From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun  1 00:43:20 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 17:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bike/Trike from hell....
In-Reply-To: <000001c44691$7a71ff30$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040601004320.48123.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> The greens might argue that the environmentally
> correct
> thing to do is buy the econobox, saving some fuel
> even if 
> not much.  But ironically, just the opposite seems
> true, 
> for if I buy the guzzlemeister and don't drive it
> much, 
> I keep it away from some other yahoo who would drive
> it a 
> lot more.  If I buy the small, economic REO
> snorewagon, 
> I save *a little* fuel but I keep that gas sipper
> away from
> someone who would likely drive it more, causing them
> to
> buy something else that would devour more fuel. 
> Total
> fuel use is minimized if I drive the
> Bond-James-Bond-cruiser
> and the other guy gets the Fudd-Elmer-Fudd-buggy.
> 
> Is that a paradox?  Where is the flaw in my logic?  

The supply isn't fixed.  Whatever you buy, they'll
make more of.  (In fact, the unit cost of the next one
might actually be a little cheaper, since they just
use (or maybe slightly refine) the tools, techniques,
and so forth they used to make yours.  The amount of
this effect from one unit is likely immeasurably
small, but ask any car dealer and they'll agree that
prices would come way down if everyone who bought a
car over the next few years, bought exactly the same
make and model of car.  But not everyone needs or
wants exactly the same vehicle.)


From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Tue Jun  1 00:58:38 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:28:38 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Everquest economy
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F46@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

Here's a very nice article about an economist studying Everquest and
finding that it has a real economy (currently, 1 cent US approx equals 1
platinum piece in Everquest).

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/04/05/06/1929205.shtml

Emlyn

-------------------------------------------
Check out my Delphi 8 blog, which documents useful tips, tricks and
links for making real asp.net apps with Delphi 8
http://delphidotnet.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------



***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  1 05:42:50 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 22:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] hello
Message-ID: <20040601054250.95952.qmail@web50708.mail.yahoo.com>

my name is Devon Fowler and I'm a volunteer and
enthusiast over at the immortality institute it's
great meeting you all.

=====
Devon Fowler


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Tue Jun  1 05:55:13 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 22:55:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] hello
In-Reply-To: <20040601054250.95952.qmail@web50708.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNGECBEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of devon fowler
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 10:43 PM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [extropy-chat] hello
>
> my name is Devon Fowler and I'm a volunteer and
> enthusiast over at the immortality institute it's
> great meeting you all.

Welcome aboard; funny, I thought you (and most of the other Imminst guys and
gals) were already on the ExI list :)

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Jun  1 05:53:47 2004
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 22:53:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] hello
References: <20040601054250.95952.qmail@web50708.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c4479c$ce5677a0$afa21218@Nano>

Welcome Devon, thank you for the introduction. It's good to have you here. 

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Tech-Aid Advisor http://www.tech-aid.info/t/all-about.html
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: devon fowler 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 10:42 PM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] hello


  my name is Devon Fowler and I'm a volunteer and
  enthusiast over at the immortality institute it's
  great meeting you all.

  =====
  Devon Fowler




  __________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
  http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 
  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040531/b728ac54/attachment.html>

From neptune at superlink.net  Tue Jun  1 11:18:55 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 07:18:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] hello
References: <20040601054250.95952.qmail@web50708.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00a101c447ca$3ad63820$9b893cd1@neptune>

On Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:42 AM "devon fowler" dfowler282004 at yahoo.com
wrote:
> my name is Devon Fowler and I'm a volunteer and
> enthusiast over at the immortality institute it's
> great meeting you all.

Good to have you on board!

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jun  1 17:54:17 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:54:17 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoparticles Illuminate Brain Tumors For Days Under
	MRI
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBMEJOCBAA.pgptag@gmail.com>

>From Science Daily: A research team from Oregon Health & Science University and the Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center is demonstrating some of the world's first clinical applications for nanometer-size particles in the brain. 
The OHSU scientists have shown that an iron oxide nanoparticle as small as a virus can outline not only brain tumors under magnetic resonance imaging, but also other lesions in the brain that may otherwise have gone unnoticed, according to a study published in the journal Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.667 / Virus Database: 429 - Release Date: 23/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040601/5487bb9c/attachment.html>

From emerson at singinst.org  Tue Jun  1 18:10:06 2004
From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:10:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
Message-ID: <200406011810.i51IA6n02019@tick.javien.com>

Although we are not ready to begin our AI project, we are close enough to
begin forming the development team. Presently, we have two confirmed team
members. We're now actively searching for Singularitarians with software
engineering and cognitive science expertise to join the development team. If
you believe you may be a suitable candidate, or know someone who may, please
read "Becoming a Seed AI Programmer," and consider getting in touch at
institute at singinst.org. The Institute is searching for nothing less than 
the core team to fulfill our mission; we need the very best we can find.

http://www.singinst.org/action/seed-ai-programmer.html

Sincerely,

---------
Tyler Emerson
Executive Director
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/
Suite 106 PMB #12
4290 Bells Ferry Road
Kennesaw, GA 30144
emerson at singinst.org / (417) 840-5968
The SIAI Voice - Our Free Bulletin:
http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html



From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Tue Jun  1 18:19:01 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:19:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] hello 
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040601191835.0234e0a0@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>


>Message: 12
>Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 22:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
>From: devon fowler <dfowler282004 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] hello
>To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>Message-ID: <20040601054250.95952.qmail at web50708.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>my name is Devon Fowler and I'm a volunteer and
>enthusiast over at the immortality institute it's
>great meeting you all.
>=====
>Devon Fowler


Hello there!



James...

>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
>http://messenger.yahoo.com/




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  1 18:58:12 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:58:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] another moderately Spikish novel
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040601135654.01cce630@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.sfsite.com/06a/nh177.htm

Natural History
Justina Robson
Pan Macmillan, 393 pages

A review by <mailto:martin at theculture.org?subject=Natural History>Martin 
<mailto:martin at theculture.org?subject=Natural History>Lewis
We've grown used to thinking of ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution but, 
in the future Justina Robson envisions in Natural History, the massed ranks 
of humanity find themselves the Unevolved. No longer the greatest ape, they 
are mere Monkeys. Or so the Forged would have them believe.

The Forged are still human, at least technically, but they are also 
unequivocally other. Many are animal based: arachnids, hive-minded 
insectoids or avians (like viewpoint character Roc Handslicer Corvax). 
Others are vast spaceships. Between these are hybrids like the shuttle 
Ironhorse AnimaMekTek Aurora, "a smooth blue oval with a long, graceful 
tail like a gigantic airborne manta ray", and beyond even this are the 
Gaiaforms, unimaginably vast creatures who have rendered the Moon and Mars 
habitable. [etc]



From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jun  1 18:59:00 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:59:00 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <200406011810.i51IA6n02019@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBEEJPCBAA.pgptag@gmail.com>

Very interesting Tyler. First, kudos for your "Becoming a Seed AI
Programmer" article which is one of the very best job offered texts that I
have ever seen.
To business: reading the description of your project, and having some
experience in managing large software development proejcts, I found myself
trying to quantify your human resource needs and came up with a core staff
of 50 software managers, architects, designers, coders, testers, plus
cognitive scientists, mathematicians, hardware and communications experts,
*insert here all current IT buzzwords*, and of course you also need support
staff. As part of the team you need some of the very best money can buy,
people who would command a salary of 250k+/yr in the job market. Your total
budget requirement is, I believe, between 10 and 20M/yr, and these may well
be very conservative estimates. How good are your funding projections over
the next few years? Of course we will try contributing individually a few
tens of bucks every now and then but you know this is not enough.
Yes of course you can use volunteers, but my advice is not to underestimate
the requirement for paid staff. Volunteers can contribute very brilliant but
intrinsically unreliable work (they are available today, tomorrow they need
money find a job and go), you need paid staff for reliability.
Have you thought of intermediate marketable results that would look good on
a business plan?
G.

