for everyone. I guess if everyone pays for health insurance... no, I can't even begin to accept that forcing everyone to pay makes the price cheaper as much as forcibly raising the number of consumers. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Nov 9 13:32:11 2009 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:32:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! In-Reply-To: <62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41357.12.77.168.198.1257773531.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/antssavematestrappedinsand Helpful acts, such as grooming or foster parenting, are common throughout the animal kingdom, but accounts of animals rescuing one another from danger are exceedingly rare, having been reported in the scientific literature only for dolphins, capuchin monkeys, and ants. New research shows that in the ant Cataglyphis cursor, the behavior is surprisingly sophisticated. Elise Nowbahari of the University of Paris North, Karen L. Hollis of Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, and two colleagues mimicked a natural situation-an ant restrained by collapsing sand and debris. But hidden beneath the sand was a nylon snare holding the ant firmly in place. The ant's nestmates consistently responded by digging around the victim and tugging at its limbs until they found the trap, then biting at the nylon strand. Potential rescuers did not, however, do the same for unrelated ants or insects of other species. The ants' ability to discern and then tackle the unfamiliar nylon snare demonstrates cognitive and behavioral complexity, unlike such simple actions as digging or limb pulling, which could arguably be elicited by a chemical distress signal. Nowbahari and Hollis distinguish rescue behavior from other cooperative acts in that both participants risk physical harm (rescuing ants could themselves be trapped under falling sand), with no possibility of reward for the rescuer aside from the benefits of kin selection. The research was detailed in the journal PLoS ONE. From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 9 16:14:55 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:14:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com><20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org><9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com><01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike><9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com><4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM><4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com><62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:52 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] health care individual mandate > > On 11/9/09, spike wrote: > > > ... > > Christian Sciencers using those who are serviced by our > medical system... > > > > > > > As you probably know, this issue has been much discussed in CS forums... Thanks, no I didn't know they were talking about this, but in retrospect it makes sense that they would. > Officially, the CS site says that some followers already have > health insurance and most probably have life insurance... Cool I will check that outwardly. > ...As the bill is about 2000 pages long, there is > probably a lot in there that has little to do with healthcare > and a lot to do with pork and lobbying. BillK Ja. There is an online version of that. I tried to read thru some of it, oy. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 9 16:25:05 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:25:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com><20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org><9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com><01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike><9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com><4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM><4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com><62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <96C0A37D755B42C2BC2B559B56C281B9@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... > > I mentioned car insurance as an example of the theory that if > everyone is forced to have it then the costs will be lower > for everyone... Sure I recognize this to be true, however one has the option to not drive. The car insurance question is fundamentally different from the health insurance question. > I guess if everyone pays for health > insurance... no, I can't even begin to accept that forcing > everyone to pay makes the price cheaper as much as forcibly > raising the number of consumers. Ja, actually I diverge there to a different question. I am not arguing the total health bill goes up or down, or whether everyone should have health insurance (I think all people should have health insurance, and if they all did, total costs might well go down.) Rather the real question to me is whether the US government has the authority to make its citizens buy it. I look at the constitution, I don't see that the government has that authority. If it did, it could instantly solve the persistent social problem of homelessness. It could simply pass a law that requires every person to buy a house. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 9 16:53:25 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:53:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! In-Reply-To: <41357.12.77.168.198.1257773531.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com><20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org><9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com><01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike><9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com><4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM><4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com><62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com> <41357.12.77.168.198.1257773531.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <260333EB512C4F5897C339CD0824D5A3@spike> > ...On Behalf Of MB ... > Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/antssavematestrappedinsand > > Helpful acts, such as grooming or foster parenting, are > common throughout the animal kingdom, but accounts of animals > rescuing one another from danger are exceedingly rare, having > been reported in the scientific literature only for dolphins, > capuchin monkeys, and ants... Cool thanks MB! I am pondering a specific example of animal behavior I had the previlege of witnessing first hand. I was in the yard during my misspent youth, and my doberman started barking his head off. He had found a rattlesnake. I started over towards the racket when the dog grabbed the snake and slew it by shaking violently. I do not think this would count as putting himself in harms way specifically to protect me, as I was a good 50 meters away. He might have slain the snake even if I had not been around. There might be a bunch of pack-animal instincts that get all messed up when a dog is fed by and constantly in the presence of humans, but is never in the presence of other dogs. The ant example is way cool. Chimpanzees have been observed to participate in what would be called street gang rumbles in humans. Most of us have heard of dogs who will put themselves in harms way to rescue another dog or a human from danger. I don't know how to interpret it. From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 17:51:29 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:51:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Cryonics Article in UK Guardian newspaper Message-ID: The ExtroBritannia group has referenced this article about the rather amateurish state of cryonics in the UK, as the reporter visited a cryonics group meeting. Mike Darwin was the main speaker. He is presently helping the Russian cryonics group that Danila Medvedev is director of. A cryonics photo gallery includes photos of Mike and Danila. Quote from the quite long article: Alan now runs Cryonics UK, and every month he holds meetings with fellow cryonicists and potential converts to discuss the practicalities and potential problems of their suspension ? of which there are many. First, upon so-called "death", a team of experts must rush to their sides, pump out their blood and fill them with antifreeze. This is complicated because virtually all the members of Alan's suspension team at Cryonics UK have practised only on dummies, rather than real people ? and if, for example, air bubbles enter the pumping system, the brain will be irreversibly damaged. Second, there are no storage facilities in Britain, so patients will have to be transferred to the US or Russia. Third, science has some way to go before we can bring people back to life. But Alan has always been an optimist. He knows the situation is far from perfect, but he is doing his bit for eternal happiness. Parked outside the bungalow is an old ambulance, customised with suspension equipment. It's surprisingly archaic ? basically a suitcase with a load of tubing inside, reminiscent of an old-fashioned wine-making kit. Alan credits himself with devising the slogan, "Ambulance to the future." -------------------------- BillK From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 19:45:53 2009 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:45:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM, spike wrote: > ...the public option is very expensive... Really? We've heard a lot of partisan palaver, but what is fact and what is hoo hah? You may recall the claim that govt run plan would drive the private insurers out of business. What other cause could there be than that the govt insurance would be cheaper? That is, so much cheaper that the private insurers couldn't compete -- couldn't make the profits so essential to their survival.. Perhaps there's another explanation Best, jeff davis From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Nov 9 20:01:23 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:01:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> On 11/9/2009 1:45 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > You may recall the claim that govt run plan would drive the private > insurers out of business. What other cause could there be than that > the govt insurance would be cheaper? That is, so much cheaper that > the private insurers couldn't compete -- couldn't make the profits so > essential to their survival. Presumably the argument is that the govt-run option would have its funding topped up to a traumatic level from taxes, so the fees it charges customers would not reflect the true costs, or something. It couldn't possibly be that the new player might function more frugally (as happens elsewhere, because of not having to gouge their customers in order to pay the owners their rightfully huge salaries and perks), but surely that can't be it--what, capitalist businesses objecting to competition that drives down costs? Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 20:17:38 2009 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:17:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <96C0A37D755B42C2BC2B559B56C281B9@spike> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com> <96C0A37D755B42C2BC2B559B56C281B9@spike> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:25 AM, spike wrote: >.. the real question to me is > whether the US government has the authority to make its > citizens buy it. C'mon, spike, the "authority"? It can pass all manner of laws, compel you to pay taxes, conscript you into the death machine, and imprison you if you resist. Forcing you to buy health insurance is small potatoes by comparison. > ?I look at the constitution, That rag? Puleese! Just for show. > I don't see that the government has that > authority. It's not about authority, it's about power. Without accountabilty, authority is irrelevant. > ?If it did, it could instantly solve the persistent social > problem of homelessness. Homeless people don't make campaign contributions. > ?It could simply pass a law that requires every > person to buy a house. Sorta like what we've just been through? How's that workin' out for you? Best, Jeff Davis (still Mr. Smart Ass) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Nov 9 20:29:58 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:29:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20091109202958.GA13137@ofb.net> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM, spike wrote: > > > ...the public option is very expensive... > > Really? Well yeah! Health reform is $900 billion! ...over ten years, so $90 billion a year, before they raise taxes on something to pay for it. Contrast: the defense bill was $680 billion, passed and signed without a whimper. Stimulus was $800 billion... over two years, so actually $400 billion/year. Inconsistent units: friend of obfuscators everywhere. [yes, I'm segueing to a different kind of expense than you were talking about] -xx- Damien X-) From nanite1018 at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 20:48:18 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:48:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Presumably the argument is that the govt-run option would have its > funding topped up to a traumatic level from taxes, so the fees it > charges customers would not reflect the true costs, or something. It > couldn't possibly be that the new player might function more > frugally (as happens elsewhere, because of not having to gouge their > customers in order to pay the owners their rightfully huge salaries > and perks), but surely that can't be it--what, capitalist businesses > objecting to competition that drives down costs? Actually, what they object to is unfair competition. The public option will be set up by the federal government, through taxes, and will supposedly operate from that point on as a non-profit. Let alone the fact that the poor will be getting tax breaks and subsidies so that they can afford to buy health care (and probably pick the public option, making it a back-handed subsidization of the program which is supposed to be non-profit and fully self-contained). If a non-profit insurer was such a good idea, then a whole bunch of people could get together, get philanthropists, and create it themselves. But it likely wouldn't survive without the subsidies to the poor and the requirement that everyone get health insurance, as well as future subsidization with tax dollars (either directly or indirectly). If your goal is to drive down costs by increasing competition, how about removing the restrictions on insurance altogether? Let people by any type or size of coverage they want, from any company anywhere in the country. Right now, you can only buy insurance from a company in your state, which artificially restricts competition and increases prices, as well as fosters oligopolies and monopolies. If you eliminated such restrictions, competition would shoot up. And how about putting employer-based care on equal footing with individual care by eliminating the tax exemption from employer-based care? Then competition would increase enormously, with tens of millions of buyers on the marketplace with enormous flexibility (which forces insurance agencies to be competitive) and would eliminate the objection that health insurance is employer-based. This would also make it easier for charities and non-profits to offer care, because they would be competing for individual customers on a level playing field with insurance giants, rather than it being a competition between a straggling few individuals vs. giant purchaser-groups. More importantly than all of this, is that, as spike said, the government has no authority to do what it is doing, and is overstepping its bounds (as it has been in numerous other areas for a century). If we aren't going to pay attention to the Constitution, then why bother having one? From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 9 21:51:51 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:51:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com><20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org><580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com><20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org><9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com><01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike><9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com><4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM><4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > Subject: Re: [ExI] health care individual mandate > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM, spike wrote: > > > ...the public option is very expensive... > > Really? > > We've heard a lot of partisan palaver, but what is fact and > what is hoo hah? > > You may recall the claim that govt run plan would drive the > private insurers out of business. What other cause could > there be than that the govt insurance would be cheaper? That > is, so much cheaper that the private insurers couldn't > compete -- couldn't make the profits so essential to their survival.. > > Perhaps there's another explanation > > Best, jeff davis Hi Jeff! Welcome back, it's been a while. I should have specified "this version of the public option" for the independent estimates run over a trillion dollars. My own reasoning is that it is primarily set up for those who cannot get insurance through private insurers. In this way, the private insurers would be happy to have the government take those individuals. I notice they seems to be no objection on their part to the current house of reps plan. We can imagine those who are already really sick, or have conditions that we know are very expensive, as the primary customer for government insurance. Of course under those circumstances, the public option would necessarily cost more than the private companies can offer. The private insurance companies wouldn't mind, because they couldn't take those patients anyway. Private insurance might actually come out ahead: they insure the healthy, then when their clients get sick, they figure out a way to toss them to government. What I can envision is that Uncle Sam takes on the responsibility for care of those who have the bad, expensive stuff: severe diabetes, cancer, emphysema, all manner of dreadful conditions, then in the end it really just doesn't do a hell of a lot for them. Actually the part that I am watching more carefully is the individual mandate. It looks to me like even if that is a good thing, it is illegal. The government doesn't have the authority to require the proles to buy anything. I sure as hell can't see how that power is derived from the constitution. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 9 22:01:19 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:01:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com><01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike><9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com><4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM><4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com><62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com><62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com><96C0A37D755B42C2BC2B559B56C281B9@spike> Message-ID: <0E20E42FCFCF49F883E628F19A7E6A53@spike> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Jeff Davis > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:18 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] health care individual mandate > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:25 AM, spike wrote: > >.. the real question to me is > > whether the US government has the authority to make its > citizens buy > >it. > > C'mon, spike, the "authority"? It can pass all manner of > laws, compel you to pay taxes, conscript you into the death > machine, and imprison you if you resist. Forcing you to buy > health insurance is small potatoes by comparison. > > > ?I look at the constitution, > > That rag? Puleese! Just for show... Ja, but suppose they pass the HC reform bill, millions refuse to buy, then what? They are brought to court, the courts dismiss the cases, otherwise up it goes to the SCOTUS, which boots the entire law. I am ready to predict this outcome. Actually I don't think it will pass the senate, but if it does, it will die in court. > > ?If it did, it could instantly solve the persistent social > problem of > > homelessness. > > Homeless people don't make campaign contributions... Perhaps you missed the huge piles of campaign money raised by Senator Clinton in 2008, from all those homeless people and minimum wager earners. > > ?It could simply pass a law that requires every person to > buy a house. > > Sorta like what we've just been through? How's that workin' > out for you? > > Best, Jeff Davis (still Mr. Smart Ass) We have missed you Jeff. Where the heck have you been? spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Nov 9 22:15:34 2009 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:15:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <41550.12.77.169.58.1257804934.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > And how > about putting employer-based care on equal footing with individual > care by eliminating the tax exemption from employer-based care? Then > competition would increase enormously, with tens of millions of buyers > on the marketplace with enormous flexibility (which forces insurance > agencies to be competitive) and would eliminate the objection that > health insurance is employer-based. This. Is what I've been wishing for all these years and years I've bought my own insurance. Or give me the tax exemption too. One way or the other. Regards, MB From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 9 22:29:01 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:29:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> > ...On Behalf Of JOSHUA JOB > Subject: Re: [ExI] health care individual mandate > > ...Let alone the fact that the poor will be > getting tax breaks and subsidies so that they can afford to > buy health care... Joshua Job This comment brings up an important point which I consider a key stumbling block for the individual mandate. How do we define poor? Clearly those who do not have any money cannot buy insurance. But what we have here is a first derivative problem. The government's view of one's ability to pay is based solely on what one earns, not on what one has. The government has no insight on $, only d$/dt, or $ dot for you physics types. What this does is create enormous strains on the young and healthies just starting their professional lives and working years. Joshua and others, take careful note of this, listen and think much. There are plenty of guys like me, Jeff, others, whose earning years are over or nearly so. Our d$/dt is low now, but our $ is in relatively good shape, certainly compared to when we were your age. Our needs are few at this stage, perhaps we own real estate and a coupla good cars that could run for decades, our stuff is mostly or completely paid off, yet being older we do need health care early and often. Contrast with the young and healthies, such as Joshua and his peers. They need everything that we already have, and they are working hard to get it, so their d$/dt is in good shape, whereas their $, not so much. Joshua, this is critically important to you and your peers; follow me closely. In the current system, the government measures who is rich and who is poor based entirely on d$/dt, and not at all on its integral over time, $. So the young and healthy low $ people will need to subsidize the much higher $ much lower d$/dt older people. So we get poorer younger people subsidizing richer, older people. Even if Jeff and I clearly benefit from that deal, I do not think it is a damn bit right. We cannot dump the load on Joshua and his peers. I do not see it as workable at all. I am surprised the young are not protesting wildly. That being said, what if the government recognizes this situation as being a fundamental stumbling block to the individual mandate and health care reform in general, and consequently decides to try to base one's ability to pay on $ instead of it's first derivative d$/dt? What happens then? First thing, the fed needs to have some mechanism to measure one's $, which it currently does not have. As soon as any kind of means testing is even suggested by any ranking person in government, the price of gold skyrockets, the banks fail and venture capital markets dry up and blow away like dust in the wind. Is it clear to everyone here why that would happen? spike From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Nov 9 22:48:54 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:48:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091109224854.GA19254@ofb.net> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:51:51PM -0800, spike wrote: > I should have specified "this version of the public option" for the > independent estimates run over a trillion dollars. My own reasoning is that Over what time scale, Spike? What's the cost per year? -xx- Damien X-) From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Nov 9 22:50:33 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:50:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> Message-ID: <4AF89CB9.9060701@satx.rr.com> On 11/9/2009 4:29 PM, spike wrote: > As soon as any kind of means testing is even > suggested by any ranking person in government, the price of gold skyrockets, > the banks fail Maybe so in the US, for historical mindset reasons, yet in Oz, where means testing is routine (and is seen as an index of fairness, precisely what you're anxious about), the banks are currently offering higher interest rates than here. From nanite1018 at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 22:53:28 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:53:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> Message-ID: On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:29 PM, spike wrote: > In the current system, the government measures who is rich and who > is poor > based entirely on d$/dt, and not at all on its integral over time, > $. So > the young and healthy low $ people will need to subsidize the much > higher $ > much lower d$/dt older people. So we get poorer younger people > subsidizing > richer, older people. Even if Jeff and I clearly benefit from that > deal, I > do not think it is a damn bit right. We cannot dump the load on > Joshua and > his peers. I do not see it as workable at all. I am surprised the > young > are not protesting wildly. > > That being said, what if the government recognizes this situation as > being a > fundamental stumbling block to the individual mandate and health > care reform > in general, and consequently decides to try to base one's ability to > pay on > $ instead of it's first derivative d$/dt? What happens then? > > First thing, the fed needs to have some mechanism to measure one's > $, which > it currently does not have. As soon as any kind of means testing is > even > suggested by any ranking person in government, the price of gold > skyrockets, > the banks fail and venture capital markets dry up and blow away like > dust in > the wind. Is it clear to everyone here why that would happen? Actually, I hadn't thought of this. Good thinking! Considering that the reason they have the mandate for young people is to help offset the costs for the older people, it seems highly likely that this requirement will act as a transfer from young to old, from poorish to wealthy (much like Social Security does actually, considering the cap on the level of earnings subject to the tax). And I definitely agree that the government can't ever begin taxing total wealth, even disregarding the logistics problems. That would put a severe hamper on the economy, far worse than a progressive income tax. It would basically be a tax on saving, at least for anyone who isn't superrich, and that alone will likely cause the interest rate to skyrocket (less savings means less money for loans, which means higher price for loans, i.e. higher interest rates), which will hobble growth. The only way out of that is to flood the economy with money, which would spark high inflation, and cause the same sort of perverse incentives that got us into this recession. Now that you pointed it out, I am angry now! Way to hobble the future of your country, and be faced either with a choice between hobbling growth or hobble the producers of tomorrow. Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 23:21:27 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:21:27 +0000 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> Message-ID: On 11/9/09, spike wrote: > In the current system, the government measures who is rich and who is poor > based entirely on d$/dt, and not at all on its integral over time, $. So > the young and healthy low $ people will need to subsidize the much higher $ > much lower d$/dt older people. So we get poorer younger people subsidizing > richer, older people. Even if Jeff and I clearly benefit from that deal, I > do not think it is a damn bit right. We cannot dump the load on Joshua and > his peers. I do not see it as workable at all. I am surprised the young > are not protesting wildly. > > Spike I think you'll find that all government pension schemes already work like this. It's not a new idea. In the UK every employee and their employer pays a contribution into the government old age pension scheme. The problem now facing the UK (and shortly the US) is that the government noticed that the contributions it was collecting were more than required to pay the state pensions. So it said 'Goody' and spent the excess contributions. Unfortunately the UK has an aging population and there are now too many old people saying 'Where's my pension?' So the old folk are relying on the young people's contributions to pay their state pensions and there aren't enough young people nowadays. The European problem now is how to square this circle. Postponing the pension age from 65 to 70 is a temporary fix. But there are still big problems. BillK From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 00:47:25 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:17:25 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! In-Reply-To: <41357.12.77.168.198.1257773531.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <62c14240911081849i48245cbt19df7b835069c852@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240911090508g4275c2ddid9bc641da0194287@mail.gmail.com> <41357.12.77.168.198.1257773531.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911091647s39c757c5ra962e727eb5685ca@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/10 MB : > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/antssavematestrappedinsand > > Helpful acts, such as grooming or foster parenting, are common throughout the animal > kingdom, but accounts of animals rescuing one another from danger are exceedingly > rare, having been reported in the scientific literature only for dolphins, capuchin > monkeys, and ants. New research shows that in the ant Cataglyphis cursor, the > behavior is surprisingly sophisticated. > > Elise Nowbahari of the University of Paris North, Karen L. Hollis of Mount Holyoke > College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, and two colleagues mimicked a natural > situation-an ant restrained by collapsing sand and debris. > > But hidden beneath the sand was a nylon snare holding the ant firmly in place. The > ant's nestmates consistently responded by digging around the victim and tugging at > its limbs until they found the trap, then biting at the nylon strand. Potential > rescuers did not, however, do the same for unrelated ants or insects of other > species. > > The ants' ability to discern and then tackle the unfamiliar nylon snare demonstrates > cognitive and behavioral complexity, unlike such simple actions as digging or limb > pulling, which could arguably be elicited by a chemical distress signal. Nowbahari > and Hollis distinguish rescue behavior from other cooperative acts in that both > participants risk physical harm (rescuing ants could themselves be trapped under > falling sand), with no possibility of reward for the rescuer aside from the benefits > of kin selection. How can this be kin selection when none of the ants involved is able to breed? I would think natural selection in ants is at the level of the nest, not the individual; the individuals are more like cells in the body. Or is this wrong? -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 10 05:15:12 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:15:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] noaa report Message-ID: This is about the best report on global climate change I have seen. No apparent bias, no obvious alarmism, no interest in the question of natural vs anthro. Looks like real science to me. One of the things I have thought for a long time that this confirms is that about half the areas on earth should benefit. Most of the climate change screechers warn that the deserts would get drier and the swamps would get wetter. But how, I wondered, would the clouds know which type of land they were floating above, when they had to go? Why would the changes necessarily tend toward the extremes? I reasoned that about half the dry areas should get wetter and about half the wet areas drier. This NOAA report shows the Sahara Desert received quite a bit more rain, and easter Asia less. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Nov 10 05:36:17 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:36:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] noaa report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF8FBD1.1090001@satx.rr.com> On 11/9/2009 11:15 PM, spike wrote: > This NOAA report shows the Sahara Desert received quite a bit more rain, > and easter Asia less. Yeah, but what about other holidays? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 08:33:18 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:33:18 +0000 Subject: [ExI] noaa report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/09, spike wrote: > This is about the best report on global climate change I have seen. No > apparent bias, no obvious alarmism, no interest in the question of natural > vs anthro. Looks like real science to me. > > This NOAA report shows the Sahara Desert received quite a bit more rain, and > easter Asia less. > > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global > > That report is only commenting on the month of September 2009 and the anomalies noted during that month. Climate anomalies occur all the time. Global climate change analyzes gradual change over many years. Besides, any report from NOAH is bound to be prejudiced towards more precipitation. ;) BillK From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 10 10:10:46 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:10:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> References: <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911030715y48bb44d7ic02089056c6da32c@mail.gmail.com> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> Message-ID: <20091110101046.GP17686@leitl.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:29:01PM -0800, spike wrote: > In the current system, the government measures who is rich and who is poor > based entirely on d$/dt, and not at all on its integral over time, $. So > the young and healthy low $ people will need to subsidize the much higher $ Nevermind that due to demographics the older people are both in the majority, and at key positions in control. > much lower d$/dt older people. So we get poorer younger people subsidizing > richer, older people. Even if Jeff and I clearly benefit from that deal, I > do not think it is a damn bit right. We cannot dump the load on Joshua and > his peers. I do not see it as workable at all. I am surprised the young > are not protesting wildly. They're actually aware about it happening, and are not happy. I don't think they're goint to protest. No longer bothering getting ahead or emigrating look like perfectly viable options. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 17:17:03 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:17:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Emlyn wrote: > How can this be kin selection when none of the ants involved is able to breed? > > I would think natural selection in ants is at the level of the nest, > not the individual; the individuals are more like cells in the body. > Or is this wrong? It's wrong. There is no logical way for biological evolution to take place at any level above the gene. This is the central dogma of St. Dawkins. Humans have biased psychological mechanisms (selected by evolution of course) to prefer a higher level of selection. Thus the persistence of group selection theories when inclusive fitness and the limitations of recognizing kin will account for the observations. Worker ants, even though not breeders, contribute to the propagation of their genes. From the genes viewpoint, it cost resources to produce them that could otherwise go to reproductives. So it is not hard to see that rescue behavior would be favored by evolution when the cost to free a trapped ant was lower than the cost of growing a new ant. If ants are able to detect the age of another worker, it would be expected that ants would put in more effort to release a young worker than an old one. (This test could be suggested to the researchers.) As for cognitive skills in ants, I doubt it. The nylon thread would map into a limb of an ant predator or a spider web, both of which ants have been exposed to long enough to have evolved behaviors to deal with them. Keith From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Nov 10 18:33:51 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:33:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] noaa report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091110183351.GA17162@ofb.net> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 09:15:12PM -0800, spike wrote: > This NOAA report shows the Sahara Desert received quite a bit more > rain, and easter Asia less. Awesome! That's great for the crowds of people living in the Sahara and should be no problem for the scant populations of east Asia! Nothing to worry about, folks! Places can get drier even with more rain, due to higher temperatures raising evaporation rates. Not sure why swamps would get wetter, maybe from the water that doesn't evaporating running off and collecting where it already collects. It's less about what comes down and more about water in the soil. -xx- Damien X-) From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 01:18:12 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:48:12 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <710b78fc0911101718secb989bmaaaf8a9533e2b244@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/11 Keith Henson : > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 AM, ?Emlyn wrote: > >> How can this be kin selection when none of the ants involved is able to breed? >> >> I would think natural selection in ants is at the level of the nest, >> not the individual; the individuals are more like cells in the body. >> Or is this wrong? > > It's wrong. ?There is no logical way for biological evolution to take > place at any level above the gene. > > This is the central dogma of St. Dawkins. > I understand all that. What I meant was, this isn't really kin selection in the way it is meant in other species. The reproduction of ants is at the nest level; it all funnels through the fertile members (the queen and whichever male mates with her; is it the same as bees?), these embody the germline of the nest. The other ants are somatic cell equivalents. They are necessary, and natural selection does indeed work on them of course, but not in the manner of kin selection. There is a lot of maths around kin selection (defining kin selection), around the genetic similarity between one critter and another, which doesn't apply to worker ants. Also, the equation here is not just risk in freeing a trapped ant versus cost of losing that ant. Ants will behave in some way which hopefully converges on the optimal solution to that equation, but might be skewed for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is that the optimal solution may not be computable. Seemingly unrelated but actually I think entirely on topic is this article: What computer science can teach economics November 9, 2009 by Larry Hardesty http://www.physorg.com/news176978473.html (PhysOrg.com) -- Computer scientists have spent decades developing techniques for answering a single question: How long does a given calculation take to perform? Constantinos Daskalakis, an assistant professor in MIT?s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, has exported those techniques to game theory, a branch of mathematics with applications in economics, traffic management -- on both the Internet and the interstate -- and biology, among other things. By showing that some common game-theoretical problems are so hard that they?d take the lifetime of the universe to solve, Daskalakis is suggesting that they can?t accurately represent what happens in the real world. Game theory is a way to mathematically describe strategic reasoning ? of competitors in a market, or drivers on a highway or predators in a habitat. In the last five years alone, the Nobel Prize in economics has twice been awarded to game theorists for their analyses of multilateral treaty negotiations, price wars, public auctions and taxation strategies, among other topics. In game theory, a ?game? is any mathematical model that correlates different player strategies with different outcomes. One of the simplest examples is the penalty-kick game: In soccer, a penalty kick gives the offensive player a shot on goal with only the goalie defending. The goalie has so little reaction time that she has to guess which half of the goal to protect just as the ball is struck; the shooter tries to go the opposite way. In the game-theory version, the goalie always wins if both players pick the same half of the goal, and the shooter wins if they pick different halves. So each player has two strategies ? go left or go right ? and there are two outcomes ? kicker wins or goalie wins. It?s probably obvious that the best strategy for both players is to randomly go left or right with equal probability; that way, both will win about half the time. And indeed, that pair of strategies is what?s called the ?Nash equilibrium? for the game. Named for John Nash ? who taught at MIT and whose life was the basis for the movie A Beautiful Mind ? the Nash equilibrium is the point in a game where the players have found strategies that none has the incentive to change unilaterally. In this case, for instance, neither player can improve her outcome by going one direction more often than the other. Of course, most games are more complicated than the penalty-kick game, and their Nash equilibria are more difficult to calculate. But the reason the Nash equilibrium is associated with Nash?s name ? and not the names of other mathematicians who, over the preceding century, had described Nash equilibria for particular games ? is that Nash was the first to prove that every game must have a Nash equilibrium. Many economists assume that, while the Nash equilibrium for a particular market may be hard to find, once found, it will accurately describe the market?s behavior. Daskalakis?s doctoral thesis ? which won the Association for Computing Machinery?s 2008 dissertation prize ? casts doubts on that assumption. Daskalakis, working with Christos Papadimitriou of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Liverpool?s Paul Goldberg, has shown that for some games, the Nash equilibrium is so hard to calculate that all the computers in the world couldn?t find it in the lifetime of the universe. And in those cases, Daskalakis believes, human beings playing the game probably haven?t found it either. In the real world, competitors in a market or drivers on a highway don?t (usually) calculate the Nash equilibria for their particular games and then adopt the resulting strategies. Rather, they tend to calculate the strategies that will maximize their own outcomes given the current state of play. But if one player shifts strategies, the other players will shift strategies in response, which will drive the first player to shift strategies again, and so on. This kind of feedback will eventually converge toward equilibrium: in the penalty-kick game, for example, if the goalie tries going in one direction more than half the time, the kicker can punish her by always going the opposite direction. But, Daskalakis argues, feedback won?t find the equilibrium more rapidly than computers could calculate it. The argument has some empirical support. Approximations of the Nash equilibrium for two-player poker have been calculated, and professional poker players tend to adhere to it ? particularly if they?ve read any of the many books or articles on game theory?s implications for poker. The Nash equilibrium for three-player poker, however, is intractably hard to calculate, and professional poker players don?t seem to have found it. How can we tell? Daskalakis?s thesis showed that the Nash equilibrium belongs to a set of problems that is well studied in computer science: those whose solutions may be hard to find but are always relatively easy to verify. The canonical example of such a problem is the factoring of a large number: The solution seems to require trying out lots of different possibilities, but verifying an answer just requires multiplying a few numbers together. In the case of Nash equilibria, however, the solutions are much more complicated than a list of prime numbers. The Nash equilibrium for three-person Texas hold ?em, for instance, would consist of a huge set of strategies for any possible combination of players? cards, dealers? cards, and players? bets. Exhaustively characterizing a given player?s set of strategies is complicated enough in itself, but to the extent that professional poker players? strategies in three-player games can be characterized, they don?t appear to be in equilibrium. Anyone who?s into computer science ? or who read ?Explained: P vs. NP? on the MIT News web site last week ? will recognize the set of problems whose solutions can be verified efficiently: It?s the set that computer scientists call NP. Daskalakis proved that the Nash equilibrium belongs to a subset of NP consisting of hard problems with the property that a solution to one can be adapted to solve all the others. (The cognoscenti will infer that it?s the set called NP-complete; but the fact that the Nash equilibrium always exists disqualifies it from NP-completeness. In fact, it belongs to a different set, called PPAD-complete.) That result ?is one of the biggest yet in the roughly 10-year-old field of algorithmic game theory,? says Tim Roughgarden, an assistant professor of computer science at Stanford University. It ?formalizes the suspicion that the Nash equilibrium is not likely to be an accurate predictor of rational behavior in all strategic environments.? Given the Nash equilibrium?s unreliability, says Daskalakis, ?there are three routes that one can go. One is to say, We know that there exist games that are hard, but maybe most of them are not hard.? In that case, Daskalakis says, ?you can seek to identify classes of games that are easy, that are tractable.? The second route, Daskalakis says, is to find mathematical models other than Nash equilibria to characterize markets ? models that describe transition states on the way to equilibrium, for example, or other types of equilibria that aren?t so hard to calculate. Finally, he says, it may be that where the Nash equilibrium is hard to calculate, some approximation of it ? where the players? strategies are almost the best responses to their opponents? strategies ? might not be. In those cases, the approximate equilibrium could turn out to describe the behavior of real-world systems. As for which of these three routes Daskalakis has chosen, ?I?m pursuing all three,? he says. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From pharos at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 14:08:56 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:08:56 +0000 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: <20091110101046.GP17686@leitl.org> References: <20091103150015.GL17686@leitl.org> <20091103161912.GP17686@leitl.org> <9ff585550911071039w67dcc190p39693e8bf5a40fbd@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> <20091110101046.GP17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/09, Eugen Leitl wrote: > They're actually aware about it happening, and are not happy. I don't think > they're goint to protest. No longer bothering getting ahead or emigrating look > like perfectly viable options. > > BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Nov 11 14:35:36 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:35:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Super Human Revolution of the Species - 23-24 Nov, Melbourne Message-ID: Inspired by the 150th publication anniversary of The Origin of Species, Darwin's evolutionary treatise, Super Human: Revolution of the Species turns the spotlight on collaborations between artists and scientists and the impact these investigations have on what it means to be human, now and into the future. Super Human: Revolution of the Species Symposium http://www.superhuman.org.au/ 23 - 24 November, 2009 BMW Edge, Federation Square Melbourne, Australia Join artistic and scientific researchers from the fields of cognition, augmentation and nanotechnology as they consider what it means to be human, now and into the future. Tickets are selling FAST, register now to ensure you don't miss out on this high-calibre event. Visit http://www.superhuman.org.au/ for more information, registration and ticket sales. Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: att5d284.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 11 17:32:28 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:32:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] newsweek article Message-ID: <3BE77AB1AB0B432E96F6A1F593C7EB5F@spike> Newsweek Article: The Cooling World There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. -PETER GWYNNE Newsweek, April 28, 1975 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 11 19:17:36 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:17:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Message-ID: <341779.5010.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Keith Henson wrote: <> ================ According to E.O. Wilson (founder of sociobiology) and David Sloan Wilson, this dogma? has been overthrown.? See their article in THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, Dec. 2007: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/522809 For an "abridged, edited" and somewhat less technical version of the two Wilsons' argument, go to D.S. Wilson's homepage-- http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/publications.html --and click on the third article listed ("Survival of the Selfless," NEW SCIENTIST, Nov. 2007). Comments? Rob Masters -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Thu Nov 12 01:13:50 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:13:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> Message-ID: <4AFB614E.2000806@libero.it> BillK ha scritto: > I think you'll find that all government pension schemes already work > like this. It's not a new idea. Ponzi knew it, so it is not new. > In the UK every employee and their employer pays a contribution into > the government old age pension scheme. This is the same in Italy until a few years ago. Then they changed only the way to compute the pension in a more realistic way and kicked the can ten years down the road. I would prefer a Chilean Scheme, where every worker have his personal account that is managed by a management society of his choice, he can change it as he wish and if something is left after his death it go to the heirs. > The problem now facing the UK > (and shortly the US) is that the government noticed that the > contributions it was collecting were more than required to pay the > state pensions. So it said 'Goody' and spent the excess contributions. Same here. Apparently it is not something unique. I see a trend. Maybe politicians (and unions) find more useful, for themselves, to spend now the [someone else's] money, instead to preserve it. Obviously they never asked for the permission to the single workers. > Unfortunately the UK has an aging population and there are now too > many old people saying 'Where's my pension?' So the old folk are > relying on the young people's contributions to pay their state > pensions and there aren't enough young people nowadays. We in Italy did it from starting. So we are ahead of the curve. The people of my age and yourger undestand perfectly that they will have ridiculous pensions, if any. At best, our pensions will be at subsistence level, the same that people that never paid anything will receive. > The European problem now is how to square this circle. Let rule out large part of the immigrants, that are a net loss for the coffer of the governments. My best bet are in longevity research to succeed. The second is a war (kidding, but not much). > Postponing the pension age from 65 to 70 is a temporary fix. > But there are still big problems. The real problem is no one want be the one that will scrap the pension scheme and take the blame. Like no one would kick off a psychiatrist from the Army. So we will wait until the pension scheme will go broke 5 or ten years down the road. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.704 / Database dei virus: 270.14.60/2496 - Data di rilascio: 11/11/09 08:40:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Thu Nov 12 01:13:50 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:13:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] health care individual mandate In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20911030449u50d21acv37473f35b376d762@mail.gmail.com> <01A871B30A264C0D94C21BC994FC3B10@spike> <9ff585550911071146s87a966ayc676db8d52335c3a@mail.gmail.com> <4844B35A-D5E1-4D05-88D5-E7E4018F714B@GMAIL.COM> <4AF669E1.9090308@satx.rr.com> <4AF87513.90404@satx.rr.com> <26B511FD280046498AA04A1630D52D77@spike> Message-ID: <4AFB614E.2000806@libero.it> BillK ha scritto: > I think you'll find that all government pension schemes already work > like this. It's not a new idea. Ponzi knew it, so it is not new. > In the UK every employee and their employer pays a contribution into > the government old age pension scheme. This is the same in Italy until a few years ago. Then they changed only the way to compute the pension in a more realistic way and kicked the can ten years down the road. I would prefer a Chilean Scheme, where every worker have his personal account that is managed by a management society of his choice, he can change it as he wish and if something is left after his death it go to the heirs. > The problem now facing the UK > (and shortly the US) is that the government noticed that the > contributions it was collecting were more than required to pay the > state pensions. So it said 'Goody' and spent the excess contributions. Same here. Apparently it is not something unique. I see a trend. Maybe politicians (and unions) find more useful, for themselves, to spend now the [someone else's] money, instead to preserve it. Obviously they never asked for the permission to the single workers. > Unfortunately the UK has an aging population and there are now too > many old people saying 'Where's my pension?' So the old folk are > relying on the young people's contributions to pay their state > pensions and there aren't enough young people nowadays. We in Italy did it from starting. So we are ahead of the curve. The people of my age and yourger undestand perfectly that they will have ridiculous pensions, if any. At best, our pensions will be at subsistence level, the same that people that never paid anything will receive. > The European problem now is how to square this circle. Let rule out large part of the immigrants, that are a net loss for the coffer of the governments. My best bet are in longevity research to succeed. The second is a war (kidding, but not much). > Postponing the pension age from 65 to 70 is a temporary fix. > But there are still big problems. The real problem is no one want be the one that will scrap the pension scheme and take the blame. Like no one would kick off a psychiatrist from the Army. So we will wait until the pension scheme will go broke 5 or ten years down the road. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.704 / Database dei virus: 270.14.60/2496 - Data di rilascio: 11/11/09 08:40:00 From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 16:46:04 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:46:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson. Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM, < Robert Masters wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: > > < > This is the central dogma of St. Dawkins.>> > > ================ > > According to E.O. Wilson (founder of sociobiology) and David Sloan Wilson, this dogma? has been overthrown.? See their article in THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, Dec. 2007: > > http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/522809 > > For an "abridged, edited" and somewhat less technical version of the two Wilsons' argument, go to D.S. Wilson's homepage-- > > http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/publications.html > > --and click on the third article listed ("Survival of the Selfless," NEW SCIENTIST, Nov. 2007). > > Comments? I read this when it came out, and no, it does not overturn the central dogma of where evolution occurs. If you think it does, please explain. Keith From spike66 at att.net Thu Nov 12 17:05:58 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:05:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Keith Henson wrote: > > > > < place at any level above the gene. > > > > This is the central dogma of St. Dawkins.>> > > > > ================ > > > > According to E.O. Wilson (founder of sociobiology) and > David Sloan Wilson, this dogma? has been overthrown.? See > their article in THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, Dec. 2007: > > > > http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/522809 > > > > For an "abridged, edited" and somewhat less technical > version of the > > two Wilsons' argument, go to D.S. Wilson's homepage-- > > > > http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/publications.html > > > > --and click on the third article listed ("Survival of the > Selfless," NEW SCIENTIST, Nov. 2007). > > > > Comments? > > I read this when it came out, and no, it does not overturn > the central dogma of where evolution occurs. If you think it > does, please explain. > > Keith I have pondered this to no avail. Could there be another layer of subtlety? For instance 94% of genetic drift takes place at a genome level as a result of competition between individuals, and about 6% at a group selection level on the average, but these propertions can go up or down under certain conditions such as a battle between competing genomes, etc. For instance, we have seen in humans that certain diseases have a greater impact on some subsets of humanity more than others. I recognize that humans are a dangerous example in evolution because we have all these intellectual and social pressures which complicate our behavior beyond our own comprehension. How about western barred owls vs western spotted owls? They compete head to head for food and habitat, but certain conditions can favor one over the other. It isn't entirely clear to me that the two subsets of owls are two different species; they can mate and produce hybrids, but they compete with each other, both within and between their groups. We need a way to simulate this question in software. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 13 04:19:25 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:19:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] how many of us can relate to this? Message-ID: This brightened my day: http://xkcd.com/597/ {8^D spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Nov 13 05:29:32 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:29:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] how many of us can relate to this? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AFCEEBC.3030702@satx.rr.com> On 11/12/2009 10:19 PM, spike wrote: > This brightened my day: > http://xkcd.com/597/ Well, then, get this, Mr. Ant Man: http://xkcd.com/638/ From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 13 06:24:36 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:24:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] how many of us can relate to this? In-Reply-To: <4AFCEEBC.3030702@satx.rr.com> References: <4AFCEEBC.3030702@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] how many of us can relate to this? > > On 11/12/2009 10:19 PM, spike wrote: > > This brightened my day: > > http://xkcd.com/597/ > > Well, then, get this, Mr. Ant Man: > > http://xkcd.com/638/ > _______________________________________________ Thanks Damien, that one works on at least two different levels. When we search for extraterrestrial intelligence, I sometimes fear we are looking in the wrong frequencies, waaaay up too high. Reasoning: any interstellar communications would not be radial, but rather coherent beam signals, as in laser. Otherwise it takes too much energy. So the sender would need to know there is something or someone to receive the signal. So a transmitting civilization would need only a signal that means "We are here, we have something to say, reply if you want to receive." That signal would likely be something as simple as "2,3,5,7,11,13" repeated once a year would be plenty, in unary, as Sagan suggested in the movie version of Contact. Since you want the energy level to be as high as possible and compete as little as possible with natural background, and the energy of a photon is h(nu), then you get the most bang for the buck by sending a waaaay low nu photons, giving you the most photons per Joule, the lowest frequency you speculate the receiving civilization is likely to be able to hear. So, it is possible that the reason we haven't detected the cosmic we-are-heres is that we are searching way too high in the frequency band, and that we need to build some super-inductors. This is an attempted revival of a discussion we had here about ten years ago. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 13 07:07:28 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:07:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] new alibi Message-ID: Short version: a robber is accused of a different robbery that he didn't commit. Alibi: he was doing a time stamped facebook update at the time the crime took place 12 miles away: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/facebook.alibi/index.html OK, so how long before facebooking robbers figure out how to create a time-stamped facebook update one hour after leaving the house? The robber writes up the update, poise a pivot arm over the return key with an ice cube counterweight, drive across town, pull off the caper while the ice cube melts, drops the pivot arm and hits the send key, providing a solid time-stamped alibi. Then the robber hopes she doesn't return home to find the cat jumped up on the desk and knocked over the contraption before the ice cube melted and hit the send button. Better idea: set up a contraption that can be triggered by a cell phone call, robber drives across town, calls home, phone ringer is rigged to drop something on the send key, pull off robbery, go home, hope some yahoo didn't call her trying to sell her carpet cleaning service a minute after she left the house. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Nov 13 10:15:15 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:15:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] how many of us can relate to this? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091113101515.GB17686@leitl.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:19:25PM -0800, spike wrote: > This brightened my day: > > http://xkcd.com/597/ All hail to 3/3.5/4G, which keeps you online, in eternity, amen! From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Nov 13 12:55:19 2009 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:55:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] new alibi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62c14240911130455v6c444373te5bcbbfd816f6107@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/13 spike > > http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/facebook.alibi/index.html > > > Better idea: set up a contraption that can be triggered by a cell phone > call, robber drives across town, calls home, phone ringer is rigged to drop > something on the send key, pull off robbery, go home, hope some yahoo didn't > call her trying to sell her carpet cleaning service a minute after she left > the house. > > You could avoid all the mechanical failure by using remote desktop software on your smart phone. "This is a 19-year-old kid. He's not a criminal genius setting up an elaborate alibi for himself," he said. "This is not the kind of thing someone would fake." Yeah, because it would take a criminal genius to make a facebook update. I am disappointed that this could ever be seen as proof of anything much less "an unbeatable alibi." I might have understood if this happened in a less tech-savvy part of the country - but it was New York. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Fri Nov 13 15:10:21 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:10:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Will people pay for content online? Message-ID: <200911131537.nADFbAD2028404@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Emlyn posted a stimulating post in response to my post ofOct 23. (BTW, I was not suggesting that new business models aren't needed. My sole point was that overall sales were going down. Emlyn didn't show otherwise; he argued that this wasn't a bad thing.) Here's another item on the subject. I don't think you have to pay to read it... The Debate Zone: Will people pay for content online? http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/the_debate_zone/will-people-pay-for-content-online ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 13 16:27:27 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:27:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] vaccine waiver for creationists Message-ID: <93E011A9A9B446CD90F9589583413674@spike> Today's funny: http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/axisofevo/?p=217 {8^D spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Nov 13 20:15:28 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:15:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] how many of us can relate to this? In-Reply-To: References: <4AFCEEBC.3030702@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20091113201528.GF17686@leitl.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:24:36PM -0800, spike wrote: > When we search for extraterrestrial intelligence, I sometimes fear we are > looking in the wrong frequencies, waaaay up too high. Reasoning: any > interstellar communications would not be radial, but rather coherent beam Any interstellar communication would mean personal travel, as a relativistic vehicle, or serialized and encoded in a photon or relativistic matter pellet stream. Have fun looking for those with your instruments. > So, it is possible that the reason we haven't detected the cosmic > we-are-heres is that we are searching way too high in the frequency band, > and that we need to build some super-inductors. You can see the stars/able to write this message, ergo we're alone. > This is an attempted revival of a discussion we had here about ten years > ago. Quick! Slay the evil undead ere they rise again! