[ExI] it was the best times, it was the best of times
eugen at leitl.org
Tue Oct 8 09:49:53 UTC 2013
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:36:33PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> > Your dogma is showing. This is going to make you miss some solutions.
> I don't mind my dogma. If the solutions your referring to involve BIG
> religion, BIG government, BIG science, BIG corporations or other things
> involving too damn many people, then I'm happy to opt out of those
> solutions. They usually don't work so well anyway and they are almost
> universally annoying.
As a *pragmatic* transhumanist anarchist I'm primarily interested
in working around defects in the human condition in order to enhance
co-operation. You're obviously taking me for somebody else.
> > > useless. If there is less waste, then that is a GOOD THING. Conservation
> > is
> > Less waste is a good thing, but I'm using it instrumentally here, as a
> > metric.
> As usual, you want to use metrics of things that cannot be measured. It is
Bull. I can trust a long-term freegan to recognize subjective trends
in a given area, and integrate multiple such data points into a global
> very convenient to do that, since you can use such metrics to make any
> argument you wish to. However, you do this at the cost of your arguments
> being weighted lower than they would if you provided actual data. (Actual
> data meaning anything that didn't originate on theoildrum as a first order
You're cherry-picking. From now on I demand evidence in peer-reviewed
publications. If you're too stupid to understand the value of TOD I
can pull up equivalent publications from Nature and Science. I hope you
can do the same for your polyannish pronouncements.
> > > always the lowest hanging fruit. I didn't even laugh so much when Obama
> > > said "Inflate your tires" though he got dumped on for saying so. Dumpster
> > > diving may be a way of life for a fringe, but that's not what I'm talking
> > > about when I talk about stuff being free in great amounts these days.
> > I realize what you're talking about. I'm talking about something else.
> I understand. I reserve the right to reject your reality and substitute my
If you keep doing that you'll wind up alone in a room.
> > > But even products can be free to the users. For example, Google paid for
> > > hard drives that store my email. Yes, they made up for it with
> > advertising,
> > Google is not selling cloud services. Google is selling their users.
> > You're not the customer, you're the product.
> You may have a point there.
> > > which I read. But the hard drive space is "free" to me in terms of actual
> > > cash. I do pay for it with a minimal amount of time.
> > You're having only a tiny idea of what you're paying for it.
> Other than advertising, I know of no really big revenue stream for Google.
> Would you please enlighten me? My privacy?? Don't know how they monetize
> that yet.
How much is your freedom worth in a fascist state? Please put it that
in exact dollar and cents values.
> > > Should be enough time to develop space based copper mining... don't you
> > > think?
> > What, about 30 years? No way in hell. Go talk to rocket people to
> > realize how much you don't know.
> There are rocket people here. They seem to be relatively optimistic... but
I'm just an egg, but I understand the economics of mass transfer in
the solar system, and our ability to boostrap autonomous fabrication
capacities in remote locations, which is nonexistent. You want kilotons
of cheap metal from lightminutes away deorbited and semi-soft landed
in three decades.
Sure, if Singularity lands. Should be any day now.
> perhaps I overstate it. I'll let them speak for themselves.
> > > But some monkeys are more clever than others. Fortunately, we still have
> > Their cleverness does not translate into moving all the other monkeys
> > from their furry butts.
> Sadly no, since we have so many clever monkeys who are busy caring for the
> monkeys that won't get off their furry butts.
So you agree that mere cleverness of a tiny fraction is insufficient,
if the majority remain engaged in dysfunctional, long-term suicidal behavior.
> > > money enough that some of the clever monkeys can amass the fortunes
> > > necessary to do this (Elan Musk, Paul Alan anyone?) despite the
> > government
> > I'm happy that these guys exist. I'm unhappy that the bulk of capital
> > amassment is unproductive. I'm unhappy that much of wealth-building lies
> > in our past.
> Ooooh. I'm so scared. Wealth building in our past? Are you mad?
Funny, I think you're stark hopping mad, but it seems the feeling is
mutual. We can't be possibly both right. So one of us has a much
greater disconnect from reality that the other.
> I've known many rich people myself. None of them are sitting on their ass
> or their money the way you seem to think they do. All of them are busy
> investing or building something. Maybe there is something different about
> rich people in Utah than in other places, but I rather doubt it. Would you
> like to pull a number out of your butt to back up your view of capital
> Even rich people who do sit on their asses have money men who invest for
> them. They don't buy millions of dollars worth of savings bonds for heck
You're obviously clueless about basic mechanisms of wealth transfer
and trends in social stratification.
> sake. It is ridiculous to say that rich folk's money doesn't do anything.
> Numbers please.
No. You point me to peer-reviewed publications proving your point.
Nature/Science should be a good first start. Put up, or shut up.
> > > attempting to take most of it away to keep the non-functional monkeys
> > > breathing and voting for the socialist agenda.
> > >
> > > If we take all of Musk's money away from him and those like him, then
> > > perhaps we will not be mining asteroids in the end and we can all eat
> > > terrestrial rocks with Eugen.
> > I'm getting tired of arguing with a caricature. Please try to be more
> > amusing in future.
More information about the extropy-chat