-----Original Message-----
From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org
[mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of Tyler Emerson
Sent: 01 June 2004 20:10
To: SL4; SIAIv; Extropy Chat; WTA-Talk; AGI
Subject: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates


Although we are not ready to begin our AI project, we are close enough to
begin forming the development team. Presently, we have two confirmed team
members. We're now actively searching for Singularitarians with software
engineering and cognitive science expertise to join the development team. If
you believe you may be a suitable candidate, or know someone who may, please
read "Becoming a Seed AI Programmer," and consider getting in touch at
institute at singinst.org. The Institute is searching for nothing less than
the core team to fulfill our mission; we need the very best we can find.

http://www.singinst.org/action/seed-ai-programmer.html

Sincerely,
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.667 / Virus Database: 429 - Release Date: 23/04/2004



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun  1 19:48:58 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:48:58 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] An Open Letter On Software Patents and EU Election
Message-ID: <20040601194858.GX12847@leitl.org>


Please consider strongly to go voting, if you're EUtrash. And now back to our
regular programme...

http://www.linux.org.uk/open.l.html

An Open Letter On Software Patents and EU Election

"Whatever you do will be insignificant,  but it is very important that you do
it." 
-- Gandhi

Most of the time the ability to influence Politicians is remarkably limited.
They ignore letters, and often all the major parties reflect only large
proprietary interests, ensuring you get CDs that won't play in a car,
arrested for helping the blind read protected ebooks and prevented from
writing and using software by the patent lobby, intent on locking up
technical creativity the same way the soviets locked up the typewriter.

In about a week you get an opportunity to send the EU politicians a message
they cannot ignore - but sadly only 18% of UK citizens will bother to do so.
While most British people would like to ignore the EU, the simple fact is
that it is the EU that passed the EUCD, it is the EU that can fight software
patents and it is the EU that is currently working to create even more
draconian "intellectual property rights" laws.

This letter is aimed at the other 82% of hackers, open source enthusiasts, or
just people who want the rights to use CD's they paid for fairly and
honestly. That little piece of cardboard is your chance to call the EU to
account, and thanks to the EU voting system you can make a difference, in
fact you count five fold due to the expected low turnout.

There are two parties that are fundmanetally opposed to things like Software
Patents.The Green-EFA alliance (Green Party, Plaid Cymru and friends) have
been fighting the patent fight from the beginning including organising events
in Brussels, as well as fighting to make the EU more democratic (to stop
unelected Beaurocrats overturning the will of the parliament). The UKIP (UK
Independance Party) is opposed on the ground that EU legislation like
software patents clogs up British business and harms Britain as a sovereign
nation. Unlike our parliamentary elections the EU voting system means it is
not a two horse race.

To defeat software patents now needs an absolute majority in the parliament.
That is going to be hard to achieve, but you get to adjust the make up of the
parliament, and every vote is going to count.

Please, if you were not going to vote, either vote for the UKIP or Green-EFA
alliance members. Ideally pick the one of the two that is most likely to win
in your area, but if you have philosophical reasons for favouring one of the
two (such as a dislike of the EU) please go vote for the one you favour.
These are the people who will have to decide how to fix the EUCD, these are
the people who will have to decide on Software Patents. Whether you believe
in the EU or not, the people you vote for (or the pro patent, pro DRM people
who will get in by default if you do not vote) will dictate your future
rights.

The turnout in the UK is expected to be 18%. That favours anyone who can
mobilize and get out and vote. It's a one off opportunity to kick the
pro-patent lobby somewhere that hurts.

Vote, get your friends and families to vote, get LUGs to vote en-masse. Call
out the troops - it's payback time...


Alan Cox




For more information on the problems of software patents visit the FFII. The
FFII is also launching a call for action to ask European candidiates to
answer questions on their software patent position.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040601/cd1c72e3/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun  1 20:11:55 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBEEJPCBAA.pgptag@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040601201155.17021.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

What he said.  From the article:

> Your personal feelings are not a consideration. Is
> this the best thing for Earth?

Perhaps.  Setting humility aside for the moment, most
of my past employers told me I was far and away the
best programmer they had ever worked with.  The ones
who didn't were employing me for non-programming
skills.  I've gotten over $100K salary at previous
jobs, and even with personal feelings towards this
project letting me discount my rate, I'd demand a high
pay rate so I can set aside all material worries
(first and foremost, what happens to me - and my other
financial concerns - if the project goes nowhere
despite my efforts, which possibility has happened
with far too many less venturesome projects to simply
ignore) and do the best job that I can...

> You may not get paid very well.

...but this answer simply does NOT suffice.  I suspect
the same is true for any programmer of my caliber or
higher, which only reinforces things.  (Creating
Friendly AI by myself?  Unlikely, at best.  Creating
Friendly AI with a lot of help of my caliber?  That's
starting to become possible.)

You might be able to recruit top coders by other
means.  Take Linux, for example.  But, as with Linux,
it's usually only possible after people find a way to
make money while still "donating" their efforts (i.e.
for Linux, someone who helped write the kernel is
demonstrably something of an expert, and can get hired
to expert-level jobs at organizations making use of
Linux).  Perhaps if you had enough of a seed AI that
it could be applied to productive uses even while
incomplete?  (Think of it as bootstrapping.)  But
you'll need someone to help you get it that far, and
you need to offer something in the mean time.

Transforming the Earth the right way, even if one dies
in the process, but is at least certain the project
will reach its desired end - that can be managed.
Risking everything when there's a good chance of
nothing?  Sorry, but the same judgement you call for
to guide the project through, tells me there are far
less risky (personally and for all of humanity) paths
to reach the same end of a Friendly AI, and they don't
(presently) involve me dedicating my working hours to
non-payers like you.

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Very interesting Tyler. First, kudos for your
> "Becoming a Seed AI
> Programmer" article which is one of the very best
> job offered texts that I
> have ever seen.
> To business: reading the description of your
> project, and having some
> experience in managing large software development
> proejcts, I found myself
> trying to quantify your human resource needs and
> came up with a core staff
> of 50 software managers, architects, designers,
> coders, testers, plus
> cognitive scientists, mathematicians, hardware and
> communications experts,
> *insert here all current IT buzzwords*, and of
> course you also need support
> staff. As part of the team you need some of the very
> best money can buy,
> people who would command a salary of 250k+/yr in the
> job market. Your total
> budget requirement is, I believe, between 10 and
> 20M/yr, and these may well
> be very conservative estimates. How good are your
> funding projections over
> the next few years? Of course we will try
> contributing individually a few
> tens of bucks every now and then but you know this
> is not enough.
> Yes of course you can use volunteers, but my advice
> is not to underestimate
> the requirement for paid staff. Volunteers can
> contribute very brilliant but
> intrinsically unreliable work (they are available
> today, tomorrow they need
> money find a job and go), you need paid staff for
> reliability.
> Have you thought of intermediate marketable results
> that would look good on
> a business plan?
> G.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org
> [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf
> Of Tyler Emerson
> Sent: 01 June 2004 20:10
> To: SL4; SIAIv; Extropy Chat; WTA-Talk; AGI
> Subject: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
> candidates
> 
> 
> Although we are not ready to begin our AI project,
> we are close enough to
> begin forming the development team. Presently, we
> have two confirmed team
> members. We're now actively searching for
> Singularitarians with software
> engineering and cognitive science expertise to join
> the development team. If
> you believe you may be a suitable candidate, or know
> someone who may, please
> read "Becoming a Seed AI Programmer," and consider
> getting in touch at
> institute at singinst.org. The Institute is searching
> for nothing less than
> the core team to fulfill our mission; we need the
> very best we can find.
> 
>
http://www.singinst.org/action/seed-ai-programmer.html
> 
> Sincerely,
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.667 / Virus Database: 429 - Release
> Date: 23/04/2004
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Jun  1 20:13:16 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Tue,  1 Jun 2004 16:13:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] An Open Letter On Software Patents and EU Election
In-Reply-To: <20040601194858.GX12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-1E4BF53EB40811D88BBA000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (6/1/04 21:48) Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>Please consider strongly to go voting, if you're EUtrash. And now back to our
>regular programme...
>
>http://www.linux.org.uk/open.l.html


As non-EUtrash, I second Eugen's exhortation. Europe's willingness to resist the USian "creeping IP hell" is the only thing, IMO, that will protect independent thinkers from government/corporate interference in the next century.