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Nov 13 20:25:39 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:25:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:00 AM, spike wrote: snip >> I read this when it came out, and no, it does not overturn >> the central dogma of where evolution occurs. ?If you think it >> does, please explain. >> >> Keith > > > I have pondered this to no avail. ?Could there be another layer of subtlety? > For instance 94% of genetic drift takes place at a genome level as a result > of competition between individuals, and about 6% at a group selection level > on the average, but these propertions can go up ?or down under certain > conditions such as a battle between competing genomes, etc. URL for where you got these numbers please. Keith From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 13 22:01:04 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:01:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34CE6594CB0B4855ABE9592C0FD18BDA@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Subject: Re: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:00 AM, spike wrote: > > snip > > >> I read this when it came out, and no, it does not overturn the > >> central dogma of where evolution occurs. ?If you think it does, > >> please explain. > >> > >> Keith > > > > > > I have pondered this to no avail. ?Could there be another > layer of subtlety? > > For instance 94% of genetic drift takes place at a genome > level as a > > result of competition between individuals, and about 6% at a group > > selection level on the average, but these propertions can go up ?or > > down under certain conditions such as a battle between > competing genomes, etc. > > URL for where you got these numbers please. > > Keith No references Keith, I just offered of them as an example. I should have worded it differently, such as "If, for instance, 94% of..." I pulled these numbers out of the air to suggest perhaps it isn't exactly right to say evolution does not work at all on the group level. I agree it works primarily at the gene level, over 90%, but it is important to understand whether or not there is a small percentage of genetic change as a result of group selection. Most theorists today agree there is no group selection in evolution, but a few say group selection sometimes plays some small part. It might be that group selection applies only to those lifeforms in which memes dominate behavior, such as in humans. We are seeing a clear case where the meme "breed early and often" is causing dominance of the genome of that group which holds these memes, over the group which holds the meme "breed seldom if at all, in order to save the earth." The reason why I think this is important is that I perceive we really are on the verge of the holy grail of modern evolutionary theory: a working computer simulation of evolution. If we are within a decade or two of that breakthrough, then we need to program in that factor of group selection, if its influence is non-zero. I suspect the influence of group selection is usually flat zero, but in a few species, such as humans, under a few circumstances, such as war, group selection goes non-zero. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Nov 13 23:18:17 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:18:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911101718secb989bmaaaf8a9533e2b244@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0911101718secb989bmaaaf8a9533e2b244@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/11/09, Emlyn wrote: > The reproduction of ants is at the nest level; it all funnels through > the fertile members (the queen and whichever male mates with her; is > it the same as bees?), these embody the germline of the nest. > > And then there are Rasberry ants. Rapacious Rasberry crazy ants march north November 13, 2009 Poor Texas. First it was killer bees, then fire ants. Now, it's the Rasberry ants. "This is a species that we do not know much about. Presumably the ant came from the Caribbean through the Port of Houston," Cook said. "We know the ant is in the Paratrechina genus and is capable of growing a population of billions and they need to eat. They especially like other bugs, like fire ants and honey bees." The population is growing so fast, and so large, that it is potentially an ecosystem disaster, according to Cook. ------------ And what's worse - they eat computers! The species has been named "crazy" because of the ants' random, nonlinear movements. The colonies have multiple queens. They feed on ladybugs, fire ants and Attwater's prairie chicken hatchlings, as well as plants. They are able to out-compete fire ants because they reproduce faster. The ants are not attracted to ordinary ant baits, are not controlled by over-the-counter pesticides, and are harder to fully exterminate because their colonies have multiple queens. ----------------------- BillK From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 14 01:26:00 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:26:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Neuroenhancer "misuse" in the upcoming generation Message-ID: <980306.6810.qm@web58307.mail.re3.yahoo.com> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/170057.php From Medical News Today: ... Although the use of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs among youth has declined from 2002 through 2008, over this time many teens have turned to misusing [sic] prescription drugs, according to SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health.? [Correction: for "misusing," read: "using without the permission of the authorities."--RM] In fact, prescription drugs are misused [sic] more by this age group than any illicit drug, except marijuana. ... Unlike other forms of adolescent drug use, the desire to feel good or get high ranks much lower as a motivation for prescription drug misuse [sic].? Experts note that adolescents are turning to prescription drugs not just for recreational use they are turning to prescription drugs to help manage their daily lives. The reasons include to lower stress and anxiety, boost their mood, stay up all night studying for an exam, or to enhance academic or athletic performance.... The statistics regarding teen drug use are startling. Consider these facts: -- More than 1 in 10 teens (or 2.8 million) have abused [sic] prescription drugs in their lifetimes according to SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health. -- 1 in 3 teens report knowing someone who abuses [sic] prescription drugs according to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America's 2007 Partnership Attitude Tracking Study. -- 1 in 3 teens surveyed says there is "nothing wrong" when using prescription drugs "every once and a while."... Rob Masters From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Nov 14 17:55:17 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:55:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:00 AM, wrote: snip ' >> URL for where you got these numbers please. >> >> Keith > > No references Keith, I just offered of them as an example. ?I should have > worded it differently, such as "If, for instance, 94% of..." > > I pulled these numbers out of the air to suggest perhaps it isn't exactly > right to say evolution does not work at all on the group level. ?I agree it > works primarily at the gene level, over 90%, but it is important to > understand whether or not there is a small percentage of genetic change as a > result of group selection. ?Most theorists today agree there is no group > selection in evolution, but a few say group selection sometimes plays some > small part. Group selection for humans cannot logically happen because human groups swap women around. Biological evolution is changes in gene frequencies. If due to some group selection effects a group has an accumulation of advantageous genes in their gene pool, it is lost to nearby competing groups as the women take the advantageous genes with them when they are swapped. QED. > It might be that group selection applies only to those lifeforms in which > memes dominate behavior, such as in humans. ?We are seeing a clear case > where the meme "breed early and often" is causing dominance of the genome of > that group which holds these memes, over the group which holds the meme > "breed seldom if at all, in order to save the earth." Current conditions are not typical of human evolution in the past or likely to be typical of the future. I used to be worried about humans breeding themselves into a state of stupid. Then I finally realized that unless a trait is changing due to current evolution, you expect both sides of the bell curve to be trimmed equally. So if the Mensa types have one kid or fewer, the people that many standard deviations below normal IQ don't have many surviving kids either. > The reason why I think this is important is that I perceive we really are on > the verge of the holy grail of modern evolutionary theory: a working > computer simulation of evolution. ?If we are within a decade or two of that > breakthrough, then we need to program in that factor of group selection, if > its influence is non-zero. ?I suspect the influence of group selection is > usually flat zero, but in a few species, such as humans, under a few > circumstances, such as war, group selection goes non-zero. You don't need group selection to account for the psychological traits that cause humans to go to war under some conditions. Inclusive fitness is enough. The basics for such simulations already is clear from EP. See http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2009-July/052083.html Keith From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Nov 14 17:29:23 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:29:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Off Topic: Question Re Sound Narration to PowerPoint Message-ID: <43E2AE7538034D97832EB26CC95A337E@DFC68LF1> Help! My sound sucks. I have tired it on 2 separate comptuers with 4 different mics. Anyone know what I am doing wrong? Contace me off list please. Thank you! Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Nov 14 18:40:40 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:40:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AFEF9A8.4070402@satx.rr.com> On 11/14/2009 11:55 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > If due to some group selection effects a group has an > accumulation of advantageous genes in their gene pool, it is lost to > nearby competing groups as the women take the advantageous genes with > them when they are swapped. QED. Endogamy prevents or slows that. Ashkenazi Jews, Japanese, QED. I wonder if Flynn-effect changes might have contributions from the decline of strict religious/cultural endogamy restrictions, which might have more to do with reckless lustful males than "exchanged" females. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Sat Nov 14 19:27:14 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:27:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <4AFEF9A8.4070402@satx.rr.com> References: <4AFEF9A8.4070402@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1BD2AB698E3B44938F3CC0E82FAAA68E@spike> ... > Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson > > On 11/14/2009 11:55 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > If due to some group selection effects a group has an > accumulation of > > advantageous genes in their gene pool, it is lost to nearby > competing > > groups as the women take the advantageous genes with them when they > > are swapped. QED. > > Endogamy prevents or slows that. Ashkenazi Jews, Japanese, > QED. I wonder if Flynn-effect changes might have > contributions from the decline of strict religious/cultural > endogamy restrictions, which might have more to do with > reckless lustful males than "exchanged" females. > > Damien Broderick Hmmm, ja. Damien this example makes me squirmy in the context of group selection in evolution, for it uses as an example the human species. Humans are such a weirdo oddball species in so many ways, four sigma on so many scales, we almost need to toss us as a bad data point. We amaze me, I am constantly astonished by us. We almost need to have two nearly separate bodies of theory, one dealing with non-human evolution and one dealing specifically with human. We get all tangled up in the special cases of human evolution because of our species' behavior being so influenced by memes instead of just genes. The species that understand evolution aren't doing it. The species that are doing evolution don't understand it. As you point out in your book, perhaps we humans will eventually create a new species that can overcome this fundamental roadblock, assuming it can manage to overcome the problem that everything it knows it learned from humans. Your fellow bad datum, spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Nov 14 20:32:16 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:32:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <1BD2AB698E3B44938F3CC0E82FAAA68E@spike> References: <4AFEF9A8.4070402@satx.rr.com> <1BD2AB698E3B44938F3CC0E82FAAA68E@spike> Message-ID: <4AFF13D0.9040502@satx.rr.com> On 11/14/2009 1:27 PM, spike wrote: >> On 11/14/2009 11:55 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >> > >>> > > If due to some group selection effects a group has an >> > accumulation of >>> > > advantageous genes in their gene pool, it is lost to nearby >> > competing >>> > > groups as the women take the advantageous genes with them when they >>> > > are swapped. QED. >> > Endogamy prevents or slows that. > Hmmm, ja. Damien this example makes me squirmy in the context of group > selection in evolution, for it uses as an example the human species. Okay, but Keith spoke of "women" not just female animals--and do most species "swap out" their females? I rather doubt it. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Sun Nov 15 01:36:01 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:36:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <4AFF13D0.9040502@satx.rr.com> References: <4AFEF9A8.4070402@satx.rr.com><1BD2AB698E3B44938F3CC0E82FAAA68E@spike> <4AFF13D0.9040502@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: ... > Damien Broderick > ... > > > Hmmm, ja. Damien this example makes me squirmy in the context of > > group selection in evolution, for it uses as an example the > human species. > > Okay, but Keith spoke of "women" not just female animals--and > do most species "swap out" their females? I rather doubt it. > > Damien Broderick Agreed. We have two different fields of chemistry: biochemistry (sometimes called organic chem) and everything else. The everything else deals with all the elements, but carbon forms life, and is such an oddball exception that it gets its own field of study. That field of study is actually bigger and more complex than the one that deals with all the other elements. In a somewhat analogous fashion, we need human evolution and evolution, where the general theory pretty much ignores the human species, or consigns it to its own specialized field. It will be hard for those of us interested in the general field of evolution to consciously ignore the human animal. spike From eugen at leitl.org Sun Nov 15 10:47:35 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:47:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: References: <4AFF13D0.9040502@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20091115104735.GD17686@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 05:36:01PM -0800, spike wrote: > Agreed. We have two different fields of chemistry: biochemistry (sometimes We have many fields of chemistry. Organic, inorganic, metallorganic, physical, quantum, you name it. > called organic chem) and everything else. The everything else deals with No, no, no. Organic chemistry is very different from biochemistry, which is mostly molecular biology these days (metabolic pathways are almost completely accounted for). There are some overlaps (an organic chemist might use an enzymatic reaction), of course. > all the elements, but carbon forms life, and is such an oddball exception > that it gets its own field of study. That field of study is actually bigger > and more complex than the one that deals with all the other elements. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Sun Nov 15 16:12:56 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:12:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <20091115104735.GD17686@leitl.org> References: <4AFF13D0.9040502@satx.rr.com> <20091115104735.GD17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: > ... > Eugen Leitl > Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 2:48 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 05:36:01PM -0800, spike wrote: > > > Agreed. We have two different fields of chemistry: biochemistry > > (sometimes > > We have many fields of chemistry. Organic, inorganic, > metallorganic, physical, quantum, you name it. > .. > Eugen* Leitl Agreed, pardon my oversimplification. Regarding our models of evolution, I keep thinking self consciousness, so apparently absent in most species, will prevent us from successfully applying evolutionary theory to humans. Today's article in the New York Times on the God Gene is a good example. Toward the end of the article, he deals briefly with group selection, and offers a mechanism by which it would be analogous to altruism, which general evolutionary theory might predict would go extinct. I have half a mind to get Wade's book. spike http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1 The Evolution of the God Gene Nicholas Wade ... IN the Oaxaca Valley of Mexico, the archaeologists Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery have gained a remarkable insight into the origin of religion. During 15 years of excavation they have uncovered not some monumental temple but evidence of a critical transition in religious behavior. The record begins with a simple dancing floor, the arena for the communal religious dances held by hunter-gatherers in about 7,000 B.C. It moves to the ancestor-cult shrines that appeared after the beginning of corn-based agriculture around 1,500 B.C., and ends in A.D. 30 with the sophisticated, astronomically oriented temples of an early archaic state. This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland. For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless. For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely. But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods. For believers, if one accepts that evolution has shaped the human body, why not the mind too? What evolution has done is to endow people with a genetic predisposition to learn the religion of their community, just as they are predisposed to learn its language. With both religion and language, it is culture, not genetics, that then supplies the content of what is learned. It is easier to see from hunter-gatherer societies how religion may have conferred compelling advantages in the struggle for survival. Their rituals emphasize not theology but intense communal dancing that may last through the night. The sustained rhythmic movement induces strong feelings of exaltation and emotional commitment to the group. Rituals also resolve quarrels and patch up the social fabric. The ancestral human population of 50,000 years ago, to judge from living hunter-gatherers, would have lived in small, egalitarian groups without chiefs or headmen. Religion served them as an invisible government. It bound people together, committing them to put their community's needs ahead of their own self-interest. For fear of divine punishment, people followed rules of self-restraint toward members of the community. Religion also emboldened them to give their lives in battle against outsiders. Groups fortified by religious belief would have prevailed over those that lacked it, and genes that prompted the mind toward ritual would eventually have become universal. In natural selection, it is genes that enable their owners to leave more surviving progeny that become more common. The idea that natural selection can favor groups, instead of acting directly on individuals, is highly controversial. Though Darwin proposed the idea, the traditional view among biologists is that selection on individuals would stamp out altruistic behavior (the altruists who spent time helping others would leave fewer children of their own) far faster than group-level selection could favor it. But group selection has recently gained two powerful champions, the biologists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson, who argued that two special circumstances in recent human evolution would have given group selection much more of an edge than usual. One is the highly egalitarian nature of hunter-gatherer societies, which makes everyone behave alike and gives individual altruists a better chance of passing on their genes. The other is intense warfare between groups, which enhances group-level selection in favor of community-benefiting behaviors such as altruism and religion. A propensity to learn the religion of one's community became so firmly implanted in the human neural circuitry, according to this new view, that religion was retained when hunter-gatherers, starting from 15,000 years ago, began to settle in fixed communities. In the larger, hierarchical societies made possible by settled living, rulers co-opted religion as their source of authority. Roman emperors made themselves chief priest or even a living god, though most had the taste to wait till after death for deification. "Drat, I think I'm becoming a god!" Vespasian joked on his deathbed. Religion was also harnessed to vital practical tasks such as agriculture, which in the first societies to practice it required quite unaccustomed forms of labor and organization. Many religions bear traces of the spring and autumn festivals that helped get crops planted and harvested at the right time. Passover once marked the beginning of the barley festival; Easter, linked to the date of Passover, is a spring festival. Could the evolutionary perspective on religion become the basis for some kind of detente between religion and science? Biologists and many atheists have a lot of respect for evolution and its workings, and if they regarded religious behavior as an evolved instinct they might see religion more favorably, or at least recognize its constructive roles. Religion is often blamed for its spectacular excesses, whether in promoting persecution or warfare, but gets less credit for its staple function of patching up the moral fabric of society. But perhaps it doesn't deserve either blame or credit. If religion is seen as a means of generating social cohesion, it is a society and its leaders that put that cohesion to good or bad ends. Nicholas Wade, a science reporter for The New York Times, is the author of "The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures." From max at maxmore.com Sun Nov 15 18:23:12 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:23:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson Message-ID: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1 > >The Evolution of the God Gene >Nicholas Wade Thanks for posting that, spike. What bothered me about Wade's article is the quick assumption that evolution has directly favored religious belief. It seems at least as likely to me that evolutionary pressures have led to certain general cognitive and emotional capabilities (including the ability to create narratives, and a desire for certainty) that make it easy for most humans to construct religious beliefs. The distinction between a direct evolutionary effect and the more derivative effect could be significant. If the latter is the case, we should have more critical tools for resisting the religious impulse -- or at least its irrational and destructive aspects. Which reminds of something else that bothered me in Wade's piece: He uses "religion" as if it were a simple phenomenon, rather than a fuzzy collection of beliefs, practices, and communities. Evolutionary pressures probably have different degrees of influence for difference components of "religion". I don't see why, for instance, (a) shared beliefs strengthening social bonds should be treated exactly the same as (b) worship of and obeisance to a higher power. Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From spike66 at att.net Sun Nov 15 20:14:08 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:14:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Max More > ... > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1 > > > >The Evolution of the God Gene > >Nicholas Wade > ... > > Which reminds of something else that bothered me in Wade's > piece: He uses "religion" as if it were a simple phenomenon, > rather than a fuzzy collection of beliefs, practices, and > communities... Ja. The subtleties of religion quickly become so wildly complicated that I dispair of our ever being able to create a computer model sufficiently advanced to even start to make correct predictions about its propagation and life cycle. >... Evolutionary pressures probably have different > degrees of influence for difference components of "religion". > I don't see why, for instance, (a) shared beliefs > strengthening social bonds should be treated exactly the same > as (b) worship of and obeisance to a higher power. Max ... I can see that and raise you one. My own experience in that area is with a particular religion that is not only a belief system but also very much a culture. When one is immersed in that culture, it soon becomes apparent to the analytical type, that acceptance of the culture is actually more important than actual belief in, or worship of, the particular higher power. As paradoxical as it might sound, I can assure you, there are such things as Seventh Day Atheists. There is a peculiar culture that grows around traditional SDA, such as healthy living, eschewing alcohol, traditional family life, the structure of social bonds within the subculture and so forth. If the Seventh Day Atheist holds to the social culture but rejects the deity, they are accepted and tolerated by the believers much more readily than those who actually hold the beliefs but reject the culture. Observations or questions welcome on these comments. spike From estropico at gmail.com Sun Nov 15 22:02:42 2009 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:02:42 +0000 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia: Successes and challenges en route to unlimited human lifespans. Q&A on the Immortality Institute, led by Shannon Vyff Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90911151402i3641dfc6j79f6af53737ab7ca@mail.gmail.com> Successes and challenges en route to unlimited human lifespans. Q&A on the Immortality Institute, led by Shannon Vyff 2pm-4pm, Saturday 28th November Lecture Room B20, basement level, Birkbeck College, Torrington Square, London, WC1E 7HX Shannon Vyff, chair of the The Immortality Institute, will answer audience questions on topics including: *) The creation and the operation of the Immortality Institute: Home: http://imminst.org/ FAQ: http://www.imminst.org/faq Forums: http://www.imminst.org/forum/forums.html *) The book "The scientific conquest of death" *) The case for cryonics *) Becoming a Methuselah Foundation 300 Member *) Calorie restriction: Case for; Quick Overview of how to do it *) Introducing people of all ages (including children) to transhumanist topics ** About the speaker: Shannon Vyff is chair of the Immortality Institute, a Life Boat Foundation Advisor, an Alcor Area Readiness Team Coordinator, a Venturist Director, an author of "The Scientific Conquest of Death", author of the children's transhumanist adventure book "21st Century Kids", and mother of three young children. Many thanks to Shannon for providing links to some suggested (optional, but useful) pre-meeting reading material. ** There's no charge to attend, and everyone is welcome. There will be plenty of opportunity to ask questions and to make comments. Discussion will continue after the event, in a nearby pub, for those who are able to stay. ** Why not join some of the Extrobritannia regulars for a drink and/or light lunch beforehand, any time after 12.30pm, in The Marlborough Arms, 36 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HJ. To find us, look out for a table where there's a copy of the book "The scientific conquest of death" displayed. ** About the venue: Lecture Room B20 is on the basement level in the main Birkbeck College building, in Torrington Square (which is a pedestrian-only square). Torrington Square is about 10 minutes walk from either Russell Square or Goodge St tube stations. www.extrobritannia.blogspot.com www.transhumanist.org.uk From spike66 at att.net Sun Nov 15 23:20:21 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:20:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution In-Reply-To: <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> Message-ID: Singularity fans, do you ever envision some kind of roadmap to the singularity? What is your mental picture of that? Do you ponder it? What I mean is, what specifics have you in mind? What I don't mean is: you imagine that computers continue to get faster and faster, and smart geeks work alone in the night and then one day some mysterious miracle somehow occurs and its the singularity, hurray. No. What I do mean is this: what is your mental picture or roadmap, however fuzzy, to the singularity? It may seem puzzling why I ponder the intricate details about evolution, and why it matters if ants can be compelled to go in one-way paths, and if group selection ever causes any genetic drift and all the intricate details of the mechanics of evolution. There is a good reason: my notion of a path to the singularity goes thru creating a working computer simulation of evolution, complete with feedback loops, chaos theory, contingency all the stuff that a working evolution simulation would need to have in order to correctly backcast, or postdict, what we think happened in the past. If we can ever achieve that, then I see no reason why we couldn't run that sim on fast forward, using all the future available interconnected background computing resources, then have that sim demonstrate to us how to create the singularity. If not, why then? Is there an alternate path to the singularity that does not require a deep understanding of how intelligence came about to start with? Is there any path to the singularity that does not require an understanding deep enough to create a simulation which successfully demonstrates the evolution of intelligence? If so, do share. spike From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 15 23:15:20 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:15:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson Message-ID: <821490.22891.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Recap: Keith Henson wrote: < wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: > > < > This is the central dogma of St. Dawkins.>> > > ================ > > According to E.O. Wilson (founder of sociobiology) and David Sloan Wilson, this dogma has been overthrown. See their article in THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, Dec. 2007: > > http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/522809 > > For an "abridged, edited" and somewhat less technical version of the two Wilsons' argument, go to D.S. Wilson's homepage-- > > http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/publications.html > > --and click on the third article listed ("Survival of the Selfless," NEW SCIENTIST, Nov. 2007). > > Comments? I read this when it came out, and no, it does not overturn the central dogma of where evolution occurs.? If you think it does, please explain.>> =============================== Well, most simply, you said the Dawkins dogma is that evolution takes place on a single level--that of the gene--while the Wilsons are advocating what they call a "multilevel" theory. That seems like a direct contradiction. More specifically, in your 14 Nov. post you defend the view that group selection is never a significant factor in evolution. I assume that's the sort of thing you mean by "level" (i.e., natural selection never operates at the "level" of the group). But the denial of group selection is precisely the dogma the Wilsons reject. They're saying that that denial was an unfortunate detour in evolutionary theory, and a mistake. The following passages clearly affirm the possibility and importance of group selection: (From the abstract of the QJB article:) "In this article, we take a 'back to basics' approach, explaining what group selection is, why its rejection was regarded as so important, and how it has been revived based on a more careful formulation and subsequent research. Multilevel selection theory (including group selection) provides an elegant theoretical foundation for sociobiology in the future, once its turbulent past is appropriately understood." (From the NEW SCIENTIST article:) "[T]he consequences of regarding evolution as a multilevel process, with higher-level selection often overriding lower-level selection, are profound." "Multilevel selection theory... can help explain the origin and major transitions of life, the structure of animal societies and multi-species ecosystems, and human evolution ? even including the rise and fall of empires and the nature of religion." "The case against group selection during the 1960s rested upon three arguments: it is theoretically implausible as a significant evolutionary force; there is no solid empirical evidence for it; and there are robust theoretical alternatives. All these arguments have failed in the face of subsequent research." "The old arguments against group selection have all failed. It is theoretically plausible, it happens in reality, and the so-called alternatives actually include the logic of multilevel selection. Had this been known in the 1960s, sociobiology would have taken a very different direction. It is this branch point that must be revisited to put sociobiology back on a firm theoretical foundation." "Anyone who studies humans must acknowledge our groupish nature and the importance of between-group interactions. Explaining these obvious facts without invoking group selection involves needless contortions." "Group selection is an important force in human evolution partly because cultural processes can create variation between groups, even when they are composed of large numbers of unrelated individuals. A new cultural 'mutation' can quickly spread within a group, causing it to be very different from other groups and providing a decisive edge in direct or indirect between-group competition." "These ideas might explain the broad sweep of recorded history in addition to the remote past. In his book War and Peace and War: The rise and fall of empires, biologist Peter Turchin argues that virtually all empires arose in areas where major ethnic groups came into contact with each other. Intense between-group conflict acted as a crucible for the cultural evolution of extremely cooperative societies, which then expanded at the expense of less cooperative societies to become major empires." "It is difficult to revisit an important decision that has been made and acted upon, but that is precisely what needs to be done in the case of the rejection of group selection in the 1960s." I don't see how any of this can be seen as consistent with the view that evolution (natural selection) cannot take place at the "level" of the group. Have I misunderstood your position? Am I missing something? Rob Masters From rtomek at ceti.pl Mon Nov 16 02:43:18 2009 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:43:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, spike wrote: [...] > Is there an alternate path to the singularity that does not require a deep > understanding of how intelligence came about to start with? Is there any > path to the singularity that does not require an understanding deep enough > to create a simulation which successfully demonstrates the evolution of > intelligence? If so, do share. If I had to fantasize about it, then I would say some expert system could - by some unevitable accident - gain enough critical mass to develop self-awareness. I don't know what would happen after that. And self-awareness not necessarily equates consciousness. And all this not necessarily leads to S. But maybe it can. Perhaps there are some research on intelligence amplifiers (not drugs) going on somewhere (I haven't checked... yet). One of such amplifiers could amplify itself (again, by chance). This is actually generalisation of the first case, since expert system can be thought of as I.A. I doubt a little about possibility to go this "evolutionary path" using today's supercomputers, even connected with each other. Depends on what actually you would like to evolve. Think about evolving a model of ultimate racing car. This is much smaller thing and I am still doubtfull (as we speak about years 2009 and 2010). But evolving better metamaterial for safety belts is in our reach. Just guessing. Regards Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 02:50:14 2009 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:50:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution In-Reply-To: References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> Message-ID: <62c14240911151850t641572a9g3b3d509778630b1e@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, spike wrote: > What I do mean is this: what is your mental picture or roadmap, however > fuzzy, to the singularity? > My mental picture of the singularity is like a mathematical limit - it is approached asymptotically. We might say "close enough for our purpose" when speaking of some future point, but upon reaching that point they'll say "Oh no, the Singularity is still beyond the current state of the art." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 03:04:23 2009 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:04:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> Message-ID: <62c14240911151904k3145d0bdo1303b7bb5073dffc@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM, spike wrote: > I can see that and raise you one. My own experience in that area is with a > particular religion that is not only a belief system but also very much a > culture. When one is immersed in that culture, it soon becomes apparent to > the analytical type, that acceptance of the culture is actually more > important than actual belief in, or worship of, the particular higher > power. > [snip] > Observations or questions welcome on these comments. > > My wife asked me to join her for church today. I'm not sure what value she finds- possibly a place to socialize with a closed-network of friends. Whatever. I find it an interesting hour to speculate about why people feel compelled to congregate in the name of *whoever's-name-they-congregate-in*. Seems like there should be a reason for it. I find myself thinking hyperrationally about evolutionary psychology (thanks to Keith for the introduction) and church politics and group dynamics and mathematics. During all this thought about others, I realized there is another observation in my mind about my own thinking. Am I incapable of the kinds of emotional investment of the people around me? They're jumping up and down and earnestly singing praise to someone I am unable to see. I wondered if others on this list experience the same sense of disconnect from "fellow" humans while immersed in this type of gathering. Then I started on a feedback process imagining that maybe others in the room have a similar sense of disconnect and that they each manifest it differently - perhaps I am simply unaware of their internal state and am mis-perceiving the situation. Then I started to imagine that it doesn't really matter what they're doing, because this is time for me to be myself and think whatever I want - so I imagined why this deity stuff matters to so many people in so many cultures... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 03:45:50 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:15:50 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <62c14240911151904k3145d0bdo1303b7bb5073dffc@mail.gmail.com> References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> <62c14240911151904k3145d0bdo1303b7bb5073dffc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/16 Mike Dougherty : > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM, spike wrote: >> >> I can see that and raise you one. ?My own experience in that area is with >> a >> particular religion that is not only a belief system but also very much a >> culture. ?When one is immersed in that culture, it soon becomes apparent >> to >> the analytical type, that acceptance of the culture is actually more >> important than actual belief in, or worship of, the particular higher >> power. >> [snip] >> Observations or questions welcome on these comments. Absolutely. I doubt that most "believers" *really* believe. Instead, religion is conflated with culture & community. The special days on the calendar, the rituals, the traditions? That's all culture. The people, the connections, the support? That's all community. I think the religion part, the actual profession of belief in irrational stuff, is partly about group bonding (it shows you are committed to the group, to prefer it over rationality, to show you wont be a stick in the mud about odd stuff), and also just a convenient focus for building culture and community. I've noticed that religious groups only need one focus. The old churches (*) that focus on ritual and tradition, can be loose with everything else, so gays, women priests, social justice, all good. The evangelicals, otoh, throw out all that stuff, and base their identity on being, well, rigid closed minded bastards really. (*) Except the catholics. They are a world unto themselves. My theory is firstly that they aim at a generally lower socio-economic group, and so they base identity around simple rules with thick black lines (eg: No Condoms!). Secondly, they really do seem to be about persistent institution; so much they (the institution) do is about continuing the church, regardless of anything else. Mostly you can pick a catholic pretty much immediately on meeting them; it seems to grind in deep. > My wife asked me to join her for church today.? I'm not sure what value she > finds- possibly a place to socialize with a closed-network of friends. > Whatever.? I find it an interesting hour to speculate about why people feel > compelled to congregate in the name of *whoever's-name-they-congregate-in*. > Seems like there should be a reason for it.? I find myself thinking > hyperrationally about evolutionary psychology (thanks to Keith for the > introduction) and church politics and group dynamics and mathematics. > During all this thought about others, I realized there is another > observation in my mind about my own thinking.? Am I incapable of the kinds > of emotional investment of the people around me?? They're jumping up and > down and earnestly singing praise to someone I am unable to see.? I wondered > if others on this list experience the same sense of disconnect from "fellow" > humans while immersed in this type of gathering.? Then I started on a > feedback process imagining that maybe others in the room have a similar > sense of disconnect and that they each manifest it differently - perhaps I > am simply unaware of their internal state and am mis-perceiving the > situation.? Then I started to imagine that it doesn't really matter what > they're doing, because this is time for me to be myself and think whatever I > want - so I imagined why this deity stuff matters to so many people in so > many cultures... Regular services are actually damned cool if you can look past the religion stuff. These people get together once a week for an hour or two to think & talk about deeper issues of what it is to be human. If you did that right, well, it could be a really good thing. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 03:58:41 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:28:41 +1030 Subject: [ExI] externalization of knowledge again In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0910232101r49183d4dpe18bb786a06b937b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200910231501.n9NF102a018120@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0910232101r49183d4dpe18bb786a06b937b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911151958x792245ccq66d7ef316a0184c6@mail.gmail.com> A couple more interesting views on the music industry situation: "Illegal downloaders spend MORE on music than those who obey the law" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224460/Illegal-downloaders-spend-MORE-music-obey-law.html#ixzz0Vff0mZQh "Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing?" (spoiler: the cool graphs say yes) http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/ -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From nanite1018 at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 04:02:19 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:02:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution In-Reply-To: References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> Message-ID: <5F7A0F3B-8256-4050-98C4-52973B5C9C11@GMAIL.COM> On Nov 15, 2009, at 6:20 PM, spike wrote: > What I do mean is this: what is your mental picture or roadmap, > however > fuzzy, to the singularity? > ......Is there an alternate path to the singularity that does not > require a deep > understanding of how intelligence came about to start with? Is > there any > path to the singularity that does not require an understanding deep > enough > to create a simulation which successfully demonstrates the evolution > of > intelligence? If so, do share. While I don't believe in some kind of Singularity (with a capital "s"), I do think that there are going to be a series of major changes over the next hundred years, and I think any one of them may deserve to be called singularities of some form or another. My singularities are: 1. Radical life extension and the achievement of so-called longevity or actuarial escape velocity (just for clarity, when we increase life expectancy by one year every year). This will totally transform human civilization. The path to get there is through developments in biotechnology and eventually nanotechnology. Of course, mind uploading would also be a good way to get to this point, but I think that will come along after we achieve biological indefinite lifespan. 2. Nanotechnology, specifically molecular manufacturing along Drexlerian lines, either through assemblers or nanofactories. This will fundamentally alter our economic situation, allowing for the effective end of scarcity and poverty on Earth, even without advances in AI. Will also be immensely helpful for development and growth of human-level and above AI, and for the development of mind uploading. 3. The development of human level AI. This will change our society by challenging its laws, transforming its economy, and affecting our culture. This could easily fuel either of the two other singularities, or either of them may help fuel this one. I think the likely path to the singularity is the development of advances in biotech, which will extend longevity enough to where we get, say, halfway to LEV. At that point, all those Baby Boomers will invest absurdly large amounts of money into life extension research, including large amounts into nanotech, which will push us rapidly toward LEV. Around the same time, advances in nanotechnology will enable major medical advances, allowing us to achieve LEV, at least for the world's wealthy (e.g. middle class Americans and up). The money from longevity research will round out any problems nanotechnologists haven't been able to solve with molecular manufacturing (since it will likely be necessary for the mass- production of the more rigorous and effective longevity and medical techniques and technologies). And also around this time, the advancement of computer power and neuroscience will allow us to use the nanobots and the like we are using to extend our lives to also investigate the brain, allowing us to put the finishing touches on our computer models of brain function, and molecular manufacturing will allow us to mass produce our most advanced computer systems with little input cost, ushering in a new era of indefinite lifespan, scarce scarcity, and human-level and above artificial intelligence (soon followed by mind uploading). On time scale, I'd say that we reach halfway to LEV by 2030 at the latest, and put the finishing touches on our multiple singularities by 2060 or so (around when high-power computers are currently expected to be able to handle the most extravagant estimates for processing power needed to emulate the brain. In regards to your evolutionary approach spike, I'm not sure its necessary at all. We don't even need to understand intelligence or consciousness in order to recreate it. All that's necessary is to emulate the actual physical processes going on in the brain. That will likely come along far sooner than a full and complete description of the computational processes occurring in the brain, and the foundations of consciousness. Evolution is more of an explanatory theory than a predictive one (even if we know the end result), and trying to postdict the evolution of organisms in the past is likely to prove an enormously more difficult task than the above "singularities." Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 16 03:55:34 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:55:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68BBECD3B91E4143B085A6C34775D59F@spike> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, spike wrote: >>What I do mean is this: what is your mental picture or roadmap, however fuzzy, to the singularity? > > If I had to fantasize about it, then I would say some expert > system could > - by some unevitable accident - gain enough critical mass to > develop self-awareness... Tomasz Rola Every singularity model I have heard reminds me of this: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php {8^] spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 05:13:25 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:43:25 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Something to keep in mind regarding EP prognostications Message-ID: <710b78fc0911152113g46b46542r11e58dbdea0e4a37@mail.gmail.com> The illusion of a universe in our own back yard http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/11/the_illusion_of_a_un.html Science News covers a revealing new study on the Hadza people of Tanzania that has the potential shake up some of the rusty thinking in evolutionary psychology. A common line of argument in this field is to suggest that sexual preferences for certain body types exist because we've evolved these desires to maximise our chances of mating with the most fertile or healthiest partner. For example, studies have interpreted the fact that taller men are more likely to attract mates and reproduce in terms of evolutionary pressures on sexual desire. But most of these and similar studies have been completed on Western samples, while the authors draw conclusions about the 'universal' nature of these 'evolutionary' pressures. To test how universal these body preferences really are, anthropologists Rebecca Sear and Frank Marlowe looked at whether similar preferences existed in the Hadza people, a hunter-gather tribe from Tanzania. It turns out, these supposedly 'universal preferences' don't exist in the Hadza. You can read the full text of the paper online as a pdf, but this is taken from the Science News write-up: Hadza marriages don?t tend to consist of individuals with similar heights, weights, body mass indexes, body-fat percentages or grip strengths... Neither do Hadza couples feature a disproportionate percentage of husbands taller than their wives, as has been documented in some Western nations, the researchers report in the Oct. 23 Biology Letters. Almost no Hadza individuals mention height or size when asked to explain what makes for an attractive mate, Sear and Marlowe add. People everywhere seek healthy, fertile marriage partners, Sear proposes. ?But I suspect there may not be a preference for one particular signal of health in mates across every population,? she says.... Sear and Marlowe criticize evolutionary psychologists who have argued that physical size influences mating decisions in all societies. That argument rests largely on self-reports of Western college students and analyses of personal advertisements in U.S. newspapers for dating partners, they say. The problems with relying on Western college students as participants in psychology studies is also addressed by a new paper just released by Behavioural and Brain Sciences which you can read online as a pdf. The article reviews data from psychology experiments and argues that not only are college students a very restricted subset of society, but they are actually wildly atypical in comparison to the rest of the world's population. In fact, the authors state that "The findings suggest that members of WEIRD [Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic] societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans". -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 16 05:34:26 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:34:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com><53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike><62c14240911151904k3145d0bdo1303b7bb5073dffc@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ...On Behalf Of Emlyn > ... > >> very much a culture. ?When one is immersed in that > culture, it soon > >> becomes apparent to the analytical type, that acceptance of the > >> culture is actually more important than actual belief in, > or worship > >> of, the particular higher power. > >> [snip] > >> Observations or questions welcome on these comments. > > Absolutely. I doubt that most "believers" *really* believe. > Instead, religion is conflated with culture & community. The > special days on the calendar, the rituals, the traditions? > That's all culture. The people, the connections, the support? > That's all community... Ja. I have an old friend from my teens, the college roommate of my sweetheart at the time. We have followed each others' fortunes and been good friends for over 30 years. She always assumed I was still religious. About three yrs ago after Isaac was born, she asked and I had to confess I had repudiated all of it in my own mind over 20 years ago. She confessed she was never a believer, not ever, didn't accept a word of it. She was faking the whole time, hoping no one would figure it out. My former sweetheart (her ex roommate) still doesn't know. We agreed that at least some of the subculture is of some value, and worth saving. We disagree on whether that subculture should be passed along to the next generation. She thinks it is OK and did so, I think not, and will not. > > Regular services are actually damned cool if you can look > past the religion stuff. These people get together once a > week for an hour or two to think & talk about deeper issues > of what it is to be human. If you did that right, well, it > could be a really good thing. > > -- > Emlyn I would agree with that. I have local friends from college days which still gathers as a group about once or twice a month, four couples, all engineers, computer scientists or physicists. Each of those eight have come to grips with the realization that major parts of what we once believed are false, yet we have mostly retained the subculture from the old days. Of those eight, at least three can call themselves atheists, and at least two agnostics, at least one still a true believer. Our gatherings have a definite extropian feel. I will really miss that should I move away from this area. spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 06:32:19 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:02:19 +1030 Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution In-Reply-To: <68BBECD3B91E4143B085A6C34775D59F@spike> References: <68BBECD3B91E4143B085A6C34775D59F@spike> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911152232l5d6e084bh34840fe1c885582@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/16 spike : >> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, spike wrote: > >>>What I do mean is this: what is your mental picture or roadmap, however > fuzzy, to the singularity? >> I gave the roadmap a shot. It's a rambling mess, but see how you like it. Singularity Roadmap - The Borgularity (IA) - The network of minds is the thing. - AI wont be significant probably, IA will outstrip it. There are no decent feedback loops for AI. We assume AI can self augment, but that's an incredibly difficult problem. Prior to that, it seems to be lots of disconnected research in lab like environments. Any feedback that does occur will be entirely dependent on and a secondary effect of the network of minds, as below. - OTOH, we have a single network of human level intelligence, where all kinds of facets of intelligence are the determining factors of fitness. eg: communication skills, raw insight, excellence in narrow domains. - The global network is the mega olympics of the mind, but instead of running every four years, it's run every day. We wake, we join the network, we compete, eventually we sleep. - The object of competition in the mega olympics of the mind is attention. - The mega olympics of the mind has a bewildering array of competitions. Open source sound codecs? Pro-am manga art? Youtube Origami demonstration? etc to something resembling infinity. - It's mostly a meritocracy, with reputation for hysteresis. But that hysteresis is small; you can't easily rest on your laurels, because the games begin anew each day. - Any competition which attempts to introduce too much reputation hysteresis (winners try to hold onto their position) gets outflanked by closely related but more nimble substitutable competitions. - Attention is the new money. It is the important resource. ergo, you cannot ignore the mega olympics unless you can live a life of original affluence (need very little attention). Just about no one can do this. Those who can are invisible, and accept that the games go on without them. - Every interesting innovation on the leadup to the IA singularity relates to the mega olympics of the mind. Some will relate to being able to reach further (eg: better software, better tools for search, data management, community forming and enablement). Some will relate to being able to be present more often (mobile devices, mobile notification, laptops in bed and on the toilet, the ubiquitous network, nodoze). Some will relate to just being mentally better than your counterparts (nootropics, ritalin, personal semi intelligent agents). - The money economy will continue to collapse, as more capital finds it more difficult to find a home. Industries based in digital information will continue to collapse financially, while the actual job they are doing, the function they play, is continually enhanced. eg: newspapers, music, books, movies, coming up are science and universities, health. - Home factory production, ie: rapid prototyping's descendants, will cause a whole new swathe of industries to implode financially. Again, the jobs they were doing will now be done better. - People want to participate, the best people want to participate best. Look to more people (and disproportionately more of the important people) looking for ways to live with less and less money, and less commitments related to gathering money, in order to participate more fully. - Less people will be needed to do the important things; the network is a labour multiplier and labour devaluer (in monetary terms). The mega olympics of the mind will continually find the best and brightest and multiply the products of their efforts for the whole world to use, while reintroducing those products back into the next round of the games. - Any technologies which make non-information things behave like information will prosper. - Any technologies which help people more easily meet their minimum living requirements will be taken up en-masse, especially by the best and brightest. Free information products are already passe. Automated and/or subsidised provisions of free power/food/housing/clothing/money will find their foothold a strong one. These all reduce the requirement to compete for and do pointless work for pay, and increase the time available to compete in the network. - As an example, Google and its ilk are getting more into the power business, because they consume so much. Could they begin providing free power to communities as a good will effort in the future? - Who will be the first to invent a unit you can stick in your backyard which uses air and (solar?) power, grows bioengineered goop, and processes it into either something directly edible, or feedstock for sophisticated food printers? The same goop might be used to make plastic parts/items, and maybe clothing? As far as food goes, the early stuff doesn't have to be special. The early adopters will be internet ascetics. - When will Blizzard open its first full service line of apartments; basically bedsits with great network access and everything delivered, for the truly devoted WoW player? Actually there are plenty who would eschew deliveries for a drip & a catheter. - What can you create as an implant (possibly biological), which takes electricity and the air you breathe, and turns it into the energy you need to live, removing the need to eat? - Any technologies which minimize the need for sleep and other downtime will be favoured. Expect to see the coming of the always on netizen. Perhaps you already know someone like this? - Just increasing the time available to be in the game is not enough, you also have to be better than your contempories/opponents, or even in a cooperative environment you have to stay above the rising tide of competence of your collaborators. The trends in automated tools to enhance your abilities will continue. - The "smart phone" area will become wearable computing, which will eventually include implants. Or, we may never get implants; technology might get to be that good, that we can physically alter ourselves without what we would now consider surgery, by the time we need it. The Apple iMind might read and induce mental states through the skull. - We move at increasing speed. One of the most compelling requirements will be to increase the speed with which we can interact. The games will happen on a shorter and shorter span. I expect the end game of the singularity to involve a speeding up, somehow (probably many-how) of subjective time; we will experience hours as we now experience days, then minutes as days, and so on. What will we use? Drugs? Neurohacking? Offline processing providing by semi-intelligent agents? In-skull implanted modules to provide extra memory or calculation abilities or direct network access? But none of this can compete with uploading. - The big data center companies (Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc) will continue the computronium buildout. We will put more and more of ourselves in there, until finally we can upload completely. Judging by the success of our rudimentary modern online worlds, even when we have crappy first gen uploading people will move there by their millions, at least. - The ever tightening loop, the reinforcing mega olympics of the mind, with uploads, augmented humans, intelligent agents which are early AIs, unintelligent but computationally mind numbingly powerful automated networks of bots, with the reference timeframe speeding up and the minimum height to ride markers of all competitions inexorably rising, this will be the singularity. - Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated! It will be awesome! -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 11:56:03 2009 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:56:03 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com><53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> <62c14240911151904k3145d0bdo1303b7bb5073dffc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2CBBA68D123B43E3885C92311C0ED382@Notebook> from: Mike Dougherty November 16, 2009 1:04 AM [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson >>I wondered if others on this list experience the same sense of disconnect >>from "fellow" humans while immersed in this type of gathering. Then I >>started on a feedback process imagining that maybe others in the room have >>a similar sense of disconnect and that they each manifest it differently - >>perhaps I am simply unaware of their internal state and am mis-perceiving >>the situation. Then I started to imagine that it doesn't really matter >>what they're doing, because this is time for me to be myself and think >>whatever I want - so I imagined why this deity stuff matters to so many >>people in so many cultures... You can allways use an ipod or something like it when you go to church and listen to music. Although this probably will make your wife angry. Not only deity stuff. I also feel this lack of connection when I'm around people rooting for sports (soccer in particular, which is the national sport down here). _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 14:20:20 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:20:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Something to keep in mind regarding EP prognostications In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911152113g46b46542r11e58dbdea0e4a37@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0911152113g46b46542r11e58dbdea0e4a37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911160620vb8d235cm19400f3beb8d5239@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/16 Emlyn > The illusion of a universe in our own back yard > http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/11/the_illusion_of_a_un.html > > All that seems just to be expected. And, btw, non-human exemples of "arbitrary" traits being sexually selected even though they do not have any especial "external fitness" dividend, abound. How would evolutionary thought be confutated by this article. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 14:22:42 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:22:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution In-Reply-To: References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <53373DD632E34323A20A53CFAFC4D144@spike> Message-ID: <580930c20911160622i79baac3pad794dd20b1a5867@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/16 spike > Singularity fans, do you ever envision some kind of roadmap to the > singularity? What is your mental picture of that? Do you ponder it? What > I mean is, what specifics have you in mind? > I consider the singularity as an event horizon, obviously receding as you approach it, not as an event taking place at any precise time. Accordingly, it sounds to me like talking about the roadmap to the rainbow... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Nov 16 15:43:15 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:43:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 09:34:26PM -0800, spike wrote: > agnostics, at least one still a true believer. Our gatherings have a > definite extropian feel. I will really miss that should I move away from > this area. Where are you moving to, Spike? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 16 15:17:25 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:17:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911152232l5d6e084bh34840fe1c885582@mail.gmail.com> References: <68BBECD3B91E4143B085A6C34775D59F@spike> <710b78fc0911152232l5d6e084bh34840fe1c885582@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8EACE8B443A145AE95D97ADD9B1FABBF@spike> ... > >>>What I do mean is this: what is your mental picture or roadmap, > >>>however > > fuzzy, to the singularity? > >> > > I gave the roadmap a shot. It's a rambling mess, but see how > you like it. > > Singularity Roadmap - The Borgularity (IA) > > - The network of minds is the thing... > Emlyn Cool! Thanks Emlyn! Give me a few days to ponder this. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 16 17:51:05 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:51:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] national geographic In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911152113g46b46542r11e58dbdea0e4a37@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0911152113g46b46542r11e58dbdea0e4a37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Emlyn > ... > > To test how universal these body preferences really are, > anthropologists Rebecca Sear and Frank Marlowe looked at > whether similar preferences existed in the Hadza people, a > hunter-gather tribe from Tanzania. > ... > Hadza marriages don't tend to consist of individuals with > similar heights, weights, body mass indexes, body-fat > percentages or grip strengths... Emlyn There is a really excellent article in this month's National Geographic on the Hadza people, as well as another really good article on SETI and the known exoplanets. National Geographic has gotten steadily better for the last couple decades, as Scientific American has gone down market in so many ways, competing head to head with Discover perhaps. I now read National Geographic more than the mainstream science magazines. National Geographic isn't just for cheap thrills anymore; in fact they have recently displayed a deplorable paucity of boobage. Now I really do read it for just the articles. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 16 18:20:28 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:20:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] taxifornia, the failed state In-Reply-To: <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > Subject: Re: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 09:34:26PM -0800, spike wrote: > > > ...Our gatherings have a > > definite extropian feel. I will really miss that should I > move away > > from this area. > > Where are you moving to, Spike? ... I don't know, open to suggestion. The heart of the Silicon Valley isn't the place to retire unless one owns a cubic tonnnn of money. Down here within an easy half our drive from Intel, AMD, Yahoo, Google, eBay, a motley collection of internet fly-by-nights, Stanford U, Palo Alto, etc, our housing costs are absurd. The state taxes are way high yet still grossly insufficient to do all the ambitious plans Aahhnold and the voters want to do, such as stem cell research(!), high speed rail projects and so forth. Taxifornia faces inevitable bankruptcy; I see no way out. Do you? Anyone?* Might go back into the 9 to 5 world for a while longer, depending on what offers come my way. There is an aerospace deep depression going on currently, especially in the end of the biz where I have spent my career. spike *If you offer a suggestion, keep in mind that property taxes are capped at 1% of property purchase price plus 1% increase per year. That restriction is locked into the state constitution, which means it requires 2/3 vote to overturn, which means it will never happen even if humanity faces immediate and brutal extinction. You have at your disposal: income tax increases (did that one in February, state revenues went down), sales tax increases (did that one too, state revenues went down as it chased major purchases to tax free internet), and special assessment parcel taxes (flat fee per property, allowed by the state constitution.) From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 16 18:14:14 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:14:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson Message-ID: <186014.13687.qm@web58306.mail.re3.yahoo.com> spike wrote: <> I agree, and I think this point is particularly relevant to group selection. The case for group selection throughout the animal kingdom is strong; but with regard to humans it's an order of magnitude stronger. One of the central issues in the debate over group selection has been the problem of altruism--self-sacrificing behavior. Why do animals sometimes put their own lives at risk to help others in their group? Why do prey animals call out warnings when predators are spotted, even though the individual doing so makes herself more visible to the predator and more likely to get eaten? Why do individual wolves come to the defense of the pack, even though being cowardly would be safer? The OLD, traditional answer to such questions (espoused by Charles Darwin, Peter Kropotkin, and others) was that altruism makes sense at the group level even though it does not at the individual level (packs of "draft-dodging" wolves tend to get wiped out, while packs practicing "solidarity" tend to prosper). Thus genes for self-sacrificing behavior become widespread throughout the species. But--the opponents of group selection argued--there's a fatal problem with this: precisely the fact that being an altruist puts one's life at risk, making it less likely that one will reproduce and pass on one's genes. In any group with high levels of altruism, there will always be "cheaters": free-loaders who save themselves rather than doing their duty. They will tend to survive and breed more often than the altruists. Thus, inexorably, the self-sacrificing trait will die out (or, more likely, will never get a foothold in the first place). So group-selection theory was dropped and other explanations for altruism were sought: kinship arguments, game-theory arguments, etc. Whatever one thinks of all that, the point I want to stress is that, with HUMANS, the free-loader problem is pretty much a dead issue--because human groups have ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS to marginalize and eliminate cheaters. Isn't that what human morality (or much of it) is all about? In many human societies throughout history, draft-dodgers and others who failed to come to the aid of the group have been dealt with severely and effectively--through ostracism, exile, imprisonment, execution, threats of supernatural punishment, etc., etc. In this way, groups practicing and enforcing solidarity have indeed prospered, and genes for altruistic behavior have spread. So, even if the free-loader argument did apply validly to most species (which is doubtful), it doesn't seem to make any sense at all with regard to humans. The species capable of conceptual thought has ways of dealing with that problem. Postscript: I'm reminded of a comment Robert Heinlein once made. Someone asked him how it was possible that he had written both "Starship Troopers" (glorifying military heroism) and "Stranger in a Strange Land" (glorifying hippie values like peace and community). He replied that he had worked on both books AT THE SAME TIME--and that both were tributes to the same two ideals: "love and duty." To me, that says something about the deep emotional appeal of Heinlein's works; and the feelings involved probably have to do with millennia of genetic pressure in favor of altruism. Rob Masters From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 16 19:30:18 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:30:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <186014.13687.qm@web58306.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <186014.13687.qm@web58306.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44475537B2894DE2B111C4BE6F77555A@spike> > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Masters [mailto:rob4332000 at yahoo.com] ... > Subject: Re: Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson > > spike wrote: > > < theory, one dealing with non-human evolution and one dealing > specifically with human...>> > > I agree, and I think this point is particularly relevant to > group selection... > > One of the central issues in the debate over group selection > has been the problem of altruism--self-sacrificing behavior. > Why do animals sometimes put their own lives at risk to help > others in their group? Why do prey animals call out warnings > when predators are spotted...Rob Masters Here's a take for you Rob. Altruism can to some extent be paradoxically explained by the notion that the self sacrificing individual might actually increase his opportunities to copulate while simultaneously decreasing his chance of survival, based on mate selection. Have you ever seen barnyard birds fight? The loser gets scarce for a while, as the winner (flush with testosterone?) immediately struts around looking for something with which to copulate. I don't know, but it might be that the females watch the fight, then are open to suggestion from the winner. It is plausible that this phenom somehow explains the overtones of aggressiveness in the mating process seen in many mammals, as in the snarling and snapping sometimes seen in dogs as they copulate or prepare to do so. This fuck-the-winner mating strategy isn't exactly group selection if you think about it. It is a murky paradoxical combination of group/individual selection, or perhaps even individual selection that resembles group selection. Mate selection strategy might help us understand what is apparently altruism. What looks like group selection might actually be individual selection. We somehow need to simulate this in software. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 19:47:15 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:47:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:00 AM, "spike" wrote: (quoting Nicholas Wade) snip > But group selection has recently gained two powerful champions, the > biologists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson, who argued that two > special circumstances in recent human evolution would have given group > selection much more of an edge than usual. One is the highly egalitarian > nature of hunter-gatherer societies, This is in direct conflict with what anthropologists know about hunter-gatherer societies. Azar Gat discusses this here: http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf See page 12 for a discussion of how un-egalitarian various hunter-gatherers were with respect to the most important resource of all, women. > which makes everyone behave alike and > gives individual altruists a better chance of passing on their genes. We know from recent genetic studies that we are descended from a smaller number of men than women. Further evidence that things were not so egalitarian in our hunter-gatherer past. >The > other is intense warfare between groups, which enhances group-level > selection How does warfare between groups enhance group-level selection over gene based kin selection? I can account for warfare using kin selection and genes. Just how do they account (mathematically) for group selection? One of the problems is that between wars competing groups obtained mates (i.e., women) from the same groups they fought wars with. > in favor of community-benefiting behaviors such as altruism and > religion. As I have explained a number of times, religion is deeply connected with war and war grew out of kin selection and the human practice of taking he young women of the defeated group. Robert Masters wrote: (Keith) > > I read this when it came out, and no, it does not overturn the central > dogma of where evolution occurs.? If you think it does, please > explain.>> > > > =============================== > > > Well, most simply, you said the Dawkins dogma is that evolution takes place on a single level--that of the gene--while the Wilsons are advocating what they call a "multilevel" theory. ?That seems like a direct contradiction. They fail. The article is hand waving and bonhomie. There is nothing that distinguishes "group selection" from conventional evolution considering the effects of kin selection (inclusive fitness). > More specifically, in your 14 Nov. post you defend the view that group selection is never a significant factor in evolution. ?I assume that's the sort of thing you mean by "level" (i.e., natural selection never operates at the "level" of the group). ?But the denial of group selection is precisely the dogma the Wilsons reject. ?They're saying that that denial was an unfortunate detour in evolutionary theory, and a mistake. Think about it for a bit. What is evolution (by natural selection)? If you agree with me that it is change in gene frequencies, then it is obvious that the frequencies change because some genes increase in numbers and some alternate genes decrease in numbers. That means that the carriers of these genes had more or less reproductive success in previous generations. This is not to say groups could not influence selection, on purpose or accidentally. The classic example is the French sending the tall men off in WW I where most of them were killed. Supposedly this decreased the average height of the French in the next generation, but this is not what people usually mean by "group selection." > The following passages clearly affirm the possibility and importance of group selection: snip > "The case against group selection during the 1960s rested upon three arguments: it is theoretically implausible as a significant evolutionary force; there is no solid empirical evidence for it; and there are robust theoretical alternatives. All these arguments have failed in the face of subsequent research." > > "The old arguments against group selection have all failed. It is theoretically plausible, it happens in reality, OK, cite a reasonable example where conventional selection fails and group selection explains what is going on. Understand I *like* the idea of group selection, most humans I expect to. It is just that so far it fails to explain what goes on with evolution as well as conventional gene selection. it fails logically with exogamy swapping genes between groups. Now if you want make a case for some kind of evolution that is not measured in gene frequency shifts, that's a different matter. Keith From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 16 23:12:22 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:12:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39E469CB5614448F844C9A14583D1E02@spike> ...> Subject: Re: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:00 AM, "spike" wrote: > > (quoting Nicholas Wade) > > snip > > > But group selection has recently gained two powerful champions... > > ...discussion of how un-egalitarian various > hunter-gatherers were with respect to the most important > resource of all, women... Keith As usual, Keith offers a thought-provoking and profound commentary, and many thanks for that. Friends what is missing here in all this evolution discussion is becoming more glaringly apparent with each post: mathematics. Reading Darwin and comparing to modern evolutionary theory, I can see we are making *some* progress in understanding, but not really so impressive for 150 years. To advance from here, we need computer models, and to create computer models we need to somehow apply the powerful tools of mathematics, particularly the fields of calculus of variation, feedback control theory and differential equations to evolution science. But I don't know how to do it. {8-[ Damn. I can do mathematical modeling of any kind of dynamic mechanical system one wishes to name, but as soon as we introduce lifeforms with sentient behavior patterns, I am lost. Now I am convinced we can make little further significant progress without our mathematical toolkit. Heeeellllp Mister Wizard! spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 23:53:50 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:23:50 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Something to keep in mind regarding EP prognostications In-Reply-To: <580930c20911160620vb8d235cm19400f3beb8d5239@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0911152113g46b46542r11e58dbdea0e4a37@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20911160620vb8d235cm19400f3beb8d5239@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911161553p30f30980rdc91cfc571330e92@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/17 Stefano Vaj : > 2009/11/16 Emlyn >> >> The illusion of a universe in our own back yard >> http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/11/the_illusion_of_a_un.html >> > > All that seems just to be expected. And, btw, non-human exemples of > "arbitrary" traits being sexually selected even though they do not have any > especial "external fitness" dividend, abound. > > How would evolutionary thought be confutated by this article. > > -- > Stefano Vaj > It doesn't refute the principles, just a lot of the practice. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Nov 17 02:21:33 2009 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:21:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] singularity thru simulation of evolution In-Reply-To: <68BBECD3B91E4143B085A6C34775D59F@spike> References: <68BBECD3B91E4143B085A6C34775D59F@spike> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, spike wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, spike wrote: > > >>What I do mean is this: what is your mental picture or roadmap, however > fuzzy, to the singularity? > > > > If I had to fantasize about it, then I would say some expert > > system could > > - by some unevitable accident - gain enough critical mass to > > develop self-awareness... Tomasz Rola > > > Every singularity model I have heard reminds me of this: > > http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php > > {8^] > > spike Yep, I know this is trivial and has holes. But what else would you expect from a stone age relic? I like things to be either trivial so I can easily catch them or concrete like a... concrete, so they can help me in my hunting. But didn't you write "however fuzzy"? You yourself have asked for it :-). Anyway, one more try, however trivially it may sound to some wiser minds. 1. Expert systems seem to me, as anything AI-related, to be kind of underground. But this is just illusion, since they are going to be behind a lot of future technology and life-as-a-whole IMHO. Sometimes they are not called by name, but this is just illusion. The name is not sexy to common folk, so it is replaced by something else to please the bosses. One usual suspect displaying this trend are big corporations, where AFAIK an effort is on its way (and for some time already) to "save and reuse workers' knowledge" as workers come and go. There are probably some other suspects that I am not aware off. So I expect those systems will grow and play a big role in the future. 2. And one sunny morning an inevitable accident - ayay, a m...m...m...miracle! - will happen. Actually, I think it will be neither of them. Just a very simple thing called maintainance. A big and costly ex.sys. will have to be maintained in effort to make it more useful. If it is really useful and not some money sucker project (highly improbable if it survives in a business environment for longer), than it's only a matter of time when ex.sys. gains a critical mass of facts and rules. Hence I call it inevitable. Just let it stay in the game for long enough and it will get complicated enough (don't know if this means years or decades). 3. An ex.sys. develops self-awareness, by which I mean it can compute the fact of it's own existence from it's database, while the fact itself has not been explicitly entered into a db. I.e. the computation is not a simple "find a statement" job. 4. What happens next - I think it depends a lot on how much autonomy this ex.sys. will be granted by its owners. I doubt they will be able to get an idea about what's going on. They should know it too, and would prepare in advance for such event. I am far from suggesting they should power off or reboot and restore last backup (this would be too much ass covering approach for my taste, no new knowledge gained and so on). I am also far from suggesting they should watch in ave (this would be too irresponsible approach for my taste). Between those two extremes, there is a lot of possibilities, some leading to a Singularity, some the other way. So there is a lot of probability theory and I cannot say what exactly will happen. If you are going to show me some funny picture now, I hope it will be a different one at least. :-). Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Nov 17 06:18:28 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:18:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Jaguar Supercomputer In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <03DB43FC-F570-4F34-934B-95D7F4FBF87F@bellsouth.net> Right now the most powerful computer on the planet is the Jaguar XT5 at Oak Ridge Tennessee, it can perform 1.759 quadrillion calculations (petaflops) per second. I like the fact that unlike many previous winners of the number one spot Jaguar is not working on classified projects but is an open science machine. However it's not likely to retain its crown for long, for reasons that I don't entirely understand the speed of the very fastest computers has been advancing even faster than Moore's Law. For the last 5 years the speed of the fastest computer on Earth has doubled every 9 months and there is no slowdown in sight. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 17 09:22:13 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:22:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Jaguar Supercomputer In-Reply-To: <03DB43FC-F570-4F34-934B-95D7F4FBF87F@bellsouth.net> References: <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> <03DB43FC-F570-4F34-934B-95D7F4FBF87F@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <20091117092213.GN17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:18:28AM -0500, John Clark wrote: > Right now the most powerful computer on the planet is the Jaguar XT5 > at Oak Ridge Tennessee, it can perform 1.759 quadrillion calculations All thanks to the Cell CPU. The Opterons don't really register. > (petaflops) per second. I like the fact that unlike many previous winners > of the number one spot Jaguar is not working on classified projects but What, an Oak Ridge iron doesn't do classified projects? You sure about that? > is an open science machine. However it's not likely to retain its crown > for long, for reasons that I don't entirely understand the speed of the > very fastest computers has been advancing even faster than Moore's Law. Ability to run LINPACK is not equivalent to overall speed. Moore has nothing to do with performance, it is all about integration density and price. But you knew that already, and just wanted to practice your mantra, right? > For the last 5 years the speed of the fastest computer on Earth has > doubled every 9 months Apart from economies of scale and advances in cooling this is what happens if you start rearranging the existing transistors into something marginally more efficient -- see CUDA and Cell for examples, all mainstream architectures derived from consumer systems. > and there is no slowdown in sight. The wall is never there, until you run into it at Mach 6. Oops. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 10:43:38 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:43:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Jaguar Supercomputer In-Reply-To: <20091117092213.GN17686@leitl.org> References: <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> <03DB43FC-F570-4F34-934B-95D7F4FBF87F@bellsouth.net> <20091117092213.GN17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20911170243q91e1cd3g4dd2ac7bf953ec76@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/17 Eugen Leitl > Apart from economies of scale and advances in cooling this is what happens > if you start rearranging the existing transistors into something marginally > more efficient -- see CUDA and Cell for examples, all mainstream > architectures > derived from consumer systems. > Yes, I think that marginal efficiency touches here and there plus sheer "size" is what has been delivering sofar. One wonders what the closest "wall", making a breakthrough necessary to go on, might lie... In the meantime, let us enjoy the steady performance increases... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 17 10:59:56 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:59:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Jaguar Supercomputer In-Reply-To: <580930c20911170243q91e1cd3g4dd2ac7bf953ec76@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> <03DB43FC-F570-4F34-934B-95D7F4FBF87F@bellsouth.net> <20091117092213.GN17686@leitl.org> <580930c20911170243q91e1cd3g4dd2ac7bf953ec76@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091117105956.GP17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:43:38AM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > One wonders what the closest "wall", making a breakthrough necessary to go > on, might lie... That is easy, smooth takeover into 3d integration when 2d lithography will run out of steam (when is anyone's guess, though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_nanometer appears as good a candidate as any). Of course you can still make architectural advances, go stacked silicon with TSV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through-silicon_via go WSI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer-scale_integration but your only next chance is to abandon flatland, go 3d (whether by iterative layer deposition, or self-assembly of bulk), go spintronics, reversible computer and similiar technologies which are breakthrough-driven, and hence cannot be extrapolated as a smooth semilog plot -- unless you're very, very lucky, and one technology so happens to be ready to smoothly pass over the torch. > In the meantime, let us enjoy the steady performance increases... :-) Absolutely. It's not going fast enough by far; we need a 50 kUSD supercomputer under everybody's desks yesterday. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sparge at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 11:01:20 2009 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:01:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Jaguar Supercomputer In-Reply-To: <20091117092213.GN17686@leitl.org> References: <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> <03DB43FC-F570-4F34-934B-95D7F4FBF87F@bellsouth.net> <20091117092213.GN17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:18:28AM -0500, John Clark wrote: > >> Right now the most powerful computer on the planet is the Jaguar XT5 >> at Oak Ridge Tennessee, it can perform 1.759 quadrillion calculations > > All thanks to the Cell CPU. The Opterons don't really register. The XT5 has Opterons, not Cells. >> (petaflops) per second. I like the fact that unlike many previous winners >> of the number one spot Jaguar is not working on classified projects but > > What, an Oak Ridge iron doesn't do classified projects? You sure about that? Oak Ridge National Lab is a DoE facility that does most of its work in energy and the environment. The nearby Y-12 National Security Complex is the nuke factory. There's classified work at ORNL but it's not done on Jaguar. I've worked at ORNL since '90. -Dave From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 11:07:56 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:07:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911170307n6a5850eancd189e0f147aecd7@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/15 Max More > What bothered me about Wade's article is the quick assumption that > evolution has directly favored religious belief. It seems at least as likely > to me that evolutionary pressures have led to certain general cognitive and > emotional capabilities (including the ability to create narratives, and a > desire for certainty) that make it easy for most humans to construct > religious beliefs. > Especially since "religion" in the modern sense of the word is a very western-centric re-interpretation of diverse and innumerable cultural narratives which have very tenuous homologies and analogies with one another... Starting with the Seventies' idea of translating Jahv? with "theos", for lack of a better solution, when I suspect that He would have hardly qualified in the worldview of the original Greek speakers... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 17 11:12:12 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:12:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Jaguar Supercomputer In-Reply-To: References: <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> <03DB43FC-F570-4F34-934B-95D7F4FBF87F@bellsouth.net> <20091117092213.GN17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20091117111212.GR17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 06:01:20AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote: > > All thanks to the Cell CPU. The Opterons don't really register. > > The XT5 has Opterons, not Cells. Right you are, I confused it with the bested Roadrunner. The updated Jaguar runs 6-core Instanbuls, with some tentative plans to juice them up with Fermis. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/top500_supers_nov_2009/print.html > >> (petaflops) per second. I like the fact that unlike many previous winners > >> of the number one spot Jaguar is not working on classified projects but > > > > What, an Oak Ridge iron doesn't do classified projects? You sure about that? > > Oak Ridge National Lab is a DoE facility that does most of its work in > energy and the environment. The nearby Y-12 National Security Complex > is the nuke factory. There's classified work at ORNL but it's not done > on Jaguar. > > I've worked at ORNL since '90. You're still with them? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sparge at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 11:41:05 2009 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:41:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Jaguar Supercomputer In-Reply-To: <20091117111212.GR17686@leitl.org> References: <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> <03DB43FC-F570-4F34-934B-95D7F4FBF87F@bellsouth.net> <20091117092213.GN17686@leitl.org> <20091117111212.GR17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 06:01:20AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote: > >> I've worked at ORNL since '90. > > You're still with them? Yep. I'm in the IT Services Division and spend most of my time supporting the ORNL DAAC (www.daac.ornl.gov) and the ARM Archive (www.archive.arm.gov). -Dave From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 17 15:35:16 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:35:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] translating jahve In-Reply-To: <580930c20911170307n6a5850eancd189e0f147aecd7@mail.gmail.com> References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <580930c20911170307n6a5850eancd189e0f147aecd7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ...Starting with the Seventies' idea of translating Jahv? with "theos"...Stefano Sorry Stefano, that comment just reminded me of the funniest cameo scenes ever, from the 1980 movie Airplane!, where a couple of jive talkers are on a plane, the stewardess doesn't understand their language, a little old white lady (Barbara Billingsly, who played the role of Mrs. Cleaver in the 1950s) offers to translate. I thought I would wet my diaper laughing at this: {8^D Attendant: Can I get you something? Jiveman #2: S'mo fo butter layin' to the bone. Jackin' me up. Tightly. Attendant: I'm sorry I don't understand. Jiveman #1: Cutty say he cant hang. Woman (Barbara Billingsley) : Oh stewardess, I speak jive. Attendant: Ohhhh, good. Woman : He said that he's in great pain and he wants to know if you can help him. Attendant: Would you tell him to just relax and I'll be back as soon as I can with some medicine. Woman : Jus' hang loose, blooood. She gonna catch up on the`rebound wi de medcide. Jiveman #2: What it is big mamma, my mamma didn't raise no dummy, I dug her rap. Woman : Cut me som' slac' jak! Chump don wan no help, chump don git no help. Jive ass dude don got no brains anyhow. Jiveman #1: Shiiiiit. Subtitle translation: Golly! From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 15:45:23 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:45:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] translating jahve In-Reply-To: References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <580930c20911170307n6a5850eancd189e0f147aecd7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911170745n53edafbal5434b9f80128b90b@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/17 spike > Sorry Stefano, that comment just reminded me of the funniest cameo scenes > ever, from the 1980 movie Airplane!, where a couple of jive talkers are on > a > plane, the stewardess doesn't understand their language, a little old white > lady (Barbara Billingsly, who played the role of Mrs. Cleaver in the 1950s) > offers to translate. > Sounds funny, even though I am afraid that I may be missing a few nuances myself... ;-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 18 00:35:49 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:35:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] translating jahve In-Reply-To: <580930c20911170745n53edafbal5434b9f80128b90b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200911151823.nAFINNb6028861@andromeda.ziaspace.com><580930c20911170307n6a5850eancd189e0f147aecd7@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20911170745n53edafbal5434b9f80128b90b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <93D7807621784A76B67E8B409A3A80F5@spike> ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:45 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] translating jahve 2009/11/17 spike Sorry Stefano, that comment just reminded me of the funniest cameo scenes ever, from the 1980 movie Airplane!... Sounds funny, even though I am afraid that I may be missing a few nuances myself... ;-) Stefano Vaj Ja, its an America thing Stefano. Billingsley was the mom in a 50s era family comedy about a stereotypical middle class family, but part of the humor in the show is that they intentionally exaggerated the whiteness of the family, and all the neighbors for that matter. (Anyone who wants may jump in here.) Mrs. Cleaver would spend her day doing housework in a modest dress, high heels and pearls for instance. In that world, there was no crime, no drugs, no poverty, no real problems other than the younger son was the classic fuck-up. The show had its moments. In any case, the multi-talented (and knockout gorgeous) Billingsley was typecast in that role, and could never get much work after that show ended. So to have her show up in Airplane! translating jive was a hoot. If you haven't seen the original Airplane! do rent that, and be in a silly mood when you start it. It's been nearly 30 years, and I still laugh remembering lines from that show. Example, the boss runs in and says "Tell me everything that happened!" Second in command: "Well, sir, first there was this big bang, and then the earth cooled, and then the dinosaurs came along, but they got too big and fat, so they all died, and then the Arabs came along and they bought Mercedes Benzes..." {8^D spike From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 18 03:14:49 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:14:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson Message-ID: <514465.73662.qm@web58304.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Regarding the two Wilsons' defense of group selection, Keith Henson wrote: <> Bonhomie? You're accusing the Wilsons of "good-natured easy friendliness"? Regarding your other comments, I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you're saying. It would help if I could get clear on an earlier statement you made (14 Nov.): <> Is that really the reason why group selection cannot work? As Damien Broderick pointed out, many competing human groups DON'T exchange women. Are you saying that, in those cases, group selection DOES work? Rob Masters From nanite1018 at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 03:44:55 2009 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:44:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Reading material Message-ID: <428EC96D-606E-4D25-B6E5-7B30C26F05D3@GMAIL.COM> I have two questions on reading material related to extropianism: The first, and somewhat less important, is: other than the articles under the "writing" section of Max More's site, is there any repository for the old articles from Extropy (or even better copies of Extropy itself)? I would love to be able to read more, if they exist buried somewhere on a server or in a hard drive. The second and more important, is that I am looking for a book on transhumanism written from a more extropian point of view. I am in a living/learning community at Georgia Tech which is focused on "human augmentation," and we have been doing a book club as part of that. We've read "Radical Evolution" by Joel Garreau and are just finishing up "Citizen Cyborg" by James Hughes. Hughes' book is written from the point of view of a democratic transhumanist, and I was wondering if there was a book on transhumanism more from a libertarian/extropian sort of view. I think this would give us a good contrast, and spark some good discussions. I looked at the reading list at http://www.nanotech-now.com/transhuman-books.htm , but I didn't see anything that was manifestly along those lines. The closest book I can think of would be Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near" but I was hoping there might be another option, as that book is, apparently, dry to some people (though not to me, at all). A crude search for "extropy" and "extropianism" didn't really turn up anything, so I was hoping the list might be able to point in the direction of some relevant books. Any help, on either of these questions, would be very very much appreciated. Thank you! Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Nov 18 04:03:26 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:03:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Reading material In-Reply-To: <428EC96D-606E-4D25-B6E5-7B30C26F05D3@GMAIL.COM> References: <428EC96D-606E-4D25-B6E5-7B30C26F05D3@GMAIL.COM> Message-ID: <4B03720E.9030608@satx.rr.com> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, JOSHUA JOB wrote: > I am looking for a book on transhumanism written from a more extropian > point of view. I am in a living/learning community at Georgia Tech which > is focused on "human augmentation," and we have been doing a book club > as part of that. We've read "Radical Evolution" by Joel Garreau and are > just finishing up "Citizen Cyborg" by James Hughes. Hughes' book is > written from the point of view of a democratic transhumanist, and I was > wondering if there was a book on transhumanism more from a > libertarian/extropian sort of view. I think this would give us a good > contrast, and spark some good discussions. I looked at the reading list > at http://www.nanotech-now.com/transhuman-books.htm , but I didn't see > anything that was manifestly along those lines. > > The closest book I can think of would be Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity > is Near" but I was hoping there might be another option, as that book > is, apparently, dry to some people My book THE SPIKE isn't written from an extropian perspective, exactly (I'm in favor of a transitional guaranteed income, for scandalous example), but it contains a fair bit of quoting or paraphrase from people on this list, going back to the mid 1990s. And I doubt that it could be called "dry." :) Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 18 04:15:59 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:15:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Reading material In-Reply-To: <428EC96D-606E-4D25-B6E5-7B30C26F05D3@GMAIL.COM> References: <428EC96D-606E-4D25-B6E5-7B30C26F05D3@GMAIL.COM> Message-ID: <3B4B2D46F2C44C558099AD4A9F887AE4@spike> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > JOSHUA JOB > ... > > The second and more important, is that I am looking for a > book on transhumanism written from a more extropian point of > view... > The closest book I can think of would be Ray Kurzweil's "The > Singularity is Near"... Joshua Job Joshua compared to Ray's TSiN, Damien Broderick's older but better The Spike is an excellent choice, me lad. That book has cool stuff on every page, and keeps you reading faster and faster all the way up to the last page. It has shape and structure, flow, literary skill popping out at the seams. Some have commented this is the very best of Damien's excellent body of work. That bit on the top of page 87 is especially interesting, all of it excellent. spike From max at maxmore.com Wed Nov 18 17:01:13 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:01:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Vaccines for Alzheimer's, AIDS, herpes Message-ID: <200911181701.nAIH1Z70021700@andromeda.ziaspace.com> An informative article about exciting developments: Shots on horizon for Alzheimer's, AIDS, herpes http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33979090/ns/health-infectious_diseases/ ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 21:17:05 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:17:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Vaccines for Alzheimer's, AIDS, herpes In-Reply-To: <200911181701.nAIH1Z70021700@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911181701.nAIH1Z70021700@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911181317t408c926fq4b60991c5f402c16@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Max More wrote: > An informative article about exciting developments: > > Shots on horizon for Alzheimer's, AIDS, herpes > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33979090/ns/health-infectious_diseases/ > ### I would be extremely skeptical regarding the prospects for Alzheimer's vaccine. The efforts to remove amyloid have proven to be spectacular failures, mostly because the AD field has been collectively barking up the wrong tree (see here http://smigrodzki.blogspot.com/2009/07/malleus-amyloidarum.html ). Rafal From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 21:24:10 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:24:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Ants for spike! Dawkins and Wilson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Robert Masters wrote: > > Regarding the two Wilsons' defense of group selection, Keith Henson wrote: > > <> > > Bonhomie? ?You're accusing the Wilsons of "good-natured easy friendliness"? As opposed to logical thinking suitable for the subject, yes. > Regarding your other comments, I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you're saying. ?It would help if I could get clear on an earlier statement you made (14 Nov.): > > <> > > Is that really the reason why group selection cannot work? ?As Damien Broderick pointed out, many competing human groups DON'T exchange women. ?Are you saying that, in those cases, group selection DOES work? I missed Damien's post. Not necessarily, but at least groups selection is not logically impossible if you can show reproductive isolation. I am not aware of any human groups in the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptivenes particularly hunter-gatherer groups which don't exchange women one way or the other (raids to take women for example). For any evolution (selection) to take place, there must be sustained reproductive success differences over some tens of generations. Gregory Clark says this happened to the English population between the late middle ages and 1800 where the psychological traits for accumulating wealth were rewarded by higher reproductive success. "In a time when the rich were taking over genetically people were becoming more middle class in their orientation: time preference rates were lower, hours of work longer, and numeracy and literacy increasing. Thus the long delay between the Neolithic Revolution of 6,000 BC which established settled agriculture and the eventual Industrial Revolution may in part be explained by the time necessary for the formation of preference consistent with modern capitalism." http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf This is ordinary selection at the gene level. For group selection to take place, the group, nominally of the same species, must be (largely if not entirely) reproductively isolated and in competition at the group level with at least one other group. Unless the groups are someway ecologically differentiated (different ways of making a living) then this would normally result in a population replacement, i.e., the extinction of one group. This may have happened to earlier versions of Homo. I would tend to call this species replacements rather than "group selection." The new group may or may not be considered a new species depending on the level of isolation from ones with which they could breed. The closely related barred owl seems to be replacing the spotted owl of the Northwest in the last few years. However, the barred owls are pushing out, mating with or killing spotted owls on an individual basis and (as far as I know) not as a group. If you know of an animal example, please cite it. There are a few human groups that are or were isolated enough to make group selection possible. The Hutterites come to mind, possibly gypsies in historical times, and for a time Jews. But in early historical times the Jews were not reproductively isolated. 17: Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18: But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Book of Numbers, from The holy Bible, King James version Chapter 31) If you want to make a case for group selection, be specific, use examples and show that group selection predicts selection different from ordinary selection. Keith From sparge at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 22:03:14 2009 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:03:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Vaccines for Alzheimer's, AIDS, herpes In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911181317t408c926fq4b60991c5f402c16@mail.gmail.com> References: <200911181701.nAIH1Z70021700@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7641ddc60911181317t408c926fq4b60991c5f402c16@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Max More wrote: >> An informative article about exciting developments: >> >> Shots on horizon for Alzheimer's, AIDS, herpes >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33979090/ns/health-infectious_diseases/ >> > ### I would be extremely skeptical regarding the prospects for > Alzheimer's vaccine. The efforts to remove amyloid have proven to be > spectacular failures, mostly because the AD field has been > collectively barking up the wrong tree (see here > http://smigrodzki.blogspot.com/2009/07/malleus-amyloidarum.html ?). I remember reading a while back that prions had been implicated in Alzheimer's. What's the state of this theory today? -Dave From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 04:51:43 2009 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:51:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Open Manufacturing] RepLab - the Open Source Fab Lab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ad6af70911182051k73afca9btc4c362af361d96c4@mail.gmail.com> So, this is a good overview of what's going on. Marcin doesn't know about it, but this is the same thing as SKDB. http://adl.serveftp.org/dokuwiki/skdb Let's get this roaring. Join us on IRC, over the phone, through the open manufacturing mailing list, something. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marcin Jakubowski Date: Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:10 PM Subject: [Open Manufacturing] RepLab - the Open Source Fab Lab To: Open Manufacturing Friends, After attending the Free Society conference (FSCONS 2009), I met a number of people interested in the Open Source Fab Lab. Please read more about the concept - http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1254 and let me know if you'd like to be involved. Marcin -- -------------------------------------------------- Marcin Jakubowski, Ph.D. Open Source Ecology http://openfarmtech.org opensourceecology at gmail dot com Skype: marcin_ose -------------------------------------------------- Nobody said that building the world's first open source village would be easy. -- Anonymous, 2009 A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert A. Heinlein NOTICE: All discussion in this communication is in the public domain, unless otherwise noted. If you are sharing proprietary, confidential, or otherwise privileged information, you must make that explicit. Otherwise, this discussion may be copied, republished, and otherwise used in the public domain - respectfully and with proper attribution. Furthermore, please consider that we are not interested in discussion as much as action. Therefore, we are particularly interested in discussion of ideas that both parties can commit to by acting on them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group. To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 19 12:16:26 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:16:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] translating jahve Message-ID: <855939.91191.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com> spike wrote: << ...that comment just reminded me of the funniest cameo scenes ever, from the 1980 movie Airplane!...>> Yes! One of the (many) things I like about "Airplane!" is that it was Leslie Nielson's breakout role into comedy. In his earlier, serious incarnation, his film "Forbidden Planet" blew my mind when I was 13. Then, 24 years later, he emerged with an entirely new persona, that of a comic genius. Since then he's been working his way through all the genres, applying his touch to cop dramas ("Naked Gun"), espionage thrillers ("Spy Hard"), science fiction ("2001: A Space Travesty"), horror films ("Dracula: Dead and Loving It"), and on and on. I guess the idea of doing such parodies started with "Airplane!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Nielson Speaking of laughter, I just came across an incredible offer for fans of "National Lampoon" (the magazine, not the other stuff produced under the NL label). You can get all 246 issues--from 1970 to 1998--on DVD-ROM for about $20! Reportedly the quality of the images is crappy, but at 8 cents an issue, how can you lose? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VPNSJY?ie=UTF8&tag=marksverylarg-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000VPNSJY Rob Masters From pharos at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 16:02:08 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:02:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] taxifornia, the failed state In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11/16/09, spike wrote: > *If you offer a suggestion, keep in mind that property taxes are capped at > 1% of property purchase price plus 1% increase per year. That restriction > is locked into the state constitution, which means it requires 2/3 vote to > overturn, which means it will never happen even if humanity faces immediate > and brutal extinction. You have at your disposal: income tax increases (did > that one in February, state revenues went down), sales tax increases (did > that one too, state revenues went down as it chased major purchases to tax > free internet), and special assessment parcel taxes (flat fee per property, > allowed by the state constitution.) > > As you might expect some states are more retiree friendly than others. Surprisingly Florida has higher taxes than you might expect, considering it has a zero income tax rate. Some states have much higher property prices and taxes. But remember property taxes are local, so you need to check each possible town. And there are many other factors that might be important to you. Tax reduction is not always the main objective. e.g. weather, winter heating costs, tornado alley?, lifestyle facilities, schools, etc. You probably want to be in the same state as your ranch, or a nearby state, to minimize travel costs. What you want is a nice town near the ranch, with zero income tax, cheap property to buy and low property taxes, nice warm climate, good schools and a thriving nightclub area for your extra-curricular activities (or maybe just a good country & western bar / club / theater). ;) BillK From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 18:03:45 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:03:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] taxifornia, the failed state In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911191003j42263433i5e4e7694d6d2b460@mail.gmail.com> Move to Charlottesville - a beatiful town (for years #1 on the US News list of most livable small towns in the US), nice climate, a mildly cosmopolitan flair without the big city hubbub, surrounded by lush forests. Maybe we can buy some land and build our own Extropian compound in the hills. Rafal On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM, BillK wrote: > On 11/16/09, spike wrote: >> ?*If you offer a suggestion, keep in mind that property taxes are capped at >> ?1% of property purchase price plus 1% increase per year. ?That restriction >> ?is locked into the state constitution, which means it requires 2/3 vote to >> ?overturn, which means it will never happen even if humanity faces immediate >> ?and brutal extinction. ?You have at your disposal: income tax increases (did >> ?that one in February, state revenues went down), sales tax increases (did >> ?that one too, state revenues went down as it chased major purchases to tax >> ?free internet), and special assessment parcel taxes (flat fee per property, >> ?allowed by the state constitution.) >> >> > > As you might expect some states are more retiree friendly than others. > Surprisingly Florida has higher taxes than you might expect, > considering it has a zero income tax rate. Some states have much > higher property prices and taxes. But remember property taxes are > local, so you need to check each possible town. > > > > And there are many other factors that might be important to you. Tax > reduction is not always the main objective. > e.g. weather, winter heating costs, tornado alley?, lifestyle > facilities, schools, etc. > > You probably want to be in the same state as your ranch, or a nearby > state, to minimize travel costs. > > What you want is a nice town near the ranch, with zero income tax, > cheap property to buy and low property taxes, nice warm climate, good > schools and a thriving nightclub area for your extra-curricular > activities (or maybe just a good country & western bar / club / > theater). ? ;) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 20:49:35 2009 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:49:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] taxifornia, the failed state In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911191003j42263433i5e4e7694d6d2b460@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0911151945r9a1532dqb2eaa12bdb628d3a@mail.gmail.com> <20091116154315.GY17686@leitl.org> <7641ddc60911191003j42263433i5e4e7694d6d2b460@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670911191249v56673d1ft1cb74ecc2dc3aeed@mail.gmail.com> Hi Spike, Consider the following places for your future retirement... Hey wait, how did you ever get so old as to be able to retire? lol Austin, Texas- I'm always hearing great things about the affordability, beauty, educational options (hey, you can always take classes for fun) and also the cultural events there. You will stay young by being surrounded by all the young college students. And going out with Max and Natasha would rock! Anchorage, Alaska- Great fishing and hunting and your son can get to know my two little nephews and my brother & his mate! Oh, and your extropianism can rub off on them! Amsterdam, Netherlands- Oh, wait... I've heard it's not such a happening place, nowadays. lol And you're not 21 anymore... But then, you were never *that kind* of 21 year-old! hee Houston, Texas- Greg Burch country! Ride around on motorcycles with him and get to know his Lemurs! Meet the stripper he once said had an IQ "barely equal to Google search!" lol Oxford, England- Hang out with Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg at *Oxford!* Spend some of your leisure time as their academic assistant! Have Aubrey push you down the Thames in his gondola and enjoy a beer with him later! Oh, and watch Jack St. Clair charm the ladies! Stockholm, Sweden- A clean and orderly place with lots of beautiful women! Oh, but you don't know the language, Anders is not there anymore, and you are married (and so if you are only allowed one look, make it good...)! Phoenix/Scottsdale/Tempe/Mesa/Peoria/Gilbert- No snow and cheap housing! Lots of things to do (being that we have so many "city states" competing with each other) and Mesa is going to be building a huge water world resort amusement park and a gigantic film studio complex! Added bonus: you get to hang out with me! lol Oh, and you increase greatly your chances of personal survival by being near to "The Lab (Alcor)!" : ) New York City- It offers everything and is THE ultimate metropolis. But I guess it is the last place most people would consider for a retirement. I may end up there because my father lives in a rent control apt. and it looks like I may be able to take it over. But would even I want to live there? I don't know. LOL San Antonio, Texas- You could visit Damien on a regular basis! But not too much, he is a very focused writer and he must not lose his creative muse! : ) But then from what I hear, the two of you have a synergistic effect on each other. Salt Lake City, Utah- Lots of friendly Mormons to be your next-door neighbors! hee Ski, hunt for dinosaur bones or have lots more children! ; ) Oh, and you get to hang out with my Mormon Transhumanist Association buddies, Brent Allsop and Lincoln Cannon. : ) Portland, Oregon- Breathe in air from a community that's full of pure self-satisfaction at being so artistic and environmentally aware! Ahh, yes, you are in Portland! But if you move there, it is required that you write/draw an autobiographical graphic novel (as everyone else has already done so!)... ; ) Whew! Well Spike, that is my list for you. And if you are still looking... "Best Places for a Healthy Retirement" * http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/moneymag/0909/gallery.bpretire_healthcare.moneymag/ * Best wishes, John!!! : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 20 15:42:11 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:42:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Two literary quotations Message-ID: <24238.72129.qm@web58306.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I found myself back in the sepulchral city resenting the sight of people hurrying through the streets to filch a little money from each other, to devour their infamous cookery, to gulp their unwholesome beer, to dream their insignificant and silly dreams. They trespassed upon my thoughts. They were intruders whose knowledge of life was to me an irritating pretense, because I felt so sure they could not possibly know the things I knew. Their bearing, which was simply the bearing of commonplace individuals going about their business in the assurance of perfect safety, was offensive to me like the outrageous flauntings of folly in the face of a danger it is unable to comprehend. I had no particular desire to enlighten them, but I had some difficulty in restraining myself from laughing in their faces, so full of stupid importance. I daresay I was not very well at that time. I tottered about the streets--there were various affairs to settle--grinning bitterly at perfectly respectable persons. I admit my behavior was inexcusable, but then my temperature was seldom normal in these days.... --Joseph Conrad, HEART OF DARKNESS Again and again I am brought up against it, and again and again I resist it: THE VAST MAJORITY LACK AN INTELLECTUAL CONSCIENCE; indeed, it often seems to me that to demand such a thing is to be in the most populous cities as solitary as in a desert. Everyone looks at you strangely and goes on working his scales, calling this good, that evil; nobody blushes for shame when you remark that the weights he is using are giving short weight--but nobody is annoyed with you either: perhaps they laugh at your doubts. What I mean to say is: the VAST MAJORITY do not find it contemptible to believe this or that, and to live in accordance with this belief WITHOUT first being aware of the ultimate and securest reasons for and against it and without afterwards even taking the trouble to discover such reasons--the most gifted men and the noblest women are still among this 'vast majority'. But what is good-heartedness, refinement and genius to me if the person possessing these virtues tolerates in himself slack feelings with respect to belief and judgement, if the DEMAND FOR CERTAINTY is not his innermost desire and profoundest need.... --Nietzsche, THE GAY SCIENCE (Book One, section 2) Rob Masters From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 20 16:45:36 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:45:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] wicked cool! 3d mandelbrot fractals Message-ID: http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Nov 20 17:33:55 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:33:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Vaccines for Alzheimer's, AIDS, herpes In-Reply-To: <200911181701.nAIH1Z70021700@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911181701.nAIH1Z70021700@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911200933i7597745epca689a2fbb20fe56@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/18 Max More > An informative article about exciting developments: > > Shots on horizon for Alzheimer's, AIDS, herpes > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33979090/ns/health-infectious_diseases/ > > Exciting indeed, but informative? Not a word on the science behind, and enabling, what would be major breakthroughs, as for instance the hows and whys of the lack of vaccines so far for certain pathologies and what is expected to change. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Nov 20 18:17:24 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:17:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] wicked cool! 3d mandelbrot fractals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <680EE4A9-2F30-4A87-B725-DA1E8F786D64@bellsouth.net> On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:45 AM, spike wrote: > http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html Years ago I played around with the old DOS based Fractint program but I see they've come a long way. I've forgotten how much I love fractals, it's amazing that such beautiful complexity could be generated with such simplicity! Thanks Spike. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Nov 20 20:21:34 2009 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:21:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Intercellular communication by photon Message-ID: Cells appear to communicate via photons. Fine. What gives me chills is the possibility that the photons may be "entangled" and laden with info. Have cells mastered (ie evolved) quantum communication, and use it routinely undeterred by the awe and befuddlement of Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Feyman, et al? Reality is never boring, eh? http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24425/?nlid=2540&a=f and the article it references: Coherent and Noncoherent Photonic Communications in Biological Systems http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24425/?nlid=2540&a=f Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 20 20:23:59 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:23:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] wicked cool! 3d mandelbrot fractals In-Reply-To: <680EE4A9-2F30-4A87-B725-DA1E8F786D64@bellsouth.net> References: <680EE4A9-2F30-4A87-B725-DA1E8F786D64@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <27A8EFD5C6EB4EBEBB56AAADD3312FE2@spike> On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] wicked cool! 3d mandelbrot fractals On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:45 AM, spike wrote: http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html Years ago I played around with the old DOS based Fractint program but I see they've come a long way. I've forgotten how much I love fractals, it's amazing that such beautiful complexity could be generated with such simplicity! Thanks Spike. John K Clark Me too John! Back in the early 80s when fractals were just showing up I thought they were beyond cool. Then about summer of 85 Scientific American ran a great article on how to generate them, and I fooled with it on my little desktop Mac with its 8MHz 68000 processor. Hard to believe thats been nearly a quarter century ago. The images are burned into my retinas to this day. These 3D images look so biological! {8-] spike From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Nov 20 20:51:29 2009 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:51:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Two literary quotations In-Reply-To: <24238.72129.qm@web58306.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <24238.72129.qm@web58306.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Several weeks (months?) ago, I noticed a new name on the list of exi posters -- one Robert Masters. I'm starting to have a very good feeling about this guy. Welcome to the neighborhood, Robert. That Nietze quote, however, was bloated and opaque. (Probably no better in the original German.) When he could have said: Humans believe all manner of crapola, sans awareness, shame, or a second thought. Best, Jeff Davis "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it--no matter if I have said it--unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." Buddha On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Robert Masters wrote: > > > > I found myself back in the sepulchral city resenting the sight of people hurrying through the streets to filch a little money from each other, to devour their infamous cookery, to gulp their unwholesome beer, to dream their insignificant and silly dreams. ?They trespassed upon my thoughts. ?They were intruders whose knowledge of life was to me an irritating pretense, because I felt so sure they could not possibly know the things I knew. ?Their bearing, which was simply the bearing of commonplace individuals going about their business in the assurance of perfect safety, was offensive to me like the outrageous flauntings of folly in the face of a danger it is unable to comprehend. ?I had no particular desire to enlighten them, but I had some difficulty in restraining myself from laughing in their faces, so full of stupid importance. ?I daresay I was not very well at that time. ?I tottered about the streets--there were various affairs to settle--grinning > ?bitterly at perfectly respectable persons. ?I admit my behavior was inexcusable, but then my temperature was seldom normal in these days.... > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--Joseph Conrad, HEART OF DARKNESS > > > Again and again I am brought up against it, and again and again I resist it: THE VAST MAJORITY LACK AN INTELLECTUAL CONSCIENCE; indeed, it often seems to me that to demand such a thing is to be in the most populous cities as solitary as in a desert. ?Everyone looks at you strangely and goes on working his scales, calling this good, that evil; nobody blushes for shame when you remark that the weights he is using are giving short weight--but nobody is annoyed with you either: perhaps they laugh at your doubts. ?What I mean to say is: the VAST MAJORITY do not find it contemptible to believe this or that, and to live in accordance with this belief WITHOUT first being aware of the ultimate and securest reasons for and against it and without afterwards even taking the trouble to discover such reasons--the most gifted men and the noblest women are still among this 'vast majority'. ?But what is good-heartedness, refinement and genius to me if the person > ?possessing these virtues tolerates in himself slack feelings with respect to belief and judgement, if the DEMAND FOR CERTAINTY is not his innermost desire and profoundest need.... > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--Nietzsche, THE GAY SCIENCE (Book One, section 2) > > > Rob Masters > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Nov 20 22:42:25 2009 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:42:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wicked cool! 3d mandelbrot fractals In-Reply-To: <27A8EFD5C6EB4EBEBB56AAADD3312FE2@spike> References: <680EE4A9-2F30-4A87-B725-DA1E8F786D64@bellsouth.net> <27A8EFD5C6EB4EBEBB56AAADD3312FE2@spike> Message-ID: <10A9F15A82F84246B2CA1571B675C83E@3DBOXXW4850> Some of my fractal work: This one actually got me an email from Beno?t B. Mandelbrot himself: Odyssey (a 7 min 34 second movie 2006): http://nanogirl.com/personal/odyssey.htm If you can't download the large file at my website you can download it easier at Youtube, although it is of much lower quality (I recommend the link above): http://www.youtube.com/user/nanogirl#p/u/4/wOfTrePsPX8 Zenith: (a 46 second movie 2006) http://nanogirl.com/personal/zenith.htm At Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kncBnlQ_w4 My fractals artwork (21 stills mostly from 2004 ~ one in 2006): http://www.nanogirl.com/fractals/index.html Hope you like them, Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] wicked cool! 3d mandelbrot fractals > On Behalf Of John Clark > Subject: Re: [ExI] wicked cool! 3d mandelbrot fractals > > > On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:45 AM, spike wrote: > > > http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html > > > Years ago I played around with the old DOS based Fractint program > but I see they've come a long way. I've forgotten how much I love > fractals, > it's amazing that such beautiful complexity could be generated with such > simplicity! Thanks Spike. > > John K Clark > > > Me too John! Back in the early 80s when fractals were just showing up I > thought they were beyond cool. Then about summer of 85 Scientific > American > ran a great article on how to generate them, and I fooled with it on my > little desktop Mac with its 8MHz 68000 processor. Hard to believe thats > been nearly a quarter century ago. The images are burned into my retinas > to > this day. > > These 3D images look so biological! {8-] > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 20 23:24:58 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Two literary quotations In-Reply-To: References: <24238.72129.qm@web58306.