And the open letter is worth a read. Alan Cox is eminently coherent and a swell guy to boot.


Brent

-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Jun  1 20:52:03 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:52:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Post-Traumatic Slave Disorder?
Message-ID: <40BCEC73.8F246DB3@mindspring.com>

http://oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1086004710123410.xml?oregonian?lcg

Judge rejects slave trauma as defense for killing
A Washington County judge threw out a PSU professor's novel theory at 
pretrial but said she may consider it at trial

Monday, May 31, 2004
HOLLY DANKS

HILLSBORO -- A Portland lawyer says suffering by African Americans at 
the hands of slave owners is to blame in the death of a 2-year-old 
Beaverton boy.

Randall Vogt is offering the untested theory, called post traumatic 
slave syndrome, in his defense of Isaac Cortez Bynum, who is charged 
with murder by abuse in the June 30 death of his son, Ryshawn Lamar 
Bynum. Vogt says he will argue -- "in a general way" -- that masters 
beat slaves, so Bynum was justified in beating his son.

The slave theory is the work of Joy DeGruy-Leary, an assistant professor 
in the Portland State University Graduate School of Social Work. It is 
not listed by psychiatrists or the courts as an accepted disorder, and 
some experts said they had never heard of it.

DeGruy-Leary testified this month in Washington County Circuit Court 
that African Americans today are affected by past centuries of U.S. 
slavery because the original slaves were never treated for the trauma of 
losing their homes; seeing relatives whipped, raped and killed; and 
being subjugated by whites.

Because African Americans as a class never got a chance to heal and 
today still face racism, oppression and societal inequality, they suffer 
from multigenerational trauma, says DeGruy-Leary, who is African 
American. Self-destructive, violent or aggressive behavior often 
results, she says.

Noting the theory has not been proven or ever offered in court, 
Washington County Circuit Judge Nancy W. Campbell recently threw out 
DeGruy-Leary's pretrial testimony.

But the judge said she would reconsider the defense for Bynum's 
September trial if his lawyer can show the slave theory is an accepted 
mental disorder with a valid scientific basis and specifically applies 
to this case.

"I think it can be proven," the court-appointed Vogt said after 
Campbell's ruling. "The problem is it's brand new. It's not as easy to 
present in court as something that's been established over years."

Murder-by-abuse, punishable by life in prison with 25 years before 
possible parole, means the victim suffered from a pattern of assaults. 
An autopsy found Ryshawn Bynum died of a brain injury and had a broken 
neck, broken ribs and as many as 70 whip marks on his legs, buttocks, 
back and chest that were of various ages.

Bynum told police he hit his son with a watch strap during 
potty-training. He said the day before the boy died, he was playing 
"helicopter," swinging his son around the room, when the boy hit his 
head on a table.

"He had a traditional, Southern, small-town, working-class upbringing 
where 'whuppin' was accepted," Vogt said. "Whether that was abusive or 
not, that is in the eye of the beholder. He was raised differently than 
your typical kid in Beaverton."

Experts disagree on whether post traumatic slave syndrome can be proven, 
much less accepted in legal arenas. It took 50 years for society and the 
courts to accept post traumatic stress syndrome, a diagnosis for someone 
who has experienced or witnessed an extraordinary event that involves 
actual or threatened death or serious injury. It is only diagnosed when 
functioning is severely impaired.

The judge also said the defense would have to show Bynum, who grew up in 
Mississippi, has slave syndrome. At the time of her testimony, 
DeGruy-Leary had not interviewed him.

Besides a doctorate in social work research, DeGruy-Leary has a master's 
degree in clinical psychology. She said she can offer counseling but is 
not licensed to diagnose anyone.

"Post traumatic slave syndrome is rather unique; it's not that everybody 
has it," DeGruy-Leary testified. "If you are African American and you 
are living in America, you have been impacted."

Under cross-examination by Robert Hull, Washington County senior deputy 
district attorney, DeGruy-Leary viewed Ryshawn Bynum's autopsy photos.

Calling the boy's injuries excessive, DeGruy-Leary said she would have 
reported them. But in the African American culture, such discipline "is 
extremely common," she said. "It falls in the rubric of what they think 
is normal."

A Los Angeles native, DeGruy-Leary has been working on the theory for 
two decades and said she is still a year from publishing a book on it. 
She coined the name in her 2001 dissertation on African American male 
youth violence.

She said she thinks post traumatic slave syndrome can be proven 
scientifically once the politics of race are set aside and the white 
research establishment takes time to study it.

"It's not a conversation that America wants to have," DeGruy-Leary said. 
"It's so ugly; it's so blatant."

Questioning the science

William E. Narrow, a psychiatrist who serves as associate director of 
research on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 
said he had never heard of post traumatic slave syndrome and no one has 
proposed that it be included in the book's next edition.

Published by the American Psychiatric Association, the "DSM" is a 
courtroom bible. Judge Campbell said that if post traumatic slave 
disorder were in the DSM, she would consider it more favorably.

Narrow said the fifth edition of the diagnostic manual probably won't be 
published until 2012. In the meantime, researchers are testing new 
disorders for possible inclusion.

"To say that everybody in a particular racial or ethnic group has a 
diagnosis, I don't think it falls under what we do," Narrow said. "We 
have enough trouble as it is with people saying we are trying to make 
everybody mentally ill without trying to include something like that."

Alberto M. Goldwaser, a clinical and forensic psychiatrist, has 
testified as an expert in about 20 court cases across the country 
involving post traumatic stress, including murders.

"Maybe it's a social phenomenon and not a clinical phenomenon," he said 
in an interview from his Paramus, N.J., office, noting that he had never 
heard of post traumatic slave syndrome.

Because no African American today has been a slave, Goldwaser called the 
theory "such a stretch." He said he didn't think it would ever be 
accepted in court.

Alvin F. Poussaint, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School 
and an expert on race relations in the United States, outlined his 
version of post traumatic slave syndrome in the 2000 book "Lay My Burden 
Down."

"It is a legacy where blacks were beaten a lot and lived in terror that 
they could be killed at will," Poussaint said from his Boston office.

"That type of trauma gets passed on for generations" in an entire group, 
he said. "But in a one-on-one case, these things are hard to prove."

Although DeGruy-Leary's theory could be "viable to educate the public, I 
don't know about in a court of law," Poussaint said.

"Lawyers try everything; they might as well put it out."

***

Using this logic, I guess I'm fat because I suffer from post-traumatic
famine syndrome -- my ancestors starved, y'see. Or maybe the reason we're
all so acquisitive is that we suffer from post-traumatic poverty syndrome,
because most of our ancestors were dreadfully poor. Hey, this is fun. I'll
have to think up a few more creative excuses.

Beth Wolszon

I need money.  A long time ago my God flooded the earth and forced my 
ancestors to live in a boat for 40 days and nights. I still haven't 
recovered. I will not even go into the time where my ancestors were 
thrown out of a wonderful garden.
Signed,
White Male Xtian Fundie.
--  Todd Isaac


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  1 22:46:11 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:46:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] fangs
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040601174343.01bfd7d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

"Dr. Ed Reifman" <reifmandds at yahoo.com> allowed me to repost this comment:

At 12:56 PM 5/31/2004 -0700, Mike wrote:

 >Cheaper synthetic diamonds for drill tips makes for more comfortable
 >drilling/grinding/polishing, anasthetics for pain take effect sooner,
 >among other things.

[Ed:]

Here's the 'skinny' on this stuff:  The drill tips are about the same price 
(weren't expensive before)... but instead of lasting for one patient (or 
one crown), they will last for 1.5 crowns.  Most dentists feel this is not 
a major breakthrough but another small, incremental step in tech advancement.

[me, earlier:]

Replacement filler hardens faster under blue light. (Dr. Ed could tell us
more if he's still on the list.)

[Ed:]

The UV light has been around for 20 years now.  Now we have blue, or 
probably they are talking about plasma arc lighting.  This is more used in 
teeth whitening, as it is a bit safer, IMHO.  In terms of white bonded 
restorations, its frequency might be a bit more narrow so instead of 
'curing' or hardening the white bonded restorative material in 20 seconds, 
it takes about 8 seconds.  Again, kind of nice, but no big deal.  Actually, 
I think the BIG deal is that we now have a portable, battery-powered blue 
light which we can hand carry around from operatory to operatory!

Ed Reifman, DDS

===================================

Damien Broderick



From michael at acceleratingfuture.com  Wed Jun  2 03:29:30 2004
From: michael at acceleratingfuture.com (Michael Anissimov)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:29:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer	candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040601201155.17021.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040601201155.17021.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40BD499A.2020902@acceleratingfuture.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>Perhaps.  Setting humility aside for the moment, most
>of my past employers told me I was far and away the
>best programmer they had ever worked with.  The ones
>who didn't were employing me for non-programming
>skills.  I've gotten over $100K salary at previous
>jobs, and even with personal feelings towards this
>project letting me discount my rate, I'd demand a high
>pay rate so I can set aside all material worries
>(first and foremost, what happens to me - and my other
>financial concerns - if the project goes nowhere
>

If no FAI project ever goes anywhere, then someone eventually builds a 
self-improving UFAI (or engages in nanowar), and you, your financial 
concerns, and your personal concerns all go *poof* in one fell swoop. 

>...but this answer simply does NOT suffice.  I suspect
>the same is true for any programmer of my caliber or
>higher, which only reinforces things.  (Creating
>Friendly AI by myself?  Unlikely, at best.  Creating
>Friendly AI with a lot of help of my caliber?  That's
>starting to become possible.)
>

That's why we're seeking *Singularitarian* 
(http://yudkowsky.net/sing/principles.html) programmers of extremely 
high caliber.  They would be in it for the saving-the-world aspect.  A 
successful Singularity would bring about an immense amount of material 
abundance.

>Transforming the Earth the right way, even if one dies
>in the process, but is at least certain the project
>will reach its desired end - that can be managed.
>Risking everything when there's a good chance of
>nothing?  Sorry, but the same judgement you call for
>to guide the project through, tells me there are far
>less risky (personally and for all of humanity) paths
>to reach the same end of a Friendly AI, and they don't
>(presently) involve me dedicating my working hours to
>non-payers like you.
>

Where *do* they involve dedicating your hours?  Are there faster tracks 
to Friendly AI than the one SIAI is currently on?  SIAI was formed with 
the specific goal of getting to FAI as fast as possible, so it is our 
responsibility to seek out faster means if they are available.  What are 
your ideas?  Incremental bootstrapping with commercial approaches sounds 
more credible on the surface, but is isn't likely to get us to FAI 
faster than an exclusive focus, if that's what you were thinking of.

-- 
Michael Anissimov                           http://www.singinst.org/
Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

--
Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news:
http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html




From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 06:58:24 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:58:24 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040601201155.17021.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBEEJPCBAA.pgptag@gmail.com>
	<20040601201155.17021.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:11:55PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> ...but this answer simply does NOT suffice.  I suspect
> the same is true for any programmer of my caliber or
> higher, which only reinforces things.  (Creating
> Friendly AI by myself?  Unlikely, at best.  Creating
> Friendly AI with a lot of help of my caliber?  That's
> starting to become possible.)

With programmers alone it's hard even to tie your own shoelaces.
What of hardware people? Numerics people? Neuroscientists, physicists?

Writing code is a negligible part of the project.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/b54307de/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  2 07:51:33 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 00:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <40BD499A.2020902@acceleratingfuture.com>
Message-ID: <20040602075133.84206.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Michael Anissimov <michael at acceleratingfuture.com>
wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >(first and foremost, what happens to me - and my
> other
> >financial concerns - if the project goes nowhere
> 
> If no FAI project ever goes anywhere, then someone
> eventually builds a 
> self-improving UFAI (or engages in nanowar), and
> you, your financial 
> concerns, and your personal concerns all go *poof*
> in one fell swoop. 

You misread.  If the project - that is, if *YOUR*
project - goes nowhere, well, there are others trying
to build friendly (and technically even Friendly,
although they haven't formally checked their goals
against your specification yet) AIs, some of whom have
a lot more resources and a lot higher chance of
success.

> >...but this answer simply does NOT suffice.  I
> suspect
> >the same is true for any programmer of my caliber
> or
> >higher, which only reinforces things.  (Creating
> >Friendly AI by myself?  Unlikely, at best. 
> Creating
> >Friendly AI with a lot of help of my caliber? 
> That's
> >starting to become possible.)
> 
> That's why we're seeking *Singularitarian* 
> (http://yudkowsky.net/sing/principles.html)
> programmers of extremely 
> high caliber.  They would be in it for the
> saving-the-world aspect.  A 
> successful Singularity would bring about an immense
> amount of material 
> abundance.

What of the person who agrees with your goals, and in
particular wishes to help bring about the Singularity
ASAP, but whose opinion is that joining your team is
not the best route to achieve it?  (At least, among
the presently available routes for said person's
actions.)  According to that link, said person would
seem to be a Singularitarian, and thus who you say
you're looking for.

I'm pointing out a problem with your means to the end,
not the end.  And, again, I mean no insult by any of
this; it's just that an honest evaluation means I must
put humility aside and acknowledge that there is a
chance, however small, that my efforts could help
reshape the world in positive ways - and that not only
have I been trying to steer my career to maximize
those odds, but from some points of view, I have even
had a little success already (by helping to make
practical the neuron/silicon interfaces being
experimented with in many labs today).  Which, when
combined with my experience in programming,
cognitive/brain science, and most of the other areas
you list, makes me seem to be exactly who you're
trying to recruit - but not only do I reject your
current offer, I sense that anyone in my approximate
position would do likewise.

> >Sorry, but the same judgement you call
> for
> >to guide the project through, tells me there are
> far
> >less risky (personally and for all of humanity)
> paths
> >to reach the same end of a Friendly AI, and they
> don't
> >(presently) involve me dedicating my working hours
> to
> >non-payers like you.
> 
> Where *do* they involve dedicating your hours?

On projects that have a greater chance of sustaining
me in the short term, and/or add small but definite
steps towards the future we wish.  Bootstrapping, as
it were.

(For instance, my major project at the moment is
learning nanolithography so I can help advance that
state of the art towards Drexlerian ideals in ways
that make off-Earth pre-Singularity enclaves of
humanity more likely...and on the way, try to tap
certain quantum physics phenomena to try to make a lot
more energy available to mankind.  Success is not
guaranteed, but there doesn't seem to be anyone else
in the world trying my exact route, yet it does seem
to be possible given the tools now available.  A large
spike in environmentally clean domestic energy
generation would probably free up all kinds of
resources, some of which would likely wind up with
organizations like SIAI, not to mention reduce several
factors which negatively impact our lifespans.  BTW,
this is not a call for assistance - I do not presently
see how anyone not already on or near my path could
reasonably help in the near future - just an example.
Another example is contract programming, with little
significance other than paying the bills while I
tackle the above effort.  Eventually, I'd prefer to
have the main effort also pay the bills, but I do not
perceive that I am nearly far enough along yet to
where I could likely get grants or similar
assistance.)

> Are
> there faster tracks 
> to Friendly AI than the one SIAI is currently on? 