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > > Several weeks (months?) ago, I noticed a new name on the list > of exi posters -- one Robert Masters. I'm starting to have a > very good feeling about this guy. Ja, Robert Masters is one of our newer good guys. Welcome Robert! Do go offlist with Jeff Davis, as he lives up that way, and you guys make arrangements to meet, along with Jeff's delightful bride. I am confident you will enjoy each others' company. spike > > From spike66 at att.net Sat Nov 21 04:17:46 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:17:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] hi lee! In-Reply-To: <49D87B76.3080705@rawbw.com> References: <365161.35727.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49C6C825.7030507@rawbw.com><580930c20903230521r7e2bb5d4nd31ae09946b21ff0@mail.gmail.com><49C895CC.3000102@rawbw.com> <49C8CD5D.1080004@libero.it><49C9C2BD.9010907@rawbw.com> <49CAB1C7.5020601@libero.it><49CB0E1C.3060201@rawbw.com><49CC6DB5.1010501@rawbw.com><49CF0DFF.8070602@rawbw.com> <1238356432.8163.2557.camel@hayek><49D04B6D.2080809@rawbw.com> <1238403273.5478.194.camel@hayek><49D19D24.8040908@rawbw.com> <1238481751.5478.363.camel@hayek><5FDD658A194945048670AC13E5009B09@spike> <49D71EB4.6050603@rawbw.com><9378CFD598514174B5DFD3DCB081CCD6@spike> <49D87B76.3080705@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <3AAB6D178545491B881B7F698564150E@spike> Hope all is well with you pal! Haven't heard from you in a while. All is OK here. I was involuntarily retired a couple weeks ago, big layoff at the Lazy L ranch. I was surprised: I got really good annual reviews since always. But we are shrinking bigtime, and we higher paid guys were a cherry red target I guess. Later! spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Nov 21 04:18:33 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:18:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] death of print news In-Reply-To: <49D87B76.3080705@rawbw.com> References: <365161.35727.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49C6C825.7030507@rawbw.com><580930c20903230521r7e2bb5d4nd31ae09946b21ff0@mail.gmail.com><49C895CC.3000102@rawbw.com> <49C8CD5D.1080004@libero.it><49C9C2BD.9010907@rawbw.com> <49CAB1C7.5020601@libero.it><49CB0E1C.3060201@rawbw.com><49CC6DB5.1010501@rawbw.com><49CF0DFF.8070602@rawbw.com> <1238356432.8163.2557.camel@hayek><49D04B6D.2080809@rawbw.com> <1238403273.5478.194.camel@hayek><49D19D24.8040908@rawbw.com> <1238481751.5478.363.camel@hayek><5FDD658A194945048670AC13E5009B09@spike> <49D71EB4.6050603@rawbw.com><9378CFD598514174B5DFD3DCB081CCD6@spike> <49D87B76.3080705@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <9CE1C38EFB1E407B9C3508CB76FC5774@spike> Oops, sorry, that was for Lee, pardon please. spike From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 21 04:41:15 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:41:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Etymological note Message-ID: <186921.61675.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> On the origin of the word "laconic": The king of Laconia (Sparta) received the following message from an enemy: "If I conquer your country, I will kill all your men, burn your cities to the ground, sell your women and children into slavery, and plow salt into the earth." The king's reply was: "If." Rob Masters From spike66 at att.net Sat Nov 21 15:52:25 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:52:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Etymological note In-Reply-To: <186921.61675.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <186921.61675.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Robert Masters ... > > On the origin of the word "laconic": > > The king of Laconia (Sparta) received the following message > from an enemy: > > "If I conquer your country, I will kill all your men, burn > your cities to the ground, sell your women and children into > slavery, and plow salt into the earth." > > The king's reply was: > > "If." > > Rob Masters Thanks Rob. My extropian outlook on life has at times earned me the adjective laconic. A friend once compared me to the Spartan king, who was surrounded in battle. The opposing king sent an invitation to surrender at once, for attacking archers alone are so numerous that their missiles would darken the sun. "Good!" the Spartan king responded laconically, "Then we shall fight in the shade." spike From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 21 17:25:31 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:25:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Two literary quotations Message-ID: <562286.27162.qm@web58307.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Jeff Davis wrote: <> Thank you, sir. Happy to be aboard. <> I would never in a million years describe Nietzsche's style as either bloated or opaque, but your precis is spot-on. Rob Masters From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Nov 22 23:05:08 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:05:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] If Earth had Saturn's Rings Message-ID: <4B09C3A4.5070005@satx.rr.com> "What Earth Would Look Like with Rings Like Saturn's" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoz5Q2rGQtQ From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 00:03:08 2009 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:03:08 -0200 Subject: [ExI] If Earth had Saturn's Rings References: <4B09C3A4.5070005@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Really awesome. A couple years ago I sent a question to this list (and specially to Amara) asking exactly this. If the Earth had rings, how would we see them from the surface. This video answers the question in a very cool way. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" November 22, 2009 9:05 PM [ExI] If Earth had Saturn's Rings > "What Earth Would Look Like with Rings Like Saturn's" > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoz5Q2rGQtQ From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 23 01:35:44 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:35:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? Message-ID: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I'm working on a theory (actually just the germ of a hypothesis), and I'd appreciate comments on it--especially leads toward relevant data. A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette smoking causes many diseases. But these data, almost entirely, pertain to cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of which there are many. The list of additives in the popular cigarette brands is enormous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/cigaretteingredients/Cigarette_Ingredients_and_Additives.htm Is there any possibility that these additives are a statistical "confounding factor"? Specifically, could THEY be the cause of the health problems? Could it be that pure, additive-free tobacco is harmless? I don't know of any way to test this hypothesis with statistics--due to the simple fact that, for a long time, almost all the cigarettes being smoked have had the additives. (Recently, with the trend toward "the pure and natural," a few additive-free brands have come on the market, but they account for only a tiny fraction of the data base--and ten or twenty years ago they were even rarer.) Has anyone done any studies on this? Are there medical statistics on people who smoke, and have always smoked, only additive-free brands? In looking for facts to falsify the hypothesis, the only thing I can think of is my (possibly incorrect) impression that tobacco has had a bad health rap for a long time--all the way back into the 19th Century--when, presumably, fewer chemicals, or none at all, were being put into the product. For example, in Dickens' novels, didn't people call cigarettes "coffin nails"? Also possibly relevant is the fact that nicotine, in pure form, is a deadly poison. (I've heard that secret agents have used it for assassinations.) Is there a known biochemical mechanism by which this toxin (even at low doses) could cause cancer, heart disease, etc.? That's about as far as I've got with it. Any thoughts? Rob Masters From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 04:09:27 2009 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:09:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [RepLab] FabLab inventory and Beyond In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ad6af70911222009h35fc0e7aj1092321033e16c10@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marcin Jakubowski Date: 2009/11/22 Subject: [RepLab] FabLab inventory and Beyond To: replab at googlegroups.com, Open Manufacturing , Olle Jonsson , Erik de Bruijn , Marc Juul , Leo Dearden , Jeb Bateman , Sm?ri McCarthy Friends, I would like to call out further for participation in RepLab. The focus is economic significance, ie, applicability of open source tools to real production functions of society. Sam discussed this point in his post, On Replication. I am posting this same message to announce at lists.hackerspaces.org and discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org . If someone knows more effective means of contacting hacklabs, pass this on. We also need to pass this on to the FabLab people. ---- As such, the discussion on RepLab needs to start with components. We propose these here, and then ask collaborators explicitly what they can contribute to the RepLab tool inventory development process. We are looking primarily for people who have can research, design, and build equipment. The goal is producing tools that can lead to disruptive change by combination of open source business model and Type 3 replication (see above article). We should be clear that the development has openness as a priority - including the enterprise model for building respective machines. The enterprise model must include economic analysis and ergonomic analysis for the RepLab tool, to promote economically significant production of that tool or of its product. This is in the name of distributive economics - and to spawn a large number of production facilities worlwide that rely on open source tooling. This is a means to address bootstrap funding towards post-scarcity economics for many of the groups involved - by earnings from viable, open business models. It should be said that the common ground between RepLab development and toolchain application towards economically significant production (such as automated circuit fabrication proposed by Sam) is the development of the toolchain components. This means that if we want to develop toolchains - we need tool chain components - and that's where the core mission of RepLab lies. We are hoping that a large pool of developers from many hackerspace-related initiatives come together on developing the various Open Source Fab Lab tools, since all of us are interested in at least some tools of production. Sam proposes automated circuit fab as one viable enterprise. Erik brings RepRap developments to the table, and I hope that this becomes a viable open business model, possibly co-developed with Makerbot. FeF brings RepTab to the table - we have an untested prototype so far, and we welcome on-site collaborators. The list of tools needed is below, with only the key items listed. Please get back to us specifically on what you can contribute. In particular: (1), tell us the tool of interest to you; (2), what specific technical developments you are willling to contribute to the project - such as design, calculations, research, fabrication, testing, documentation, web development, marketing, resource development, parts sourcing assistance, etc. (3), resources and infrastructure that you have available, and what gruops you are involved with or that you can leverage for assistance (4), suggestions on strategies and enterprise models that can be utilized in development (5), suggestions on tools missing, and how you're willing to contribute to devloping them (6), how much energy you can commit - do you 'have a job' or can you commit significant time? TOOL LIST - from FabLab (see? detailedhis for a list) 1. Laser cutter - large DIY community exists for C02 lasers 2. ShopBot - RepTab is the Factor e Farm version 3. Precise router for milling circuits 4. Plasma cutter - power circuit is main point to opensource 5. Welder - power circuit is main point to opensource 6. Oscilloscope - can a computer oscilloscope cover most needs? Beyond FabLab: 1. RepRap - fabrication streamlining and open business model needed 2. Mill 3. Drill 4. Lathe 5. Induction furnace - power electronics are main point to opensource 6. Ciruit fab - automated process including pick-and-place 7. Aluminum extrusion 8. Metal casting - of ingot from induction furnace, and other molds 9. Hot rolling 10. Cold rolling 11. Forging 12. Metal shear and hole punch for up to 1" steel 13. Wire drawing These tools cover electronics, precision fabrication, heavy metal work, and ability to make other tools for producing any technology known in advanced civilization. Tools created from the above can even yield clean room technology. The above is quiate a limited set, but is sufficient to generate other tools. The latter parts focus on serious industrial process, with a bias towards building replicable, post-scarcity resilient communities with capacity to bootstrap largerly from scrap steel. Comments and refinements of problem statement are welcome. Thanks, Marcin marcin at replab.org -- -------------------------------------------------- Marcin Jakubowski, Ph.D. Open Source Ecology http://openfarmtech.org opensourceecology at gmail dot com Skype: marcin_ose -------------------------------------------------- Nobody said that building the world's first open source village would be easy. -- Anonymous, 2009 A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert A. Heinlein NOTICE: All discussion in this communication is in the public domain, unless otherwise noted. If you are sharing proprietary, confidential, or otherwise privileged information, you must make that explicit. Otherwise, this discussion may be copied, republished, and otherwise used in the public domain - respectfully and with proper attribution. Furthermore, please consider that we are not interested in discussion as much as action. Therefore, we are particularly interested in discussion of ideas that both parties can commit to by acting on them. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 23 05:04:52 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:04:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> > A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette > smoking causes many diseases. But these data, almost > entirely, pertain to cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of > which there are many... Rob Rob a couple thoughts on this and couple questions. Do you have a reference to Dickens characters calling cigs coffin nails? Can't find anything on google. Nicotine doesn't cause cancer at all. The notion is that cancer is caused by the tar in the tobacco. So when low nicotine cigarettes were all the rage, it may have caused smokers to smoke more, which was fine with the tobacco companies, but might have actually caused more cancer. Nicotine has plenty of bad health effects, as my family learned when medications were developed for Alzheimers patients. Shelly's grandfather took them, and it messed him up bigtime. We think it may have contributed to his stroke. Regarding grandfathers, mine started smoking as a teen, and quit at around age 40, which was in the late 1940s. I asked him about this, since the medics were not yet adamant about the bad health effects of tobacco in those days. My grandfather made an interesting comment, "The doctors weren't saying much in those days, and many of them smoked, but the life insurance companies knew all about it. Anyone with half a brain could easily figure it out: the smokers had less stamina, coughed more and so forth. We didn't really have the lung cancer connection figured out in those days, but the emphysema connection was easy to see back then, easy." I thought that was very insightful of the man. Tobacco additives may cause the problem to be worse, but we have plenty of evidence tobacco is bad by itself. Rob don't get any ideas about marketing organic cigarettes; that will cause us to become pissed offwardly. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Masters > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:36 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? > > > > I'm working on a theory (actually just the germ of a > hypothesis), and I'd appreciate comments on it--especially > leads toward relevant data. > > A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette > smoking causes many diseases. But these data, almost > entirely, pertain to cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of > which there are many. The list of additives in the popular > cigarette brands is enormous: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes > http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm > http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/cigaretteingredients/Cigarette > _Ingredients_and_Additives.htm > > Is there any possibility that these additives are a > statistical "confounding factor"? Specifically, could THEY > be the cause of the health problems? Could it be that pure, > additive-free tobacco is harmless? > > I don't know of any way to test this hypothesis with > statistics--due to the simple fact that, for a long time, > almost all the cigarettes being smoked have had the > additives. (Recently, with the trend toward "the pure and > natural," a few additive-free brands have come on the market, > but they account for only a tiny fraction of the data > base--and ten or twenty years ago they were even rarer.) > > Has anyone done any studies on this? Are there medical > statistics on people who smoke, and have always smoked, only > additive-free brands? > > In looking for facts to falsify the hypothesis, the only > thing I can think of is my (possibly incorrect) impression > that tobacco has had a bad health rap for a long time--all > the way back into the 19th Century--when, presumably, fewer > chemicals, or none at all, were being put into the product. > For example, in Dickens' novels, didn't people call > cigarettes "coffin nails"? > > Also possibly relevant is the fact that nicotine, in pure > form, is a deadly poison. (I've heard that secret agents > have used it for assassinations.) Is there a known > biochemical mechanism by which this toxin (even at low doses) > could cause cancer, heart disease, etc.? > > That's about as far as I've got with it. Any thoughts? > > > Rob Masters > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 06:24:51 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:24:51 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> Message-ID: 2009/11/23 spike : > Nicotine doesn't cause cancer at all. ?The notion is that cancer is caused > by the tar in the tobacco. ?So when low nicotine cigarettes were all the > rage, it may have caused smokers to smoke more, which was fine with the > tobacco companies, but might have actually caused more cancer. ?Nicotine has > plenty of bad health effects, as my family learned when medications were > developed for Alzheimers patients. ?Shelly's grandfather took them, and it > messed him up bigtime. ?We think it may have contributed to his stroke. There's no consensus that nicotine causes any harm in humans: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/41/3/497 -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Nov 23 06:15:08 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:15:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] If Earth had Saturn's Rings In-Reply-To: <4B09C3A4.5070005@satx.rr.com> References: <4B09C3A4.5070005@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <979E873A-7633-487D-9143-69B170B7A9A5@bellsouth.net> Actually Earth did have rings even more impressive than Saturn's when a Mars sized object crashed into the Earth, but they only lasted for a short time before they congealed and formed the moon. It's a good thing too because without our enormous and uncommon satellite it's unlikely intelligent life would have evolved on our planet. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 07:52:10 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:52:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> Message-ID: On 11/23/09, spike wrote: > Do you have a reference to Dickens characters calling cigs coffin nails? > Can't find anything on google. > > In 'A Christmas Carol' (1843) Dickens wrote: Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don't mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. -------- But he wasn't talking about cigarettes. 'coffin nails' (or coffin tacks in USA) referring to cigarettes seems to date from the 1880s according to reference dictionaries. The phrase was also used for alcoholic drinks, or anything that shortened your life expectancy. Coffin nail Since about 1890 people have recognized that cigarette smoking does indeed damage one's health for even then they said that each cigarette a person smoked drove another nail in his coffin. That led to a cigarette being called ( in slang ) a coffin nail. "I stopped smoking," Hank said. "I haven't had a coffin nail in three months." The 'idea' of the phrase is much, much older. i.e. the last nail in the coffin is equivalent to the straw that breaks the camel's back and that at least goes back to Biblical times. ------------- Just to confuse you, there is also 'dead as a doornail' This is an ancient expression: we have a reference to this dating back to 1350, and it also appears in the fourteenth-century work The Vision of Piers Plowman and in Shakespeare?s Henry IV. -------------- BillK From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 08:30:16 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:30:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] HUMOR: Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope to meet head on in Large Hadron Collider Message-ID: In a surprise twist to the search to discover the origins of he universe Pope Benedict and the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams are to be fired at one another at the speed of light in the Large Hadron Collider at Cern. ---------- BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 12:08:56 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:08:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> Message-ID: <580930c20911230408s50564ca0w2c6ecea5a4d64965@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/23 Stathis Papaioannou > There's no consensus that nicotine causes any harm in humans: > http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/41/3/497 > Mmhhh. While nicotine is certainly a chemically active drug, "harm" is a relative concept. If one is into caloric restriction, food itself is harmful, and should be taken only when. and inasmuch as, it is strictly necessary, given its undesirable side effects. Accordingly, what should perhaps be investigated more in depth is the tradeoffs of nicotine in different individual contexts, including or not the psycholectic or organolectic effects thereof, especially when it is assumed by smoking, chewing or snurfing tobacco leaves. I have for instance a rather intense dislike for the nicotine "down" (or is it an "up"?), but adore the aroma of top-of-the-line Cuban cigars. As to adverse systemic effects, at my admittedly very low usage level, I cannot say that I notice any. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 13:15:01 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:15:01 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911230408s50564ca0w2c6ecea5a4d64965@mail.gmail.com> References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> <580930c20911230408s50564ca0w2c6ecea5a4d64965@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/11/23 Stefano Vaj : > Mmhhh. While nicotine is certainly a chemically active drug, "harm" is a > relative concept. > > If one is into caloric restriction, food itself is harmful, and should be > taken only when. and inasmuch as, it is strictly necessary, given its > undesirable side effects. > > Accordingly, what should perhaps be investigated more in depth is the > tradeoffs of nicotine in different individual contexts, including or not the > psycholectic or organolectic effects thereof, especially when it is assumed > by smoking, chewing or snurfing tobacco leaves. I meant permanent adverse health effects, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. Smoking tobacco is harmful, chewing or inhaling it less so, but nicotine itself is probably not to blame. It's true that it is addictive; most heroin users I know say it is harder to give up cigarettes than narcotics. However, physical and psychological addiction is not necessarily a harm if it causes no physical problems or functional impairment. > I have for instance a rather intense dislike for the nicotine "down" (or is > it an "up"?), but adore the aroma of top-of-the-line Cuban cigars. As to > adverse systemic effects, at my admittedly very low usage level, I cannot > say that I notice any. Whenever I have tried nicotine it has just made me dysphoric. Like every other preference, propensity for drug addiction is an individual thing, depending on the person and the drug. -- Stathis Papaioannou From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 13:51:07 2009 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> Message-ID: <62c14240911230551r3eb1777g5aecc021756ce0b8@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:52 AM, BillK wrote: > In 'A Christmas Carol' (1843) Dickens wrote: > Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. > > Mind! I don't mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what > there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been > inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of > ironmongery in the trade. > A nail through the strengthening crossbar of a door would protrude all the way through and to secure wood from coming apart over time, the point of the nail would be bent over and hammered down into the wood. This would of course make the nail unavailable for reuse, thus "dead". The most common use of the technique was in doors (few other places expose the point of the nail) So: "dead as a doornail." http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dead_as_a_doornail I love the history of that expression - used almost as frequently as "rule of thumb" but without such violence. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 13:53:06 2009 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:53:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] If Earth had Saturn's Rings In-Reply-To: <979E873A-7633-487D-9143-69B170B7A9A5@bellsouth.net> References: <4B09C3A4.5070005@satx.rr.com> <979E873A-7633-487D-9143-69B170B7A9A5@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <62c14240911230553s5ea45e0eyb44d3cf3db5d8db5@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/23 John Clark > Actually Earth did have rings even more impressive than Saturn's when a > Mars sized object crashed into the Earth, but they only lasted for a short > time before they congealed and formed the moon. It's a good thing too > because without our enormous and uncommon satellite it's unlikely > intelligent life would have evolved on our planet. > > I'm still waiting for it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Mon Nov 23 15:36:25 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:36:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911230408s50564ca0w2c6ecea5a4d64965@mail.gmail.com> References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> <580930c20911230408s50564ca0w2c6ecea5a4d64965@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B0AABF9.4010901@libero.it> Stefano Vaj ha scritto: > 2009/11/23 Stathis Papaioannou > > > There's no consensus that nicotine causes any harm in humans: > http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/41/3/497 > > Mmhhh. While nicotine is certainly a chemically active drug, "harm" is a > relative concept. In case of nicotine, the most important feature is the rate of metabolization. It is unusually fast, this is because smokers need to smoke continually and it is pretty rare that people die of nicotine poisoning. But I can attest that undernourished people with bad health can have problems when smoking. They are unable to clear their blood fast enough, so the level grow and they fall at the ground. This rarely cause serious consequences (apart the traumatic ones) because they stop smoking when they fall and then the level of nicotine start to fall. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.77/2520 - Data di rilascio: 11/22/09 20:40:00 From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 23 10:35:43 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Sockpuppet99@hotmail.com) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:35:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> Message-ID: Rob: Really, since you've cone up with this geoundbreaking theory, the only responsible position to take is to bear it out by smoking as much additive-free tobacco as possible and seeing whether or not you get lung cancer. I anticipate that your experiment will provide immeasurable benefits to mankind. Tom D Sent from my iPod On Nov 22, 2009, at 10:04 PM, "spike" wrote: > >> A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette >> smoking causes many diseases. But these data, almost >> entirely, pertain to cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of >> which there are many... Rob > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of >> Robert Masters >> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:36 PM >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? >> >> >> >> I'm working on a theory (actually just the germ of a >> hypothesis), and I'd appreciate comments on it--especially >> leads toward relevant data. >> >> A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette >> smoking causes many diseases. But these data, almost >> entirely, pertain to cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of >> which there are many. The list of additives in the popular >> cigarette brands is enormous: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes >> http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm >> http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/cigaretteingredients/Cigarette >> _Ingredients_and_Additives.htm >> >> Is there any possibility that these additives are a >> statistical "confounding factor"? Specifically, could THEY >> be the cause of the health problems? Could it be that pure, >> additive-free tobacco is harmless? >> >> I don't know of any way to test this hypothesis with >> statistics--due to the simple fact that, for a long time, >> almost all the cigarettes being smoked have had the >> additives. (Recently, with the trend toward "the pure and >> natural," a few additive-free brands have come on the market, >> but they account for only a tiny fraction of the data >> base--and ten or twenty years ago they were even rarer.) >> >> Has anyone done any studies on this? Are there medical >> statistics on people who smoke, and have always smoked, only >> additive-free brands? >> >> In looking for facts to falsify the hypothesis, the only >> thing I can think of is my (possibly incorrect) impression >> that tobacco has had a bad health rap for a long time--all >> the way back into the 19th Century--when, presumably, fewer >> chemicals, or none at all, were being put into the product. >> For example, in Dickens' novels, didn't people call >> cigarettes "coffin nails"? >> >> Also possibly relevant is the fact that nicotine, in pure >> form, is a deadly poison. (I've heard that secret agents >> have used it for assassinations.) Is there a known >> biochemical mechanism by which this toxin (even at low doses) >> could cause cancer, heart disease, etc.? >> >> That's about as far as I've got with it. Any thoughts? >> >> >> Rob Masters >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 16:27:59 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:27:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> Message-ID: <580930c20911230827u71c0a4c4i757a86b8423d198b@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/23 Sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com > Really, since you've cone up with this geoundbreaking theory, the only > responsible position to take is to bear it out by smoking as much > additive-free tobacco as possible and seeing whether or not you get lung > cancer. > Already done. I am not aware that fresh hand-made cigars contain additives, and in fact I believe that the related increase in lung cancer risk is marginal... Even though admittedly this may have to do with the fact that most of their smokers do not directly inhale their smoke. Just out of curiosity: is anybody aware of any recreational or other non therapeutical use of nicotine other than through tobacco? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 23 16:38:16 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:38:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com><55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? > > Rob: > > Really, since you've cone up with this geoundbreaking theory, > the only responsible position to take is to bear it out by > smoking as much additive-free tobacco as possible and seeing > whether or not you get lung cancer. I anticipate that your > experiment will provide immeasurable benefits to mankind. > > Tom D When someone makes a suggestion to which one agrees, the response is sometimes "I second the motion." There should be something that is the opposite of that, a response to a suggestion one opposes. Second, first... zeroeth? Tom, I zeroeth your motion. Rob is one of our good guys. spike > > > >> A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette smoking > >> causes many diseases. But these data, almost entirely, pertain to > >> cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of which there are many... Rob From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 23 16:51:40 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Belva Plain) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:51:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <580930c20911230827u71c0a4c4i757a86b8423d198b@mail.gmail.com> References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com>, <55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike>, , <580930c20911230827u71c0a4c4i757a86b8423d198b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Stefano wrote: Just out of curiosity: is anybody aware of any recreational or other non therapeutical use of nicotine other than through tobacco? -- Stefano Vaj ------------ Sure, some people chew nicotine gum for the buzz. Tom D _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_myidea:112009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 23 17:16:12 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Belva Plain) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:16:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com><55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike>, , Message-ID: Spike, I sense a certain logical inconsistency in your reply; or at the very least, a lack of trust in your friend's good sense. If Rob is right, the plan that I suggest will do nothing to harm him, and the knowledge gained from his experiment stands to benefit mankind. If he is wrong, the experiment may indeed harm him, but the knowledge gained from his experiment still stands to benefit mankind. No? Tom D > From: spike66 at att.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:38:16 -0800 > Subject: Re: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? > > > > > ...On Behalf Of Sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? > > > > Rob: > > > > Really, since you've cone up with this geoundbreaking theory, > > the only responsible position to take is to bear it out by > > smoking as much additive-free tobacco as possible and seeing > > whether or not you get lung cancer. I anticipate that your > > experiment will provide immeasurable benefits to mankind. > > > > Tom D > > When someone makes a suggestion to which one agrees, the response is > sometimes "I second the motion." There should be something that is the > opposite of that, a response to a suggestion one opposes. Second, first... > zeroeth? > > Tom, I zeroeth your motion. Rob is one of our good guys. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > >> A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette smoking > > >> causes many diseases. But these data, almost entirely, pertain to > > >> cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of which there are many... Rob > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _________________________________________________________________ Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 23 17:44:10 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:44:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] If Earth had Saturn's Rings Message-ID: <544604.79859.qm@web58302.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Wow! Gorgeous. (Both the visuals and the music.) John Clark wrote: <<... without our enormous and uncommon satellite it's unlikely intelligent life would have evolved on our planet.>> Cool idea, but... please explain? Rob Masters From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 23 18:26:46 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:26:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <113073.95393.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com><55B37CBAF95D4DA4A057B428DE6EC847@spike>, , Message-ID: <7CEFAC24FCE8409AB24CEB6B786E736E@spike> ...On Behalf Of Belva Plain Subject: Re: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? > > Tom, I zeroeth your motion. spike Spike, I sense a certain logical inconsistency in your reply; or at the very least, a lack of trust in your friend's good sense. If Rob is right, the plan that I suggest will do nothing to harm him, and the knowledge gained from his experiment stands to benefit mankind. If he is wrong, the experiment may indeed harm him, but the knowledge gained from his experiment still stands to benefit mankind. No? Tom D ... No. Rob is a benefit to mankind, so risking losing him stands to harm mankind. There is plenty of data on smoking, pleeeenty. One need not experiment with one's own lungs to add merely one more drop in a vast sea of data. The task is to benefit mankind by sifting the existing data. Insurance companies knew how to do this back in the days where there wasn't a tenth the data; we can too. We have in this country, under reasonably comparable conditions, those who smoke home-grown tobacco with no additives. A diligent student can get to these data and get a reasonable picture of reality to the satisfaction of an investor, even if not to the satisfaction of a court of law. Failing that, one could do chemical analyses of the junk that comes out of the consumer end of a cigarette. Clean rooms: we have particulate counters in our satellite final assembly facilities. Bout 20 years ago, we accidentally discovered that there is a factor of about 5 difference in the number of particulates (~0.2 to 20 micron) exhaled by smokers vs nonsmokers. We were playing around and seeing who had the cleanest lungs: that was me. But I was also the youngest. We found that there was a slight correlation with age to particulates exhaled, but this small signal was swamped by the huge delta between smokers vs non smokers, a factor of 5, after we compensated for age. I don't know what it is that smokers were blowing, but it can't be good. No need for tobacco in any case: just get the nicotine gum. Go with your intuition, use the force, young Skywalker. We all *know* smoking is bad news, we know it. We can easily compare those who do with those who don't, and just go with our intuition on that. I would agree it isn't the nicotine that is doing the bad, but there is plenty of other junk in tobacco smoke. But pulling hot smoke across those delicate lung and throat tissues just hasta be bad pal. Never treat your lungs as if you are carrying a coupla spares in the trunk. spike From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 23 21:51:17 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:51:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? Message-ID: <588704.21859.qm@web58304.mail.re3.yahoo.com> spike wrote: <> Right! I forgot all about tar. Duh. Now I need to find out if there's evidence that TAR is harmful. Common sense suggests that the "black lungs" of smokers can't be a good thing, but what's the medical knowledge on this? Has it been established that the gicky stuff can stimulate cancer production or interfere with breathing or whatever? What's the physiology involved? I'll have to investigate further. (Input welcome.) <> I don't understand. How can there be evidence that tobacco is bad "by itself" when no one (or almost no one) smokes tobacco "by itself," i.e., without additives? Don't you need a database of additive-free smokers to know anything about the effects of PURE tobacco? If we observed that smokers of additive-laden tobacco got cancer at 50 percent above the rate for non-smokers, while additive-free smokers got it at 30 percent above that rate, it'd be reasonable to conclude that the additives were part of the problem and the tobacco another part. But there aren't any such statistics. All the available data is about tobacco with additives. As far as I can see, this means there's no evidence that tobacco "by itself" is harmful. Of course, that's very different from saying we know it's NOT harmful. To establish the latter, we'd have to observe a bunch of additive-free smokers over time and determine that they're just as healthy as non-smokers. But at this point we just don't know. Look at it this way. Suppose it WERE true that tobacco was totally harmless. How would the data look any different from how it does now? There'd be a certain rate of disease among smokers, higher than among non-smokers--just as we observe. But that wouldn't tell us anything about the effects of the tobacco itself. (Or am I missing something?) Your grandfather said: <<"Anyone with half a brain could easily figure it out: the smokers had less stamina, coughed more and so forth.".>> I totally agree--but the problem is that these smokers were using tobacco with additives. So it doesn't address the point. <> Don't worry spike--I have no such plans. :-) Thanks for your comments; trying to explain this is helpful to me. Stathis Papaioannou wrote: <> Thanks! That's really useful information. BillK wrote: <> Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. But do you have a source for that? Rob Masters From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 23 23:24:05 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:24:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <588704.21859.qm@web58304.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <588704.21859.qm@web58304.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Masters... > > Your grandfather said: > > <<"Anyone with half a brain could easily figure it out: the > smokers had less stamina, coughed more and so forth.".>> > > I totally agree--but the problem is that these smokers were > using tobacco with additives. So it doesn't address the point... It does partially. Where my grandfather grew up, rural Kentucky, most of the tobacco, both the smoking kind and the chawing kind, was home grown. A few had enough money for "store boughten" tobacco, but most did not in those days. It was a well known insult to say that so and so borrowed store-boughten chaw and repaid with home grown. But to your point, grandpa did specify that they missed the lung cancer angle, picked up on the short windedness and the emphysema. Back in the 50s, there were experiments done where they extracted tobacco tar and painted directly on the skin of lab mice, which then developed skin cancers. To estrapolate that to human lung cancer is a stretch, I can give you that. Regarding disease however, I would be far more afraid of emphysema than I would lung cancer. Reasoning: with lung cancer, it moves fast, you know pretty much when your time is up. It is the disease most compatible with the notion of cryonics. But emphysema might be the very worst fate for the cryonaut, for that disease turns the brain to jelly before one actually perishes, from long term oxygen starvation. Furthermore, if you have ever seen anyone perish of emphysema, it is the very best argument for assisted suicide. Do let me pull the curtain of mercy upon that horrifying end, lying as still as possible, heaving and gasping but just not getting enough air. It would seem like the emphysema patient should be given the opportunity to go ahead and get the cryonics team in place, say goodbye to the fam, and plunge on into a possible future in the holodeck while there are still good brain cells to try to emulate. spike From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 23:32:13 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:32:13 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <588704.21859.qm@web58304.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <588704.21859.qm@web58304.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/23/09, Robert Masters wrote: > BillK wrote: > < indeed damage one's health for even then they said that each cigarette > a person smoked drove another nail in his coffin. That led to a > cigarette being called ( in slang ) a coffin nail.>> > > > Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. But do you have a source for that? > > Google?? The dictionaries say 'Many references' e.g. newspapers, stories, etc. For example: Quote: "Say, sport, have you got a coffin nail on you?" asks a character in an O. Henry short story written in 1906. The New Dictionary of American Slang dates the phrase "coffin nail" from the late 19th century. BillK From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 24 04:47:06 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:47:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Jack London on primeval feelings Message-ID: <298914.94231.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >From Jack London's THE CALL OF THE WILD (arranged as verse): With the aurora borealis flaming coldly overhead, or the stars leaping in the frost dance, and the land numb and frozen under its pall of snow, this song of the huskies might have been the defiance of life, only it was pitched in minor key, with long-drawn wailings and half-sobs, and was more the pleading of life, the articulate travail of existence. It was an old song, old as the breed itself-- one of the first songs of a younger world in a day when songs were sad. It was invested with the woe of unnumbered generations this plaint by which Buck was so strangely stirred. When he moaned and sobbed, it was with the pain of living that was of old the pain of his wild fathers, and the fear and mystery of the cold and dark that was to them fear and mystery. And that he should be stirred by it marked the completeness with which he harked back through the ages of fire and roof to the raw beginnings of life in the howling ages. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Nov 24 05:31:21 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:31:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] If Earth had Saturn's Rings In-Reply-To: <544604.79859.qm@web58302.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <544604.79859.qm@web58302.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64BDF770-152D-48CD-A556-FFC9F03AD75E@bellsouth.net> On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Robert Masters wrote: >> without our enormous and uncommon satellite it's unlikely intelligent life would have evolved on our planet. > > Cool idea, but... please explain? Our absolutely gigantic moon acts like a gyroscopic stabilizer for earth's rotational axis. Over the last billion years the axis has only varied between 22 degrees and 24.6 degrees, it is 23.5 now. Without the moon it is estimated that gravitational perturbations from other planets and passing stars could change the axis from 0 degrees to 90 in just a few million years, Mars like all known planets except the Earth has no big moon and there is some evidence its axis has shifted radically over the years, although right now it is similar to Earth's. If Earth's axis were on its side at 90 degrees one hemisphere would be in sunlight for 6 months and the other in darkness, the poles would be tropical and glaciers would form on the equator and they'd stay there too until the axis shifted yet again. I think it unlikely complex life could form on a planet with a climate of such extreme chaotic gyrations. Also one of the most biologically active areas is the intertidal zone and without the moon tides would only be a third what they are now. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:58 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:52:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <588704.21859.qm@web58304.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20091124075258.GE17686@leitl.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:24:05PM -0800, spike wrote: > But to your point, grandpa did specify that they missed the lung cancer > angle, picked up on the short windedness and the emphysema. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/smokeless # What harmful chemicals are found in smokeless tobacco? * Chewing tobacco and snuff contain 28 carcinogens (cancer?causing agents). The most harmful carcinogens in smokeless tobacco are the tobacco?specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). They are formed during the growing, curing, fermenting, and aging of tobacco. TSNAs have been detected in some smokeless tobacco products at levels many times higher than levels of other types of nitrosamines that are allowed in foods, such as bacon and beer. * Other cancer?causing substances in smokeless tobacco include N?nitrosamino acids, volatile N?nitrosamines, benzo(a)pyrene, volatile aldehydes, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, crotonaldehyde, hydrazine, arsenic, nickel, cadmium, benzopyrene, and polonium?210. * All tobacco, including smokeless tobacco, contains nicotine, which is addictive. The amount of nicotine absorbed from smokeless tobacco is 3 to 4 times the amount delivered by a cigarette. Nicotine is absorbed more slowly from smokeless tobacco than from cigarettes, but more nicotine per dose is absorbed from smokeless tobacco than from cigarettes. Also, the nicotine stays in the bloodstream for a longer time. # What cancers are caused by or associated with smokeless tobacco use? * Smokeless tobacco users increase their risk for cancer of the oral cavity. Oral cancer can include cancer of the lip, tongue, cheeks, gums, and the floor and roof of the mouth. * People who use oral snuff for a long time have a much greater risk for cancer of the cheek and gum than people who do not use smokeless tobacco. * The possible increased risk for other types of cancer from smokeless tobacco is being studied. # What are some of the other ways smokeless tobacco can harm users' health? Some of the other effects of smokeless tobacco use include addiction to nicotine, oral leukoplakia (white mouth lesions that can become cancerous), gum disease, and gum recession (when the gum pulls away from the teeth). Possible increased risks for heart disease, diabetes, and reproductive problems are being studied. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eschatoon at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 08:03:32 2009 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email)) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:03:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] First meeting of European Transhumanist Associations Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90911240003w7fbdea9et54cfbf49893965b9@mail.gmail.com> http://cosmi2le.com/index.php?/site/first_meeting_of_european_transhumanist_associations/ On Friday 20 and Saturday 21 November, 2009, we had the first coordination meeting of European Transhumanist Associations, hosted by the Italian Transhumanist Association for the Euro transhumanists group founded by Miriam Leis. Thanks to Miriam for coordinating the group and moderating the meeting, and thanks to Stefano Vaj for hosting both the meeting and the mixer dinner on Friday night (and, of course, for his own many contributions to the program). >From the Italian Transhumanist Association News: 21/11/2009 - Primo summit delle organizzazioni transumaniste attive in Europa - Si ? concluso oggi il primo summit europeo del movimento transumanista, che si ? svolto a Milano in via Montenapoleone sotto l?egida dell?Associazione Italiana Transumanisti, nella sala cortesemente messa a disposizione per l?occasione presso i propri uffici dallo Studio Legale Sutti (http://www.sutti.com). Il segretario nazionale dell?associazione, Stefano Vaj, ha avuto occasione insieme a Giulio Prisco di dare il benvenuto ai rappresentanti delle organizzazioni invitate degli altri paesi, che hanno discusso con la delegazione dell?AIT una fitta agenda di aspetti organizzativi, iniziative in corso e questioni di interesse comune, ed hanno illustrato la situazione esistente in Francia, Russia, Slovenia, Belgio, Regno Unito, Germania, Olanda, Svezia e Grecia. In the picture above, all participants besides David Orban (who gave a briefing on the Singularity University in the afternoon) and Giulio Prisco (taking the picture). In the picture below, taken by David Orban, Anders Sandberg, Giulio Prisco and Stefano Vaj at the dinner. My own impressions: I most certainly look forward to having the opportunity to participate in foresight projects led by public administrations at European and national levels. Governments and administrations need good, timely and accurate advice on scientifical, technological and social trends, and many persons and groups in the transhumanist community are well positioned to provide such advice, with that extra touch of imagination that is often missing from public policy discourse. Of course I fully understand that such projects are not the best place to promote the more visionary and long-term transhumanist ideas (you know, immortality indefinite lifespan, mind uploading and all that). If I contribute to public foresight projects, I promise to behave and focus on issues relevant to the scope of current public policy and within my own areas of expertise, and leave visionary cosmist speculations aside. But, and it is an important but, without renouncing my ideas. I am not ashamed of being a transhumanist, on the contrary I am proud of it. I think it is perfectly possible to be a pragmatic technology expert and policy advisor, a concerned citizen, and a wild cosmist visionary at the same time, and to wear each hat as and when appropriate to the situation at hand. On the other hand and more generally, I don?t believe in ?appeasing critics?, but in being true to one?s ideas and promoting them as forcefully as needed. Transhumanism is radical, disruptive, subversive, and revolutionary: so be it. Not kissing ass, but kicking ass. At the same time I think our ideas are beautiful, and I wish to offer them to the world and to reach as many persons as possible. Of course I realize this needs a careful framing and wording of our message, but without diluting its core meaning. The tension between the two souls of transhumanism, moderate and radical, pragmatic and visionary, was evident at this meeting, but I continue to believe that there should be no tension. This was a physical meeting in good old brickspace (only Russian transhumanists attended via Skype teleconferencing). I am all for telework and telepresence, and my company will offer advanced telework and telepresence tools for future meetings of this and other groups, but I realize that face to face interaction is still better, and that telecollaboration is most effective when participants also know each and meet other face to face. Telepresence is not (yet) a replacement for physical presence, but a (more and more) useful complement. David Wood of Extrobritannia spoke of their monthly meetings in London, a successful initiative that should be replicated in other places, also with webcast and telepresence options. The idea of a transhumanist think tank think tank powered by transhumanists, of course with the caveats above, has re-surfaced. The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies is a good role model. A few years ago many transhumanists started a working group to define and build a think tank called FutureTAG (Future Technologies Advisory Group): A consulting and media group focused on promoting awareness and understanding of radical scientific advances and emerging technologies, as well as evaluating their impact on individuals, businesses and societies. While one of the objectives of the firm will be facilitating the penetration of transhumanist ideas in mainstream business and policy, we will not use the T word or insist on the transhumanist worldview too explicitly. Rather, we will focus on delivering practical advice appropriate to the intended audience. FutureTAG has produced several spinoffs (my own company is one), but it has not been active recently. Perhaps this is a good moment to reload the initiative? The mailing list is still live. Politics (of course): there are new and emergent political forces whose core values and goals are definitely compatible with transhumanism, and which in turn share (or may be persuaded to share) transhumanist core value and ideas. There are interesting initiatives in this direction, and in general it is interesting to open a dialogue with new emergent political forces, very carefully as they might fear attempts to hijack them. I prefer not to go into details here, but there are interesting initiatives ongoing. The strong, militant language used in the European Transhumanist Front website of Riccardo Campa leaves some participants uneasy, and I can perfectly understand why: the bold, provocative, radically Futurist stance of many Italian transhumanists, and the recent debates about its political roots, can trigger some fears. Yet, what is transhumanism but a permanent war against all limits? I endorse most of the Front?s website content, especially: we do not cater to the idea that transhumanism?s first concern should be that of appeasing the fears of neoluddites, comply with western political correctness, or struggle for a ?respectability? that would only be the mark of irrelevance. ?Compromises?, ?tradeoffs? and ?doublespeak? are the tools-in-trade of governments, politicians, bureaucrats, diplomats, entrepreneurs. Not of lobbies, visionaries, think tanks or grass-roots movements? We see transhumanism as a metapolitical, social and cultural struggle, aimed at a revolutionary change of our way of life on the scale of the neolithic revolution, and in the shorter term fighting for self-determination and access to technology, against prohibitionist policies at a national as well as at an international level. Bravo! German cryonicists gave a very interesting presentation, but most participants do not see cryonics as a core transhumanist issue at this moment. Yet, cryonics is all about self-ownership and self-determination, central transhumanist values which everyone supports, or should support. In summary, a very interesting and productive summit meeting which we intend to repeat in 2010. At least three other important transhumanist events will be held in Europe in 2010: a one day event in the UK, Miriam?s conference, and our own Transvision 2010. -- Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco aka Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 24 11:19:10 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:19:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot Message-ID: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Has anyone noticed that the signal-to-noise ratio over at wta-talk has plummeted recently? The material there has become so confusing, frenzied and BORING that I no longer see any point in doing more than skimming it. It's like some sort of mob scene. On one side of the room, there's this insanely complicated fight over a scandal that supposedly reveals a coverup of data by global-warming proponents; on the other side, endless, detailed accounts by the Secretary, James Hughes, of his empire-building plans to set up some sort of worldwide bureaucratic organization for academicians. Also, Hughes seems bent on FEEDING the frenzy with flagrantly ad hominem attacks on global-warming skeptics (he has compared them to Holocaust deniers, and at one point actually accused them of "prostituting" themselves to the oil industry--a charge he specifically refused to take back)..... I don't know what's going on. My reaction is best expressed in the immortal words of Eric Cartman (SOUTH PARK): "Screw you guys--I'm going home." Rob Masters From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 12:49:14 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:49:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Global warming fights was The big wta riot Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Robert Masters wrote: . . . . a coverup of data by global-warming proponents; . . . . attacks on global-warming skeptics It is a mind boggler why people fight over this issue. If you are a believer, a skeptic, or agnostic on the issue it matters not one bit--because the real problem for everyone is that we are running out of easy to get fossil energy. The response to any grade of concern about energy and global warming is the same, figure out a way to replace fossil energy with something long term and, while you are at it, cheaper. It's just an engineering problem. Like most engineering problems, there are multiple solutions that can be sorted by estimated cost. Want to put the arctic ice back? Want to pin the glaciers so they don't slide? Again an engineering problem. A simple solution would be thermal diodes. Keith From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 13:10:46 2009 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:10:46 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Global warming fights was The big wta riot References: Message-ID: <2406072F5FF84C2AA1F6B6D196ED8E63@Notebook> Keith Henson> It is a mind boggler why people fight over this issue. If you are a > believer, a skeptic, or agnostic on the issue it matters not one > bit--because the real problem for everyone is that we are running out > of easy to get fossil energy. The response to any grade of concern > about energy and global warming is the same, figure out a way to > replace fossil energy with something long term and, while you are at > it, cheaper. This is because for some people, solving a problem is not priority. The real priority for them is to profit from the problem. This global warming stufff is a fountain of political leverage for some groups like the luddites from Green Peace, or the otherwise forgotten (and highly forgettable) Al Gore. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 15:00:42 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Robert Masters wrote: > > Also, Hughes seems bent on FEEDING the frenzy with flagrantly ad hominem attacks on global-warming skeptics (he has compared them to Holocaust deniers, and at one point ?actually accused them of "prostituting" themselves to the oil industry--a charge he specifically refused to take back)..... ### Nothing surprising here - James is a self-proclaimed communist, and they are all nasty. Best kept out of one's parlour, my dear. Rafal From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 16:08:18 2009 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:08:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?Fwd=3A_=5Btt=5D_Darpa=92s_Simulated_Cat_Br?= =?windows-1252?q?ain_Project_a_=91Scam=92=3A_Top_Scientist?= In-Reply-To: <20091124110043.GK17686@leitl.org> References: <20091124110043.GK17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <55ad6af70911240808u67ffc620sba4e9006a5d175be@mail.gmail.com> (the spelling is Markram, IIRC.) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eugen Leitl Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM Subject: [tt] Darpa?s Simulated Cat Brain Project a ?Scam?: Top Scientist To: tt at postbiota.org, info at postbiota.org, neuro at postbiota.org Darpa?s Simulated Cat Brain Project a ?Scam?: Top Scientist By Noah Shachtman * November 23, 2009 ?| * 11:49 am ?| * Categories: DarpaWatch Last year, the Pentagon?s premiere research arm gave IBM nearly $5 million to make electronics that mimic the ?function, size and power consumption? of a cat?s brain. Last week, IBM?s lead researcher on the project, Dharmendra Modha, announced that he had made major progress toward that goal, simulating on a supercomputer the number of neurons and synapses inside a feline mind. Now, a leading neuroscientist is blasting the whole project as a ?scam? and a ?hoax.? Modha told a supercomputing conference that his cortical simulator had generated the digital equivalent of a billion neurons connected by 10 trillion individual synapses. It was, apparently, the first baby step toward Pentagon mad science division Darpa?s goal of re-creating a brain that?s as compact, as efficient and as power-smart as the one inside a house pet. Some colleagues went so far as to compare it to the Large Hadron Collider. But neuroscientist Henry Markham is considerably less impressed. ?What IBM reported is a scam ? no where near a cat-scale brain simulation,? he writes in an open letter to Bernard Myerson, IBM?s Chief Technology Officer. ?I am absolutely shocked at this announcement. Not because it is any kind of technical feat, but because of the mass deception of the public.? Markham isn?t exactly a disinterested observer, as IEEE Spectrum?s Sally Adee notes. He?s got his own ersatz mind project, called Blue Brain, that?s also affiliated with IBM. So perhaps it?s not surprising that Markham claims Modha has simply put together a ?PR stunt here to ride on Blue Brain.? Still, such public criticism is unusual ? especially when you consider that it?s also an indirect indictment of Darpa, one of the leading funders of artificial intelligence research. ? ?"All these kinds of simulations are trivial and have been around for decades ? simply called artificial neural network (ANN) simulations. We even stooped to doing these kinds of simulations as benchmark tests four years ago with 10?s of millions of such points?. If we (or anyone else) wanted to we could easily do this for a billion ?points,? but we would certainly not call it a cat-scale simulation. It is really no big deal to simulate a billion points interacting if you have a big enough computer. The only step here is that they have at their disposal a big computer. For a grown-up ?researcher? to get excited because one can simulate billions of points interacting is ludicrous. ? ??This is light years away from a cat brain, not even close to an ant?s brain in complexity. It is highly unethical of Mohda to mislead the public in making people believe they have actually simulated a cat?s brain?. That IBM and DARPA would support such deceptive announcements is even more shocking." I think the proper response here is: mee-yow! I can?t wait for round three of this cat-brain cat fight. _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt at postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From anders at aleph.se Tue Nov 24 14:42:52 2009 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:42:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Global warming fights In-Reply-To: d1988d2d0911240449r2497abc5y373bcfe65c12fcd6@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <20091124144252.3f24012d@secure.ericade.net> Geoengineering is big here in the UK. Institutes are being set up, people in Oxford discuss in, it has been mentioned here in Parliament today (this is written from inside the House of Lords) and there are actually copies of the Royal Society report lying in the window behind me. There is a joint UK-US commission looking at it. But as Jason Blackstock (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Centre for International Governance Innovation (Canada)) pointed out during a talk last week, there are serious practical and ethical issues with developing geoengineering. The science might be tricky, but it is testing that will be a devil. As a phase 2 trial you need to experimentally poke the system and measure the response. Think about the political liability issues there. He also pointed out that if people get desperate enough you can get unilatural "greenfingers" doing geoengineering - technically launching aerosols with howitzers can likely be done (it is the aerosolization that is hard) and the cost has been estimated as on the order of $100M/yr to $100B/yr to offset a doubled CO2. The greens did an own goal by forcing geonengineering out from discussion and study in the 90s, when people didn't perceive climate as a huge problem. If they had, then most likely most geoengineering solutions would have been found to be unworkable, expensive or with drawbacks. Now instead they are seen by many as necessary. Jason also pointed out something potentially scary. The uncertainty in CO2 warming forcing is not enormous, but we have a very big uncertainty in tropospheric aerosol cooling forcing. Now imagine people rapidly moving away from fossil fuels. The CO2 will remain for a century, the aerosols fall out after about a year. The aerosol forcing could be small, in which case we just get a slow decline of the current heating. But if it is large, then the current heating has been the sum of a big masking term and an almost equally large heating term - and now the full heating will come into play. In that scenario we would get nasty climate change as a result of reducing fossil emissions. Fortunately we would have the means by then to fix it, either by geoengineering or just burining more fuel while coming up with a workaround. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Nov 24 16:36:03 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:36:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> On 11/24/2009 9:00 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > James [Hughes] is a self-proclaimed communist Where did he proclaim that, Rafal? It strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. You have some direct quotes from him to that effect, I assume? Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 24 16:17:03 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:17:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] First meeting of European Transhumanist Associations In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90911240003w7fbdea9et54cfbf49893965b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <1fa8c3b90911240003w7fbdea9et54cfbf49893965b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D123910485E420BA3979F84819086CE@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco... > > On Friday 20 and Saturday 21 November, 2009, we had the first > coordination meeting of European Transhumanist Associations, > hosted by the Italian Transhumanist Association... Giulio Prisco Thanks Giulio. Not only are there a bunch of Italian transhumanists, you guys are on fire! So very excellent is this! We discussed this some time ago, but we never really did come up with any breakthrough insights: why is it that there are so many Italian transhumanists that you guys even have your own factions, a greater concentration than anywhere in Europe, yet almost no one from France hangs out at the usual places? Are not France and Italy practically neighbors? Is there a French transhumanist movement somewhere and they just don't like us? Or perhaps there is a French language site I don't know about? spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 24 16:22:27 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:22:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] If Earth had Saturn's Rings In-Reply-To: <64BDF770-152D-48CD-A556-FFC9F03AD75E@bellsouth.net> References: <544604.79859.qm@web58302.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <64BDF770-152D-48CD-A556-FFC9F03AD75E@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: >>>without our enormous and uncommon satellite it's unlikely intelligent life would have evolved on our planet. >>Cool idea, but... please explain? >Our absolutely gigantic moon acts like a gyroscopic stabilizer for earth's rotational axis... John K Clark :::I am posting this for Anders, who is having email trouble because of servers acting up: I think a stable axial tilt is useful, but it is by no means necessary for complex life. While there would indeed be occasional high tilt periods, the drift is slow by biological timescales and organisms could evolve around the climate challenges. Similarly there might other areas of high productivity than intertidal zones; for example, if the geology produces many shallow seas. There are a few papers simulating high obliquity planets: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4180 and Williams and Kasting, "Habitable Planets with High Obliquities" in Icarus (linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0019103597957596 ) which uses a full GCM. They seem to suggest that with the right amount of thick atmosphere and enough hydrosphere, the climate variations do not get too extreme. They are strange worlds, on the other hand. As for the ring around earth, it would have some climate effects. In the winter the shadow would fall across the subtropical or temperate regions, cooling them. Not sure if there are any heating effects; likely it is just making the night brighter for much of the year. The Earth's shadow would produce a big gap in the nighstide arc, with a reddish (due to reflected atmospheric scattering) edge. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Tue Nov 24 16:30:51 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:30:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <25BF9F4BAB01455DA3CDE76ECF0AC46C@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Robert Masters > ...On one side of the room, there's this > insanely complicated fight over a scandal that supposedly > reveals a coverup of data by global-warming proponents... Rob Masters > Rob a lot of us are waiting to see how much of that hacked email is genuine. If the stuff that has been leaked is real, it is a major game changer in the Mann-made global warming debate. The leaked stuff indicates some bigtime scientific misbehavior was taking place. I have to think the files must have been corrupted; some damaging stuff was invented and inserted. But if not, and the hacked email is genuine, we have systematic supression of dissenting voices on Mann-made climate change. The scientific debate is far from over. This topic really is important to transhumanism, and all of humanity. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 17:00:05 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:00:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 11/24/2009 9:00 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ?James [Hughes] is a self-proclaimed communist > > Where did he proclaim that, Rafal? It strikes me as extraordinarily > unlikely. You have some direct quotes from him to that effect, I assume? ### Back in the day when I was on WTA, he did very unequivocally call himself a Marxist, then corrected it to "Neo-Marxist". He wrote "I am a Marxist" in an exchange with me, and not offline, either. Also, he suggested that UN troops should be sent by the world government to Thailand to prevent Thai prostitutes from selling cheap sex to American men. No, this is not an exageration or misrepresentation, I remember that exchange very well. The Thai story is particularly bizarre, since James is also a public supporter of polyamory (commonly known as "swinging"), although I do not know if he actually participates in the lifestyle. Rafal PS. And I don't want to find out, either. From eschatoon at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 17:03:02 2009 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email)) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:03:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] First meeting of European Transhumanist Associations In-Reply-To: <5D123910485E420BA3979F84819086CE@spike> References: <1fa8c3b90911240003w7fbdea9et54cfbf49893965b9@mail.gmail.com> <5D123910485E420BA3979F84819086CE@spike> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90911240903x5e934b8q2043b87149620f69@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Spike. Let's just hope they don't put us on fire, literally. I must stay away from Campo dei Fiori. There is a French Transhumanist Association: http://www.transhumanistes.com/ and a few transhumanist websites. I have collaborated with the excellent online magazine Automates Intelligents of Jean-Paul Baquiast, transhumanist de-facto if not by name. http://www.automatesintelligents.com/ And of course, there are the great articles of Remi Sussan on internetactu.net http://www.internetactu.net/author/remi-sussan/ So, why there seems to be much more transhumanist fire in Italy than in France? Well... can somebody explain it to me? And, what is more important: how to fire up transhumanism in France? G. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:17 PM, spike wrote: > > >> ...On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco... >> >> On Friday 20 and Saturday 21 November, 2009, we had the first >> coordination meeting of European Transhumanist Associations, >> hosted by the Italian Transhumanist Association... Giulio Prisco > > Thanks Giulio. ?Not only are there a bunch of Italian transhumanists, you > guys are on fire! ?So very excellent is this! > > We discussed this some time ago, but we never really did come up with any > breakthrough insights: why is it that there are so many Italian > transhumanists that you guys even have your own factions, a greater > concentration than anywhere in Europe, yet almost no one from France hangs > out at the usual places? ?Are not France and Italy practically neighbors? > Is there a French transhumanist movement somewhere and they just don't like > us? ?Or perhaps there is a French language site I don't know about? > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco aka Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon From Frankmac at ripco.com Tue Nov 24 17:05:52 2009 From: Frankmac at ripco.com (Frank McElligott) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:05:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] is tobacco really harmful Message-ID: <007701ca6d28$652cba70$ad753644@sx28047db9d36c> Smoke for 35 years. Tried to quit, when you do try to quit the body which needs its fix hourly breaks off small pieces from your veins and arteries which have to pass though your heart and brain.These pieces will only break off when denied Nicotine. If these pieces are to large they block the artery and you have a heart attack. I had a hard attack and almost died, If you smoke or know someone who smokes, and they want to quit there are risks for the first six months which the television ads to not warn you about. Frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Nov 24 16:45:18 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:45:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Global warming fights In-Reply-To: <20091124144252.3f24012d@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091124144252.3f24012d@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083704.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Nov 24 17:58:00 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:58:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> On 11/24/2009 11:00 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >>> James [Hughes] is a self-proclaimed communist >> > >> > Where did he proclaim that, Rafal? It strikes me as extraordinarily >> > unlikely. You have some direct quotes from him to that effect, I assume? > > ### Back in the day when I was on WTA, he did very unequivocally call > himself a Marxist, then corrected it to "Neo-Marxist". Very few Marxists these days are communists, I think. Not that many philosophers influenced by Heidegger are Nazis, either. Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 20:30:45 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:30:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911241230s2103e32dkaffa784b157fb337@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 11/24/2009 11:00 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >>>> ?James [Hughes] is a self-proclaimed communist >>> >>> > >>> > ?Where did he proclaim that, Rafal? It strikes me as extraordinarily >>> > ?unlikely. You have some direct quotes from him to that effect, I >>> > assume? >> >> ### Back in the day when I was on WTA, he did very unequivocally call >> himself a Marxist, then corrected it to "Neo-Marxist". > > Very few Marxists these days are communists, I think. Not that many > philosophers influenced by Heidegger are Nazis, either. ### And I thought that while not all communists are Marxist but all Marxists are communist (for the simple reason that Marx was a communist). No? Rafal From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 24 23:56:22 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Belva Plain) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:56:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911241230s2103e32dkaffa784b157fb337@mail.gmail.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>, <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com>, <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com>, <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com>, <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com>, <7641ddc60911241230s2103e32dkaffa784b157fb337@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: By that twisted logic, all Christians should be Jewish. Tom D > ### And I thought that while not all communists are Marxist but all > Marxists are communist (for the simple reason that Marx was a > communist). No? > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 25 00:58:51 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:58:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved Message-ID: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> Many here are science types, so perhaps you have been as entertained as I have by the claim by the US government that the 700 billion dollar stimulus bill created or saved 640329 jobs. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59T2QP20091030 http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx Several things jump out immediately. Note the six significant digits in that answer. Not 640330 or 640000, but exactly 640329 jobs. The humor of that need not be emphasized, so obvious is the silliness. The thing that I really found puzzling is that there is a unit missing. When we talk about the amount of power we used this month, it requires two units, kilowatts and hours. You need both. To discuss how many jobs the government created/saved (henceforth abbreviated craved), then the government craved 640329 jobs multiplied by some unstated time unit. Did the government crave 640329 job-hours? Job-years? Job-eternities? Can anyone just make up their favorite arbitrary time unit? How much tax money was spent to crave these 640329 job-milliseconds? This is just weird. Am I the only one here mystified that these absurdities are allowed to stand unchallenged on an official US government website? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Wed Nov 25 01:32:06 2009 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:32:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved In-Reply-To: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> Message-ID: Spike stated: Many here are science types, so perhaps you have been as entertained as I have by the claim by the US government that the 700 billion dollar stimulus bill created or saved 640329 jobs. Wow, that's only $1.2 million per job! I wonder what the average salary is for those new jobs! LOL, James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brentn at freeshell.org Wed Nov 25 02:40:42 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:40:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved In-Reply-To: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> Message-ID: <0E7D9568-0199-46B5-B2AF-D3B50F0DE3AB@freeshell.org> On 24 Nov, 2009, at 19:58, spike wrote: > When we talk about the amount of power we used this month, it > requires two units, kilowatts and hours. Actually, its not really appropriate to refer to "power used this month," you should really rather say "energy used this month." Power is a rate. Yours in absolutely excessive pedantry, B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 25 02:50:05 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:50:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved In-Reply-To: References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> Message-ID: <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> ...On Behalf Of James Clement ... Subject: Re: [ExI] jobs craved Spike stated: Many here are science types, so perhaps you have been as entertained as I have by the claim by the US government that the 700 billion dollar stimulus bill created or saved 640329 jobs. Wow, that's only $1.2 million per job! I wonder what the average salary is for those new jobs! James http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx James glad to see you posting here. Your comments are always most welcome sir, as is your general outlook on life. If they meant $1.2 million per job-eon, this would be a bargain, for the taxes alone on a minimum wage job-eon would run into the billions. But I rather suspect it was more like job-hours or job-weeks, for each of those 1.2 million dollar expenditures. Our nation is paying the penalty for collective innumeracy, and a most severe penalty it is James. I am seeing nothing in the mainstream press about how illogical it is to state the number of jobs craved with no time unit attached, or about reporting six significant digits in an estimate that scarcely justifies one digit to plus or minus 30%. We have worried about our public education system turning out illiteracy, but what about the innumeracy and illsciencey. Of course, merely using the term illsciencey is a flaming example of illiteracy, but I would rather be illiterate than to fail to understand why the figure on recovery.gov is absurd. What of the Europeans? Is this not a deep cool fountain of mirth? Were it France instead of my own homeland publishing this nonsense for the whole world to see, my cup would overflow with jocularity. However, I know I am paying for all this, and paying dearly. Is it any wonder that I am compelled to libertarianism? No, the term compelled is too weak. Rather, driven wildly toward libertarianism, as in a panicked stampede towards libertarianism. If you hired a builder and that builder demonstrated such a appalling ignorance of the subject matter, you would fire her ass forthwith! Anyone who wishes is most welcome to offer words of comfort, instruction or admonition. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 25 03:20:59 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:20:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved In-Reply-To: <0E7D9568-0199-46B5-B2AF-D3B50F0DE3AB@freeshell.org> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <0E7D9568-0199-46B5-B2AF-D3B50F0DE3AB@freeshell.org> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Brent Neal > Subject: Re: [ExI] jobs craved > > > On 24 Nov, 2009, at 19:58, spike wrote: > > > When we talk about the amount of power we used this month, > it requires > > two units, kilowatts and hours. > > > Actually, its not really appropriate to refer to "power used this > month," you should really rather say "energy used this > month." Power > is a rate. > > Yours in absolutely excessive pedantry, > > B > > > -- > Brent Neal, Ph.D. Ja! {8^D I could have said power-hours used this month, or power-time used. Since I was demanding strict unit accuracy, I must demand it of myself. Of course, if we are indulging pedantry, energy use wouldn't be completely sufficient either. If using one kilowatt for 1000 hours were exactly equal to using 1000 kw for one hour, then it would be energy use, but these are not *exactly* equivalent, because of resistance in the wire upstream of your meter. The 1000 kw load would heat the wire more and increase its total resistance. In some rather extreme cases power factor is significant. I wouldn't have thought of that except for recently having to size an electric pump for the ranch in which I had to account for power factor in order to maximize efficiency in water delivered per dollar. Thanks Dr. Neal! spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 04:47:27 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:47:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911241230s2103e32dkaffa784b157fb337@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911242047i49abed4dhc2c5419ffbf3129e@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Belva Plain wrote: > > By that twisted logic, all Christians should be Jewish. > > Tom D > > >> ### And I thought that while not all communists are Marxist but all >> Marxists are communist (for the simple reason that Marx was a >> communist). No? ### You seem to be mixing a religious classifier (Christian) and an ethnic classifier (Jewish), all in the same statement, and you say it is analogical to my statement which contains only classifiers of political views. Are you sure about the straightforwardness of your logic? Rafal From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 06:19:51 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:49:51 +1030 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved In-Reply-To: <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911242219x97a8f6eq4850a271be804d8@mail.gmail.com> spike wrote > Our nation is paying the penalty for collective innumeracy, and a most > severe penalty it is James. ?I am seeing nothing in the mainstream press > about how illogical it is to state the number of jobs craved with no time > unit attached, or about reporting six significant digits in an estimate that > scarcely justifies one digit to plus or minus 30%. ?We have worried about > our public education system turning out illiteracy, but what about the > innumeracy and illsciencey. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43241/title/Obama_redoubles_push_to_improve_science_education Obama redoubles push to improve science education By Janet Raloff During his address to members of the National Academy of Sciences, today, President Obama outlined a number of budget and policy priorities. Key among them: boosting interest among youngsters in science and math ? with an eye towards encouraging them to consider careers in allied fields. The president also pledged to improve the quality of educators that train the nation?s youth in science and math. ?We know that the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow,? the president said. And U.S. students no longer stand on a pedestal. They have fallen behind their peers in Singapore, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and Korea, among others, Obama noted. And in one assessment, American 15-year olds ?ranked 25th in math and 21st in science when compared to other nations. ?We know that the quality of math and science teachers is the single most influential factor in determining whether a student will succeed or fail in these subjects,? he said. ?Yet in high schools, more than 20 percent of students in math and more than 60 percent of students in chemistry and physics are taught by teachers without expertise in these fields.? Moreover, Obama noted, this problem is slated to worsen substantially: ?There is a projected shortfall of more than 280,000 math and science teachers across the country by 2015.? What to do? The president pointed to one reasonably new incentive. Starting today, he said, ?states making strong commitments and progress in math and science education will be eligible to compete later this fall for additional funds under the Secretary of Education?s $5 billion Race to the Top program.? Created through the Stimulus-funding package, this program rewards states that boost their academic standards, assessments, curricula and partnerships with outside groups. The president also challenged schools to find better educators in math and science ? individuals who will more reliably ?engage students and reinvigorate those subjects.? Toward that end, he said his administration would support ?inventive approaches? ? such as programs that retain and reward ?effective? teachers. We?ve heard that line before. Reward teachers? performance, not attendance. Unions may not like that, but something?s clearly got to change. Obama also called for creating ?new pathways for experienced professionals to go into the classroom. There are right now chemists who could teach chemistry, physicists who could teach physics, statisticians who could teach mathematics.? He?s right. Only there?s more to teaching than knowing the subject matter. Subject proficiency should be a prerequisite (how novel), but knowing how to communicate effectively should also be a minimum requirement. And as we all know, many good scientists aren?t patient, don?t have good communication skills, and/or don?t know how to motivate headstrong adolescents with everything on their mind but chemistry, physics and math. In fact, Obama seems to recognize this too. Which is why he recommended that scientists and educators encourage students ?to get a degree in science fields and a teaching certificate at the same time.? In today's address, the president also challenged researchers to visit classrooms throughout the nation so that more students could understand the role of science and engineering in shaping the world ? their iPod-driven, texting oriented, Facebook-dominated environment ? and witness the ?enthusiasm? of researchers that led to these and other elements of everyday life. The new administration has also set a goal to enhance the United States? ability to compete for high-wage, high-tech jobs and to foster the next generation?s best scientists and engineers. By 2020, the president pledged, ?America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.? Tax credits and grants will be there to ?make a college education more affordable,? he added. The president?s new budget would also triple the number of National Science Foundation research fellowships to graduate students. (Really huge applause.) Obama noted that this program was created a half-century ago as part of the space race. However, in the succeeding years, its size has changed little, despite the skyrocketing number of students now available to benefit from them. Federal investments can do a lot to revamp the nation?s flagging research and education enterprises. But there?s also plenty that money can?t buy, the president told research dignitaries in the room. ?So today I want to challenge you to use your love and knowledge of science to spark the same sense of wonder and excitement in a new generation.? Other highlights of the President?s address today included several other recycled themes, such as: 1) the decision to make new programs that produce, use and save energy the #1 priority for federal investments in innovation. Indeed, Obama noted, that?s one reason ?why we put a scientist in charge of the Department of Energy.? That scientist, Nobel physicist Steven Chu, was sitting in the audience and won a huge round of applause. 2) The Obama administration is in the process of working to put a market-based cap on carbon emissions. Big business is not a fan of this proposal, Congress is learning. I guess the carbon cap-and-trade proposal was highlighted in hopes of getting the science community to help lobby for its adoption. 3) And on March 9, the president noted, he signed an executive memo pledging that ?the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.? The president noted that his new science adviser has been tasked with making sure that in future ?facts are driving scientific decisions, not the other way around.? Amen to that. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From brentn at freeshell.org Wed Nov 25 11:26:18 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:26:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved In-Reply-To: References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <0E7D9568-0199-46B5-B2AF-D3B50F0DE3AB@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <8976FD4A-6CA4-4B55-991D-A1AA668C10E1@freeshell.org> On 24 Nov, 2009, at 22:20, spike wrote: > In some rather extreme cases power factor is significant. I > wouldn't have > thought of that except for recently having to size an electric pump > for the > ranch in which I had to account for power factor in order to maximize > efficiency in water delivered per dollar. Really good point about power factor. That's been my largest concern about the push for CFLs, since most manufacturers don't spend the half- penny necessary for an inductor that would correct the power factor in those things. :( B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 15:09:32 2009 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:09:32 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power plant Message-ID: This looks interesting. Mix salt water with fresh water and there you have it: instant carbon-neutral energy. The process is called osmotic power, and a company called Statkraft has just opened the world's first osmotic power plant in Norway. http://cleantechnica.com/2009/11/24/worlds-first-osmotic-power-plant-opens/ From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 25 17:24:01 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:24:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again Message-ID: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> I had an idea which could make those of us who do data mining useful in the current debate. According to some reports, a bunch of private email from East Anglia University Climate Research Unit was stolen and is being leaked. CBS is covering it, Fox has mentioned it once or twice. One of the leaked memos is below, the one that gave me the idea. Britain has a version of our Freedom of Information Act (Max or other British national please verify or refute?). So it looks like we (or someone) should be able to FOIA the raw data upon which Mann-made climate change theory is and has been based, and put it on a public access site. But the real idea is this: we should be able to FOIA the actual computer code used to reduce the data as well. I know how to read Fortran. Still! Or if it is written in something else, I would learn that protocol and go thru it, see if we can reproduce the hockey stick from the raw data. I do this kinda stuff for a living! {8-] Or used to. {8-[ But I still know how. {8-] We could write our own, then compare to Mann, et.al. This would be a relevant and timely task for a few dozen extropian minded people, to dig thru the data and the computer code. Oh the fun we could have: divide ourselves into three groups regarding the Mann-made climate change theory: the faithful, the heretics and the not-sures, then everyone reduce the data in whatever way makes sense, then see if there is a difference in the overall result of the three teams. I volunteer to lead the not-sure team. We are looking at igNobel prize material here. {8-] spike . . . . . Leaked email from Programmer Harry from CRU: I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh. I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage! One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up - but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada! Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project. Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?... [Programmer Harry] source: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive --Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 17:55:29 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:55:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Global warming fights In-Reply-To: <20091124144252.3f24012d@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091124144252.3f24012d@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <580930c20911250955x1990a731je2af2b2410cba8b3@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/24 Anders Sandberg : > Geoengineering is big here in the UK. Institutes are being set up, people in > Oxford discuss in, it has been mentioned here in Parliament today (this is > written from inside the House of Lords) and there are actually copies of the > Royal Society report lying in the window behind me. Glad to hear that. I am no climatologist, and in principle refuse to engage in religious wars about global warming, one side or another, but my litmus test for the seriousness and good faith of those concerned with anthropic-or-not climate change is their willingness to take into consideration geo-engineering solutions to the perceived threats. > Jason also pointed out something potentially scary.? The uncertainty in CO2 > warming forcing is not enormous, but we have a very big uncertainty in > tropospheric aerosol cooling forcing. Now imagine people rapidly moving away > from fossil fuels. The CO2 will remain for a century, the aerosols fall out > after about a year. The aerosol forcing could be small, in which case we > just get a slow decline of the current heating. But if it is large, then the > current heating has been the sum of a big masking term and an almost equally > large heating term - and now the full heating will come into play. In that > scenario we would get nasty climate change as a result of reducing fossil > emissions. Interesting. This is exactly the kind of thing that those for whom carbon reduction, or even better "d?croissance" in general terms, is an end in itself, global warming being just a nice argument to support advocacy for that end... -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 25 17:31:51 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:31:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved In-Reply-To: <8976FD4A-6CA4-4B55-991D-A1AA668C10E1@freeshell.org> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike><0E7D9568-0199-46B5-B2AF-D3B50F0DE3AB@freeshell.org> <8976FD4A-6CA4-4B55-991D-A1AA668C10E1@freeshell.org> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Brent Neal > Subject: Re: [ExI] jobs craved > > > On 24 Nov, 2009, at 22:20, spike wrote: > > > In some rather extreme cases power factor is significant. > ... > > > Really good point about power factor. That's been my largest > concern about the push for CFLs, since most manufacturers > don't spend the half- penny necessary for an inductor that > would correct the power factor in those things. :( ... > -- > Brent Neal, Ph.D. > http://brentn.freeshell.org > Woohoo! We have a local expert among us who understands power factor; good deal thanks Dr. Neal. I now know who to consult if this question comes up again. I ended up scrambling for the old engineering text books, the ones from which that old-book smell eminates whenever I open them, to remind myself how power factor works and how to size a motor to optimize or compensate. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 18:25:48 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:25:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <25BF9F4BAB01455DA3CDE76ECF0AC46C@spike> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <25BF9F4BAB01455DA3CDE76ECF0AC46C@spike> Message-ID: <580930c20911251025l3c324babwdaaf2b447ab7a04f@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/24 spike : > Rob a lot of us are waiting to see how much of that hacked email is genuine. > If the stuff that has been leaked is real, it is a major game changer in the > Mann-made global warming debate. ?The leaked stuff indicates some bigtime > scientific misbehavior was taking place. ?I have to think the files must > have been corrupted; some damaging stuff was invented and inserted. ?But if > not, and the hacked email is genuine, we have systematic supression of > dissenting voices on Mann-made climate change. ?The scientific debate is far > from over. In fact, the insistence of people at RealClimate on the fact that to hack e-mail msgs is illegal, or at least "unethical", sounds a little defensive to me and not very compatible with the claim that the leak is a hoax or a fabrication... > This topic really is important to transhumanism, and all of humanity. Really? :-/ "Supression of dissenting voices on man-made climate change" may speak books on the people and organisations involved, but does not really tell us much on the possible truth and reasons of climate change. Even though I am a lawyer and more into politics and humanities than into hard sciences and mathematics, I suspect that no amount of sociological study, cultural criticism forensic investigation or journalistic analyses of vested interests can take the place of substantive, fundamental research as far as the merits of such scientific, factual issues are concerned. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 18:33:10 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:33:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911251033p7f7a0146sea15e8feb7204087@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/24 Damien Broderick : > Very few Marxists these days are communists, I think. Not that many > philosophers influenced by Heidegger are Nazis, either. Go tell that to the couple of personal trolls of mine who see "red-brown conspiracies" everywhere... :-D Not to imply of course that we should be unqualified fans of either philosopher, both of whom can inter alia be blamed for non-secondary openings to contemporary neoluddism in their respective discourses... -- Stefano Vaj From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 18:34:43 2009 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:34:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again In-Reply-To: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> References: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> Message-ID: <4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/25 spike > > > I had an idea which could make those of us who do data mining useful in the > current debate. According to some reports, a bunch of private email from > East Anglia University Climate Research Unit was stolen and is being > leaked. CBS is covering it, Fox has mentioned it once or twice. One of the > leaked memos is below, the one that gave me the idea. > > Britain has a version of our Freedom of Information Act (Max or other > British national please verify or refute?). So it looks like we (or > someone) should be able to FOIA the raw data upon which Mann-made climate > change theory is and has been based, and put it on a public access site. > CRU is not the only temperature analysis done. GISTEMP data has been publicly available for a long time. Station data, computer code, the whole thing: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP correlates 0.97 or so with CRU timeseries.... Alfio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 19:11:33 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:11:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911241230s2103e32dkaffa784b157fb337@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911242047i49abed4dhc2c5419ffbf3129e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911251111y63ae85e8ofe0f2d124fd84d27@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com wrote: > I would contest your premise that Jewish is an ethnic modifier, particularly > during the Biblical period. If I'm correct that both Judaism and > Christianity are religions, then my logic mirrors your initial logic. ### "Jewish" *is* an ethnic term. Your statement didn't mirror the logic of my statement, because you were mixing terms and I wasn't. And why do you introduce biblical history to a discussion of whether James is a communist? Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Nov 25 19:21:43 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:21:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911251111y63ae85e8ofe0f2d124fd84d27@mail.gmail.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911241230s2103e32dkaffa784b157fb337@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911242047i49abed4dhc2c5419ffbf3129e@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251111y63ae85e8ofe0f2d124fd84d27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B0D83C7.5060104@satx.rr.com> On 11/25/2009 1:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### "Jewish"*is* an ethnic term. You've never heard of the Falashas? You think you can become a convert to, say, Asianity? From eugen at leitl.org Wed Nov 25 19:26:31 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:26:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power plant In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091125192631.GI17686@leitl.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:09:32PM -0200, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > This looks interesting. > > Mix salt water with fresh water and there you have it: instant > carbon-neutral energy. The process is called osmotic power, and a company > called Statkraft has just opened the world's first osmotic power plant in > Norway. > http://cleantechnica.com/2009/11/24/worlds-first-osmotic-power-plant-opens/ Much more interestingly, you can use a similar process for desalination. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 19:33:03 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:33:03 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911251111y63ae85e8ofe0f2d124fd84d27@mail.gmail.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60911240700s5dc2fcbcp240413c674b6b24@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911241230s2103e32dkaffa784b157fb337@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911242047i49abed4dhc2c5419ffbf3129e@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251111y63ae85e8ofe0f2d124fd84d27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/25/09, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Sockpuppet99wrote: > > I would contest your premise that Jewish is an ethnic modifier, particularly > > during the Biblical period. If I'm correct that both Judaism and > > Christianity are religions, then my logic mirrors your initial logic. > > ### "Jewish" *is* an ethnic term. Your statement didn't mirror the > logic of my statement, because you were mixing terms and I wasn't. And > why do you introduce biblical history to a discussion of whether James > is a communist? > > @Sockpuppet - Remember you are talking to an American. ;) They spend a lot of time arguing about whether Obama is a communist. BillK From m1n3r2 at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 19:42:29 2009 From: m1n3r2 at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tam=E1s_Pardy?=) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:42:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power plant In-Reply-To: <20091125192631.GI17686@leitl.org> References: <20091125192631.GI17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: >> http://cleantechnica.com/2009/11/24/worlds-first-osmotic-power-plant-opens/ "The company estimates that the global potential of osmotic power is equivalent to half of the European Union?s current energy production." Does that entail ALL energy sources? (that is, nuclear as well?) What do you think? Because if put that way, this would be stunningly amazing... M1N3R From pharos at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 19:52:24 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:52:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power plant In-Reply-To: References: <20091125192631.GI17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11/25/09, Tam?s Pardy wrote: > "The company estimates that the global potential of osmotic power is > equivalent to half of the European Union?s current energy production." > > Does that entail ALL energy sources? (that is, nuclear as well?) What > do you think? Because if put that way, this would be stunningly > amazing... > > Remember this is PR fluff. They have built a small pilot plant which is totally uneconomic, using grants from government and EU. Guess what? - They want more grant money. They need a five times improvement in their membrane plus a large increase in electric power pricing, plus more partners , plus more money, etc..... Don't hold your breath. BillK From m1n3r2 at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 20:10:29 2009 From: m1n3r2 at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tam=E1s_Pardy?=) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:10:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power plant In-Reply-To: References: <20091125192631.GI17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: "Thank you for explaining" :) M1N3R On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:52 PM, BillK wrote: > On 11/25/09, Tam?s Pardy wrote: >> "The company estimates that the global potential of osmotic power is >> ?equivalent to half of the European Union?s current energy production." >> >> ?Does that entail ALL energy sources? (that is, nuclear as well?) What >> ?do you think? Because if put that way, this would be stunningly >> ?amazing... >> >> > > Remember this is PR fluff. They have built a small pilot plant which > is totally uneconomic, using grants from government and EU. > Guess what? ?- They want more grant money. > > > > They need a five times improvement in their membrane plus a large > increase in electric power pricing, plus more partners , plus more > money, etc..... > > Don't hold your breath. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 20:20:48 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:20:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <4B0D83C7.5060104@satx.rr.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4B0C0B73.2090906@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911240900w314dcd32h89f8a70e33688c7@mail.gmail.com> <4B0C1EA8.4010606@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60911241230s2103e32dkaffa784b157fb337@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911242047i49abed4dhc2c5419ffbf3129e@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251111y63ae85e8ofe0f2d124fd84d27@mail.gmail.com> <4B0D83C7.5060104@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911251220r7d83317cj5df95e4a10ab67fc@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 11/25/2009 1:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### "Jewish"*is* ?an ethnic term. > > You've never heard of the Falashas? You think you can become a convert to, > say, Asianity? ### I do not think I could become a convert to Asianity. Worshiping non-women is not my cup of tea, and worshiping women spoils them, so I would abstain either way. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 20:26:22 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:26:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again In-Reply-To: <4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com> References: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> <4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911251226l4e80142cxcc8d9f8748d5bfe5@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/25 Alfio Puglisi : > CRU is not the only temperature analysis done. GISTEMP data has been > publicly available for a long time. Station data, computer code, the whole > thing: > > http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ > > GISTEMP correlates 0.97 or so with CRU timeseries.... ### GISS and CRU are not independent, see: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement-made-by-phil-jones-to-the-media-on-the-independence-of-the-global-surface-temperature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/ Rafal From eugen at leitl.org Wed Nov 25 20:35:19 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:35:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] jobs craved In-Reply-To: <8976FD4A-6CA4-4B55-991D-A1AA668C10E1@freeshell.org> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <0E7D9568-0199-46B5-B2AF-D3B50F0DE3AB@freeshell.org> <8976FD4A-6CA4-4B55-991D-A1AA668C10E1@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <20091125203519.GR17686@leitl.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 06:26:18AM -0500, Brent Neal wrote: > Really good point about power factor. That's been my largest concern > about the push for CFLs, since most manufacturers don't spend the half- > penny necessary for an inductor that would correct the power factor in > those things. :( Don't forget switching power supplies either. Get a lot of them together, and interesting (as in: possibly expensive) things start to happen. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 20:44:42 2009 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:44:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911251226l4e80142cxcc8d9f8748d5bfe5@mail.gmail.com> References: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> <4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251226l4e80142cxcc8d9f8748d5bfe5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990911251244t2e768b19m7e63a3f5728ac0eb@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/11/25 Alfio Puglisi : > > > CRU is not the only temperature analysis done. GISTEMP data has been > > publicly available for a long time. Station data, computer code, the > whole > > thing: > > > > http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ > > > > GISTEMP correlates 0.97 or so with CRU timeseries.... > > ### GISS and CRU are not independent, see: > > > http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement-made-by-phil-jones-to-the-media-on-the-independence-of-the-global-surface-temperature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/ > > Sure, they aren't. There are only so many temperature stations in the world. >From what I gathered in various online blogs, they are mostly based on the same (public) station data, with some difference in station inclusion. CRU adds proprietary records from various meteorological institutions. Data processing is indeed independent. The point I was trying to make is that, since GISTEMP only uses publicly available data and computer code and the result is almost the same, whatever data or algorithm CRU isn't publishing is going to make very little difference to the outcome. Alfio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Nov 25 20:45:35 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:45:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power plant In-Reply-To: References: <20091125192631.GI17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] Osmotic power plant > > On 11/25/09, Tam?s Pardy wrote: > > "The company estimates that the global potential of osmotic > power is > > equivalent to half of the European Union?s current energy > production." > > > > Does that entail ALL energy sources? (that is, nuclear as > well?) What > > do you think? Because if put that way, this would be stunningly > > amazing... > > Remember this is PR fluff. They have built a small pilot > plant which is totally uneconomic, using grants from > government and EU. > Guess what? - They want more grant money. > > nt-emission-free-energy> > > They need a five times improvement in their membrane plus a > large increase in electric power pricing, plus more partners > , plus more money, etc..... > > Don't hold your breath. > > BillK Ja I agree with BillK. We can produce a little power by mixing fresh water with sea water. However it is wildly inefficient, as determined by how much entropy is created vs how little power. Furthermore, the fresh water is much more valuable than the little bit of energy you can extract by wasting it. I hope this does point out how wasteful it is to dump fresh water directly into the sea, as we do now in river deltas. We shouldn't be doing that. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 20:51:40 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:51:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again In-Reply-To: <4902d9990911251244t2e768b19m7e63a3f5728ac0eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> <4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251226l4e80142cxcc8d9f8748d5bfe5@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990911251244t2e768b19m7e63a3f5728ac0eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911251251m21bce7cdwaed26a9f3736d5ce@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > The point I was trying to make is that, since GISTEMP only uses publicly > available data and computer code and the result is almost the same, whatever > data or algorithm CRU isn't publishing is going to make very little > difference to the outcome. ### The point I was trying to make is that the correlation between GISS and HAD/CRU does not strengthen their conclusions, since both are based on the same raw data. Rafal From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Wed Nov 25 21:13:02 2009 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:13:02 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power plant References: <20091125192631.GI17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: Much more interestingly, you can use a similar process for desalination. That I knew already. What I didn't know is that you could use this process to produce energy. By the feedback on the list however, I noticed that it's not an efficient one. But for desalination, I find the water theater to be a much more elegant solution. From eugen at leitl.org Wed Nov 25 21:28:39 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:28:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power plant In-Reply-To: References: <20091125192631.GI17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20091125212839.GV17686@leitl.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 07:13:02PM -0200, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > That I knew already. What I didn't know is that you could use this process > to produce energy. By the feedback on the list however, I noticed that it's > not an efficient one. I think below 1 USD/Wp you can't really compete with photovoltaics, if it's electricity that you want (thermal collectors and solar air conditioning handle the rest quite nicely). > But for desalination, I find the water theater to be a much more elegant > solution. For crop growing http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/ is rather elegant. I'm not sure how much hype this has, but it seems to actually work. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From painlord2k at libero.it Thu Nov 26 00:08:54 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:08:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911251251m21bce7cdwaed26a9f3736d5ce@mail.gmail.com> References: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> <4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251226l4e80142cxcc8d9f8748d5bfe5@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990911251244t2e768b19m7e63a3f5728ac0eb@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251251m21bce7cdwaed26a9f3736d5ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B0DC716.4030208@libero.it> Rafal Smigrodzki ha scritto: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Alfio Puglisi > wrote: > >> The point I was trying to make is that, since GISTEMP only uses >> publicly available data and computer code and the result is almost >> the same, whatever data or algorithm CRU isn't publishing is going >> to make very little difference to the outcome. > > ### The point I was trying to make is that the correlation between > GISS and HAD/CRU does not strengthen their conclusions, since both > are based on the same raw data. Apparently, the Hurricane of Shit [HoS] started in East Anglia is moving the other side of the pond. > http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f > "Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA > Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed > three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard > Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for > nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom > of Information Act. I have this little idea: GISS have the same problem with the data that CRU have. They are not able to replicate the result and they have a mess of a database. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.82/2525 - Data di rilascio: 11/25/09 08:31:00 From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Nov 26 00:18:13 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:18:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> Message-ID: <4B0DC945.4080003@satx.rr.com> On 11/24/2009 8:50 PM, spike wrote: > Many here are science types, so perhaps you have been as entertained > as I have by the claim by the US government that the 700 billion dollar > stimulus bill created or saved 640329 jobs. ... > If they meant $1.2 million per job-eon, this would be a bargain, for the > taxes alone on a minimum wage job-eon would run into the billions. But I > rather suspect it was more like job-hours or job-weeks, for each of those > 1.2 million dollar expenditures. This is a very strange post. 1. Are you asserting that the sole declared purpose of the "stimulus bill" was to "create or save" jobs, and by funding them directly? It had nothing to do with shoring up a self-buggered financial system, etc? 2. Do you actually think that a claim of saving or creating a job might really mean "for a few hours"? Now it's true that some of the funds have gone toward time-limited employment of a couple of months, intended to provide some people with at least minimal job experience or get them back in the habit of leaving the house for work 5 days a week. But the way ordinary language is used surely offers a clue. Suppose a school has two basket-weaving teachers and needs three, but its financing is so shot that one of the two is about to be (as they say) "let go", and then stimulus money is provided to retain that teacher and also hire the third. The govt proudly states that one job has been saved, and one created. Does it seem likely that this means "for one hour" or "for one day"? I am not disputing the prevalence of perfidy, double-talk, mopery and dopery. But it seems sensible to assume the usual rules of discourse apply, in the first instance, and only get *really really* angry if it turns out that this reasonable assumption has been abused and violated. Damien Broderick From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 26 01:06:53 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:06:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? Message-ID: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> In lieu of individual replies, a general thanks for all the interesting and useful recent information on tobacco and smoking. Here's a clearer statement of the hypothesis I'm proposing: Tobacco is not the cause of smoking-related disease. Instead, the cause is the chemicals added to tobacco. Pure, additive-free tobacco is harmless. But NOTA BENE: I'm not DEFENDING this hypothesis. On the contrary, my objective is the exact opposite: I want to try to knock the hypothesis down by any means possible. I'm looking for any and all evidence and arguments indicating that additive-free tobacco is harmful. The next step will be to see if such evidence and arguments can stand up under scrutiny. Rob Masters From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 26 00:58:44 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:58:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot Message-ID: <319478.13873.qm@web58307.mail.re3.yahoo.com> spike wrote: <> Thank you VERY much, spike. I did get the impression that there might be a real issue here, that it might be important, but I gave up trying to find out about it in the midst of all the yelling at wta-talk. It's a relief to get a sane perspective. Rob Masters From spike66 at att.net Thu Nov 26 02:04:37 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:04:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again In-Reply-To: <4B0DC716.4030208@libero.it> References: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> <4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251226l4e80142cxcc8d9f8748d5bfe5@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990911251244t2e768b19m7e63a3f5728ac0eb@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60911251251m21bce7cdwaed26a9f3736d5ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B0DC716.4030208@libero.it> Message-ID: <0836DF5E2B3D4CD09F42A7CD23EE86D7@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Mirco Romanato > ... > > Apparently, the Hurricane of Shit [HoS] started in East > Anglia is moving the other side of the pond. > > http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f > > "Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA > > > Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed > > three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard > > Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for > > nearly three years - to provide documents requested under > the Freedom > > of Information Act. > > I have this little idea: GISS have the same problem with the > data that CRU have. They are not able to replicate the result > and they have a mess of a database... Mirco Ja which goes back to my original point. If they were to publish the temperature and latitude/longitude/date/time of everything, just the raw data without interpreting it, then toss that stuff out into the public domain, then we would have armies of amateurs trying to figure out ways to reduce this mountain of numbers. The links offered before consisted of data that had already been reduced. It isn't at all obvious how this could be done. If one has a cluster of stations close to each other and a single remote site for instance, how does one take that into account? Back before there was telemetry, the stations needed to be closer to populations centers, because an actual prole needed to read the data. So perhaps more stations were located there, and perhaps urban effect was being measured. This science in this debate is far from over. spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 02:32:45 2009 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:32:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Robert Masters wrote: > > > Tobacco is not the cause of smoking-related disease. Instead, the cause is > the chemicals added to tobacco. Pure, additive-free tobacco is harmless. > I would argue that additive-free tobacco is not harmless. I believe the consumed chemical byproducts (those exposed to the lung) as a simple result of burning tobacco (or burning marijuana or even dandelions) numbers in the hundreds. This is a result of the fact that plants tend to be at war with the insects and so they tend to produce a variety of unusual molecules in an effort to defeat them. Plant genomes *are* more complex than mammalian genomes by roughly a (3:2) ratio (30,000 genes vs. 20,000 genes) with exceptions when one is looking at the simplest plant genomes. Human genomes have evolved general systems to deal with foreign / potentially toxic substances but the selection pressure on these pathways isn't very strong and may not be optimal. The metabolism of tobacco smoke in general in some individuals actually converts non-carcinogenic products of from tobacco combustion into known carcinogens. It has nothing to do with "additives" -- it has to do with differences in human genetic makeups. If humans had been subjected to strong selection pressure such that people who smoked with these genes were all dead before the age of reproduction then people might be able to smoke with diminished consequences. But since that is not the case it is far better to receive ones "fix" from a nicotine patch than consumption of a cigarette. Now, once these pathways are clearly known and documented and once the tests become cheap enough (e.g. at the prices 23andme is offering) one has the possibility of a segmentation of society into those who can smoke freely and those who should never be exposed to smoke. Prejudice on the basis of genetics (coming soon to a neighborhood corner near you...) (This is all information that came to my attention ~15 years ago and is all reasonably well documented in PubMed if you are researching toxin metabolism and/or cancer and the lungs or liver. I would expect that by now they have pinned down the genetic variants in even more detail such that one can look them up in OMIM or the human SNP databases.) Oh yes, and did I mention that we live in a brave new world... R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Nov 26 02:43:17 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:43:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <4B0DC945.4080003@satx.rr.com> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> <4B0DC945.4080003@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <35B4510236A74F678CBB345A3BD06251@spike> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Damien Broderick > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:18 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] jobs created or saved > > On 11/24/2009 8:50 PM, spike wrote: > > > Many here are science types, so perhaps you have been > as entertained > > as I have by the claim by the US government that the 700 billion > > dollar stimulus bill created or saved 640329 jobs. > ... > > If they meant $1.2 million per job-eon, this would be a > bargain, for > > the taxes alone on a minimum wage job-eon would run into > the billions. > > But I rather suspect it was more like job-hours or > job-weeks, for each > > of those > > 1.2 million dollar expenditures. > > This is a very strange post. > > 1. Are you asserting that the sole declared purpose of the > "stimulus bill" was to "create or save" jobs, and by funding > them directly? It had nothing to do with shoring up a > self-buggered financial system, etc? Close. What I am asserting is that the action taken by the government to crave jobs actually destroyed jobs in the long run. I am not even denying that the financial system is self-buggered, merely that the action taken may have self-buggered it further. > 2. Do you actually think that a claim of saving or creating a > job might really mean "for a few hours"?... The recovery.gov site asked recipients of government largesse to state the number of jobs created or saved by the stimulus. My claim is that the question itself, as asked, is completely meaningless. At least in some cases, it evidently was interpreted as job-hours: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05stimulus.html?_r=1 Others may have interpreted it as job-years or some other unit, but evidently these dissimilar units are all added together without conversion to a common unit, with the result being a derision-attracting answer of 640329. There was the usual fog of war stuff: http://blogs.csun.edu/news/clips/2009/11/06/many-california-jobs-%E2%80%99sa ved%E2%80%99-by-stimulus-funds-weren%E2%80%99t-in-jeopardy/ > some of the funds have gone toward time-limited employment of > a couple of months... Ja and this end in itself is worth something. But to report it as a job saved or created is misleading: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/05/26/p olice_budget.html?sid=101 > ...only get > *really really* angry if it turns out that this reasonable > assumption has been abused and violated... Damien Broderick Looks to me like that is what happened. I don't know how many jobs were lost or destroyed by anticipating the tax structure necessary to pay all this back some time in the future. Where is the next Calvin Coolidge when we desperately need him? spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Nov 26 03:10:26 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:10:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <35B4510236A74F678CBB345A3BD06251@spike> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> <4B0DC945.4080003@satx.rr.com> <35B4510236A74F678CBB345A3BD06251@spike> Message-ID: <4B0DF1A2.10009@satx.rr.com> On 11/25/2009 8:43 PM, spike wrote: > The recovery.gov site asked recipients of government largesse to state the > number of jobs created or saved by the stimulus. My claim is that the > question itself, as asked, is completely meaningless. At least in some > cases, it evidently was interpreted as job-hours: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05stimulus.html?_r=1 Interesting! Hadn't seen that. Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 03:26:25 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:26:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Power factor Message-ID: Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 06:26:18AM -0500, Brent Neal wrote: >> Really good point about power factor. That's been my largest concern >>> about the push for CFLs, since most manufacturers don't spend the half- >>.penny necessary for an inductor that would correct the power factor in >> those things. :( >Don't forget switching power supplies either. Get a lot of them >together, and interesting (as in: possibly expensive) things >start to happen. I designed power factor corrected switching power supplies using the MC33262 See page 13 and 37 here: http://www.freeradio.org/documents/Switching_Power_Supply.pdf and I don't understand what Brent is talking about. Can you explain? Re Eugen's comment, the problem is not switching, but capacitor input, (see page 13 of the above document) and yes those cause problems when a whole bunch of PC's are plugged in. Company I worked for felt they had to replace a big 480 dry step down transformer that was overheating due to the high peak currents from 100 PC power supplies. (My approach was to take the top off and put a big cardboard chimney on the transformer.) Keith From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 03:30:33 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:30:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Osmotic power Message-ID: When fresh water runs into the sea, the energy release is as if it ran over a 300 meter cliff. It's not easy to collect the power, however. Keith From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 03:39:13 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:39:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again In-Reply-To: <0836DF5E2B3D4CD09F42A7CD23EE86D7@spike> References: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike> <4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251226l4e80142cxcc8d9f8748d5bfe5@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990911251244t2e768b19m7e63a3f5728ac0eb@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60911251251m21bce7cdwaed26a9f3736d5ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B0DC716.4030208@libero.it> <0836DF5E2B3D4CD09F42A7CD23EE86D7@spike> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911251939w5f6f84afl9dcdfcf1f06019f0@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:04 PM, spike wrote: > > Ja which goes back to my original point. ?If they were to publish the > temperature and latitude/longitude/date/time of everything, just the raw > data without interpreting it, ### Problem is that the CRU claim they lost the disk with the raw data for some crucial periods of time last century. You may find more information on that issue at Climate Audit and Watts' up with that. Rafal From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 03:46:05 2009 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:46:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Robert Masters wrote: > > Also, Hughes seems bent on FEEDING the frenzy with flagrantly ad hominem > attacks on global-warming skeptics (he has compared them to Holocaust > deniers, and at one point actually accused them of "prostituting" > themselves to the oil industry--a charge he specifically refused to take > back)..... > > In general in this context I would tend to agree with James (in spite of the fact that by and large I do not agree with some of his perspectives). One only watch the Sunday morning news shows where various companies who control the oil and gas reserves are trying to make those energy sources appear "green". For example, "America has more than 100 years of clean ("green") natural gas supplies that it owns" (or something roughly equivalent). Ignoring the fact that if you are taking stored carbon out of the ground and placing it into the atmosphere as CO2 (which is what burning coal, oil, *or* natural gas does) -- *IS* contributing to global warming. IMO, there should be a massive demonstrations in front of every board meeting of every coail, oil, natural gas and electricity producing/using company/utility every year favoring stopping the consumption of these fuels or the addition of the carbon to the atmosphere. Its either that or we seriously embrace a significant geoengineering process (reflection of heat onto the earth, etc.) (either way energy becomes more expensive). What better solution than to tax the problem creating companies to directly contribute to the solutions??? So one can view James' perspective as simply an awareness of the public not wanting to change the status quo (cheap energy) or the corporates not wanting to change their profits/bonuses (and more importantly significantly devalue their balance sheets based on their reserves. The corporate CEO or board members who enable the devaluation of billions of $ in value/profits -- they are toast IMO -- and they tend to know it.) Now, with respect to "global warming" and whether it is a significant risk? I would leave you with the question of why I did not title my "Sapphire Mansions" paper [1] "Diamond Mansions"? I could have done that. It was because I did not think the atmosphere of the earth could withstand the extraction or CO2 converted into C to build Diamond mansions (thus one would have a first come first served basis with exclusivity involved). I believe I lay the basis for this perspective in the first paragraphs of the paper. There are caveats -- but they all involve self-controlled limitations of the use of the "free" carbon resources. Bottom line -- if nanorobots extract all the CO2 from the atmosphere all the plants will die -- and that would likely be a blemish on humanities' efforts to preserve the record of evolution -- if not noticing the fact that it would likely cause hundreds of millions or billions of deaths for those individuals who remain entrenched in traditional lifestyles. Thus my conclusion that diamond mansions were a really really really bad idea. Thus Sapphire Mansions where the resources came out of the soil came to be. So one has a dichotomy between why one would expend energy butt smacking James for abusing the powers that be -- which IMO seem to be appropriate when they are primarily concerned with preserving their jobs/bonuses/etc. rather than making the world a better place and truly evolving! And realizing that the path that the "powers that be" probably has no relevance once nanotechnology sets in. Unless "the"y are controlling it -- a completely separate discussion. If one notices Exxon-Mobile buying up nanotechnology patents and/or lobbying for patent extension frameworks -- then is the time to get worried. Seriously worried. 1. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Papers/SM.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Nov 26 04:11:03 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:11:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] mann-made global warming again In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911251939w5f6f84afl9dcdfcf1f06019f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4236AF8875D54C799B85CE00D8568ED1@spike><4902d9990911251034i4ad16f28r44c4f6dec1ebd238@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60911251226l4e80142cxcc8d9f8748d5bfe5@mail.gmail.com><4902d9990911251244t2e768b19m7e63a3f5728ac0eb@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60911251251m21bce7cdwaed26a9f3736d5ce@mail.gmail.com><4B0DC716.4030208@libero.it> <0836DF5E2B3D4CD09F42A7CD23EE86D7@spike> <7641ddc60911251939w5f6f84afl9dcdfcf1f06019f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <33051160F381411B9D57C3CFC5131149@spike> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:04 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > Ja which goes back to my original point. ?If they were to > publish the > > temperature and latitude/longitude/date/time of everything, > just the > > raw data without interpreting it, > > ### Problem is that the CRU claim they lost the disk with the > raw data for some crucial periods of time last century. You > may find more information on that issue at Climate Audit and > Watts' up with that. Rafal Ja I have seen that claim and I just don't get it. I don't understand how they can claim that the research is valid if we don't have some kind of way to trace back to the original data in some form, or failing that, some traceability to at least the algorithms used to reduce the data, or at the very least, the intermediate results, which should have been published some time ago. The CRU is asking us to take their word for it in the face of apparent email traffic that gives us every reason to not do so. They will need to show me some kind of evidence. I am not necessarily a skeptic. I can imagine the planet is warming, based on receding glaciers and so forth, but with the magnitude of the political decisions being made based on CRUs data, they can't just tell us the dog ate it. That indicates sloppy science. There is far too much at stake here. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Nov 26 04:54:13 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:54:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <35B4510236A74F678CBB345A3BD06251@spike> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> <4B0DC945.4080003@satx.rr.com> <35B4510236A74F678CBB345A3BD06251@spike> Message-ID: <4B0E09F5.2020203@satx.rr.com> On 11/25/2009 8:43 PM, spike wrote: >> 1. Are you asserting that the sole declared purpose of the >> > "stimulus bill" was to "create or save" jobs, and by funding >> > them directly? It had nothing to do with shoring up a >> > self-buggered financial system, etc? > Close. What I am asserting is that the action taken by the government to > crave jobs actually destroyed jobs in the long run. My point, however, was that dividing $789 billion by the number of jobs allegedly gained or saved so far and getting $1,200,000+ per job (as James Clement did, and you echoed) is absurd. Here's AP's quick breakdown of projected expenditure back in Fed when the bill passed: Many provisions of the nearly $789 billion compromise stimulus plan expire in two years. Additional debt costs would add about $330 billion over 10 years. Highlights [well over half the total]: Spending Aid to poor and unemployed ?$40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec. 31, and increase them by $25 a week; $20 billion to increase food-stamp benefits by 14%; $3 billion in temporary welfare payments. Direct cash payments ?$14 billion to give one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, poor people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions. Infrastructure ?$46 billion for transportation projects, including $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair; $8.4 billion for mass transit; $8 billion for construction of high-speed railways and $1.3 billion for Amtrak; $4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers; $4 billion for public housing improvements; $6.4 billion for clean- and drinking-water projects; $7 billion to bring broadband Internet service to underserved areas. Health care ?$21 billion to provide a 60% subsidy of health care insurance premiums for the unemployed under the COBRA program; $87 billion to help states with Medicaid; $19 billion to modernize health information technology systems; $10 billion for health research and construction of National Institutes of Health facilities. State block grants ?$5 billion in aid to states to use as they please to defray budget cuts. Education ?$54 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid to school districts, with up to $10 billion for school repair; $26 billion to school districts to fund special education and the No Child Left Behind law for students in K-12; $17 billion to boost the maximum Pell Grant by $500 to $5,350; $2 billion for Head Start. Homeland security ?$2.8 billion for homeland security programs, including $1 billion for airport screening equipment. Law enforcement ?$4 billion in grants to state and local law enforcement to hire officers and purchase equipment. Taxes New tax credit ?About $115 billion for $400 per-worker, $800 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010. Credit phases out for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 to $90,000 and couples with AGI of $150,000 to $190,000. Alternative minimum tax ?About $70 billion to spare about 24 million taxpayers from being hit with the alternative minimum tax in 2009. The change would save a family of four an average of $2,300. Expanded college credit ?About $13 billion to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples with incomes over $160,000. Home buyer credit ?$3.7 billion to repeal a requirement that an $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit be paid back over time for homes purchased from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31, unless the home is sold within three years. Bonus depreciation ?$5 billion to extend a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up depreciation through 2009. Auto sales ?$2.5 billion to make sales tax paid on new car purchases tax deductible. Source: The Associated Press From spike66 at att.net Thu Nov 26 06:01:02 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:01:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <4B0E09F5.2020203@satx.rr.com> References: <01AA50006A144BE7825DA817712ED7A2@spike> <8F420D208CAA440CAC590086E1A77D81@spike> <4B0DC945.4080003@satx.rr.com><35B4510236A74F678CBB345A3BD06251@spike> <4B0E09F5.2020203@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > ... > > > Close. What I am asserting is that the action taken by the > government > > to crave jobs actually destroyed jobs in the long run. > > My point, however, was that dividing $789 billion by the > number of jobs allegedly gained or saved so far and getting > $1,200,000+ per job (as James Clement did, and you echoed) is > absurd. ... Well Damien, actually I would agree with that assertion, because the number 640329 is completely arbitrary. So any figure anyone wanted to toss out for the cost to the taxpayer per job created or saved is every bit as valid as any other arbitrary number. I have posted too many times today and I wanted to share this link, so do let me append it here. This is a bit slow, but a wickedly cool little app for astronomy fans: http://galaxy.phy.cmich.edu/~axel/mwpan2/ spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu Nov 26 07:46:14 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:46:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20091126074614.GW17686@leitl.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 05:06:53PM -0800, Robert Masters wrote: > In lieu of individual replies, a general thanks for all the interesting and useful recent information on tobacco and smoking. > > Here's a clearer statement of the hypothesis I'm proposing: > > Tobacco is not the cause of smoking-related disease. Instead, the cause is the chemicals added to tobacco. Pure, additive-free tobacco is harmless. Harmless, which is why nicotine is sometimes still used as an insecticide. Harmless, as in carcinogenic. > But NOTA BENE: I'm not DEFENDING this hypothesis. On the contrary, my objective is the exact opposite: I want to try to knock the hypothesis down by any means possible. I'm looking for any and all evidence and arguments indicating that additive-free tobacco is harmful. The next step will be to see if such evidence and arguments can stand up under scrutiny. My hypothesis is that the Earth is flat. I'm looking for any and all evidence and arguments indicating that the Earth is not flat. The next step will be to see if such evidence and arguments can stand up under scrutiny. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 07:52:06 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:22:06 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. Message-ID: <710b78fc0911252352s5bd14e76kf1fdcf8ed324915b@mail.gmail.com> I'm making the following, I think reasonable, assumptions: 1 - Global warming is real 2 - Global warming is anthropogenic I'm pretty sure we can't use less energy. Great extropian approach to the analysis here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083704.htm And you know, why should we? Screw that. We're sitting in the neighborhood of a crazy big fusion reactor, there is energy. We just suck at harnessing it so far. Also, no technologies that we currently have available can save the day, they just don't scale well enough. The guy in the article above says we need to build a nuclear reactor per day for the next 20 years, and Saul Griffith's figures are similar. So the answer is, we need technologies that don't yet exist, on a massive scale, in a pretty short timeframe for such sized projects (a few decades). That's daunting, but then I thought about the human genome project. That managed to do the impossible in an impossible timeframe, by going exponential. That seemed to rely on 1 - Heated competition 2 - tying to IT and thus moore's law, to an extent 3 - short loop time, from idea to prototype to product to deployment to next idea. I think all the big engineering approaches can't get us there, because they can't improve rapidly enough. They can't do point 3. Nuke plants take years, maybe decades? Solar power in space, what's the iteration time there? others? My bet is on the small distributed approaches, mostly I'm thinking solar. If you can it to a point where everyone desires their own solar power panels, at the domestic and small business level, you have the giant weight of consumer capital pressing on the area, which means 1 is taken care of. 3 is already good in this scenario, because this is consumer product stuff. How about 2? Are development of solar technologies in any way tied, or can they be tied, to IT? Or, are there other technologies that might fit here? Remember, if you can get a virtuous cycle going here, and progress goes exponential, then the early and medium term products can be insufficient to solve the problem (X terrawatts in Y decades). All the good work will come in the last couple of years of the process. On a side note, I think if this is going to be driven from anywhere, it's probably going to be from China. They seem more motivated, and frankly more skilled and geared up, to make it happen. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From pharos at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 09:07:45 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:07:45 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The big wta riot In-Reply-To: References: <437646.19792.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/26/09, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > In general in this context I would tend to agree with James (in spite of the > fact that by and large I do not agree with some of his perspectives). One > only watch the Sunday morning news shows where various companies who > control the oil and gas reserves are trying to make those energy sources > appear "green". For example, "America has more than 100 years of clean > ("green") natural gas supplies that it owns" (or something roughly equivalent). > Ignoring the fact that if you are taking stored carbon out of the ground and > placing it into the atmosphere as CO2 (which is what burning coal, oil, *or* > natural gas does) -- *IS* contributing to global warming. IMO, there should > be a massive demonstrations in front of every board meeting of every coail, > oil, natural gas and electricity producing/using company/utility every year > favoring stopping the consumption of these fuels or the addition of the > carbon to the atmosphere. Its either that or we seriously embrace a > significant geoengineering process (reflection of heat onto the earth, etc.) > (either way energy becomes more expensive). What better solution than to > tax the problem creating companies to directly contribute to the > solutions??? > > So one can view James' perspective as simply an awareness of the public not > wanting to change the status quo (cheap energy) or the corporates not > wanting to change their profits/bonuses (and more importantly significantly > devalue their balance sheets based on their reserves. The corporate CEO or > board members who enable the devaluation of billions of $ in value/profits > -- they are toast IMO -- and they tend to know it.) > Funding of global warming skeptics ExxonMobil has drawn criticism from the environmental lobby for funding organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and skeptical of the scientific opinion that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. According to the left-wing Mother Jones Magazine, the company was a member of one of the first such skeptic groups, the Global Climate Coalition, founded in 1989. According to The Guardian, ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups skeptical of global warming, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Congress on Racial Equality, TechCentralStation.com, and International Policy Network. ExxonMobil's support for these organizations has drawn criticism from the Royal Society, the academy of sciences of the United Kingdom. The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2007 accusing ExxonMobil of spending $16 million, between 1998 and 2005, towards 43 advocacy organizations which dispute the impact of global warming. The report argued that ExxonMobil used disinformation tactics similar to those used by the tobacco industry in its denials of the link between lung cancer and smoking, saying that the company used "many of the same organizations and personnel to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue." -------------------- Yes, I know it is Wikipedia, but they quote references for what the article claims. Do a search for: 'ExxonMobil Funding Disinformation Groups About Global Warming' BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 09:15:26 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:15:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: <20091126074614.GW17686@leitl.org> References: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20091126074614.GW17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: 2009/11/26 Eugen Leitl : > Harmless, which is why nicotine is sometimes still used as an insecticide. > Harmless, as in carcinogenic. Participants in this discussion seem to conflate nicotine with tobacco. Nicotine is the psychoactive component component of tobacco, but any harmful effects it may cause are relatively minor. Yes, it can kill in overdose, but even water can kill in overdose, and it is impossible to get a lethal dose of nicotine from smoking. It is the non-nicotine components of tobacco and tobacco smoke - tar, nitrosamines, carbon monoxide - that are responsible for most of the harmful effects. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 09:37:47 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:37:47 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911252352s5bd14e76kf1fdcf8ed324915b@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0911252352s5bd14e76kf1fdcf8ed324915b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/26/09, Emlyn wrote: > I think all the big engineering approaches can't get us there, because > they can't improve rapidly enough. They can't do point 3. Nuke plants > take years, maybe decades? Solar power in space, what's the iteration > time there? others? > > My bet is on the small distributed approaches, mostly I'm thinking > solar. If you can it to a point where everyone desires their own solar > power panels, at the domestic and small business level, you have the > giant weight of consumer capital pressing on the area, which means 1 > is taken care of. 3 is already good in this scenario, because this is > consumer product stuff. > > Agree. I'm very keen on solar panels on every available surface. But the efficiency needs to keep improving to get to the stage that consumers snap them up as a 'no-brainer'. Also, nuclear power stations are starting to think 'small' as well. If these small stations become available to support say 10,000 to 20,000 customers, then every small town could have their own nuclear power plant. BillK From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 26 09:53:01 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:53:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Homer on the choices men make Message-ID: <614967.93654.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> This is the story of a man, one who was never at a loss. He had travelled far in the world, after the sack of Troy, the virgin fortress; he saw many cities of men, and learnt their mind; he endured many troubles and hardships in the struggle to save his own life and to bring back his men safe to their homes. He did his best, but he could not save his companions. For they perished by their own madness, because they killed and ate the cattle of Hyperion the Sun-god, and the god took care that they should never see home again. --Homer, THE ODYSSEY (W.H.D. Rouse translation) From eugen at leitl.org Thu Nov 26 10:07:56 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:07:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0911252352s5bd14e76kf1fdcf8ed324915b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091126100756.GZ17686@leitl.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:37:47AM +0000, BillK wrote: > Agree. I'm very keen on solar panels on every available surface. > But the efficiency needs to keep improving to get to the stage that > consumers snap them up as a 'no-brainer'. Efficiency is completely irrelevant. Current panels are more than good enough, all that matters is ROI. ROI depends on many things, whether insular or grid-tied, whether retrofitted or designed-in as integral part of the building structure, and similar exciting things. Many claim that crossover with residential electricity prices are at around 1 USD/Wp. > Also, nuclear power stations are starting to think 'small' as well. That only addresses the funding and production bottlenecks, not missing sustainability. > If these small stations become available to support say 10,000 to > 20,000 customers, then every small town could have their own nuclear > power plant. > > Careful with that blog. It carries a curious mixture of bona fide news and compleat BS. For some reason the author is completely unable to tell the difference. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Thu Nov 26 10:21:39 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:21:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: References: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20091126074614.GW17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20091126102139.GA17686@leitl.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 08:15:26PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Participants in this discussion seem to conflate nicotine with > tobacco. Nicotine is the psychoactive component component of tobacco, They not only think it's the same, despite ample evidence to the contrary they consider pure nicotine harmless. It isn't. > but any harmful effects it may cause are relatively minor. Yes, it can > kill in overdose, but even water can kill in overdose, and it is Why do many people here routinely dump from /dev/ass and don't spend a few seconds on PubMed to check for a potentially questionable assumption? > impossible to get a lethal dose of nicotine from smoking. It is the High blood pressure kills quite well. > non-nicotine components of tobacco and tobacco smoke - tar, > nitrosamines, carbon monoxide - that are responsible for most of the > harmful effects. Smokeless tobacco is not harmless. Just in the last few days we had a disturbing pattern of pronouncements which negatively reflect on all of us participating in them. We definitely do not want to come over as kooks. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 10:24:01 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:24:01 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: <20091126100756.GZ17686@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc0911252352s5bd14e76kf1fdcf8ed324915b@mail.gmail.com> <20091126100756.GZ17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11/26/09, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Efficiency is completely irrelevant. Current panels are more > than good enough, all that matters is ROI. ROI depends on > many things, whether insular or grid-tied, whether retrofitted > or designed-in as integral part of the building structure, > and similar exciting things. Many claim that crossover with > residential electricity prices are at around 1 USD/Wp. > > 'Almost' the same thing. At present the ROI on household solar systems means that I won't buy a system. If the efficiency was 2 or 3 times better, then I would. Or if the price was half to one third, then I also would buy one. > > Careful with that blog. It carries a curious mixture of bona fide > news and compleat BS. > > Doesn't everybody??? ;) BillK From eugen at leitl.org Thu Nov 26 11:00:04 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:00:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0911252352s5bd14e76kf1fdcf8ed324915b@mail.gmail.com> <20091126100756.GZ17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20091126110004.GB17686@leitl.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:24:01AM +0000, BillK wrote: > 'Almost' the same thing. At present the ROI on household solar systems > means that I won't buy a system. If the efficiency was 2 or 3 times > better, then I would. The best consumer panels today do about 20%. If the efficiency was 2-3 times better that would be 40-60%. I would not be holding my breath. Compare that with price developments from Solarbuzz. Future does look bright indeed. > Or if the price was half to one third, then I also would buy one. Right now the demand has again skyrocketed. Once again production is completely overwhelmed -- just try buying an inverter right now, or try finding people to install it (this is Germany, YMMV, about 3 GW to be installed this year). > > Careful with that blog. It carries a curious mixture of bona fide > > news and compleat BS. > > Doesn't everybody??? ;) I haven't seen any such mixture in any other blog yet. It made me several times quite curious about the author. He smart, why can't he tell which is which? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 26 12:38:17 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:38:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] DANGER ADVISORY: The Anonymous threat to everything we hold dear Message-ID: <128439.74469.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNBbuRklLfo&NR=1&feature=fvwp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFjU8bZR19A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSpZp6sWhgM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsdrF451LFo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5AoBnjwdjo&NR=1&feature=fvwp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpndIvUGPwA&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mfODelv7I0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkchXCzY70 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbwNnhcSLQk Rob Masters From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 13:36:45 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:36:45 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: <20091126102139.GA17686@leitl.org> References: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20091126074614.GW17686@leitl.org> <20091126102139.GA17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: 2009/11/26 Eugen Leitl : > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 08:15:26PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> Participants in this discussion seem to conflate nicotine with >> tobacco. Nicotine is the psychoactive component component of tobacco, > > They not only think it's the same, despite ample evidence to the > contrary they consider pure nicotine harmless. It isn't. > >> but any harmful effects it may cause are relatively minor. Yes, it can >> kill in overdose, but even water can kill in overdose, and it is > > Why do many people here routinely dump from /dev/ass and don't > spend a few seconds on PubMed to check for a potentially > questionable assumption? I refer you to the review paper cited before from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, who I assume are not kooks: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/41/3/497 It is debatable whether nicotine on its own causes any ill effects such as an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease, whereas smoking tobacco certainly does and smokeless tobacco also does (Swedish snus apparently less so, perhaps due to its lower nitrosamine content). Nicotine patches and gum are, at the very least, way safer than cigarettes. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 14:59:07 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:59:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: <20091126102139.GA17686@leitl.org> References: <619021.72524.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20091126074614.GW17686@leitl.org> <20091126102139.GA17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20911260659o20711a9ah38ab3cf810c5eb0a@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/26 Eugen Leitl : > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 08:15:26PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> Participants in this discussion seem to conflate nicotine with >> tobacco. Nicotine is the psychoactive component component of tobacco, > > They not only think it's the same, despite ample evidence to the > contrary they consider pure nicotine harmless. It isn't. The subject sounds a little, how can I say, "emotional", but I have few doubts that harm may derive (and certainly does derive) from sufficient quantities of: - inhaled smoke of *any* source, including one's fireplace - nicotine - other substances contained in tobacco - additives which are exclusively assumed by inhaling the smoke of the low-quality, tobacco-based recreational product commonly called "cigarette". It remains to be seen what *degree* of harmfulness those things may have, in comparison amongst one another and their respective perceived "beneficial" effects -- Stefano Vaj From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 26 15:18:13 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:18:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Solzhenitsyn on tobacco Message-ID: <614596.54691.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> http://www.davar.net/EXTRACTS/FICTION/ONE-DAY.HTM Shukhov felt pleased with life as he went to sleep.? A lot of good things had happened that day.? He hadn't been thrown in the hole.? The gang hadn't been dragged off to Sotsgorodok.? He'd swiped the extra gruel at dinnertime.? The foreman had got a good rate for the job.? He'd enjoyed working on the wall.? He hadn't been caught with the blade at the search point.? He'd earned a bit from Tsezar that evening.? And he'd bought his tobacco. --Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, ONE DAY IN THE LIFE OF IVAN DENISOVICH Rob Masters Charter member, AATF Americans for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 26 15:22:38 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:22:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Lawrence of Arabia on guerrilla strategy Message-ID: <669328.93038.qm@web58304.mail.re3.yahoo.com> T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") on guerrilla strategy: ***** In pursuit of the ideal conditions we might kill Turks, because we disliked them very much; but the killing was a pure luxury. If they would go quietly the war would end. ***** ... suppose we were (as we might be) an influence, an idea, a thing intangible, invulnerable, without front or back, drifting about like a gas? Armies were like plants, immobile, firm-rooted, nourished through long stems to the head. We might be a vapour, blowing where we listed. Our kingdoms lay in each man's mind; and as we wanted nothing material to live on, so we might offer nothing material to the killing. ***** Most wars were wars of contact, both forces striving into touch to avoid tactical surprise. Ours should be a war of detachment. We were to contain the enemy by the silent threat of a vast unknown desert, not disclosing ourselves til we attacked. ***** We might... develop a habit of never engaging the enemy. This would chime with the numerical plea for never affording a target. ***** Battles in Arabia were a mistake, since we profited in them only by the ammunition the enemy fired off. ***** Our cards were speed and time, not hitting power. ***** In character our operations of development for the final stroke should be like naval war, in mobility, ubiquity, independence of bases and communications, ignoring of ground features, of strategic areas, of fixed directions, of fixed points. 'He who commands the sea is at great liberty, and may take as much or as little of the war as he will.' And we commanded the desert. ***** Discrimination of what point of the enemy organism to disarrange would come to us with war practice. Our tactics should be tip and run: not pushes, but strokes. We should never try to improve an advantage. We should use the smallest force in the quickest time at the farthest place. --SEVEN PILLARS OF WISDOM, Chapters 33 and 59 Rob Masters Charter member, AATF Americans for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms From mlatorra at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 18:15:46 2009 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:15:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Solzhenitsyn on tobacco In-Reply-To: <614596.54691.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <614596.54691.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9ff585550911261015k3463f4bld6296ee2ca5c1d01@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for posting this quote from the only book by Aleksandr Isaaevich Solzhenitsyn to be published in Russia during the Soviet era. For anyone unfamiliar with this novel, I'd like to explain the context of the story. The eponymous character (Ivan Denisovich Shukhov) was a prisoner in the notorious Soviet GULAG system, interned in a camp somewhere on the frozen wastes of Siberia. His life, as described matter-of-factly by former prisoner Solzhenitsyn, who definitely knew what he was talking about, is an ongoing horror of overwork, near-starvation, and brutality. The novel, however, described a GOOD DAY in his life. So many things that could have gone wrong, didn't. While the reader is moved by Solzhenitsyn's depiction of the awful conditions in the prison camp, the main character is pleased that everything went so well. He even got a smoke! Regards, Mike LaTorra, who spent much of his undergraduate career studying Russian language, history and literature On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Robert Masters wrote: > > > http://www.davar.net/EXTRACTS/FICTION/ONE-DAY.HTM > > > > Shukhov felt pleased with life as he went to sleep. A lot of good things > had happened that day. He hadn't been thrown in the hole. The gang hadn't > been dragged off to Sotsgorodok. He'd swiped the extra gruel at > dinnertime. The foreman had got a good rate for the job. He'd enjoyed > working on the wall. He hadn't been caught with the blade at the search > point. He'd earned a bit from Tsezar that evening. And he'd bought his > tobacco. > > > --Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, ONE DAY IN THE LIFE OF IVAN DENISOVICH > > > > > Rob Masters > Charter member, AATF > Americans for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Thu Nov 26 18:49:08 2009 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:49:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] hi lee! In-Reply-To: <3AAB6D178545491B881B7F698564150E@spike> References: <365161.35727.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49D87B76.3080705@rawbw.com> <3AAB6D178545491B881B7F698564150E@spike> Message-ID: <200911261349.09161.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 20 November 2009 11:17:46 pm spike wrote: > Hope all is well with you pal! Haven't heard from you in a while. All is > OK here. I was involuntarily retired a couple weeks ago, big layoff at the > Lazy L ranch. I was surprised: I got really good annual reviews since > always. But we are shrinking bigtime, and we higher paid guys were a > cherry red target I guess. Bummer! I'm sorry to here that, Spike. Luckily, I still have my job, but my two brothers are currently between contracts. The unemployment rate in Florida is over 10% and may beat record 14% soon, when Cape Canaveral starts decommissioning the Shuttle programs. Good luck finding new employement! -- Harvey Newstrom From spike66 at att.net Thu Nov 26 22:23:54 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:23:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] hi lee! In-Reply-To: <200911261349.09161.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <365161.35727.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49D87B76.3080705@rawbw.com><3AAB6D178545491B881B7F698564150E@spike> <200911261349.09161.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of > Harvey Newstrom > ...But we are shrinking bigtime, and we higher > > paid guys were a cherry red target I guess. > > Bummer! I'm sorry to hear that, Spike. Luckily, I still > have my job, but my two brothers are currently between > contracts. The unemployment rate in Florida is over 10% and > may beat record 14% soon, when Cape Canaveral starts > decommissioning the Shuttle programs. > > Good luck finding new employement! > > -- > Harvey Newstrom Thanks Harvey! I am doing some soul searching. Perhaps I will not go back into the old 9 to 5 world, but it is a big step to leave that behind. I don't really feel like a legitimate retiree at 49. After all those years of chasing around like a wild man at work, suddenly having nothing to do just feels so weird. When I and my son are out messing around in the middle of the day, it almost feels like I am doing something illegal. {8^D I'll get over it. 2008 and 09 were my busiest ever, chasing across the country every other week, sometimes more, so the contrast is striking. There are some big engineering projects floating around that I would like to get into, but I don't speak Mandarin or Japanese. {8-| Some observations you might find entertaining: I was with my son at the park last week, and there were three other parents there with their preschoolers. Not so remarkable except that all four parents were men. My son is big for his age, 97 percentile in height, 94 %ile weight. Many, well most, of the population of our town are Asian. Yellow haired kids are very sparse here. Some busybody commented that my son should be in school. That thread ended suddenly when I pointed out that he had just turned three. Unemployment rate in Florida: yes bad, but I have seen it worse in the north end of Brevard county, back in 1970 and again in ~1978. My folks took a hell of a beating on real estate, and oh by the way, would your brothers want to buy a house for a hell of a bargain in Titusville? Hmmm, didn't think so. spike From anders at aleph.se Thu Nov 26 23:42:38 2009 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:42:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. Message-ID: <20091126234238.8696d333@secure.ericade.net> Emlyn wrote: > I'm making the following, I think reasonable, assumptions: > > 1 - Global warming is real > 2 - Global warming is anthropogenic > > I'm pretty sure we can't use less energy. One can quibble with the energy saving part, but I think it is a conservative assumption. OECD energy consumption per capita has remained roughly constant over the last decades despite significant GDP growth - we are doing far more with less. But there are obvious limits here. > So the answer is, we need technologies that don't yet exist, on a > massive scale, in a pretty short timeframe for such sized projects (a > few decades). > Yes. And this is the part where policy has not yet caught on. Most of the debate has been about emission reduction through rather low-tech means, likely because 1) some of the groups involved are rather anti-tech and anti-consumerism, 2) the reductions use almost known methods and no dreaded techno-fixes. Considering that CO2 has a typical staying time in the atmosphere of a century, even an instant end to emissions might still cause serious trouble if you are pessimistic about the forcings and feedbacks. At a public lecture this summer the speaker before me proclaimed his green credentials by claiming that we must reduce carbon emissions by 80%. I instead argued that we ought to aim for a 150% reduction - we need large scale carbon negative activities. I proposed genetically modified afforestation. Ah, the sound of brains popping... :-) In any case, if decisionmakers were truly rational about doing something about climate they would spend significantly more money on new energy sources. There is a whole bunch of infrastructure improvements that can be done cheaply (like insulating British houses), but to actually solve the problem something entirely new is needed. > My bet is on the small distributed approaches, mostly I'm thinking > solar. If you can it to a point where everyone desires their own solar > power panels, at the domestic and small business level, you have the > giant weight of consumer capital pressing on the area, which means 1 > is taken care of. 3 is already good in this scenario, because this is > consumer product stuff. > Only good if you have a lot of solar around. Sweden and Britain are not known for their sunshine. I really recommend MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" (full text at http://www.withouthotair.com/ ) It is a very good walkthrough of how to make estimates of energy needs and production, checking the realism of various claims and sketching possible energy scenarios. Not all perfect (his argument against my above afforestation plan is frankly stupid) but a very stimulating start for serious thinking (and lots of fun facts to throw at people). I think your approach is good though. Look for technologies that can emerge rapidly and be widely distributed. Low thresholds for entry, easy scalability. Also, distributed energy production is great for security. The big question is economies of scale. For solar, MacKay points out that individual photovoltaic pannels are unlikly to become efficient enough to be really effective in small scale. Solar farms look much better. Similarly, being able to store energy and distribute energy efficiently seems to have great economies of scale, making the solar sheets inefficient compared to current systems. So what we want is a technology that has low thresholds to entry, can adapt itself fast due to competition, yet fits in with scale-ups. I wonder if pebble-bed reactors could do it? Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Nov 26 23:43:43 2009 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:43:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?iso-8859-1?q?Is_tobacco_really_harmful=22=3F?= Message-ID: <20091126234343.04d60058@secure.ericade.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 05:06:53PM -0800, Robert Masters wrote: >> Tobacco is not the cause of smoking-related disease. Instead, the cause is the chemicals added to tobacco. Pure, additive-free tobacco is harmless. >> > > Harmless, which is why nicotine is sometimes still used as an insecticide. > Harmless, as in carcinogenic. While nicotine works fine as an insecticide, it works because of exactly the same reasons human take it - it has cholinergic effects. There does not seem to be good evidence that nicotine is carcinogenic in the scientific literature. From what I have been reading, the cancer risk of smoked tobacco comes from inhaling aerosols loaded with heterocyclic and polyaromatic compounds that are produced by burning plant material. In the case of smokeless tobacco the cancer risk is again largely tied to nitrosamines, more local to the mouth and throat. Smoked cannabis does pose cancer risks too, without any additives (and this would likely refute Robert Masters hypothesis). Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 00:25:21 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:25:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Solzhenitsyn on tobacco In-Reply-To: <9ff585550911261015k3463f4bld6296ee2ca5c1d01@mail.gmail.com> References: <614596.54691.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <9ff585550911261015k3463f4bld6296ee2ca5c1d01@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911261625h37fee677od6d9e5507c6555c4@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/26 Michael LaTorra : > While the reader is moved by?Solzhenitsyn's depiction of > the awful conditions?in the prison camp, the main character is pleased that > everything went so well. He even got a smoke! Why, as fond as I may be of Russian culture, one has to admit that their cigarettes are not as good as their caviar... ;-) -- Stefano Vaj From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 27 00:25:36 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:25:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Yamamoto Tsunetomo on the Bushido code Message-ID: <982434.62372.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according to what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live is cowardice. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he gains freedom in the Way. --HAGAKURE Rob Masters From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 27 01:38:07 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:38:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? Message-ID: <327466.92527.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> In my research so far on tobacco I've found out a few significant facts. The popular brands of cigarettes, the ones with chemical additives, consist of a mixture of (a) tobacco and (b) some 599 chemicals. For the full list of the additives, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/cigaretteingredients/Cigarette_Ingredients_and_Additives.htm http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm One thing that's known about the additives is that many of them are carcinogenic, especially when combusted. The same cannot be said of tobacco, at least to my knowledge. I haven't been able to find any studies saying the smoke of pure tobacco is carcinogenic or otherwise harmful. When you buy the popular brands with additives, you are buying (and inhaling) known carcinogens. So the least that can be said is that it seems likely that the additive-free brands are safer. Rob Masters From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Nov 27 01:59:33 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:59:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Yamamoto Tsunetomo on the Bushido code In-Reply-To: <982434.62372.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <982434.62372.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B0F3285.9000901@satx.rr.com> On 11/26/2009 6:25 PM, Robert Masters wrote: > The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. What a bunch of arseholes. > --HAGAKURE Fuck you, Mr. Hagakure. From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 02:12:46 2009 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:12:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [Bioperl-l] BioPerl "guts" question regarding forked processes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ad6af70911261812q583277d5l71df0d66e756f617@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I'm currently running near my process limit and running sequence fetches > from swissprot (I've also had this happen with getting gi's from NCBI) and > am running out of processes about halfway through the set I'm trying to > fetch [1]. Hey Robert, sorry for the off-topic question, but I was wondering if you're the same Robert Bradbury from the extropy-chat list. Hi? - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From brentn at freeshell.org Fri Nov 27 04:47:32 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:47:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Power factor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D4662CE-B759-4038-9AF1-7750D837C563@freeshell.org> On 25 Nov, 2009, at 22:26, Keith Henson wrote: > and I don't understand what Brent is talking about. Can you explain? CFLs lead in phase due to an either real or effective capacitor in the ballast, as I understand it. Therefore, you want to include an inductor in the circuit to bring in back in phase and the power factor back up to 1. Most CFLs produced today have a 0.5-0.6 PF. Keith, you're an EE, aren't you? You should know power factors and phasors better than I do. Physicists are dirty hacks compared to EEs when talking about this stuff. :) Most of my info comes from an EE who works in designing lighting systems. B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 27 05:17:16 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:17:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? Message-ID: <884644.48960.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Well, it's quite a story, but it has a happy ending. Around the time I started thinking seriously about that list of 599 cigarette additives (many of them carcinogens), I finally asked the obvious question: Why the hell are they in there in the first place? And I have no idea what the answer is. It seems to me that a case could be made that someone (the tobacco companies? the FTC?) is responsible for a lot of misery and death. The phrase "full-scale Congressional investigation" comes to mind. But that's not what I'm interested in. The happy news is a story of heroic American capitalism: a few cigarette companies, led by American Spirit, have finally started selling additive-frees. They're an option now, and I see no reason not to smoke them. At least that's my choice. It could be argued that there might be dangerous effects of tobacco even without the 599 mysterious toxins, and anyone who's worried about that is free to choose the other way. The reaction to additive-frees, American Spirit in particular, has been bizarre. The FTC has required the brand to put a statement on its pack that "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette." Removing a bunch of carcinogens doesn't mean a safer cigarette? You figure it out. The attitude of tobacco "scientists," if that's what they are, has been equally peculiar. They did some study showing American Spirits raised subjects' NICOTINE levels more than conventional brands, and trumpeted that with the headline "Additive-Free Cigarettes May Pack a More Toxic Punch"--but my understanding is that nicotine isn't the health problem with cigarettes at all. (One website, following that line, came up with the catchy phrase "crack nicotine.") I'll close with a testimonial by a satisfied American Spirit smoker: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum10009/1654.htm "The first thing I noticed when I lit one up was that it was less smokey and it burnt more slowly. I also noticed that there was not the same level of after-taste and 'smokers breath'. The taste itself was the real surprise, I now realise what its like to smoke a real cigarette. It reminded me of the pleasure of smoking, which I had long forgotten. After a few smokes I noticed that my head didn't seem blocked and and I felt less choked by it." Rob Masters From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 06:01:24 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:01:24 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <884644.48960.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <884644.48960.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/11/27 Robert Masters : > The attitude of tobacco "scientists," if that's what they are, has been equally peculiar. ?They did some study showing American Spirits raised subjects' NICOTINE levels more than conventional brands, and trumpeted that with the headline "Additive-Free Cigarettes May Pack a More Toxic Punch"--but my understanding is that nicotine isn't the health problem with cigarettes at all. ?(One website, following that line, came up with the catchy phrase "crack nicotine.") Yes, it's everything *apart* from the nicotine that's the problem. Unfortunately, many smokers seem to be psychologically addicted to the smoking itself and not just the nicotine, and find it difficult to substitute cigarettes for gum, patches or inhalers. -- Stathis Papaioannou From eschatoon at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 06:19:42 2009 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email)) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:19:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <884644.48960.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90911262219o1793b12cx7a411bd8e5b21552@mail.gmail.com> >From a smoker: Cigarettes are _very_ addictive. For a smoker it is nearly impossible not to smoke and still feel like himself. Don't ask me what is my name before the first cigarette in the morning, I might not remember. By and large I am persuaded that tobacco, nicotine and additives are really harmful. Yet I think their harmful effects are occasionally exaggerated. Out of manners, politeness and respect of others I never smoke inside a room with other people (unless they are also smokers). But I claim the right to do whatever I want when I am alone, and I claim the right to do whatever I want at home. If something is harmful to me, I claim the right to do it anyways if I am the only one affected. In the 30s we had the war against drinks, with the results that everyone knows. Then we had the war on drugs. Then we had the war on smoke, These are all holy wars against personal freedom. In a few decades we will have the war against something else, and people will still drink, smoke and take drugs. On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/11/27 Robert Masters : > >> The attitude of tobacco "scientists," if that's what they are, has been equally peculiar. ?They did some study showing American Spirits raised subjects' NICOTINE levels more than conventional brands, and trumpeted that with the headline "Additive-Free Cigarettes May Pack a More Toxic Punch"--but my understanding is that nicotine isn't the health problem with cigarettes at all. ?(One website, following that line, came up with the catchy phrase "crack nicotine.") > > Yes, it's everything *apart* from the nicotine that's the problem. > Unfortunately, many smokers seem to be psychologically addicted to the > smoking itself and not just the nicotine, and find it difficult to > substitute cigarettes for gum, patches or inhalers. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco aka Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 09:22:43 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:52:43 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: <20091126234238.8696d333@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091126234238.8696d333@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911270122k3ef779c1w9b60e427a2a0e5c5@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/27 Anders Sandberg : > > Emlyn wrote: >> I'm making the following, I think reasonable, assumptions: >> >> 1 - Global warming is real >> 2 - Global warming is anthropogenic >> >> I'm pretty sure we can't use less energy. > > One can quibble with the energy saving part, but I think it is a > conservative assumption. OECD energy consumption per capita has remained > roughly constant over the last decades despite significant GDP growth - > we are doing far more with less. But there are obvious limits here. > Well, I'm coming from the assumption that efficiency seems to lead us to using more resources rather than less. ie: The Jevons Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_Paradox >> So the answer is, we need technologies that don't yet exist, on a >> massive scale, in a pretty short timeframe for such sized projects (a >> few decades). >> > > Yes. And this is the part where policy has not yet caught on. Most of > the debate has been about emission reduction through rather low-tech > means, likely because 1) some of the groups involved are rather > anti-tech and anti-consumerism, 2) the reductions use almost known > methods and no dreaded techno-fixes. Considering that CO2 has a typical > staying time in the atmosphere of a century, even an instant end to > emissions might still cause serious trouble if you are pessimistic about > the forcings and feedbacks. > > At a public lecture this summer the speaker before me proclaimed his > green credentials by claiming that we must reduce carbon emissions by > 80%. I instead argued that we ought to aim for a 150% reduction - we > need large scale carbon negative activities. I proposed genetically > modified afforestation. Ah, the sound of brains popping... :-) I've been thinking a lot about how consumption in the consumer west is an engine driving the world economy, largely to bad ends at the moment, and how it's unlikely that engine will stop any time soon. So, can we put it to use? >From an article by Stephen Roach in the nytimes, 2007: "There is hope that young consumers from rapidly growing developing economies can fill the void left by weakness in American consumers. Don?t count on it. American consumers spent close to $9.5 trillion over the last year. Chinese consumers spent around $1 trillion and Indians spent $650 billion. It is almost mathematically impossible for China and India to offset a pullback in American consumption." Consumer spending is trillions of dollars? That sounds useful. So for instance afforestation is a good approach, but could we do better with something that consumers might spend their dollars on? Just one idea: 3D printers which use a biologically derived goop. Pair them with some kind of device for making that goop out of thin air. Well, out of thick air; that's the problem we are trying to solve after all :-) eg: here's some mention of algae that make plastic: http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/green-algae-used-to-make-plastics-that-dont-contain-petroleum/1834/ Is that doable? Could we build simple to maintain and run home algae farms, that can be converted into 3d feedstock, and then into consumer goods via 3d printing? If we could do this, you could have a massive chunk of the consumption engine drive that technology. Turning sunlight, water and CO2 directly into consumer goods, en masse (really really masse), might have a pretty serious effect. Remember the efficiency can be terrible to begin with. We're not assuming current technology will solve the problem. We just want to kick start a feedback loop such that, at some point in the future, massively more capable technology can solve the problem. I guess that's a low tech version of the nanotech dream right there. Also interestingly, consumer technologies rooted in access to sunlight might make cities look less attractive, and giant world spanning suburban sprawl look attractive again. Bleh, but hey. > In any case, if decisionmakers were truly rational about doing something > about climate they would spend significantly more money on new energy > sources. There is a whole bunch of infrastructure improvements that can > be done cheaply (like insulating British houses), but to actually solve > the problem something entirely new is needed. > >> My bet is on the small distributed approaches, mostly I'm thinking >> solar. If you can it to a point where everyone desires their own solar >> power panels, at the domestic and small business level, you have the >> giant weight of consumer capital pressing on the area, which means 1 >> is taken care of. 3 is already good in this scenario, because this is >> consumer product stuff. >> > > Only good if you have a lot of solar around. Sweden and Britain are not > known for their sunshine. > > I really recommend MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" > (full text at http://www.withouthotair.com/ ) It is a very good > walkthrough of how to make estimates of energy needs and production, > checking the realism of various claims and sketching possible energy > scenarios. Not all perfect (his argument against my above afforestation > plan is frankly stupid) but a very stimulating start for serious > thinking (and lots of fun facts to throw at people). > > I think your approach is good though. Look for technologies that can > emerge rapidly and be widely distributed. Low thresholds for entry, easy > scalability. Also, distributed energy production is great for security. > > The big question is economies of scale. For solar, MacKay points out > that individual photovoltaic pannels are unlikly to become efficient > enough to be really effective in small scale. Solar farms look much > better. Similarly, being able to store energy and distribute energy > efficiently seems to have great economies of scale, making the solar > sheets inefficient compared to current systems. > > So what we want is a technology that has low thresholds to entry, can > adapt itself fast due to competition, yet fits in with scale-ups. I > wonder if pebble-bed reactors could do it? > Can we have a technology that improves exponentially, without its improvement being intrinsically tied to information processing capabilities? It appears to have been directly relevant to the exponential improvements in the human genome project. How can we tie clean energy & carbon scrubbing activities directly to information processing? Or maybe the question to ask is, which such activities are processing bound? I have a vague idea that some of the possibilities for fusion require enormous processing capabilities; if only you could it in your laundry :-) -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From rob4332000 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 27 10:15:31 2009 From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:15:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? Message-ID: <877527.92581.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I can't get my mind around it. Realizing what has been happening in the cigarette industry has the quality of waking up from a nightmare. Yet the fact is that somewhere in the manufacturing process someone has been putting 599 chemical additives--including several known carcinogens-- into cigarettes. How can this be? How can no one have noticed? I can't get my mind around it. Rob Masters From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 12:58:03 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:58:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Yamamoto Tsunetomo on the Bushido code In-Reply-To: <4B0F3285.9000901@satx.rr.com> References: <982434.62372.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4B0F3285.9000901@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911270458p28e7eaa3t543f45958713e6c5@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/27 Damien Broderick : > On 11/26/2009 6:25 PM, Robert Masters wrote: > >> The Way of the Samurai is found in death. ?When it comes to either/or, >> there is only the quick choice of death. ?It is not particularly difficult. >> ?Be determined and advance. > > What a bunch of arseholes. > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--HAGAKURE > > Fuck you, Mr. Hagakure. Why, it must be replaced in the context. In fact, Jocho Yamoto was in his own fashion quite a transhumanist, inasmuch he was in the business of pursuing perfection... :-) -- Stefano Vaj From eugen at leitl.org Fri Nov 27 13:24:50 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:24:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: <20091126234238.8696d333@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091126234238.8696d333@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <20091127132450.GM17686@leitl.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:42:38AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > At a public lecture this summer the speaker before me proclaimed his > green credentials by claiming that we must reduce carbon emissions by > 80%. I instead argued that we ought to aim for a 150% reduction - we > need large scale carbon negative activities. I proposed genetically > modified afforestation. Ah, the sound of brains popping... :-) The only advantage of trees is that they're autopoietic, PV-driven air scrubbers which e.g. generate methanol from captured CO2 could have an order of magnitude higher efficiency. > Only good if you have a lot of solar around. Sweden and Britain are not > known for their sunshine. CIGS does quite well in diffuse daylight, so you can easily be a net producer just from the PV area of your house surface. http://www.nrel.gov/features/20091016_solar_decathlon.html > I really recommend MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" > (full text at http://www.withouthotair.com/ ) It is a very good > walkthrough of how to make estimates of energy needs and production, > checking the realism of various claims and sketching possible energy > scenarios. Not all perfect (his argument against my above afforestation > plan is frankly stupid) but a very stimulating start for serious > thinking (and lots of fun facts to throw at people). His main fault that he considers thermal and electrical Joules the same, which they are not. Thermal collectors are easily >80% efficient, current residential PV <20%, not mentioning the price. > The big question is economies of scale. For solar, MacKay points out > that individual photovoltaic pannels are unlikly to become efficient Au contraire, every building needs a roof and a facade. Integrated approaches have very little or any incremental costs, and they can provide net excess in cloudy, rainy weather. What would be nice to see is a building that not only ROIs but also EROIs over lifetime. > enough to be really effective in small scale. Solar farms look much > better. Similarly, being able to store energy and distribute energy Solar farms have the disadvantage is their output needs to be transformed and transported, and sold by a monopolist. No wonder existing producers want to go Desertec, and bypass sales by tapping tax-funded subsidies. Pure genius, you might produce cheaper energy on your roof, but we don't mind, since you've already paid us via taxes. > efficiently seems to have great economies of scale, making the solar > sheets inefficient compared to current systems. > > So what we want is a technology that has low thresholds to entry, can > adapt itself fast due to competition, yet fits in with scale-ups. I > wonder if pebble-bed reactors could do it? Anders, have you missed peak uranium? http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5631 http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677 http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5744 http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5929 It doesn't look like novel reactor types will be there on time, given that we need to roll out massive capacity by 2030 or 2040. I think thin-film PV is the only technology up to the task. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Nov 27 13:28:10 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:28:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: <20091126234343.04d60058@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091126234343.04d60058@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <20091127132810.GN17686@leitl.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:43:43AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > While nicotine works fine as an insecticide, it works because of exactly > the same reasons human take it - it has cholinergic effects. There does > not seem to be good evidence that nicotine is carcinogenic in the Nicotine isn't, but tobacco is. Whether smoked or smokeless. And of course you're more likely to be demolished by high blood pressure and not throat cancer. Virtually nobody is using pure nicotine as a drug, though patches and electric evaporators could deliver it in principle. > scientific literature. From what I have been reading, the cancer risk of > smoked tobacco comes from inhaling aerosols loaded with heterocyclic and > polyaromatic compounds that are produced by burning plant material. In > the case of smokeless tobacco the cancer risk is again largely tied to > nitrosamines, more local to the mouth and throat. Smoked cannabis does > pose cancer risks too, without any additives (and this would likely > refute Robert Masters hypothesis). How many people actually consume THC with electric evaporators? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 13:49:51 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:19:51 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: <20091127132450.GM17686@leitl.org> References: <20091126234238.8696d333@secure.ericade.net> <20091127132450.GM17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc0911270549n1323f134g30eefd0f1f611154@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/27 Eugen Leitl : > It doesn't look like novel reactor types will be there on time, > given that we need to roll out massive capacity by 2030 or 2040. > I think thin-film PV is the only technology up to the task. The good thing from an economic point of view with domestic solar, is the short innovation period, and that consumers will buy it multiple times. So say you have a few thousand bucks for PV that almost provides all your power needs, and people buy that, then a couple of years later you have it for a similar price that provides all your needs plus half again, then some of the same people will buy that, then a couple of years later half the price, twice as good again, the same people will buy it again, and so on. That's the financial driver for exponential improvement. Hopefully there's a similar enabling technological approach to help keep up with demand. eg: if we use the same kinds of technologies to print the panels or roof tiles or what have you, that we use for fabbing chips. Is that plausible? -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From sparge at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 13:55:24 2009 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:55:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: <20091127132810.GN17686@leitl.org> References: <20091126234343.04d60058@secure.ericade.net> <20091127132810.GN17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Virtually nobody is using pure nicotine as a drug, though patches > and electric evaporators could deliver it in principle. E-cigarettes are pretty popular. From Wikipedia: "An electronic cigarette, otherwise known as a personal vaporizer, is a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine by way of a vaporized solution. It is an alternative to smoked tobacco products, such as cigarettes, cigars, or pipes. In addition to nicotine delivery, this vapor also provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, while no tobacco, smoke, or combustion is actually involved in its operation." > How many people actually consume THC with electric evaporators? I have no idea, but if e-pot were readily available, I think it'd be pretty popular. Of course, if it were legal it'd be even more popular. -Dave From eugen at leitl.org Fri Nov 27 15:17:52 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:17:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911270549n1323f134g30eefd0f1f611154@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091126234238.8696d333@secure.ericade.net> <20091127132450.GM17686@leitl.org> <710b78fc0911270549n1323f134g30eefd0f1f611154@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091127151752.GR17686@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:19:51AM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > The good thing from an economic point of view with domestic solar, is > the short innovation period, and that consumers will buy it multiple It throws a monkeywrench into the ROI calculation, because the costs are still high http://solarbuzz.com/ and because the lifetimes are so long (25-35 years). You have to anticipate the future energy prices, and the price decay. Exponential decay was there for a long time, until sudden demand (thanks to subsidies) made markets explode. This year almost 3 GW capacity will be installed in Germany, and you just can't buy an inverter, nevermind hire a crew to install the system. Right now lowest thin film module price is 1.76 USD/Wp, consider the price could be below 1 USD/Wp in a couple years (assuming inflation-adjusted value, of course). If you pay 12-25 kUSD just for the panels this is going to make quite a difference, so many people will wait. Sooner or later it's worthwhile, for me when the price of electricity from my roof falls a bit below 0.15 EUR/kWh, or so. > times. So say you have a few thousand bucks for PV that almost > provides all your power needs, and people buy that, then a couple of Right now Wp is pretty good, but consider that most are retrofitted, and you still need a grid-tied inverter (most installations are not insular, there you can use cheaper inverters but have to consider solar batteries for nighttime buffering). > years later you have it for a similar price that provides all your > needs plus half again, then some of the same people will buy that, > then a couple of years later half the price, twice as good again, the > same people will buy it again, and so on. That's the financial driver > for exponential improvement. Hopefully there's a similar enabling > technological approach to help keep up with demand. eg: if we use the > same kinds of technologies to print the panels or roof tiles or what > have you, that we use for fabbing chips. Is that plausible? The current technology does a lot better than semiconductor, current CIGS nanoink is printed on top of aluminum foil at m/s^2 rates. Expect huge advances from that area, including processivity and price, as well as durability. There's no obvious floor for Wp price, especially if you have self-growing panels. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From ddraig at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 12:59:58 2009 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:59:58 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Yamamoto Tsunetomo on the Bushido code In-Reply-To: <4B0F3285.9000901@satx.rr.com> References: <982434.62372.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4B0F3285.9000901@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2009/11/27 Damien Broderick : > What a bunch of arseholes. It sounds like a great system to be *in command of* Don't know how much fun it would be at the coal face. Dwayne -- ddraig at pobox.com irc.deoxy.org #chat ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... http://www.barrelfullofmonkeys.org/Data/3-death.jpg our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 27 12:16:47 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Sockpuppet99@hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:16:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <884644.48960.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <884644.48960.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, it sure sounds like you've convinced yourself--all evidence be damned-- that tobacco is safe. Not sure how it follows from that that anyone besides you ought to smoke, since there are many better, less socially offensive, less expensive and more enjoyable things for people to do with their bodies, that don't shorten and may lengthen the life span. How ironic that one should have to tell that to an extropian! But if you are determined to smoke, I go back to my original email and encourage you to serve as a one-man longitudinal study of American Spirit brand cigarettes for us. I would think that if smoking is beneficial, you ought to shoot for two packs a day for maximum benefit. I'd love to know how that turns out for you. Cheers Tom D Sent from my iPod On Nov 26, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Robert Masters wrote: > > > Well, it's quite a story, but it has a happy ending. > > Around the time I started thinking seriously about that list of 599 > cigarette additives (many of them carcinogens), I finally asked the > obvious question: Why the hell are they in there in the first place? > > And I have no idea what the answer is. It seems to me that a case > could be made that someone (the tobacco companies? the FTC?) is > responsible for a lot of misery and death. The phrase "full-scale > Congressional investigation" comes to mind. > > But that's not what I'm interested in. The happy news is a story of > heroic American capitalism: a few cigarette companies, led by > American Spirit, have finally started selling additive-frees. > They're an option now, and I see no reason not to smoke them. > > At least that's my choice. It could be argued that there might be > dangerous effects of tobacco even without the 599 mysterious toxins, > and anyone who's worried about that is free to choose the other way. > > The reaction to additive-frees, American Spirit in particular, has > been bizarre. The FTC has required the brand to put a statement on > its pack that "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer > cigarette." Removing a bunch of carcinogens doesn't mean a safer > cigarette? You figure it out. > > The attitude of tobacco "scientists," if that's what they are, has > been equally peculiar. They did some study showing American Spirits > raised subjects' NICOTINE levels more than conventional brands, and > trumpeted that with the headline "Additive-Free Cigarettes May Pack > a More Toxic Punch"--but my understanding is that nicotine isn't the > health problem with cigarettes at all. (One website, following that > line, came up with the catchy phrase "crack nicotine.") > > I'll close with a testimonial by a satisfied American Spirit smoker: > > http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum10009/1654.htm > > "The first thing I noticed when I lit one up was that it was less > smokey and it burnt more slowly. I also noticed that there was not > the same level of after-taste and 'smokers breath'. The taste itself > was the real surprise, I now realise what its like to smoke a real > cigarette. It reminded me of the pleasure of smoking, which I had > long forgotten. After a few smokes I noticed that my head didn't > seem blocked and and I felt less choked by it." > > > Rob Masters > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From max at maxmore.com Fri Nov 27 16:57:24 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:57:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" Message-ID: <200911271657.nARGvVMB007315@andromeda.ziaspace.com> While not at all surprised by what has been revealed in those emails, I think some skeptics of climate catastrophism are obsessing too much over them. I just came across a piece by Frank Furedi that expresses my view quite well: We don't need another conspiracy theory http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/earticle/7748/ Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 16:57:34 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:57:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Power factor for Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Brent Neal wrote: > > On 25 Nov, 2009, at 22:26, Keith Henson wrote: > >> and I don't understand what Brent is talking about. ?Can you explain? > > CFLs lead in phase due to an either real or effective capacitor in the > ballast, as I understand it. ?Therefore, you want to include an > inductor in the circuit to bring in back in phase and the power factor > back up to 1. Most CFLs produced today have a 0.5-0.6 PF. When when fluorescent lamps ballasts started to be produced 50-60 years ago they ran a lagging power factors because the current limiter was an inductor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp http://members.misty.com/don/f-lamp.html (I took one of these apart when I was about 8.) Later capacitors were added to partly correct the poor PF. Correcting the power factor of small lamps using a bridge rectifier into a capacitor would be very expensive, a few hundred grams of copper and iron. > Keith, you're an EE, aren't you? BSEE 1969, U of Arizona. Did a modest amount of power circuit design, up to a current controlled 15 kW square wave generator. (Phase angle controlled 400 Hz, 700 volt output.) >You should know power factors and > phasors better than I do. Physicists are dirty hacks compared to EEs > when talking about this stuff. :) Most of my info comes from an EE who > works in designing lighting systems. I think he may be a bit out of date. Current designs use this kind of circuit http://www.irf.com/technical-info/designtp/irpllnr1.pdf and have power factors of 0.99 or so. I have designed and put into production power factor correction power supply circuits of this kind--which was why I didn't understand where a penny inductor would fit. Keith From max at maxmore.com Fri Nov 27 16:36:44 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:36:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? Message-ID: <200911271703.nARH3X17008750@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >After a few smokes I noticed that my head didn't > > seem blocked and and I felt less choked by it." Now *that's persuasive advocacy of a product: "Hey, non-smokers! Take up smoking with *our* brand. You'll feel LESS CHOKED than with our competitors' products." Gotta get some o' dat. Max From max at maxmore.com Fri Nov 27 17:03:55 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:03:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument fordomestic ground based solar. Message-ID: <200911271704.nARH42IN026991@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Eugene wrote: >Anders, have you missed peak uranium? and supplied links to the Oil Drum. Peak oil claims are not compelling to me, and I think these claims for (anytime soon) peak uranium make some of the same mistakes. A crucial one being to assume that current sources and current methods of extraction are all that's possible. The history of oil extraction shows how silly that assumption is. A more balanced assessment can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium That source does distinguish between different grades of uranium and notes the potential (terribly underutilized) of reprocessing. Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From anders at aleph.se Fri Nov 27 17:10:35 2009 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:10:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: 200911271657.nARGvVMB007315@andromeda.ziaspace.com Message-ID: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> Max: > While not at all surprised by what has been revealed in those emails, > I think some skeptics of climate catastrophism are obsessing too much > over them. Sounds a bit like what my colleague Nicholas Shackel is writing: http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/11/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-1.html His argument is that the important revelation here is the low epistemic standards the researchers hold themselves to, not any revelation about the data or world itself. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 17:14:17 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:14:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument for domestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0911252352s5bd14e76kf1fdcf8ed324915b@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0911252352s5bd14e76kf1fdcf8ed324915b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911270914q49322b7fu7fc5605df0aac820@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Emlyn wrote: > I'm making the following, I think reasonable, assumptions: > > 1 - Global warming is real > 2 - Global warming is anthropogenic ### I used to think that #1 was real, and #2 unknown but with the Climategate unfolding I no longer even trust #1. Looks like GISS, NCDC and CRU have been applying some very bizarre corrections to raw temperature readings, inflating the temperatures by 0.2 C or even more. Simply being grossly overconfident in estimating one's ability to model climate (the basis for #2) is one thing, but massaging raw data to create the appearance of warming is enough to cause a whole new level of distrust. The problem with climate science is that thousands of people rely on highly processed inputs (global temperature data analyses, all generated by a small, tight-knit group) to their own research, and if these inputs are corrupt, thousands of articles downstream are corrupted as well. Rafal From pharos at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 17:22:46 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:22:46 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: <200911271703.nARH3X17008750@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911271703.nARH3X17008750@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 11/27/09, Max More wrote: > Now *that's persuasive advocacy of a product: "Hey, non-smokers! > Take up smoking with *our* brand. You'll feel LESS CHOKED than > with our competitors' products." > > And, of course, the tobacco industry would never dream of swamping sites with fake user reviews recommending their products. :( BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Nov 27 17:26:22 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:26:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Some thoughts on the ecopocalypse - the argument fordomestic ground based solar. In-Reply-To: <200911271704.nARH42IN026991@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911271704.nARH42IN026991@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20091127172622.GT17686@leitl.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:03:55AM -0600, Max More wrote: > and supplied links to the Oil Drum. Peak oil claims are not One thing about the Oil Drum is that they provide a lot of numbers. It is very difficult to argue with numbers, especially numbers which over the years seem to tell a story which rhymes with reality. I wish somebody would create an anti-peakist site with similiar extent and coverage scope, and we would see a dialogue develop. The story is not a very happy one, so of course I would like it not to be true. > compelling to me, and I think these claims for (anytime soon) peak Do you discount the EROEI analysis, and the empirical graphs over time? > uranium make some of the same mistakes. A crucial one being to assume > that current sources and current methods of extraction are all that's The problem is that they're covering all aspects (finds, estimates of finds, ore quality over time, EROEI, current fuel reserves, reprocessing, required capacity growth) so it is difficult to show something they overlooked. I keep looking, but the detractor's story keeps getting weaker and weaker, and theirs stronger. And consider what happens if the critics are correct, and what happens if TOD is correct. The severity of the outcome is just not comparable. Even if you can't tell the probability, the amplitude of the outcome is sufficiently high so that you have to consider it. We just have to cover our asses, just in case. > possible. The history of oil extraction shows how silly that assumption is. > > A more balanced assessment can be found here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium I am sorry, I do not consider Wikipedia a useful resource. It's being gamed ten times to Sunday. I hope the forthcoming fork (Levitation + git) will happen soon. > That source does distinguish between different grades of uranium and > notes the potential (terribly underutilized) of reprocessing. Pick all the points from Wikipedia, and go through their treatment on TOD. Draw your own conclusions. I did. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 17:58:17 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:58:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tobacco thread Message-ID: Google cilia tobacco cannabis Nicotine tends to have more adverse effects on the cilia than THC. Keith From anders at aleph.se Fri Nov 27 18:06:12 2009 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:06:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Tobacco thread In-Reply-To: d1988d2d0911270958m29a5485cn56822557ec8eb3d0@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> Sure, but that does not change my point: smoking is harmful, whatever it is one is smoking. Maybe tobacco is unusally bad, but I doubt there is any material one can smoke that is harmless. Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Henson [mailto:hkeithhenson at gmail.com] To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:58:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Tobacco thread > Google cilia tobacco cannabis > > Nicotine tends to have more adverse effects on the cilia than THC. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From anders at aleph.se Fri Nov 27 18:03:29 2009 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:03:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Yamamoto Tsunetomo on the Bushido code In-Reply-To: 982434.62372.qm@web58303.mail.re3.yahoo.com Message-ID: <20091127180329.d0b40ffe@secure.ericade.net> The transhumanist samurai is a ronin. There are different aims of bushido and extropianism. Bushido encodes a warrior code, aiming at motivating and restricting the actions of samurai in such a way to fit into a stable society. The right actions are right because they are duties or make you a better warrior, able to uphold your social and religious commitments. The goal of perfectionism lies not in yourself, but outside. I would argue that modern transhumanism claims we should improvement ourselves because it would be good for us (and perhaps for others). This search for improvement does not aim at perfection, since there is likely no ultimate optimal state - individual life projects can diverge very strongly. And this improvement will necessarily involve a change in surrounding society and culture, which is *for* the individual's flourishing (if it is a good society). 'All living things are afraid to die. 'No, you're exactly wrong, the only truly alive beings are those unafraid to die.' (David Zindell, The Broken God) On the other hand, reducing the fear of death to a rational level is a good thing. Far too many people (even transhumanists) are so afraid of dying that they do not really live. Denying one's mortality or getting emotional about it reduces the chance of dealing with it. Recognizing one's mortality and even the high likeliehood of personal death with equanimity can be very liberating: yes, this is a bad sitution and we ought to fix it. But while fixing it we shouldn't stop enjoying life and other things that have value, and sometimes (depending on personal morality) it might even be rational to take risks or even sacrifice oneself. This is where the mindset of bushido and transhumanism agree. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Nov 27 17:13:31 2009 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:13:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] hi lee! In-Reply-To: References: <365161.35727.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200911261349.09161.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200911271213.32139.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Thursday 26 November 2009 5:23:54 pm spike wrote: > Unemployment rate in Florida: yes bad, but I have seen it worse in the > north end of Brevard county, back in 1970 and again in ~1978. My folks > took a hell of a beating on real estate, and oh by the way, would your > brothers want to buy a house for a hell of a bargain in Titusville? Hmmm, > didn't think so. Ha! We're still trying to sell Mom's house. I was hoping you would want to buy a house for a hell of a bargain in Palm Bay! (Hmmm, didn't think so.) Dad got laid off from the Apollo program when it ended. My brothers are going through de ja vue all over again! -- Harvey Newstrom From max at maxmore.com Fri Nov 27 18:32:37 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:32:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Uranium supplies Message-ID: <200911271832.nARIWiuU018946@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Eugene Leitl wrote: >The problem is that they're covering all aspects (finds, estimates >of finds, ore quality over time, EROEI, current fuel reserves, >reprocessing, required capacity growth) so it is difficult to show >something they overlooked. I keep looking, but the detractor's story >keeps getting weaker and weaker, and theirs stronger. I'll take a good look at their material. Thanks for the reference. They may be right -- I hadn't heard of serious concerns about uranium. From my first look, they make some compelling points about short-term availability of uranium. But so far I don't buy their analysis as a real and enduring peak. What exactly is the conclusion that you came to? "Peak uranium" doesn't say much. How many years from now do you think uranium supplies will peak? Does that depend at all on whether new technologies and extraction methods are devised? Does it depend on the price of uranium? Answers to those questions would make it clearer what exactly you are convinced of. Eugene: >It is very difficult to argue with numbers I really can't accept that you believe this, Eugene. You know very well that numbers don't just appear in a perfect genesis. They are arrived at by people, with their flaws and flawed methods. *Of course* you can argue with numbers. In fact, it's crucial to do so: Where did they come from? What methods were used to come up with them? What assumptions lie beneath the numbers and the methods by which they were arrived at? And so on. Even if uranium supplies will peak in a few decades, we should be building more nuclear plants right now -- *especially* you regard global warming as a real and crucial problem. -- How much supply is possible just using the richest deposits? "Reactor requirements are fairly steady at about 60,000 tonnes per year. Thus there is about 50 years supply of uranium known at this stage to be available." "It is now clear that uranium is not scarce and it is known that it averages almost two parts per million of the Earth's crust. There are substantial resources that are not yet fully proven. These so-called speculative resources are likely to be of the order of 10 million tonnes, about three times the known reserves. While prices remain low, there is no incentive for exploration activities to identify new deposits. Experience with other commodities has shown that increased demand has led to increased prices, and a subsequent increase in exploration and discovery." http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=174978&page=3 -- How much supply using lower grades? (It seems that there is a 300-fold increase in the amount of uranium recoverable for each tenfold decrease in ore grade.) -- How much supply if there were a large program to use fast breeders? (No, I not talking about Mormons.) Breeder fuel cycles could extend uranium and thorium supplies by at least one hundred times (some say 400) what is available from using U235. -- The Oil Drum analysis (so far as I've examined it so far) seems to make no allowance for the probability that the stagnant demand for uranium hasn't spurred new discoveries or extraction methods. A major boost in demand would very likely spur increased supply -- just as it has done for oil, despite proven reserves not having changed much over decades. As the Oil Drum says: "The overall fraction of nuclear energy to electric energy has gone down from 18% in 1993 to less than 14% in 2008... The number of produced TWhe of electric energy from world-wide nuclear power plants is now lower than in 2005, and it has decreased by about 2% from a maximum of 2658 TWhe in 2006 to 2601 TWhe in 2008." One commentator on the Oil Drum piece says: "A large amount of uranium over the past twenty years has come from weapons decommissioning, particularly from former Soviet States. This availability has kept uranium prices low and discouraged exploration by miners." I'll keep investigating the topic. I would be disappointed if nuclear turns out not to be a good, major long-term energy source, but if that's the best-supported conclusion I'll back other energy sources more strongly. Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 18:39:56 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:39:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911271039lc6852bbv2f85b51a0518cabd@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Max: >> While not at all surprised by what has been revealed in those emails, >> I think some skeptics of climate catastrophism are obsessing too much >> over them. > > Sounds a bit like what my colleague Nicholas Shackel is writing: > http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/11/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-1.html > His argument is that the important revelation here is the low epistemic standards the researchers hold themselves to, not any revelation about the data or world itself. ### I wouldn't be sure about that. Pielke was apparently booted off NCDC temperature review panel because he was asking too many questions about the validation of current surface temperature data: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/e-mail-documentation-of-the-successful-attempt-by-thomas-karl-director-of-the-u-s-national-climate-data-center-to-suppress-biases-and-uncertainties-in-the-assessment-surface-temperature-trends/ This is something not directly related to CRU but pointing to a problem with another of the three sources of global temperature reconstruction data, the NCDC. As Pielke describes, there are large uncertainties in the reconstruction methodology of current global temperatures and therefore truly independent reconstructions should produce correlation coefficients noticeably less than 1 - yet, the CRU, NCDC and GICC reconstructions correlate to 0.98. This tells me that the three institutions are not producing their reconstructions independently but rather collaborate closely - which means that they are not independent sources of evidence. This is not how good, reliable science is done. The IPCC claimed that they are "90%" confident that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of contemporary climate change, and the recent cooling trend directly falsified this belief. This and the spuriously high correlation of temperature reconstructions point to a pervasive lack of quality control in the workings of the three major sources of evidence on current climate, or as you wrote, low epistemic standards - but low epistemic standards of the purveyors of data should make the data itself suspect, shouldn't it? And one doesn't need to posit a global conspiracy, just Phil Jones, Thomas Karl and James Hansen working together to get the impossible 0.98 correlation. Rafal From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 19:59:19 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:59:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Yamamoto Tsunetomo on the Bushido code In-Reply-To: <20091127180329.d0b40ffe@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091127180329.d0b40ffe@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <580930c20911271159o24b0df73lbc617eedcbdbdf3f@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/27 Anders Sandberg : >This search for improvement does not aim at perfection, since there is likely no ultimate optimal state - individual life projects can diverge very strongly. Absolutely. Moreover, even within *single* life projects, and any, relative, optimality views, the very idea that perfection (ultimate "Singularity"?) can actually be achieved, rather than forever strived for, is not very transhumanist, IMHO, as it would preclude further improvements. But is it really any different in the Zen approach? -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 27 19:58:08 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:58:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Tobacco thread In-Reply-To: <20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> References: d1988d2d0911270958m29a5485cn56822557ec8eb3d0@mail.gmail.com <20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <582C6AFE0C4B43AB968B4271AE3E1F1F@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [ExI] Tobacco thread > > Sure, but that does not change my point: smoking is harmful, > whatever it is one is smoking. Maybe tobacco is unusally bad, > but I doubt there is any material one can smoke that is harmless. > > Anders Sandberg, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Keith Henson ... > > > Google cilia tobacco cannabis > > > > Nicotine tends to have more adverse effects on the cilia than THC. > > > > Keith Having exactly zero experience with either medication, my observations may be useful for its impartiality, or possibly for its heartfelt ignorance. (?) If the toxicity of the two kinds of smoke is roughly equal, the smokers of cannabis come out waaaay ahead, because of the delta in actual volume smoked. It is typical for a user of tobacco to burn 20 to 40 smokes a day, whereas the consumers of cannabis tend to burn in a typical day only one or two of those devices I think are called "reefers," or perhaps the mod hip term would be "joints." spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 20:29:46 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:29:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Tobacco thread In-Reply-To: <20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <580930c20911271229y13eeea97s6ad640db02fc263c@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/27 Anders Sandberg : > Sure, but that does not change my point: smoking is harmful, whatever it is one is smoking. Maybe tobacco is unusally bad, but I doubt there is any material one can smoke that is harmless. To say the least, combustion of organic stuff usually produce CO, or does it not? -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 27 20:06:06 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:06:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] space program from the worm's eye view, was: hi lee! In-Reply-To: <200911271213.32139.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <365161.35727.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com><200911261349.09161.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <200911271213.32139.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Harvey Newstrom > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 9:14 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] hi lee! > > On Thursday 26 November 2009 5:23:54 pm spike wrote: > > Unemployment rate in Florida: yes bad, but I have seen it > worse in the > > north end of Brevard county, back in 1970 and again in ~1978. My > > folks took a hell of a beating on real estate, and oh by the way, > > would your brothers want to buy a house for a hell of a bargain in > > Titusville? Hmmm, didn't think so. > > Ha! We're still trying to sell Mom's house. I was hoping > you would want to buy a house for a hell of a bargain in Palm > Bay! (Hmmm, didn't think so.) > > Dad got laid off from the Apollo program when it ended. My > brothers are going through de ja vue all over again! > > -- > Harvey Newstrom Hey been there done that, have the scars. In 1969 the pink slips were falling like the leaves of autumn. In my neighborhood, about a third of the dads were employed on Apollo. Many of the rest had businesses that depended on that third. We abandoned our house: my folks lost nearly everything but didn't actually declare bankruptcy. The bank wouldn't take the house back, asked them to send in ten dollars a month, five dollars, anything they could just to hold that title and keep the bank informed of where they were. Our old neighborhood was a ghost town, nearly half the homes vacant between 1969 and about 1974. We eventually moved back into the old house, sold it in 1976 when things were picking up again. Something that isn't in the history books is how cruel it was to work on those programs in the early days, when no one really knew if it would amount to much. My brother followed into the biz in 1979, got his pink slip last year after 29 years as a rocket jockey. He still hasn't found work. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 20:37:57 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:37:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Uranium supplies In-Reply-To: <200911271832.nARIWiuU018946@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200911271832.nARIWiuU018946@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911271237r147287av6e89f6d4c5f39ea@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/27 Max More : > I'll keep investigating the topic. I would be disappointed if nuclear turns > out not to be a good, major long-term energy source, but if that's the > best-supported conclusion I'll back other energy sources more strongly. I have always take for granted that fission was fine, especially as a stop-gag measure, but ultimately was facing oil-like exhaustion, where fusion was practically a fairly unlimited energy source, meaning that it had to potential to bring us to the point when we would not be limited to terrestrial allowances... -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 20:39:25 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:39:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <580930c20911271239o6a9742abhc17a890ab1e40458@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/27 Anders Sandberg : > Max: >> While not at all surprised by what has been revealed in those emails, >> I think some skeptics of climate catastrophism are obsessing too much >> over them. > > Sounds a bit like what my colleague Nicholas Shackel is writing: > http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/11/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-1.html > His argument is that the important revelation here is the low epistemic standards the researchers hold themselves to, not any revelation about the data or world itself. Yes, exactly the position I took in the Italian list... -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 27 21:06:06 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:06:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911271039lc6852bbv2f85b51a0518cabd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> <7641ddc60911271039lc6852bbv2f85b51a0518cabd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <82DF7AC7A544445CA5FFA62ACF2E1A58@spike> >>We don't need another conspiracy theory http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/earticle/7748/ >>Max > ...On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki > ... > > And one doesn't need to posit a global conspiracy, just Phil > Jones, Thomas Karl and James Hansen working together to get > the impossible 0.98 correlation... Rafal Thanks for the Spiked reference Max. I like the name too. {8-] Looking from the outside, I am struck by a subtle recent shift in the assumption of the onus of proof. Somehow it seems the Mann-made GW crowd is now asking the skeptics to prove their their case, and assuming that the AGW's case is established as the baseline. In all the discussion I haven't really seen anyone talk about the metrologist's POV. An instrumentation guy knows that of all things to measure, temperature is probably the trickiest one, because there are at least three separate effects that go into it: radiation, convection and conduction. Moderns get this because we have all put something in the microwave oven and seen it come out so overcooked as to be spoiled in one part, and practically raw elsewhere. We have ridden bicycles on a fall evening and felt pockets of cool air relative to the surroundings. When I read over the leaked CRU memos, I am struck not so much by a sense of conspiracy, but rather reminded of my days as a metrologist. Measuring a small overall average temperature change over a long span of time is far trickier than it sounds. spike From sondre-list at bjellas.com Fri Nov 27 20:45:23 2009 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:45:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? In-Reply-To: References: <884644.48960.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03c201ca6fa2$8bb4d6b0$a31e8410$@bjellas.com> Anyone smoking around me is inflicting very bad smell and particles that sticks to my cloths and jacket. Public smoking is an offence against my right to freedom without oppression and force. If anyone thinks it's OK for them to smoke around me, I'll bill them the dry-cleaners bill. ;-) (Came back from a trip to Austria two weeks ago, they still allow smoking in restaurants and cafes, it's just awful) - Sondre -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Sent: 27. november 2009 13:17 To: ExI chat list Cc: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful? Well, it sure sounds like you've convinced yourself--all evidence be damned-- that tobacco is safe. Not sure how it follows from that that anyone besides you ought to smoke, since there are many better, less socially offensive, less expensive and more enjoyable things for people to do with their bodies, that don't shorten and may lengthen the life span. How ironic that one should have to tell that to an extropian! But if you are determined to smoke, I go back to my original email and encourage you to serve as a one-man longitudinal study of American Spirit brand cigarettes for us. I would think that if smoking is beneficial, you ought to shoot for two packs a day for maximum benefit. I'd love to know how that turns out for you. Cheers Tom D Sent from my iPod On Nov 26, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Robert Masters wrote: > > > Well, it's quite a story, but it has a happy ending. > > Around the time I started thinking seriously about that list of 599 > cigarette additives (many of them carcinogens), I finally asked the > obvious question: Why the hell are they in there in the first place? > > And I have no idea what the answer is. It seems to me that a case > could be made that someone (the tobacco companies? the FTC?) is > responsible for a lot of misery and death. The phrase "full-scale > Congressional investigation" comes to mind. > > But that's not what I'm interested in. The happy news is a story of > heroic American capitalism: a few cigarette companies, led by > American Spirit, have finally started selling additive-frees. > They're an option now, and I see no reason not to smoke them. > > At least that's my choice. It could be argued that there might be > dangerous effects of tobacco even without the 599 mysterious toxins, > and anyone who's worried about that is free to choose the other way. > > The reaction to additive-frees, American Spirit in particular, has > been bizarre. The FTC has required the brand to put a statement on > its pack that "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer > cigarette." Removing a bunch of carcinogens doesn't mean a safer > cigarette? You figure it out. > > The attitude of tobacco "scientists," if that's what they are, has > been equally peculiar. They did some study showing American Spirits > raised subjects' NICOTINE levels more than conventional brands, and > trumpeted that with the headline "Additive-Free Cigarettes May Pack > a More Toxic Punch"--but my understanding is that nicotine isn't the > health problem with cigarettes at all. (One website, following that > line, came up with the catchy phrase "crack nicotine.") > > I'll close with a testimonial by a satisfied American Spirit smoker: > > http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum10009/1654.htm > > "The first thing I noticed when I lit one up was that it was less > smokey and it burnt more slowly. I also noticed that there was not > the same level of after-taste and 'smokers breath'. The taste itself > was the real surprise, I now realise what its like to smoke a real > cigarette. It reminded me of the pleasure of smoking, which I had > long forgotten. After a few smokes I noticed that my head didn't > seem blocked and and I felt less choked by it." > > > Rob Masters > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Nov 27 21:40:37 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:40:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Want To Write a Science Fiction Story? In-Reply-To: <4B0F65F3.3010005@rawbw.com> References: <4B0F65F3.3010005@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4B104755.3030408@rawbw.com> The details aren't exactly right, but once upon a time it was proposed that four or five well-known SF authors share in the writing of a short story. Unfortunately, the list included Robert Sheckley, and shall we merely say that the story got awful weird? Or maybe not so unfortunately. Limit what? Say 200 words per added contribution? I'm posting the start right now. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Nov 27 21:44:36 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Harlan Sprague de Cordwainer) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:44:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] untitled as yet Message-ID: <4B104844.3070608@rawbw.com> Tuesday March 7, 1032. Cell #96 Burl glared at the little girl in the cell adjacent, which just a second ago had been empty. She spoke. "It should be apparent to you from my discourse that I'm hardly a child. Anyhow, my name is Charlie. What is yours?" Burl said nothing. Another fiendish psychological ploy, no doubt. The dim light and stale air, along with the general deprivation, surely could not yet be producing hallucinations. Yet what *was* this? From asyluman at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 23:24:58 2009 From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:24:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture Message-ID: I think I found something really good about the Goldbach Conjecture; does anyone have a background in number theory or know somebody who does? It is important -Will -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Nov 27 23:59:53 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:59:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture I think I found something really good about the Goldbach Conjecture; does anyone have a background in number theory or know somebody who does? It is important -Will Hi Will! I am a Goldbach conjecture fan. I know there are other Goldbachers here, Lee Corbin is one of our math superbrains, and several others too. What did you find? spike From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 28 00:08:22 2009 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:08:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <597738.35016.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The stimulus was $787 billion. A figure quoted for NASA's peak spending was $6billion in 1966, equating to $39 billion in today's money. That year, NASA spending supported 400,000 govt and employee contractors. So if you double up on Apollo, for $78billion/year (a fraction of the stimulus spending), you could get 800,000 aerospace engineering jobs supported and hopefully something better than Apollo. This would take 10 years to blow the $787 billion unlike however long the stimulus money has taken to spend, and deliver 25% extra jobs compared to what the stimulus did. That's assuming doubling the spending of NASA's peak payroll, trying to deliver new space technology at maximum speed. Of course, if they *really* wanted to use taxpayer's money to keep people in jobs while helping the pork barrel and the taxpayer, they could have just hired all the construction workers laid off by property developers and hired them to maintain and rebuild America's infrastructure, and build new infrastructure right in key voting districts. Tom From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 02:05:31 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:05:31 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: <20091127132810.GN17686@leitl.org> References: <20091126234343.04d60058@secure.ericade.net> <20091127132810.GN17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: 2009/11/28 Eugen Leitl : > Virtually nobody is using pure nicotine as a drug, though patches > and electric evaporators could deliver it in principle. Large numbers of people use nicotine gum, patches and inhalers in order to help them give up smoking. In most countries these are available without prescription. Although nicotine can cause acute increases in blood pressure and heart rate, there is no clear evidence that nicotine replacement therapy is a cardiovascular risk factor. And in any case there are potential cardiovascular toxins in cigarette smoke other than nicotine, eg. causing hyperlipidaemia and hypercoagulability, so smokers are always better off switching to nicotine replacement therapy. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 02:10:19 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:10:19 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Tobacco thread In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/11/28 Keith Henson : > Google cilia tobacco cannabis > > Nicotine tends to have more adverse effects on the cilia than THC. It's neither nicotine nor THC that cause most of the adverse health effects: it's the hundreds of other chemicals in the smoke. -- Stathis Papaioannou From asyluman at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 02:30:09 2009 From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:30:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> Message-ID: I think I may have ended up merely restating something, but I think approaching the problem in a new paradigm is important--namely, instead of having each even number expressed as the sum of two primes, have each number n have 2 distinct primes an equal distance from it (because if Px + Py = 2n, then n - m = Px and n + m = Py. So I wrote out the numbers from a to a number 2n-1 (say 9) then wrote the numbers 9 to 1 below them, so each column sums to 2n (10). e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Then I ran a sieve of eratosthenes each way. The "holes" after a forwards and backwards run-through reveal the sets of primes which are equidistant from n and thus sum to 2n, or every even number. Now, if we know there is one prime left unscathed by our doublesieve, it must have a mirror partner (also prime because of our sieving). And we KNOW that there is at least one prime p between n and 2n given Bertrand's postulate. Since this is a mirror, we can consider only one half of the line, from 1 to n. Now, we have already marked off the composites given by the sieve. But now lots are recast and even some primes must be lost. These are determined by taking whatever composite numbers are between n and 2n and subtracting them from 2n. Now we have a set that looks like this: {composites between 1 and n, 2n-composites between n and 2n}. Visually, what we will have is a symmetrical pattern: two sieves laid on top of each other oppositeways. Each hole will have its conjugate and so the same for each filled in space. In essence, if we can prove that that pattern will always contain holes, then there will always be 2 primes able to add up to 2n. I think the answer may lie with some sort of modulus thing. If you look at the center n, adding up prime numbers (to produce composites) will often lay a stretch of number over n. For example. the stretch of 9-12 lies over 10, with 1 on the right and 2 on the left. Consequently, all subsequent additions of 3 will give 10+2+3k. This means that the spaces with numbers that equal 10-2-3k will be filled in on the right half, as well as 10-4-7k, et cetera. I think the actual answer lies near and I would love for someone to give me insight (or tell me this has all already been done) On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:59 PM, spike wrote: > > On Behalf Of Will Steinberg > Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture > > > I think I found something really good about the Goldbach > Conjecture; does anyone have a background in number theory or know somebody > who does? It is important > > -Will > > > Hi Will! I am a Goldbach conjecture fan. I know there are other > Goldbachers here, Lee Corbin is one of our math superbrains, and several > others too. What did you find? > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Sat Nov 28 03:32:19 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:32:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Flying cars Message-ID: <200911280332.nAS3WRpc008751@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Still waiting for mine... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33676074/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/ns/technology_and_science-innovation?pg=1#Tech_FlyingCars Max From spike66 at att.net Sat Nov 28 04:54:39 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:54:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: <582C6AFE0C4B43AB968B4271AE3E1F1F@spike> References: d1988d2d0911270958m29a5485cn56822557ec8eb3d0@mail.gmail.com<20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> <582C6AFE0C4B43AB968B4271AE3E1F1F@spike> Message-ID: >Looking from the outside, I am struck by a subtle recent shift in the assumption of the onus of proof... spike It is almost as if climate change is assumed, and the evidence at this point is just an exercise left for the interested student. Here is an odd twist. If we think that climate change is a bad thing, then any evidence that the CRU cooked the books to exaggerate climate change is evidence that perhaps there isn't climate change, or that it is less than we thought. This should be the cause of great rejoicing, from everyone who believes that climate change is a bad thing. This should be a great day for climate change, right? With that in mind, consider this: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/21/85846/208 and feel free to offer comments or suggestions. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Nov 28 05:28:15 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:28:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Uranium supplies In-Reply-To: <580930c20911271237r147287av6e89f6d4c5f39ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <200911271832.nARIWiuU018946@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <580930c20911271237r147287av6e89f6d4c5f39ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 27, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > I have always take for granted that fission was fine, especially as a > stop-gag measure, but ultimately was facing oil-like exhaustion I doubt that will happen anytime soon but if it does then switch to thorium, it works fine for fission power and is about 4 times as common as uranium in the Earth's crust. The USA is the second largest producer of Thorium beaten only by Australia. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asyluman at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 05:59:30 2009 From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:59:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> Message-ID: I think I may really have got it now. Since we can represent every situation like this by a doublesieve, we need only prove all doublesieves will have holes in them. Here is how I do this. A sieve of length n--let's say 16--has a set of spaces A that are at 2k, 3k, 5k...mk where k>1 and mk1 and mk wrote: > I think I may have ended up merely restating something, but I think > approaching the problem in a new paradigm is important--namely, instead of > having each even number expressed as the sum of two primes, have each number > n have 2 distinct primes an equal distance from it (because if Px + Py = 2n, > then n - m = Px and n + m = Py. So I wrote out the numbers from a to a > number 2n-1 (say 9) then wrote the numbers 9 to 1 below them, so each column > sums to 2n (10). > > e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 > > Then I ran a sieve of eratosthenes each way. The "holes" after a > forwards and backwards run-through reveal the sets of primes which are > equidistant from n and thus sum to 2n, or every even number. > > Now, if we know there is one prime left unscathed by our doublesieve, it > must have a mirror partner (also prime because of our sieving). And we KNOW > that there is at least one prime p between n and 2n given Bertrand's > postulate. Since this is a mirror, we can consider only one half of the > line, from 1 to n. Now, we have already marked off the composites given by > the sieve. But now lots are recast and even some primes must be lost. > These are determined by taking whatever composite numbers are between n and > 2n and subtracting them from 2n. Now we have a set that looks like this: > {composites between 1 and n, 2n-composites between n and 2n}. > > Visually, what we will have is a symmetrical pattern: two sieves laid on > top of each other oppositeways. Each hole will have its conjugate and so > the same for each filled in space. In essence, if we can prove that that > pattern will always contain holes, then there will always be 2 primes able > to add up to 2n. > > I think the answer may lie with some sort of modulus thing. If you look at > the center n, adding up prime numbers (to produce composites) will often lay > a stretch of number over n. For example. the stretch of 9-12 lies over 10, > with 1 on the right and 2 on the left. Consequently, all subsequent > additions of 3 will give 10+2+3k. This means that the spaces with numbers > that equal 10-2-3k will be filled in on the right half, as well as 10-4-7k, > et cetera. I think the actual answer lies near and I would love for someone > to give me insight (or tell me this has all already been done) > > > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:59 PM, spike wrote: > >> >> On Behalf Of Will Steinberg >> Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture >> >> >> I think I found something really good about the Goldbach >> Conjecture; does anyone have a background in number theory or know >> somebody >> who does? It is important >> >> -Will >> >> >> Hi Will! I am a Goldbach conjecture fan. I know there are other >> Goldbachers here, Lee Corbin is one of our math superbrains, and several >> others too. What did you find? >> >> spike >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 07:09:09 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:09:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: References: <20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> <582C6AFE0C4B43AB968B4271AE3E1F1F@spike> Message-ID: <7641ddc60911272309t649e6c3fgd280448d2068030f@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:54 PM, spike wrote: > Here is an odd twist. ?If we think that climate change is a bad thing, then > any evidence that the CRU cooked the books to exaggerate climate change is > evidence that perhaps there isn't climate change, or that it is less than we > thought. ?This should be the cause of great rejoicing, from everyone who > believes that climate change is a bad thing. ?This should be a great day for > climate change, right? ### The most outrageous tidbit that emerged so far, related to what you write above, is Phil Jones' statement that "If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn?t being political, it is being selfish." Can you imagine that? This piece of shit says he would like hundreds of millions of people to die from catastrophic climate change, just so he could gloat and say "See, Steve McIntyre and other fuckers, I told you so!" What an immoral, vicious excuse for a human being! Rafal From eschatoon at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 07:11:39 2009 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email)) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:11:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> I think the Goldbach conjecture is probably false, with probability 1 (that means, certainly false). Here is why: Apparently there is nothing in the laws of arithmetics that forces an even number to be the sum of two prime numbers. The conjecture is true for all even numbers on which it has been tested, but these are an infinitesimal part of the total (any finite number is infinitesimal wrt infinite). Hence, if there is no proof, the probability of he Goldbach conjecture being true is zero. 2009/11/28 Will Steinberg : > I think I may really have got it now. > > Since we can represent every situation like this by a doublesieve, we need > only prove all doublesieves will have holes in them.? Here is how I do > this.? A sieve of length n--let's say 16--has a set of spaces A that are at > 2k, 3k, 5k...mk where k>1 and mk opposite manner, which can be given by nmod2+2k, nmod3+3k...nmodm+mk where > once again k>1 and mk those spaces.? It is given thus:? Choose a prime in the set that is under > any 2k (let's choose 5) that has the property n mod p =1. We cannot create 5 > from our 2k, 3k,spaces, because the only one to do so would be 5k, and k > must be greater than 2.? So we must find a nmodp+pk that is equal to 5, k of > course being greater than 2 again.? But alas!? We find that the only way to > have nmodp+pk=5 be if p was less than 5.? so we have nmod2+2k which yields 4 > and nmod3+3k which yields a minimum of seven!? The point is here:? Construct > the sieve for any length.? Choose a low prime.? As long as none of the set B > spaces are equal to it, we have a hole.? The nmodp+pk must be equal to our P > for the whole to be covered.?? But there is always a P inexpressible by > nmodp+pk--simply choose a low p with a modulus of 1 for n.? then, if nmodp > is not 1, nmodp+pk is greater than P.? But if nmodp IS one, nmodp+pk can > never equal our P. > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: >> >> I think I may have ended up merely restating something, but I think >> approaching the problem in a new paradigm is important--namely, instead of >> having each even number expressed as the sum of two primes, have each number >> n have 2 distinct primes an equal distance from it (because if Px + Py = 2n, >> then n - m = Px and n + m = Py.? So I wrote out the numbers from a to a >> number 2n-1 (say 9) then wrote the numbers 9 to 1 below them, so each column >> sums to 2n (10). >> >> e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >> ????? 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 >> >> ? Then I ran a sieve of eratosthenes each way.? The "holes" after a >> forwards and backwards run-through reveal the sets of primes which are >> equidistant from n and thus sum to 2n, or every even number. >> >> Now, if we know there is one prime left unscathed by our doublesieve, it >> must have a mirror partner (also prime because of our sieving).? And we KNOW >> that there is at least one prime p between n and 2n given Bertrand's >> postulate.? Since this is a mirror, we can consider only one half of the >> line, from 1 to n.? Now, we have already marked off the composites given by >> the sieve.? But now lots are recast and even some primes must be lost. >> These are determined by taking whatever composite numbers are between n and >> 2n and subtracting them from 2n.? Now we have a set that looks like this: >> {composites between 1 and n, 2n-composites between n and 2n}. >> >> Visually, what we will have is a symmetrical pattern: two sieves laid on >> top of each other oppositeways.? Each hole will have its conjugate and so >> the same for each filled in space.? In essence, if we can prove that that >> pattern will always contain holes, then there will always be 2 primes able >> to add up to 2n. >> >> I think the answer may lie with some sort of modulus thing.? If you look >> at the center n, adding up prime numbers (to produce composites) will often >> lay a stretch of number over n.? For example. the stretch of 9-12 lies over >> 10, with 1 on the right and 2 on the left.? Consequently, all subsequent >> additions of 3 will give 10+2+3k.? This means that the spaces with numbers >> that equal 10-2-3k will be filled in on the right half, as well as 10-4-7k, >> et cetera.? I think the actual answer lies near and I would love for someone >> to give me insight (or tell me this has all already been done) >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:59 PM, spike wrote: >>> >>> On Behalf Of Will Steinberg >>> ? ? ? ?Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture >>> >>> >>> ? ? ? ? I think I found something really good about the Goldbach >>> Conjecture; does anyone have a background in number theory or know >>> somebody >>> who does? ?It is important >>> >>> ? ? ? ?-Will >>> >>> >>> Hi Will! ?I am a Goldbach conjecture fan. ?I know there are other >>> Goldbachers here, Lee Corbin is one of our math superbrains, and several >>> others too. ?What did you find? >>> >>> spike -- Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco aka Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon From eschatoon at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 07:13:22 2009 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email)) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:13:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful"? In-Reply-To: References: <20091126234343.04d60058@secure.ericade.net> <20091127132810.GN17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90911272313w4b813474ndf287dcb5f849949@mail.gmail.com> I use inhalers in those situations where I cannot smoke for a long time (long flight, long meeting etc.). They kind of work. On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/11/28 Eugen Leitl : > >> Virtually nobody is using pure nicotine as a drug, though patches >> and electric evaporators could deliver it in principle. > > Large numbers of people use nicotine gum, patches and inhalers in > order to help them give up smoking. In most countries these are > available without prescription. Although nicotine can cause acute > increases in blood pressure and heart rate, there is no clear evidence > that nicotine replacement therapy is a cardiovascular risk factor. And > in any case there are potential cardiovascular toxins in cigarette > smoke other than nicotine, eg. causing hyperlipidaemia and > hypercoagulability, so smokers are always better off switching to > nicotine replacement therapy. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco aka Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 11:06:34 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:06:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <597738.35016.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <597738.35016.