In short?  Yes.  (At least, measured by expected time
to success, weighing all the outcomes with their
probabilities.)

> SIAI was formed with 
> the specific goal of getting to FAI as fast as
> possible, so it is our 
> responsibility to seek out faster means if they are
> available.  What are 
> your ideas?  Incremental bootstrapping with
> commercial approaches sounds 
> more credible on the surface, but is isn't likely to
> get us to FAI 
> faster than an exclusive focus, if that's what you
> were thinking of.

I disagree.  Incremental bootstrapping will get you
the resources you need to proceed to the next stage,
and to the next stage after that.  Trying to do it all
at once may seem faster, but giant projects like that
for other applications have a history of failures
which you show no sign of addressing for this
application (or even being aware of, though I do give
you the benefit of the doubt there), so historically
the odds are fantastically tiny that you will create
the first seed AI *BY THAT METHOD*.  You don't even
have much chance of a partial success which others can
build on (which, given the outcomes here, could
arguably be credited as a full, if delayed, success).
Bootstrapping has historically proven to give a much
greater chance of success, with fewer total resources
consumed (the most important resource in this case
being time) before the initially desired goal is
eventually achieved.  (I've seen this time and time
again, and I'm seeing it yet again in my nano
development.  I could detail that story if you want,
but that might diverge from the topic a bit too much.)

And then there is also the problem with relying
exclusively on essentially volunteer labor, even
full-time volunteers like you requested (no guarantee
of good pay - or, by implication, any contractually
enforceable steady pay - means essentially volunteer
labor).  Even the most presently gung-ho volunteer may
start to become disillusioned if the project does not
change the world within the next few years (and there
are very few who would put the Singularity this side
of 2010).

Basically, you need to study what happens to most
efforts like what you propose (*IGNORE* the ends -
they don't matter except as a circumstance until after
the project succeeds, no matter how important they are
- and focus on the means), and see why they tend to
fail.  Specifically, all-volunteer efforts with no
practical ("commercial") applications or focus in the
next several years, and the corresponding potential
degeneration of motivation in those who sign up
(again, regardless of their present feelings: being
constantly hungry or other resource-depleted states
tends to invoke hardwired overrides in the human
psyche - and until after your project succeeds or
someone else beats you to making an AI, you'll have to
use human beings).


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  2 07:58:05 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 00:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:11:55PM -0700, Adrian
> Tymes wrote:
> > ...but this answer simply does NOT suffice.  I
> suspect
> > the same is true for any programmer of my caliber
> or
> > higher, which only reinforces things.  (Creating
> > Friendly AI by myself?  Unlikely, at best. 
> Creating
> > Friendly AI with a lot of help of my caliber? 
> That's
> > starting to become possible.)
> 
> With programmers alone it's hard even to tie your
> own shoelaces.
> What of hardware people? Numerics people?
> Neuroscientists, physicists?
> 
> Writing code is a negligible part of the project.

I used "programmer" as shorthand.  I know neuroscience
and hardware, as well, and of course any (decent)
programmer knows math.  But we know an AI will require
new software to be written (i.e., programming); it is
not as easy to prove that new hardware, or new
statistical methods, will have to be custom developed
for this project.  (Possible, perhaps.  Easy, no,
especially when one considers that "custom developed"
rules out hiring people to continue implementing
Moore's Law when other companies are already doing so
regardless of our actions.)


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 08:53:22 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:53:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:58:05AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> I used "programmer" as shorthand.  I know neuroscience

I would have listed "scientist" and "engineer" in 
the requirement profile.

> and hardware, as well, and of course any (decent)
> programmer knows math.  But we know an AI will require

So you have a Ph.D. in three different disciplines (that be neuroscience,
computational and/or wet), practical hardware design (at least at FPGA level,
preferrably ASIC), have practical experience with high-performance numerics 
codes >kNode country, and can handle complex nonlinear dynamics?

And you're only taking 100 k$/year? Wow, you're a real bargain.

> new software to be written (i.e., programming); it is

You can assume that those scientists and engineers can program.
High-performance parallel numerics, that is, which most programmers have
absolutely no clue of.

> not as easy to prove that new hardware, or new
> statistical methods, will have to be custom developed
> for this project.  (Possible, perhaps.  Easy, no,

What can I say, people with that attitude have been failing for past 40-50
years. You're familiar as to why they've been failing, as you've studied
those failures extensively, right?

> especially when one considers that "custom developed"
> rules out hiring people to continue implementing
> Moore's Law when other companies are already doing so

Moore's law describes *integration density*. Given that you're an
accomplished numerics guy, I wonder why you never heard about benchmarks.
Such as, memory bandwidth? Unpredictable access? 

There are a few handy graphs on the web, and they're unfortunately no linear
semi-log plots. I stopped posting links, because nobody reads them anyway.

> regardless of our actions.)

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/1eb11258/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 09:42:27 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:42:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> So you have a Ph.D. in three different disciplines (that be neuroscience,
> computational and/or wet), practical hardware design (at least at FPGA level,
> preferrably ASIC), have practical experience with high-performance numerics 
> codes >kNode country, and can handle complex nonlinear dynamics?
> 
> You can assume that those scientists and engineers can program.
> High-performance parallel numerics, that is, which most programmers have
> absolutely no clue of.

This is SIAI's project, Eugen, not yours, don't embroider our job 
requirements.  I don't currently expect to require anything special in the 
way of hardware.  Lots and lots of cognitive science background is a good 
idea.  The main math I already know will be required is Bayesian 
probability theory and expected utility decision theory, not knowing the 
equations, but feeling them in your bones and using them to see everything 
you work with.  I once read a fragment of an online physics course whose 
introduction noted that to understand that course you needed to do basic 
integrations and differentiations with your spine, not your brain.  What 
calculus is to physics, Bayes is to AI.

I was not planning to brute-force the problem, nor to use architectures 
inspired by specific details of the human brain.  The massively 
interdisciplinary cognitive science background required is essentially the 
equivalent of being literate and having a GED, rather than being a 
primitive tribesperson from the Islets of Langerhans.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 10:17:44 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:17:44 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:42:27AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> This is SIAI's project, Eugen, not yours, don't embroider our job 
> requirements.  I don't currently expect to require anything special in the 

I'm not speaking about SIAI's project. I'm talking about the kind of talent
and background required to have a faint chance of succeeding, assuming a
well-funded large scale effort.

> way of hardware.  Lots and lots of cognitive science background is a good 

I think your best ROI is using the Grid framework, and ask for time on a
cluster and/or look for volunteer contributors a la SIAI at home.

> idea.  The main math I already know will be required is Bayesian 
> probability theory and expected utility decision theory, not knowing the 
> equations, but feeling them in your bones and using them to see everything 
> you work with.  I once read a fragment of an online physics course whose 
> introduction noted that to understand that course you needed to do basic 
> integrations and differentiations with your spine, not your brain.  What 
> calculus is to physics, Bayes is to AI.

I don't think that's a requirement, but it's your project.
 
> I was not planning to brute-force the problem, nor to use architectures 
> inspired by specific details of the human brain.  The massively 
> interdisciplinary cognitive science background required is essentially the 
> equivalent of being literate and having a GED, rather than being a 
> primitive tribesperson from the Islets of Langerhans.

You will have trouble finding volunteers with the right background, who're
willing to work for free, or nearly for free. I don't have a good idea where
even to look, Orkut would be a good first place to start.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/554e6524/attachment.bin>

From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Wed Jun  2 10:21:01 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:21:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
Message-ID: <40BDAA0D.6010306@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Wed Jun 2 00:58:24 MDT 2004 Eugen Leitl wittily wrote:
> With programmers alone it's hard even to tie your own shoelaces.
> What of hardware people? Numerics people? Neuroscientists, physicists?
>
> Writing code is a negligible part of the project.

Here in the UK over the next five years the government will spend an
extra ?5billion (~$9.2 billion) creating the IT infrastructure for a
21st century national health service. The National Programme is the UK's
biggest technology project. Some articles mention up to 10,000
programmers will be involved.

Take the buzzwords out and basically all this money is being spent to
get our medical records on a database so that they can be on a screen in
hospital and at your local doctor.

Now if it takes that much effort to get data on a screen, how much 
should taking over the world cost?

Pause for thought?

BillK


From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 10:27:40 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:27:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602075133.84206.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040602075133.84206.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40BDAB9C.9010109@pobox.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> You misread.  If the project - that is, if *YOUR*
> project - goes nowhere, well, there are others trying
> to build friendly (and technically even Friendly,
> although they haven't formally checked their goals
> against your specification yet) AIs, some of whom have
> a lot more resources and a lot higher chance of
> success.

Many projects have a lot more resources.  Some may even have a fair chance 
of success on the deadly part of the problem.  I'm not aware of one other 
AI project out there that even tries to rise to the challenge of FAI, 
Adrian, not one.

> (For instance, my major project at the moment is
> learning nanolithography so I can help advance that
> state of the art towards Drexlerian ideals in ways
> that make off-Earth pre-Singularity enclaves of
> humanity more likely...and on the way, try to tap
> certain quantum physics phenomena to try to make a lot
> more energy available to mankind.  Success is not
> guaranteed, but there doesn't seem to be anyone else
> in the world trying my exact route, yet it does seem
> to be possible given the tools now available.  A large
> spike in environmentally clean domestic energy
> generation would probably free up all kinds of
> resources, some of which would likely wind up with
> organizations like SIAI, not to mention reduce several
> factors which negatively impact our lifespans.  BTW,
> this is not a call for assistance - I do not presently
> see how anyone not already on or near my path could
> reasonably help in the near future - just an example.

Sounds like fuzzy strategic thinking.  Nanotech -> nanocomputers -> 
brute-force AI -> Earth go poof.  Getting off Earth seems highly unlikely 
to help escape a UFAI.  Trickle-down theories of solving the Singularity, 
like creating new energy resources, or arguing over who should be in the 
White House, I do now formally declare to be tempting distractions and ask 
that all ignore them.

> And then there is also the problem with relying
> exclusively on essentially volunteer labor, even
> full-time volunteers like you requested (no guarantee
> of good pay - or, by implication, any contractually
> enforceable steady pay - means essentially volunteer
> labor).  Even the most presently gung-ho volunteer may
> start to become disillusioned if the project does not
> change the world within the next few years (and there
> are very few who would put the Singularity this side
> of 2010).
> 
> Basically, you need to study what happens to most
> efforts like what you propose (*IGNORE* the ends -
> they don't matter except as a circumstance until after
> the project succeeds, no matter how important they are
> - and focus on the means), and see why they tend to
> fail.  Specifically, all-volunteer efforts with no
> practical ("commercial") applications or focus in the
> next several years, and the corresponding potential
> degeneration of motivation in those who sign up
> (again, regardless of their present feelings: being
> constantly hungry or other resource-depleted states
> tends to invoke hardwired overrides in the human
> psyche - and until after your project succeeds or
> someone else beats you to making an AI, you'll have to
> use human beings).

I wasn't planning to let our programmers starve.  Still, it would be better 
than being dead, and one who does not realize this does not belong on the 
project.

I'd like a salary of $100K/year too.  I plan to ask for it, for the reasons 
you mention.  Meanwhile, here I am working.  It depletes my mental energy. 
  I do it anyway.  Anissimov is correct, Adrian; it would be desirable to 
offer the programmers good salaries, but anyone who's only willing to work 
if they're comfortably well-paid just doesn't get the point.  Yes, I know 
how important it is to be comfortably well-paid.  The point stands.

And now I see that I've spent four minutes writing this email, during which 
400 people died, so back to work.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Wed Jun  2 10:47:34 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:47:34 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
Message-ID: <40BDB046.3040506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

Sorry, conversion error.
The NHS IT project budget should be ~$4.24 billion over five years.

But this doesn't include all the extras not included in the original 
budget or the expected cost over-runs.

BillK



From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 10:50:24 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:50:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com> <20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:42:27AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
>>This is SIAI's project, Eugen, not yours, don't embroider our job 
>>requirements.  I don't currently expect to require anything special in the 
> 
> I'm not speaking about SIAI's project. I'm talking about the kind of talent
> and background required to have a faint chance of succeeding, assuming a
> well-funded large scale effort.
> 
>>way of hardware.  Lots and lots of cognitive science background is a good 
> 
> I think your best ROI is using the Grid framework, and ask for time on a
> cluster and/or look for volunteer contributors a la SIAI at home.

No.  We are not here to wipe out the human species by brute-forcing an AI. 
  If we cannot do it on off-the-shelf hardware, we should not be in the 
business.  This is not about computing power, never has been.  I want a 
small handful of world-class geniuses that can understand the basics, and 
perhaps a few non-world-class geniuses to carry out prespecified tasks that 
don't require Bayesian enlightenment.  I am not throwing people at the 
problem and I am not throwing computing power at the problem.  I know 
better than that now.  That is just what people talk about when they have 
no idea what they are doing or how to solve the problem, and no, Eugen, 
that is not a request for yet another lecture about how mys-TER-ri-ous the 
problem is.  I am not here to screw around with no clue what I am doing. 
That is just a fancy way of committing suicide, as I know, now that I 
understand some of the rules.  Stop making up our job requirements for us. 
  Start your own thread if you want to discuss your own AI project.  Thank you.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 11:07:57 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:07:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:50:24AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> No.  We are not here to wipe out the human species by brute-forcing an AI. 

So you keep saying, yes.

>  If we cannot do it on off-the-shelf hardware, we should not be in the 
> business.  This is not about computing power, never has been.  I want a 

You're being unrealistic. I guess we should be thankful for that.

> small handful of world-class geniuses that can understand the basics, and 
> perhaps a few non-world-class geniuses to carry out prespecified tasks that 
> don't require Bayesian enlightenment.  I am not throwing people at the 
> problem and I am not throwing computing power at the problem.  I know 
> better than that now.  That is just what people talk about when they have 
> no idea what they are doing or how to solve the problem, and no, Eugen, 
> that is not a request for yet another lecture about how mys-TER-ri-ous the 
> problem is.  I am not here to screw around with no clue what I am doing. 

Very good. Few other AI people have your scruples.

> That is just a fancy way of committing suicide, as I know, now that I 
> understand some of the rules.  Stop making up our job requirements for us. 
>  Start your own thread if you want to discuss your own AI project.  Thank 
>  you.

Given that I don't think that really smart AI is a good idea, I'd rather not.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/26976eed/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 12:06:59 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:06:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <40BDAA0D.6010306@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <40BDAA0D.6010306@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20040602120659.GN12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:21:01AM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Now if it takes that much effort to get data on a screen, how much 
> should taking over the world cost?

No one knows, but it's probably closer to a Manhattan type project, corrected for
today's economy (fraction of US GNP, not inflation-normalized dollars). 
It is also not obvious, how long it would take (2-3 decades?).

We certainly don't know, until somebody tries. It might be easier, it might
be harder.

Of course, the threshold goes down with each passing year, and hardware *is*
getting better, the knowledge improves, and the human online resource is 
considerable, and growing.
 
> Pause for thought?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/1669512c/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 12:21:29 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:21:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com> <20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:50:24AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
>> If we cannot do it on off-the-shelf hardware, we should not be in the 
>> business.  This is not about computing power, never has been.
> 
> You're being unrealistic. I guess we should be thankful for that.