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911280306n21c621e7i8bf8945ba5d4ff95@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/28 Tom Nowell : > A figure quoted for NASA's peak spending was $6billion in 1966, equating to $39 billion in today's money. That year, NASA spending supported 400,000 govt and employee contractors. So if you double up on Apollo, for $78billion/year (a fraction of the stimulus spending), you could get 800,000 aerospace engineering jobs supported and hopefully something better than Apollo. This would take 10 years to blow the $787 billion unlike however long the stimulus money has taken to spend, and deliver 25% extra jobs compared to what the stimulus did. Interesting figures. I believe to remember that it took ten or twelve countries to put together the multi-year 10 bn invested in the ITER reactor, while the costs of the unfortunate Iraq military party have exceeded by now 1 trillion... This tends to confirm my concern that expected tech developments have not taken place, and risk not to take place unless at a very slow pace which cannot be defined as "exponential" by any means, simply because they money is not there anymore. -- Stefano Vaj From anders at aleph.se Sat Nov 28 11:18:02 2009 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:18:02 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B1106EA.9050408@aleph.se> Giulio Prisco (2nd email) wrote: > I think the Goldbach conjecture is probably false, with probability 1 > (that means, certainly false). Here is why: > > Apparently there is nothing in the laws of arithmetics that forces an > even number to be the sum of two prime numbers. The conjecture is true > for all even numbers on which it has been tested, but these are an > infinitesimal part of the total (any finite number is infinitesimal > wrt infinite). Hence, if there is no proof, the probability of he > Goldbach conjecture being true is zero. > Well, being a Bayesian subjectivist about probability means I can't say you are wrong since your probability is your own subjective estimate. I assume "probability 1" above also means you actually mean "1 minus something infinitesimal", since to actually use a probability of exactly 1 as a prior would force you to disregard any disconfirming evidence. Otherwise you are at least irrational, if not wrong :-) But the above argument doesn't seem that reliable to me. How do you know there is nothing in the laws of arithmetic doing the forcing? A proof of the conjecture would be exactly that, a demonstration that there is some subtle property of how addition and multiplication works on natural numbers that leads to this amazing coincidence. That we lack such a proof is not strong evidence for its impossibility; after all, we lacked proof of the Fermat conjecture for a long time too. Goldbach could be wrong, having a counterexample somewhere. It might be right and provable. Or it could be right and unprovable. In general, speaking of the probability that a mathematical conjecture is true is a tricky concept. We have a whole bunch of philosophers of mathematics around here discussing what it means. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Sat Nov 28 11:49:41 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:49:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Uranium supplies In-Reply-To: References: <200911271832.nARIWiuU018946@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <580930c20911271237r147287av6e89f6d4c5f39ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091128114941.GW17686@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:28:15AM -0500, John Clark wrote: > I doubt that will happen anytime soon Please look at http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5631 http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677 http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5744 http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5929 > but if it does then switch to thorium, it works fine for > fission power and is about 4 times as common as uranium > in the Earth's crust. The USA is the second largest producer > of Thorium beaten only by Australia. Please look at above URLs, especially at http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5929 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sat Nov 28 12:26:57 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:26:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <580930c20911280306n21c621e7i8bf8945ba5d4ff95@mail.gmail.com> References: <597738.35016.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <580930c20911280306n21c621e7i8bf8945ba5d4ff95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091128122657.GZ17686@leitl.org> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:06:34PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > This tends to confirm my concern that expected tech developments have > not taken place, and risk not to take place unless at a very slow pace > which cannot be defined as "exponential" by any means, simply because > they money is not there anymore. That is one of the problems we face: we failed to start a number of critical innovations around 1970s, when money and talent was plentiful. By now we would have little to none issues if critical infrastructure and R&D work (nuclear, aerospace, synfuel, electrochemistry, photovoltaics) would have been started back then. Well, we blew it. *The* most critical areas right now are energy and food, with mineral resources trailing close behind. To address this now requires a world war scale effort. No, I'm not exaggerating. We need to move to crisis mode yesterday. As far as I can see awareness for this is close to zero. Obviously the gap will appear to be sudden and painful, and wars for resources won't be far behind. By the time you're in nuclear/bioweapon conflict territory you're no longer trying to solve problems, but trying to stay alive. Recovering from that will be extremely difficult. The longer we wait, the more people will die. I have no idea how to address it. Politics is more than useless, and very little is happening at the grassroots. Assuming we here can do something, what should we do? Forget personal attacks at climate science or dangers of tobacco. This is too important. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 14:04:19 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:04:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tobacco thread Message-ID: Stathis Papaioannou wrote >2009/11/28 Keith Henson : >> Google cilia tobacco cannabis > >> Nicotine tends to have more adverse effects on the cilia than THC. >It's neither nicotine nor THC that cause most of the adverse health >effects: it's the hundreds of other chemicals in the smoke. Right, but nicotine seem to inhibit cilia clearing the smoke particles from the lungs more than THC. THC may even have the opposite effect. Not that smoke of any type is good for you. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 14:06:07 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:06:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <20091128122657.GZ17686@leitl.org> References: <597738.35016.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <580930c20911280306n21c621e7i8bf8945ba5d4ff95@mail.gmail.com> <20091128122657.GZ17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11/28/09, Eugen Leitl wrote: > That is one of the problems we face: we failed to start a number of critical > innovations around 1970s, when money and talent was plentiful. By now > we would have little to none issues if critical infrastructure and > R&D work (nuclear, aerospace, synfuel, electrochemistry, photovoltaics) > would have been started back then. Well, we blew it. > > *The* most critical areas right now are energy and food, with mineral > resources trailing close behind. To address this now requires a world > war scale effort. No, I'm not exaggerating. We need to move to crisis > mode yesterday. As far as I can see awareness for this is close to zero. > Obviously the gap will appear to be sudden and painful, and wars for > resources won't be far behind. By the time you're in nuclear/bioweapon > conflict territory you're no longer trying to solve problems, but > trying to stay alive. Recovering from that will be extremely difficult. > > The longer we wait, the more people will die. I have no idea how to > address it. Politics is more than useless, and very little is happening > at the grassroots. > > Assuming we here can do something, what should we do? Forget personal > attacks at climate science or dangers of tobacco. This is too important. > > Running out of resources, like food, water, energy means a large reduction in the human population. By various unpalatable means. I think Keith Henson is also forecasting a large human population reduction. The trick is to try to be in an area where the population dieback is not too high. Becoming self-sufficient helps as well. But that is better done where a whole town or nation becomes self-sufficient. Otherwise the bigger, violent gangs will take your resources. Even at the level of the government sending troops to requisition your stuff. A national movement towards self-sufficiency would be good at this point in time. As the crisis develops, protectionism will become fashionable worldwide and the military will be recalled to protect countries borders. Starving nations don't usually sit quiet and die. Also, of course, everybody should support any political organisation that shows some glimmerings of, first, even realising that there is problem and then starting to stumble towards some solutions. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 16:07:24 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:07:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Uranium supplies In-Reply-To: References: <200911271832.nARIWiuU018946@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <580930c20911271237r147287av6e89f6d4c5f39ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20911280807p64b65e75he173f913fa78c5fe@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/28 John Clark : > On Nov 27, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > I have always take for granted that fission was fine, especially as a > stop-gag measure, but ultimately was facing oil-like exhaustion > > I doubt that will happen anytime soon but if it does then switch to thorium, > it works fine for fission power and is about 4 times as common as uranium in > the Earth's crust. Good, but, be is as it may, it will never be as common and efficient as deuterium, AFAIK... ;-) -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 16:11:47 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:11:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <20091128122657.GZ17686@leitl.org> References: <597738.35016.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <580930c20911280306n21c621e7i8bf8945ba5d4ff95@mail.gmail.com> <20091128122657.GZ17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20911280811k3615016k4e0cb30693674aca@mail.gmail.com> 2009/11/28 Eugen Leitl : > *The* most critical areas right now are energy and food, with mineral > resources trailing close behind. Yes, I agree. Not to be too gloomy, the one field where we did not go too bad since has been information storage, transmission and processing. -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Sat Nov 28 16:14:32 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:14:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Giulio Prisco (2nd email) > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 11:12 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture > > I think the Goldbach conjecture is probably false, with > probability 1 (that means, certainly false). Here is why: > > Apparently there is nothing in the laws of arithmetics that > forces an even number to be the sum of two prime numbers. The > conjecture is true for all even numbers on which it has been > tested, but these are an infinitesimal part of the total (any > finite number is infinitesimal wrt infinite). Hence, if there > is no proof, the probability of he Goldbach conjecture being > true is zero. I disagree sir, however I confess my line of reasoning is not as well developed as the one you offer. I took the even numbers and calculated the number of ways each even number (shown on the X axis) could be expressed as a the sum of two primes. The number of different ways is on the Y. For Goldbach to have been wrong, there is some super-anomaly way out there somewhere which departs from the data trends shown. Yes I do know that this line of reasoning is not to be substituted for actual mathematical logic, do forgive please. I plotted them to a few million on matlab, found there are striking patterns in the data, such as the eye-catching streaks. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 87085 bytes Desc: not available URL: From asyluman at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 16:55:48 2009 From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:55:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If it can be proved that every two-way sieve of eratosthenes has at least one hole, the conjecture can be proven. What this means is that (since oles are at 2k, 3k, 5k, nmod2+2k, nmod5+5k, etc.) There has got to be some kind of proof saying that for any given number n, there is a prime in n than cannot be expressed by nmodp+pk. What has to be looked at is the modulo values that will be given for ns. I think we can often choose 3, because the only case when 2 can be covered is if we have nmod2=1 and pk=2. (or if the number is divisible by 3). Otherwise we can simply continue moving up our primes. In the case of 2n=22, we see holes at 3,5, and 11. What is needed to continue is a way to prove there will always be a p that doesn't equal nmodp +pk 2009/11/28 spike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] > On Behalf Of > > Giulio Prisco (2nd email) > > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 11:12 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture > > > > I think the Goldbach conjecture is probably false, with > > probability 1 (that means, certainly false). Here is why: > > > > Apparently there is nothing in the laws of arithmetics that > > forces an even number to be the sum of two prime numbers. The > > conjecture is true for all even numbers on which it has been > > tested, but these are an infinitesimal part of the total (any > > finite number is infinitesimal wrt infinite). Hence, if there > > is no proof, the probability of he Goldbach conjecture being > > true is zero. > > I disagree sir, however I confess my line of reasoning is not as well > developed as the one you offer. > > I took the even numbers and calculated the number of ways each even number > (shown on the X axis) could be expressed as a the sum of two primes. The > number of different ways is on the Y. For Goldbach to have been wrong, > there is some super-anomaly way out there somewhere which departs from the > data trends shown. > > Yes I do know that this line of reasoning is not to be substituted for > actual mathematical logic, do forgive please. > > I plotted them to a few million on matlab, found there are striking > patterns in the data, such as the eye-catching streaks. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 87085 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Nov 28 17:59:44 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:59:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture, the frisbee analogy to tranhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike><1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5982E06A6BF8450BBD0A7A1613DB4624@spike> On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture > If it can be proved that every two-way sieve of eratosthenes has at least one hole, the conjecture can be proven. What this means is that (since oles are at 2k, 3k, 5k, nmod2+2k, nmod5+5k, etc.) ...What is needed to continue is a way to prove there will always be a p that doesn't equal nmodp +pk. Will Steinberg 2009/11/28 spike > ...On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco (2nd email) > Subject: Re: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture > > I think the Goldbach conjecture is probably false, with > probability 1 (that means, certainly false). Here is why:... Giulio I disagree sir, however I confess my line of reasoning is not as well developed as the one you offer... spike Clearly I took an engineer's approach to the question, which sidesteps the real question. With this I reveal myself as merely an engineer who likes math and not the genuine article. I offer for your Saturday morning entertainment the frisbee analogy to the Goldbach conjecture, along with the extropian and transhumanist angle to this discussion. In my teens I had a doberman who loved to play frisbee, but wasn't quite capable of catching the device in flight. He would chase it, knock it down, carry it back, have a blast, but he couldn't quite leap and catch. He was close, often attempted it, never managed the task. My dog was a terrific athlete, brave, fierce, fast, coordinated, a magnificent beast was he. He once slew a rattlesnake single-pawedly, or single-mouthedly(?) but in any case without help from me or Mister Twelve Gage. Oddly he had a close relative (in human terms his niece) who could catch a frisbee in flight. His niece was actually a clumsy dog in some ways, but not in that. She got better at it over time. My dog would watch her catch that frisbee with a kind of amazement, as if to say "How does that bitch do it?" Catching the frisbee is an example of a skill that is right on the ragged edge of that particular breed's abilities. Most dobies cannot, a few can. If we bred only the catchers, I can easily imagine we could create a frisbee catching breed. On the other hand, actually throwing the frisbee is a skill outside the abilities of any dog that I know of. If my dog could throw a frisbee, what fun he and the other dogs could have! The dogs would watch in amazement as I and the other two-legged beasts would throw that frisbee back and to. They worshipped us. The great unsolved mathematical conjectures such as Goldbach, my own search for an odd perfect number, and (until 1995) Fermats, are examples of humanity's version of the dobies' frisbee problem. These are questions right on the ragged edge of our species' abilities. Guys like Andrew Wiles demonstrate that these kinds of problems can be solved, given enough effort. We have solved a number of rattlesnake problems, but these questions are our frisbees. We as a species have before us some immediate and urgent frisbee problems, such as the energy generation. Eugene, Keith, et.al. have outlined the problem and offered possible solutions. Having tasks right at the ragged edge of the envelope gives us something at which to aim. In this case the stakes could not be higher. Transhumanists and extropians are examples of humans who can *almost* catch, people who believe that the object is catchable, people who are taking a flying leap at that frisbee. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 18:09:09 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:09:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Energy and Henson's forecast Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, BillK wrote: > On 11/28/09, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> That is one of the problems we face: we failed to start a number of critical >> ?innovations around 1970s, when ?money and talent was plentiful. By now >> ?we would have little to none issues if critical infrastructure and >> ?R&D work (nuclear, aerospace, synfuel, electrochemistry, photovoltaics) >> ?would have been started back then. Well, we blew it. I am not sure the technology was available to do it in those days, but for sure we didn't try. On the other hand, the vast majority of the people with the influence in those days to help get it done were right. The crisis didn't come in their lifetime, so why should they bother? >> ?*The* most critical areas right now are energy and food, with mineral >> ?resources trailing close behind. To address this now requires a world >> ?war scale effort. No, I'm not exaggerating. We need to move to crisis >> ?mode yesterday. As far as I can see awareness for this is close to zero. Mostly correct. With enough energy you can get by on minerals we are not even close to running low on. Food is mostly a function of water, and with really low cost energy, fresh water is not a problem if you are within a thousand miles of an ocean. >> ?Obviously the gap will appear to be sudden and painful, and wars for >> ?resources won't be far behind. By the time you're in nuclear/bioweapon >> ?conflict territory you're no longer trying to solve problems, but >> ?trying to stay alive. Recovering from that will be extremely difficult. It's difficult to imagine even this kind of war that will knock everyone flat. Some places, Japan for example, are too isolated and have too little for attacking them to make much sense. Of course "sense," rational thinking is one of the first to go when humans go into war mode. >> ?The longer we wait, the more people will die. I have no idea how to >> ?address it. Politics is more than useless, and very little is happening >> ?at the grassroots. >> >> ?Assuming we here can do something, what should we do? Forget personal >> ?attacks at climate science or dangers of tobacco. This is too important. Yeah, but try to get people to analyze or even talk about the hard physics and chemistry you need to solve the problems. You know I have tried and you also know how unsuccessful I have been. I think no more than a handful of people have read the paper I wrote on the economics of SBSP. I think only one person on this mailing list has even seen it. (BillK) > Running out of resources, like food, water, energy means a large > reduction in the human population. By various unpalatable means. I > think Keith Henson is also forecasting a large human population > reduction. It's a conditional forecast. If we don't do *something* about the energy problem that is going to kill billions. Look up how much the food supply depends on high energy synthetic fertilizers. > The trick is to try to be in an area where the population dieback is > not too high. That's going to be very hard to analyze, perhaps impossible. > Becoming self-sufficient helps as well. But that is better done where > a whole town or nation becomes self-sufficient. That's going to be nearly impossible. >Otherwise the bigger, > violent gangs will take your resources. Even at the level of the > government sending troops to requisition your stuff. ?A national > movement towards self-sufficiency would be good at this point in time. I am not qualified to judge the merits of such a proposal. But I can tell you that unless you have a deep understanding of industrial inputs and outputs, you are not qualified either. > As the crisis develops, protectionism will become fashionable > worldwide and the military will be recalled to protect countries > borders. Starving nations don't usually sit quiet and die. > > Also, of course, everybody should support any political organisation > that shows some glimmerings of, first, even realising that there is > problem and then starting to stumble towards some solutions. It's not actually hard to solve the energy problem and that's the big one. Keith > BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Nov 28 18:28:38 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:28:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60911272309t649e6c3fgd280448d2068030f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> <582C6AFE0C4B43AB968B4271AE3E1F1F@spike> <7641ddc60911272309t649e6c3fgd280448d2068030f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B116BD6.6060206@rawbw.com> Rafal wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:54 PM, spike wrote: > >> Here is an odd twist. If we think that climate change is a bad thing, then >> any evidence that the CRU cooked the books to exaggerate climate change is >> evidence that perhaps there isn't climate change, or that it is less than we >> thought. This should be the cause of great rejoicing, from everyone who >> believes that climate change is a bad thing. This should be a great day for >> climate change, right? > > ### The most outrageous tidbit that emerged so far, related to what > you write above, is Phil Jones' statement that "If anything, I would > like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved > right, regardless of the consequences. This isn?t being political, it > is being selfish." > > Can you imagine that? This piece of shit says he would like hundreds > of millions of people to die from catastrophic climate change, just so > he could gloat and say "See, Steve McIntyre and other fuckers, I told > you so!" > > What an immoral, vicious excuse for a human being! Well, at least on the *topic* of this heated controversy, the writer *appears* to lose all his humanity. How can anyone, ANYONE, be so goddamn certain about all this?? Indeed, is our urge to be right, or to satisfy our various political agendas, so overpowering that we come closer to imitating this Mr. Jones than our own Mr. Jones? Spike comes so much closer to simply hoping for the best---indeed this should be incredibly embarrassing for THAT Mr. Jones. The "economic catastrophe" threads seem much more alarming to me than anything about climate. (A) no one really knows for sure about climate change (B) no one even knows for sure whether it would be good or bad, and (C) it's not going to happen for many years. Meanwhile we rush towards what I've heard well described as an economic suicide pact in Copenhagen, as if there still exist trillions here and trillions here that can be summoned at will for more fake jobs, more infrastructure, more health care, more unemployment benefits, more restrictions on carbon emissions, more everything: more and more and more and more---just so long as it takes yet trillions and trillions of Euros and dollars that don't exist. Bush to China: U.S. too big to fail. What happens when they don't believe that anymore? Is everything really going to completely tumble down as early as 2012? Some days I think so. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Nov 28 18:45:23 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:45:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] jobs created or saved In-Reply-To: <20091128122657.GZ17686@leitl.org> References: <597738.35016.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <580930c20911280306n21c621e7i8bf8945ba5d4ff95@mail.gmail.com> <20091128122657.GZ17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4B116FC3.70203@rawbw.com> Eugen writes > ...we failed to start a number of critical > innovations around 1970s, when money and talent was plentiful. I wonder why money was plentiful. Maybe there were traditional modes of spending and saving that were not completely vitiated by then. > By now we would have little to none issues if critical infrastructure and > R&D work (nuclear, aerospace, synfuel, electrochemistry, photovoltaics) > would have been started back then. Well, we blew it. This amorphous "we" have never done anything right. The last strong "we" with a clear vision of what to do was the mighty USSR. "WE" need to stop screwing with everything ---not screwing at yet higher and higher levels with interference in the basic processes of wealth creation. Bridges fail. Railways collapse. Just take a look at the 19th century. But then the bridge is fixed, the railroad is repaired. Government was as yet too weak to remove trillions and trillions from the wealth producing sectors. THAT'S why in 1970 there was still money. > *The* most critical areas right now are energy and food, with mineral > resources trailing close behind. Yes! Yes! > To address this now requires a world war scale effort. NO! NO! If you collectivize everything, scoop up all ordinary wealth producing efforts into the bottomless maws of governments, believe me, the "crises" we are seeing now are nothing at all compared to what we will see, if the basic capitalist wealth producing is not left alone to heal properly. > No, I'm not exaggerating. Yes, I do know that you are not exaggerating what the problems are. It's just that your solution will only aggravate the problem. > We need to move to crisis mode yesterday. All power to the people! All power to the Central Committee who are so smart that they're almost as brilliant as Vladimir Lenin! Centralize action on a massive scale! > As far as I can see awareness for this is close to zero. > Obviously the gap will appear to be sudden and painful, > and wars for resources won't be far behind. That is so true! As the vast governments of all the nations find that the squeezing and squeezing and squeezing of their own populations are proving insufficient, what (a la Keith Henson) will be any alternative, when millions of people find that their governments can no longer bail them out when hunger comes to their doors? > By the time you're in nuclear/bioweapon > conflict territory you're no longer trying to solve problems, but > trying to stay alive. Recovering from that will be extremely difficult. And the only hope is to STOP TRYING TO ORGANIZE EVERYTHING ON GLOBAL LEVELS. We need to return to simply profit and loss: those small local groups that profit must live, and those small groups that cannot be on their own feet economically of use to others must wither. As Popper said, let our jobs die instead of ourselves. > The longer we wait, the more people will die. I have no idea how to > address it. Politics is more than useless, and very little is happening > at the grassroots. I totally agree. But with different emphasis: the longer we wait to get off the backs of those who create wealth, the nearer we come to uncontrollable catastrophe. > Assuming we here can do something, what should we do? Forget personal > attacks at climate science or dangers of tobacco. This is too important. We could start saving. We could start spending less. We can restore vitality to our economics by thinking locally and acting locally. D.E.C. Lee From asyluman at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 18:35:00 2009 From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:35:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture, the frisbee analogy to tranhumanism In-Reply-To: <5982E06A6BF8450BBD0A7A1613DB4624@spike> References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> <5982E06A6BF8450BBD0A7A1613DB4624@spike> Message-ID: This is a good analogy, spike. But right now I am in the throes of mathematical mania, and so I have rejiggered the problem for myself once again. Consider what is to be proven: P != 2nmodp + pk. The modulo operation here can be rewritten as 2n- p[2n/p] (where brackets denote the floor function). So we have: 2n-p[2n/p] +pk != P. Dividing by p gives this: 2n/p - [2n/p] +k != P/p. This is wonderful. We have restated the question as such: If the fractional part of 2n/p (p being any applicable prime) cannot equal the fractional part of P/p, there is a hole in the sieve and the conjecture is true. But I belive the fractional parts will never be equal,. because P/p will always produce an "odd" fractional part and 2n/p an even one. kyew ee dee? On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, spike wrote: > On Behalf Of Will Steinberg > Subject: Re: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture > > > > If it can be proved that every two-way sieve of eratosthenes has at > least one hole, the conjecture can be proven. What this means is that > (since oles are at 2k, 3k, 5k, nmod2+2k, nmod5+5k, etc.) ...What is needed > to continue is a way to prove there will always be a p that doesn't equal > nmodp +pk. Will Steinberg > > > 2009/11/28 spike > > > ...On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco (2nd email) > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture > > > > I think the Goldbach conjecture is probably false, with > > probability 1 (that means, certainly false). Here is > why:... Giulio > > > I disagree sir, however I confess my line of reasoning is > not as well developed as the one you offer... spike > > > Clearly I took an engineer's approach to the question, which sidesteps the > real question. With this I reveal myself as merely an engineer who likes > math and not the genuine article. I offer for your Saturday morning > entertainment the frisbee analogy to the Goldbach conjecture, along with > the > extropian and transhumanist angle to this discussion. > > In my teens I had a doberman who loved to play frisbee, but wasn't quite > capable of catching the device in flight. He would chase it, knock it > down, > carry it back, have a blast, but he couldn't quite leap and catch. He was > close, often attempted it, never managed the task. My dog was a terrific > athlete, brave, fierce, fast, coordinated, a magnificent beast was he. He > once slew a rattlesnake single-pawedly, or single-mouthedly(?) but in any > case without help from me or Mister Twelve Gage. Oddly he had a close > relative (in human terms his niece) who could catch a frisbee in flight. > His niece was actually a clumsy dog in some ways, but not in that. She got > better at it over time. My dog would watch her catch that frisbee with a > kind of amazement, as if to say "How does that bitch do it?" > > Catching the frisbee is an example of a skill that is right on the ragged > edge of that particular breed's abilities. Most dobies cannot, a few can. > If we bred only the catchers, I can easily imagine we could create a > frisbee > catching breed. On the other hand, actually throwing the frisbee is a > skill > outside the abilities of any dog that I know of. If my dog could throw a > frisbee, what fun he and the other dogs could have! The dogs would watch > in > amazement as I and the other two-legged beasts would throw that frisbee > back > and to. They worshipped us. > > The great unsolved mathematical conjectures such as Goldbach, my own search > for an odd perfect number, and (until 1995) Fermats, are examples of > humanity's version of the dobies' frisbee problem. These are questions > right on the ragged edge of our species' abilities. Guys like Andrew Wiles > demonstrate that these kinds of problems can be solved, given enough > effort. > We have solved a number of rattlesnake problems, but these questions are > our > frisbees. > > We as a species have before us some immediate and urgent frisbee problems, > such as the energy generation. Eugene, Keith, et.al. have outlined the > problem and offered possible solutions. Having tasks right at the ragged > edge of the envelope gives us something at which to aim. In this case the > stakes could not be higher. Transhumanists and extropians are examples of > humans who can *almost* catch, people who believe that the object is > catchable, people who are taking a flying leap at that frisbee. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Nov 28 19:33:09 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:33:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: <4B116BD6.6060206@rawbw.com> References: <20091127180612.686010ad@secure.ericade.net> <582C6AFE0C4B43AB968B4271AE3E1F1F@spike> <7641ddc60911272309t649e6c3fgd280448d2068030f@mail.gmail.com> <4B116BD6.6060206@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4B117AF5.5010105@rawbw.com> Oops. Sorry about that. Lee Corbin wrote: > Bush to China: U.S. too big to fail. No. It's so easy to confuse one era with another. The correct quotes were: (a) Bush to City: Drop Dead (b) Obama to China: U.S. Too Big To Fail. Lee From asyluman at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 23:39:25 2009 From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:39:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I think I've got it now. P != 2nmodp +pk, right? We can re-express 2nmodp as 2n-p*[2n/p], where brackets denote the floor function. So we have P != 2n - p*[2n/p] +pk. Dividing by p yields the following: P/p != 2n/p - [2n/p] +k 2n/p-[2n/p] equals the fractional part of 2n/p. And since k is any integer, we can set it equal to the integer part of P/p. Now we have this: frac(P/p) != frac(2n/p). Now: since P and p are prime, the fractional part will be irreducible. And since p is in the denominator of 2n/p, it too must have an irreducible fractional part. But since 2 is in the numerator, these parts must be different! The only case in which they would not be is if n=p, in which case 2n would be a double of a prime, satisfying the GC. I think this is really it. On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: > If it can be proved that every two-way sieve of eratosthenes has at least > one hole, the conjecture can be proven. What this means is that (since oles > are at 2k, 3k, 5k, nmod2+2k, nmod5+5k, etc.) There has got to be some kind > of proof saying that for any given number n, there is a prime in n than > cannot be expressed by nmodp+pk. What has to be looked at is the modulo > values that will be given for ns. I think we can often choose 3, because the > only case when 2 can be covered is if we have nmod2=1 and pk=2. (or if the > number is divisible by 3). Otherwise we can simply continue moving up our > primes. In the case of 2n=22, we see holes at 3,5, and 11. What is needed > to continue is a way to prove there will always be a p that doesn't equal > nmodp +pk > > 2009/11/28 spike > >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] >> On Behalf Of >> > Giulio Prisco (2nd email) >> > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 11:12 PM >> > To: ExI chat list >> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture >> > >> > I think the Goldbach conjecture is probably false, with >> > probability 1 (that means, certainly false). Here is why: >> > >> > Apparently there is nothing in the laws of arithmetics that >> > forces an even number to be the sum of two prime numbers. The >> > conjecture is true for all even numbers on which it has been >> > tested, but these are an infinitesimal part of the total (any >> > finite number is infinitesimal wrt infinite). Hence, if there >> > is no proof, the probability of he Goldbach conjecture being >> > true is zero. >> >> I disagree sir, however I confess my line of reasoning is not as well >> developed as the one you offer. >> >> I took the even numbers and calculated the number of ways each even number >> (shown on the X axis) could be expressed as a the sum of two primes. The >> number of different ways is on the Y. For Goldbach to have been wrong, >> there is some super-anomaly way out there somewhere which departs from the >> data trends shown. >> >> Yes I do know that this line of reasoning is not to be substituted for >> actual mathematical logic, do forgive please. >> >> I plotted them to a few million on matlab, found there are striking >> patterns in the data, such as the eye-catching streaks. >> >> spike >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 87085 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 29 00:25:04 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:25:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Energy and Henson's forecast In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> Keith writes > Yeah, but try to get people to analyze or even talk about the hard > physics and chemistry you need to solve the problems. Are you sure that "we" are smart enough to "solve" those problems? > It's a conditional forecast. If we don't do *something* about the > energy problem that is going to kill billions. But Keith, it's *never* going to happen overnight. We will never wake up one day and say, "oh, the oil is all gone". What will happen is that we will wake up one morning and say---as almost indeed did happen last year in September---"gee, there is no money, everyone is broke". Okay, I exaggerate. Never overnight. But over a few weeks all our institutions could crumble, and the army will be called out. Then is the time that the scenarios you most worry about---bleak times---will come to pass. >> Otherwise the bigger, >> violent gangs will take your resources. Even at the level of the >> government sending troops to requisition your stuff. A national >> movement towards self-sufficiency would be good at this point in time. > > I am not qualified to judge the merits of such a proposal. But I can > tell you that unless you have a deep understanding of industrial > inputs and outputs, you are not qualified either. No one is "qualified". That's why the folks in the 1970s wisely chose not to do anything about what they could not understand. That's why they did not embark on vast, vast, massive, massive (oh how those words are loved) "wars" a la Eugen, to "save the planet". BTW, in those good old long-ago days, our planet had a name, (it's name was "Earth"), and that name was believe it or not, in wide use. Oh, EXCUSE ME. I'm sorry. I forgot. The governments back then *did* embark on massive, massive, vast, vast projects that they could not understand. There was the unWar in Vietnam. There was the War on Poverty. There was the Great Society. Such smart people. Such foolish gestures. But don't let that stop us! We can make even greater, even more massive, even more foolish gestures now, just so long as we spend trillions and trillions and trillions. Let's spend trillions on health care, *infrustructure*, carbon credits, and saving the planet. Trillions, that is, of dollars that do not exist. It really doesn't matter how much in debt we put future generations (just as the good ol' War on Poverty and the great unWar in Vietnam and Great Society put us. So why doesn't it matter if we put those future generations into an economic Black Hole? Because the economic Black Hole is obviously going to happen anyway---everyone from Obama on down (at least in the U.S.) is all in favor. > It's not actually hard to solve the energy problem and that's the big one. What we need, I guess, is an Energy Czar. Or, since we already got a lot of czars running around, an energy F?hrer. Someone with the vision and IQ of a Lenin, say. Only a wise enough Leader with enough Power can make everything right. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 10:14:44 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:14:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Energy and Henson's forecast In-Reply-To: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> References: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > But don't let that stop us! We can make even greater, even > more massive, even more foolish gestures now, just so long > as we spend trillions and trillions and trillions. Let's > spend trillions on health care, *infrustructure*, carbon > credits, and saving the planet. > > Trillions, that is, of dollars that do not exist. > It really doesn't matter how much in debt we put > future generations (just as the good ol' War on > Poverty and the great unWar in Vietnam and Great > Society put us. So why doesn't it matter if we > put those future generations into an economic > Black Hole? Because the economic Black Hole is > obviously going to happen anyway---everyone from > Obama on down (at least in the U.S.) is all in favor. > > What we need, I guess, is an Energy Czar. Or, since > we already got a lot of czars running around, an > energy F?hrer. Someone with the vision and IQ of > a Lenin, say. Only a wise enough Leader with enough > Power can make everything right. > > Lee The money has disappeared already. They are just covering up the problem and hoping things will get better. The banks are staggering along using lies and false accounting. Either the big problems are 'off-balance-sheet' (Didn't that used to be illegal in the good ol' days?) or their assets are on the books with false valuations. That million dollar mansion with the 950,000 dollar mortgage is still on the books. But under the sheets the mansion could only be sold for around 400,000 dollars and the mortgage is a year in arrears. There has been a huge transfer of wealth from the middle classes to a tiny percentage of the super-rich because of the takeover of the financial system. With real unemployment approaching 20% (more in some areas) much of the population is surviving on food stamps. This is an ideal market for self-sufficiency. There is a grass roots movement starting up already. A small investment by the government would be snapped up by the population. (Not the states - they are broke as well due to the drop in sales tax, property tax and income tax and they haven't reduced their expenditure accordingly yet). If the government started offering grants to the people for solar power, windmills, etc. everyone would take them up. When you have nothing left, you take anything you can get. This is what the government should have done to recover from the depression - offering stuff to individuals rather than handing trillions over to the already rich groups who just said thanks very much and did nothing with it. But unfortunately the government is run by and for the benefit of the rich, so it will take a big grassroots revolt to get them to pay attention to the people. BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Nov 29 12:06:23 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:06:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Energy and Henson's forecast In-Reply-To: References: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4B1263BF.7060602@rawbw.com> BillK writes > There has been a huge transfer of wealth from the middle classes to a > tiny percentage of the super-rich because of the takeover of the > financial system. I used to dismiss such ravings as the work of disgruntled leftists. But I have converted. Even among the supremely gruntled this has to be taken very seriously. The entire banking institution appears to have been designed from day one to fleece those furthest away from the hot-money production. From the very first gleam in the eye of an Italian banker ever so long ago in the middle ages, as he saw that he could simply open an account and say that there was money in it (knowing full well that the odds of anyone discovering the cheat before he could recoup interest were nil), the auto-deflation of what was in everybody else's pockets has been ongoing. Somebody else borrows the non-existent money, beats you to the merchant in the street, and dumb you has no idea why prices keep going up. It was hilarious a few days back when the very notion of Timothy Geitner being a part of the banking/financial clique/coterie was dismissed out of hand as being "too obvious" to count as a real conspiracy theory by Robin Hanson. See that one? (out of order BillK also said) > The money has disappeared already. They are just covering up the > problem and hoping things will get better. The banks are staggering > along using lies and false accounting. Either the big problems are > 'off-balance-sheet' (Didn't that used to be illegal in the good ol' > days?) or their assets are on the books with false valuations. That > million dollar mansion with the 950,000 dollar mortgage is still on > the books. But under the sheets the mansion could only be sold for > around 400,000 dollars and the mortgage is a year in arrears. Yes, the Japanese spent the whole decade of the '90s unable to deal with the problem of their false valuations. So this makes more credible Eliezer's speculation that the "downturn" we are in could last for a long, long time. I really don't know, but I hope that the Euro isn't being as steadily undermined as the dollar, but the whole house of cards could come down any time. That $950,000 qua $400,000 you talk of conceivably could become $000,000 (though as I say, not overnight). Some people incorrectly think that Washington is printing money. Nothing could be farther from the truth: Right now, the production of hot money is kept carefully controlled. Only so much is put into circulation as some particular firm volunteers to borrow. (You see, that's the only thing holding back the creating of infinitely many dollars.) It's very complicated, this dance over here between the Treasury and the Fed, which does exactly what in what order to create the money is very muddled. But in a nutshell, the Fed and the Treasury copulate somehow, though it's the rest of us who get screwed. NOW IF WASHINGTON REALLY began just printing money, (just saying that such and such account now has X trillion dollars in it) it would be instant Armageddon. Because the ChiComs and everyone else propping up the dollar would panic. Like I said earlier, Obama's real message to them was that the U.S. must be considered too big to fail, and that their prudent course is to keep on buying and buying U.S. bonds and keep on propping up the system. Or else. Or else, in practical terms, the end of the world. > With real unemployment approaching 20% (more in some areas) much of > the population is surviving on food stamps. This is an ideal market > for self-sufficiency. There is a grass roots movement starting up > already. A small investment by the government would be snapped up by > the population. (Not the states - they are broke as well due to the > drop in sales tax, property tax and income tax and they haven't > reduced their expenditure accordingly yet). What kinds of "grants"? You are worrying me here. You mean *just* the solar power, windmills, etc. infrustructure malarky? > If the government started offering grants to the people for solar > power, windmills, etc. everyone would take them up. When you have > nothing left, you take anything you can get. That reminds me of Mao's big plans for steel. "Now," said Mao to himself, "let's suppose that every back yard becomes the site of a family size steel yard. The cadres will force the people to take anything that has iron in it and melt it down in their backyard furnaces and, uh, lessee here, 9.8x10^8 people times oh, say, 10 kilograms, that's uh, something on the order of 10,000,000 metric tons of new steel!! Which'll put us in the front ranks of the world's industrial states!!" Of course it was a total catastrophe, and all those millions of back yards had these awful little piles of totally useless slag, and no more metallic farm implements were anywhere to be found. Forward the great leap. No. The thing to do to address unemployment is to lower wages. Those could be called "market clearing wages", as the demand for labor stoops down to pick up the increased supply. Then as all the people can find plentiful jobs (though at poor wages) output goes up and along with it wealth creation. And things slowly heal properly, the way they should. But ha! Let supply and demand do their work? Bite the bullet and put a time limit on the misery? No. Never. The government will just keep sending people their unemployment, and keep on printing up food coupons---hell, who needs to produce anything when piles of foodstamps and extended unemployment benefits are to be had for free? > This is what the government should have done to recover from the > depression - offering stuff to individuals rather than handing > trillions over to the already rich groups who just said thanks very > much and did nothing with it. > But unfortunately the government is run by and for the benefit of the > rich, so it will take a big grassroots revolt to get them to pay > attention to the people. I would say, BillK, that the government *can't* end the depression. Only wealth creation---not phony, but real wealth creation---and real employment (not fake jobs) can do that. D.E.C. Lee From spike66 at att.net Sun Nov 29 16:12:32 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:12:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cnn outs threatened albinos Message-ID: <23D027C8433544B0A8C63F43C8874433@spike> Jeeeeez! This appalling story tells of albino children hiding out from those who would sell their organs to the witchdoctors. Then it casually mentions where they are hiding! http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/11/29/tanzania.albinos/index.html Well thanks a lot CNN, you just told the bad guys where to find their prey. Do these news people never stop to think about the consequences of their writing? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asyluman at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 17:16:10 2009 From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture In-Reply-To: References: <3A08BA4AB59D440C90D3D1A571174CBC@spike> <1fa8c3b90911272311j5436d070m4e666aef0be001bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Here's a little bit of LaTeX delineating some stuff. Why the end works is that the overflow from P/p (to get the fractional part) will always be an even number (prime-prime) and the fractional part from 2n/p will be 2n-p which will always be odd, unless p is 2, in which case the first part is odd and the second even. In any case, the fparts are not equal and so there is a column in the matrix for ANY 2n satisfying Goldbach. QED. On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > I think I've got it now. P != 2nmodp +pk, right? We can re-express 2nmodp > as 2n-p*[2n/p], where brackets denote the floor function. So we have P != > 2n - p*[2n/p] +pk. Dividing by p yields the following: > > P/p != 2n/p - [2n/p] +k > > 2n/p-[2n/p] equals the fractional part of 2n/p. And since k is any > integer, we can set it equal to the integer part of P/p. Now we have this: > > frac(P/p) != frac(2n/p). > > Now: since P and p are prime, the fractional part will be irreducible. And > since p is in the denominator of 2n/p, it too must have an irreducible > fractional part. But since 2 is in the numerator, these parts must be > different! The only case in which they would not be is if n=p, in which > case 2n would be a double of a prime, satisfying the GC. I think this is > really it. > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: > >> If it can be proved that every two-way sieve of eratosthenes has at least >> one hole, the conjecture can be proven. What this means is that (since oles >> are at 2k, 3k, 5k, nmod2+2k, nmod5+5k, etc.) There has got to be some kind >> of proof saying that for any given number n, there is a prime in n than >> cannot be expressed by nmodp+pk. What has to be looked at is the modulo >> values that will be given for ns. I think we can often choose 3, because the >> only case when 2 can be covered is if we have nmod2=1 and pk=2. (or if the >> number is divisible by 3). Otherwise we can simply continue moving up our >> primes. In the case of 2n=22, we see holes at 3,5, and 11. What is needed >> to continue is a way to prove there will always be a p that doesn't equal >> nmodp +pk >> >> 2009/11/28 spike >> >>> >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >>> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] >>> On Behalf Of >>> > Giulio Prisco (2nd email) >>> > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 11:12 PM >>> > To: ExI chat list >>> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Goldbach Conjecture >>> > >>> > I think the Goldbach conjecture is probably false, with >>> > probability 1 (that means, certainly false). Here is why: >>> > >>> > Apparently there is nothing in the laws of arithmetics that >>> > forces an even number to be the sum of two prime numbers. The >>> > conjecture is true for all even numbers on which it has been >>> > tested, but these are an infinitesimal part of the total (any >>> > finite number is infinitesimal wrt infinite). Hence, if there >>> > is no proof, the probability of he Goldbach conjecture being >>> > true is zero. >>> >>> I disagree sir, however I confess my line of reasoning is not as well >>> developed as the one you offer. >>> >>> I took the even numbers and calculated the number of ways each even >>> number (shown on the X axis) could be expressed as a the sum of two primes. >>> The number of different ways is on the Y. For Goldbach to have been wrong, >>> there is some super-anomaly way out there somewhere which departs from the >>> data trends shown. >>> >>> Yes I do know that this line of reasoning is not to be substituted for >>> actual mathematical logic, do forgive please. >>> >>> I plotted them to a few million on matlab, found there are striking >>> patterns in the data, such as the eye-catching streaks. >>> >>> spike >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 87085 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Goldbach.gif Type: image/gif Size: 14351 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Nov 29 17:32:42 2009 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:32:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] cnn outs threatened albinos In-Reply-To: <23D027C8433544B0A8C63F43C8874433@spike> References: <23D027C8433544B0A8C63F43C8874433@spike> Message-ID: <46425.12.77.168.207.1259515962.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > Well thanks a lot CNN, you just told the bad guys where to find their prey. > > Do these news people never stop to think about the consequences of their > writing? > > Apparently not. During the Gulf War I was speaking with some sailors from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. They mentioned how horrified they were when CNN gave their coordinates over the air. The sailors also commented that they had to give up their quiet bunks for the CNN newsteam and instead try to sleep in the noisiest places onboard. Regards, MB From painlord2k at libero.it Sun Nov 29 21:28:21 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:28:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> References: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> Message-ID: <4B12E775.4000605@libero.it> Il 27/11/2009 18.10, Anders Sandberg ha scritto: > Max: >> While not at all surprised by what has been revealed in those >> emails, I think some skeptics of climate catastrophism are >> obsessing too much over them. > > Sounds a bit like what my colleague Nicholas Shackel is writing: > http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/11/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-1.html > His argument is that the important revelation here is the low > epistemic standards the researchers hold themselves to, not any > revelation about the data or world itself. Maybe the important revelation is another: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/ > What the CRU?s hacked emails convincingly demonstrate is that climate > scientists in the AGW camp have corrupted the peer-review process. In > true Gramscian style they marched on the institutions ? capturing the > magazines (Science, Scientific American, Nature, etc), the seats of > learning (Climate Research Institute; Hadley Centre), the NGO?s > (Greenpeace, WWF, etc), the political bases (especially the EU), the > newspapers (pretty much the whole of the MSM I?m ashamed, as a print > journalist, to say) ? and made sure that the only point of view > deemed academically and intellectually acceptable was their one. ... > Now peer-review is dead, so should be the IPCC, and Al Gore?s future > as a carbon-trading billionaire. Will it happen? I shouldn?t hold > your breath. What will substitute this? Probably some way of web publishing, with links and evaluation from others. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.87/2534 - Data di rilascio: 11/29/09 08:49:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Sun Nov 29 21:36:39 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:36:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Don't obsess over "climategate" In-Reply-To: <4B12E775.4000605@libero.it> References: <20091127171035.100ac4fa@secure.ericade.net> <4B12E775.4000605@libero.it> Message-ID: <4B12E967.7040008@libero.it> Il 29/11/2009 22.28, Mirco Romanato ha scritto: >> Now peer-review is dead, so should be the IPCC, and Al Gore?s future >> as a carbon-trading billionaire. Will it happen? I shouldn?t hold >> your breath. Peer Review and the Gramscian March Through the Institutions http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/11/peer-review-and-gramscian-march-through.html The International Campaign to Destroy Medical Hypotheses http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/10/international-campaign-to-destroy.html Mirco -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.87/2534 - Data di rilascio: 11/29/09 08:49:00 From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 30 17:02:52 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:02:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] climategate again In-Reply-To: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> References: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> Message-ID: I am not a climate change skeptic, but I can see this episode sets everything back to square 1. Surely CRU will no longer be considered the premier research center for climate change. I don't know what will take its place. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece This is the comment that blew my mind: ...In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." ... The leaked emails show how the CRU defines the term "value" in value-added. spike >From The Sunday London Times November 29, 2009 Climate change data dumped Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals - stored on paper and magnetic tape - were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." The CRU is the world's leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. "The CRU is basically saying, 'Trust us'. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," he said. Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life's work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years. He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is "unequivocally" linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity. From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:38:27 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:38:27 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Energy and Henson's forecast In-Reply-To: <4B1263BF.7060602@rawbw.com> References: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> <4B1263BF.7060602@rawbw.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > I would say, BillK, that the government *can't* end the depression. > Only wealth creation---not phony, but real wealth creation---and > real employment (not fake jobs) can do that. > > A good (long) article here explaining how the depression cannot end until the the level of debt has been brought down. That's what depressions do - pay off debts. Final paragraphs: With such ignorance about the dynamics of debt, academic economists and Central Banks around the world are hoping that the crisis is behind them, even though the cause of it?excessive levels of private debt?has not been addressed. They are recommending winding back the government stimulus packages in the belief that the economy can now return to normal after the disturbance of the GFC. In fact ?normal? for the last half century has been an unsustainable growth in debt, which has finally reached an apogee from which it will fall. As it falls?by an unwillingness to lend by bankers and to borrow by businesses and households, by deliberate debt reductions, by default and bankruptcy?aggregate demand will be reduced well below aggregate supply. The economy will therefore falter?and only regular government stimuli will revive it. This however will be a Zombie Capitalism: the private sector?s reductions in debt will counter the public sector?s attempts to stimulate the economy via debt-financed spending. Growth, if it occurs, will not be sufficiently high to prevent growing unemployment, and growth is likely to evaporate as soon as stimulus packages are removed. The only sensible course is to reduce the debt levels. As Michael Hudson argues, a simple dynamic is now being played out: debts that cannot be repaid, won?t be repaid. The only thing we have to do is work out how that should occur. Since the lending was irresponsibly extended by the financial sector to support Ponzi Schemes in shares and real estate, it is the lenders rather than the borrowers who should feel the pain?which is the exact opposite of the bailout mentality that dominates governments around the world. Unfortunately, it will take a sustained period of failures by conventional policy before unconventional policies, like deliberate debt reduction, will gain political traction. Implementing them will require both a dramatic change of mindset and probably also a widespread changing of the political guard. The second decade of the 21st century promises to be a dramatic one, politically and economically. ----------------------------------------- BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Nov 30 20:32:21 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:32:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] climategate again In-Reply-To: References: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> Message-ID: On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:02 PM, spike wrote: > I am not a climate change skeptic, but I can see this episode sets > everything back to square 1. Surely CRU will no longer be considered the > premier research center for climate change. I don't know what will take its > place. > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece > > This is the comment that blew my mind: > > ...In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original > raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) > data." ... Incredible, a century's worth of raw climate data destroyed! I think this ranks with Piltdown man, Hwang Woo-suk's stem cell hoax and the cold fusion fiasco as among the greatest scientific scandals of the last century. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Nov 30 21:00:52 2009 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:00:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Saving the data In-Reply-To: References: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4B143284.20502@aleph.se> The real scandal in "climategate" is of course that people throw away data! Every bit is sacred! To delete anything is to serve entropy! Only half joking. Clearly any research project should try to ensure that its data remains accessible for as long as its papers are used in science - and given that we occasionally refer back to Almagest and sumerian clay tablets to ask questions unimaginable to their originators, that is a *long* time. But long term data storage is also a terribly tricky problem. Formats change, media decay. And after the initial period interest in the data wanes, making people less motivated to save it. I think there are two kinds of datasets, having different problems. One is the "big" dataset that taxes available resources. They are big enough that people recognize their importance, but they are hard to move and copy. These run the risk of being deleted to save space (like the BBC did with its early tv programs) and are often stored in just one place - plenty of risk of being destroyed by the occasional war, flood or fire. The other kind is the "small" dataset that does not tax resources that much. Their problem is usually that they are badly documented and once they become uninteresting they can easily run into format or media decay. How many projects have not been permanently deleted when the research group repurposes one of the old PCs as a printer server or a part of the Beowulf cluster? Given the rapid growth of storage capacity (just look at http://www.mkomo.com/cost-per-gigabyte !) it seems that we could probably save *all* datasets in the world under a certain fraction of typical hard drive size. Imagine making it a publication requirement to place the dataset and software to make it (in an ideal world with metadata explaining how to run it) in a distributed server if they are smaller than X gigabytes. There could be an escrow system limiting access, perhaps making data freely available after 20 years and before then available by request to the authors, journal or sufficient number of funding bodies. Over time X would increase (doubling every 14 months?) This scheme would of course require funding, but also a very stable long-term organisation that can move to new media. Perhaps allowing forking would be one way (some cryptographic trickery here for the escrow) so that even amateurs might be able to run their own version with all data smaller than Y gigabytes. Sounds very much like something the Long Now Foundation might have been considering for their 10,000 year library. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Mon Nov 30 23:52:58 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:52:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] climategate again In-Reply-To: References: <4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <455742C254BB4756AA5B09F094C25B33@spike> ________________________________ ...On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] climategate again On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:02 PM, spike wrote: >>I am not a climate change skeptic, but I can see this episode sets everything back to square 1... >Incredible, a century's worth of raw climate data destroyed! I think this ranks with Piltdown man, Hwang Woo-suk's stem cell hoax and the cold fusion fiasco as among the greatest scientific scandals of the last century. John K Clark Ja, but I noticed something interesting. The media debate seems to be all about recognizing the leaked info, but reinforcing that global warming is still real. OK I buy that, I agree that the planet is warming. But the critical part is this: we don't know by how much. Since we now cannot trust the work of the CRU, we cannot quantify the change, so there is no possible way to know what would be the appropriate actions to take. We have no way of doing a legitimate cost/benefit analysis if we don't know what the benefits would be. I conclude with a prediction that exactly nada will come out of the upcoming Copenhagen meetings, not one thing. spike