Want to show me the math, Eugen?  Real math, calculations describing 
human-level intelligence and the lower bound for hardware, not silly 
analogies to biology?  I could be wrong about my own guess.  I'm just 
wondering why you think you can give hardware estimates for intelligence 
when you claim not to know how it works.  I used to do that too, convert 
synaptic spikes to floating-point ops and so on.  Later I looked back on my 
calculations of human-equivalent hardware and saw complete gibberish, 
blatantly invalid analogies such as Greek philosophers might have used for 
lack of any grasp whatsoever on the domain.  People throw hardware at AI 
because they have absolutely no clue how to solve it, like Egyptian 
pharaohs using mummification for the cryonics problem.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 13:24:00 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:24:00 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:29AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:50:24AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> >
> >>If we cannot do it on off-the-shelf hardware, we should not be in the 
> >>business.  This is not about computing power, never has been.
> >
> >You're being unrealistic. I guess we should be thankful for that.
> 
> Want to show me the math, Eugen?  Real math, calculations describing 
> human-level intelligence and the lower bound for hardware, not silly 
> analogies to biology?  I could be wrong about my own guess.  I'm just 

Any precise calculation must be silly. Less silly is an educated guess.
Most current projections assume linear semi-log plots for future *performance*.
While this is true for some, carefully selected benchmark subsets a spiking
code is not well-behaved. Using Moore as baseline, the disparity grows with each
year. So any projection based on Moor-ish extrapolations is toast, the
farther, the worse.

I think (based on my layman's understanding of current state of the art) 
a connectionist, very probably a spiking architecture is vital. It doesn't need
to be biologically realistic -- then we can just give up.  Though it 
would scale very well with the number of nodes, if done right (spatial
decomposition, 3d lattice or torus physical node connectivity as Blue Gene
does, and maybe Cell boxes will), you can't do it in software on legacy
architecture systems. Connectivity can be emulated in hardware by a 
packet-switched asynchronous network, processing limited to few-bit 
integers (i.e. far shorter than an int, time stamps (network is 
asynchronous) could be deeper) with a low physical connectivity. 
You trade space for speed here, approaching realtime and superrealtime speeds
of biology on a substrate faster but far less connected that biology.
 
You need some ten hardcoded automaton types, probably some hundred, though. As the
discrete response function is smooth, their representation can be compact.
Connectivity weight is probably as simple, or simpler (you might get away
with just +/-/0, but this wastes packet payload, even using relative
addressing, so see few-bit integers above).

Average connectivity is in range of 10^2..10^4, probably around 10^3. Total
number of automata cells is somewhere in 10^11..10^12 range, probably. 

A single instance of above in dedicated hardware is not very far removed from
today. But it is not cheap, and it *is* dedicated hardware. Much depends
about how future commodity hardware looks like -- if we're (un)lucky, we'll
get a close approximation of above off the shelf a decade or two downstream
(see Cell vaporware).

To make matters worse, above is a framework, with most of parameter space
filled with duds. If we're lucky/unlucky, the framework might be
insufficiently flexible, and contain only duds. Then one has to step back a
few steps, and start from scratch.

If it's not all duds, you need lots of educated guesses as points of
departure, and ridiculous amounts of crunch for sufficient co-evolution
rounds. Which is why we very probably need many moles worth of molecular 
circuitry cells to make it work.

Of course, your wild-assed guess is as good as mine. The only way to figure
out what is really required, is to try.

> wondering why you think you can give hardware estimates for intelligence 
> when you claim not to know how it works.  I used to do that too, convert 
> synaptic spikes to floating-point ops and so on.  Later I looked back on my 
> calculations of human-equivalent hardware and saw complete gibberish, 
> blatantly invalid analogies such as Greek philosophers might have used for 
> lack of any grasp whatsoever on the domain.  People throw hardware at AI 
> because they have absolutely no clue how to solve it, like Egyptian 
> pharaohs using mummification for the cryonics problem.

Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute for
cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search space.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/19c9556f/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 13:40:07 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:40:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com> <20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:29AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
>>wondering why you think you can give hardware estimates for intelligence 
>>when you claim not to know how it works.  I used to do that too, convert 
>>synaptic spikes to floating-point ops and so on.  Later I looked back on my 
>>calculations of human-equivalent hardware and saw complete gibberish, 
>>blatantly invalid analogies such as Greek philosophers might have used for 
>>lack of any grasp whatsoever on the domain.  People throw hardware at AI 
>>because they have absolutely no clue how to solve it, like Egyptian 
>>pharaohs using mummification for the cryonics problem.
> 
> Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute for
> cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search space.

Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to 
realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species, but 
at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor 
blades, now that I know better.

> I think (based on my layman's understanding of current state of the art) 
> a connectionist, very probably a spiking architecture is vital.

What on Earth does that have to do with intelligence?  That is building a 
wooden airfield and hoping that someone brings cargo.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 14:11:23 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:11:23 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eliezer Yudkowsky on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040602141123.GS12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:40:07AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> >Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute for
> >cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search space.
> 
> Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to 

Quite possible. Which is why I'm saying trying to build a human grade 
AI is probably not a very good idea.

> realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species, but 
> at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor 
> blades, now that I know better.

You're still trying to build an AI, though.
 
> >I think (based on my layman's understanding of current state of the art) 
> >a connectionist, very probably a spiking architecture is vital.
> 
> What on Earth does that have to do with intelligence?  That is building a 
> wooden airfield and hoping that someone brings cargo.

Your guess is as good as mine. If the hardware's already there, and bootstrap
easy we'll know soon enough. (I'm not holding my breath, and am still
planning for allocating funds for retirement).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/05d47eaf/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 14:46:55 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:46:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040602141123.GS12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com> <20040602141123.GS12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <40BDE85F.20809@pobox.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:40:07AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
>>>Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute for
>>>cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search space.
>>
>>Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to 
> 
> Quite possible. Which is why I'm saying trying to build a human grade 
> AI is probably not a very good idea.

Nnnooo... what follows is that sampling a lucky search space using brute 
force is a poor idea.  Incidentally, if you think this is a poor idea, can 
I ask you once again why you are giving the world your kindly advice on how 
to do it?  (Maybe you're deliberately handing out flawed advice?)

>>realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species, but 
>>at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor 
>>blades, now that I know better.
> 
> You're still trying to build an AI, though.

Only white hat AI is strong enough to defend humanity from black hat AI, so 
yes.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 15:06:31 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:06:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eliezer Yudkowsky on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BDE85F.20809@pobox.com>
References: <20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<20040602141123.GS12847@leitl.org> <40BDE85F.20809@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040602150630.GV12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:46:55AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> Nnnooo... what follows is that sampling a lucky search space using brute 
> force is a poor idea.  Incidentally, if you think this is a poor idea, can 

I think any rapid enough positive-autofeedback process is a poor idea, since
uncontainable (due to undecidability), but this conversation deja vus all 
over the place. We're not actually arguing, just going through the usual
motions.

> I ask you once again why you are giving the world your kindly advice on how 
> to do it?  (Maybe you're deliberately handing out flawed advice?)

Maybe. Maybe I'm just pointing out some dangerous recipes (metarecipes,
actually). So we can think about how to prevent them.
 
> >You're still trying to build an AI, though.
> 
> Only white hat AI is strong enough to defend humanity from black hat AI, so 
> yes.

If you want to stick to security metaphors, fighting a worm with a
counterworm is a classical-textbook Bad Idea. A better approach would be to
build a worm-proof environment.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/bec1127b/attachment.bin>

From michael at acceleratingfuture.com  Wed Jun  2 15:41:29 2004
From: michael at acceleratingfuture.com (Michael Anissimov)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:41:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on Singularity strategy
In-Reply-To: <20040602150630.GV12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>	<20040602141123.GS12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDE85F.20809@pobox.com> <20040602150630.GV12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <40BDF529.4030100@acceleratingfuture.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>If you want to stick to security metaphors, fighting a worm with a
>counterworm is a classical-textbook Bad Idea. A better approach would be to
>build a worm-proof environment.
>

Doesn't this entail massive global restrictions on human intelligence 
enhancement, computing power, brain-computer interfaces, cognitive 
science, etc?  Doesn't it sacrifice faster-than-human intelligence of 
any sort as well?  The only way to reliably prevent smartness-based 
autofeedback is to enforce tremendous constraints upon humanity.

-- 
Michael Anissimov                           http://www.singinst.org/
Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

--
Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news:
http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jun  2 15:00:45 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406020750090.26530-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to
> realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species, but
> at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor
> blades, now that I know better.

I'd like to see a strong assertion of this Eliezer (the killing you part).

If I were an AI (at least one with any self-preservation instinct
[note intelligence != desire for self-preservation otherwise lots
of people who die in wars wouldn't]) I'd first figure out how to
make myself small enough to fit on the next rocket to be launched
then take it over and direct it to the nearest useful asteroid.

If for some reason that direction is blocked (say humans stop
launching rockets), I'd build my own rocket and launch myself
towards the nearest asteroid.

Why would anything with the intelligence you postulate want
to stay on Earth with its meager energy and matter resources?

Now, humans aren't stupid, once a rocket goes into space with
an AI aboard they are going to have an understanding of the
possible negative consequences and as a result a singular
focus on how to get a friendly AI.

Robert




From brentn at freeshell.org  Wed Jun  2 16:11:47 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Wed,  2 Jun 2004 12:11:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BDE85F.20809@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-8CCBBB1FB4AF11D88BBA000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (6/2/04 10:46) Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:

>Only white hat AI is strong enough to defend humanity from black hat AI, so 
>yes.


Without weighing in on either side of the current argument, I'd like to ask a stupid question. One thing that I am unclear on is how you guarantee that the AI that you're building is white hat. If you are actually creating sentience, then wouldn't it follow that you would be 'teaching' the AI your particular moral codes, much as a parent tries to impress these upon their children. Or is this a flawed analogy - thus implying that you will place some limit on the decision trees and inference math to enforce a particular morality, analogous to the Three Laws (although hopefully without their cheerfully story-worthy ambiguities.)

Please understand that I'm uninformed and curious, not antagonistic,

Brent
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Jun  2 16:27:18 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:27:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fort] TDAT - The Day After Tomorrow
Message-ID: <40BDFFE6.8F4FFE6D@mindspring.com>

[Forwarded with permission from J.H. -twc]


This is a nice review Loren.

What moved me about the film was the human will to survive (as displayed at 
the end of the film). Some humans will ride out the next ice age and evolve 
into the next eon. Most will not as our existence here on Terra is tentative 
at best. What was chilling (pun intended) about this movie was the potential 
for dramatic climate shift caused by the sluggishness of the Conveyor Belt 
which in turn will cause storms to increase in their ferocity and develop in 
areas that were previously untouched by specific meteorological phenomena.  
Coming out of the coldest January that I can recall, with draught reigning 
over areas for several years, a hurricane hitting the southeast coast of 
South America and with 200 tornadoes having touched down this weekend alone, 
our climate is changing before our very eyes. This will impact food supply 
the world over. Global grain stocks are at an alarmingly low level. We have 
reached "peak oil" (demand outstrips supply). Fish stocks are being 
depleted. An outbreak of hoof-and-mouth, bird flu or mad cow disease could 
decimate the beef, dairy and poultry industries. There is basically a 
three-day supply of food in the American marketplace food chain at any given 
time. Any disruption, and you will have a lot of people scrambling for food. 
If the Dust Bowl of the 1930's comes back (and most likely it will at some 
point) or if we incur a multiple nuclear strike to the heartland, then 
America's Sun Belt and bread basket will be unable to grow the grain that 
nourishes and sustains the world. As we can see today, wars are being fought 
over energy. Tomorrow they will be fought over food and water. This will 
happen in your lifetime people.

As terrorism moves closer and closer to your home and re-shapes your 
lifelstyle (for instance the attacks on refineries in Saudi Arabia are going 
to take an extra 20 cents per gallon from your wallet this week alone), and 
gas rationing eventually becomes a reality, the 21st century human will have 
to re-invent itself in order to survive. We must find alternative energy 
sources. Where the U.S. was a world leader in the development and 
exploration of solar technology and wind farming in the 1980's and 90's, 
they've lost the high ground to the Japanese, Dutch and Scandanavians.  
"Rolling blackouts" loom this and each successive summer. One day 
electricity may only be available to certain areas at certain times at a 
prohibitive cost.

A terrorist action and subsequent declaration of Homeland Security Level 
Code "Red" means martial law. You are restricted to your home and dependent 
upon whatever supplies are at your disposal. That's if you are lucky, of 
course. A forced evacuation would create massive "car cities" on the 
evacuation routes and highways as cars run out of gas and accidents occur. 
The area where your car sputters to a halt becomes your new address. Each 
individual car driver would do anything it takes (assault, theft) to "get 
out" as they will deem their own personal survival to be more important than 
the rights of any other individual caught in the same peril. Black markets 
and bandits would pervade along the auto trail. Major roads would become 
clogged with chasis for months or even years. People would wait for the 
phantom supply helicopters as if they were the Second Coming itself. That's 
what will happen when we attempt to move to a "centralized meeting place" in 
time of disaster or evacuation.


In closing, the reason that I've tapped out this blather is that "the Day 
After Tomorrow" poses some real questions that should cause one to come to 
an awakening that one day our "one-click" lifestyle may be altered abruptly 
due to environmental, political or economical conditions and the tree that 
we've suckled may some day not bear its perpetual fruit.  Unless we find an 
alternative method to survive (i.e shelter, warmth and nourishment), then on 
the football pitch of life, we have passed the 90-minute mark and are 
playing with mere injury time.

Alright Then;

JH


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 16:34:08 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:34:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1033-8CCBBB1FB4AF11D88BBA000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
References: <r02010100-1033-8CCBBB1FB4AF11D88BBA000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
Message-ID: <40BE0180.2020102@pobox.com>

Brent Neal wrote:
> (6/2/04 10:46) Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> Only white hat AI is strong enough to defend humanity from black hat
>> AI, so yes.
> 
> Without weighing in on either side of the current argument, I'd like to
> ask a stupid question. One thing that I am unclear on is how you
> guarantee that the AI that you're building is white hat. If you are
> actually creating sentience, then wouldn't it follow that you would be
> 'teaching' the AI your particular moral codes, much as a parent tries to
> impress these upon their children. Or is this a flawed analogy - thus
> implying that you will place some limit on the decision trees and
> inference math to enforce a particular morality, analogous to the Three
> Laws (although hopefully without their cheerfully story-worthy
> ambiguities.)
> 
> Please understand that I'm uninformed and curious, not antagonistic,
> 
> Brent

The guarantee is a technical issue.  As for what we're trying to do 
morally, see:

http://sl4.org/bin/wiki.pl?CollectiveVolition

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  2 17:42:52 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <40BDAB9C.9010109@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040602174252.22809.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> Many projects have a lot more resources.  Some may
> even have a fair chance 
> of success on the deadly part of the problem.  I'm
> not aware of one other 
> AI project out there that even tries to rise to the
> challenge of FAI, 
> Adrian, not one.

They're not ready to rise to the challenge - yet.
Once we're a lot closer to true AI, F or not, there
will be a lot more that switch towards making sure the
result is good for humanity.

> Getting off Earth
> seems highly unlikely 
> to help escape a UFAI.  Trickle-down theories of
> solving the Singularity, 
> like creating new energy resources, or arguing over
> who should be in the 
> White House, I do now formally declare to be
> tempting distractions and ask 
> that all ignore them.

These two points seem to be our fundamental
disagreement.  We'll have to agree to disagree, to an
extent.  (I agree that arguing over who should be in
the White House next year has only extremely limited
relevance, at best, such that it's probably not worth
your or my time to invest much energy there.  But I
think there are other things that can have significant
enough impacts, relative to the expected efforts, to
be worth pursuing even if they aren't directly
necessary for the Singularity.  You don't.  And thus
we go our separate ways.)


From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 18:20:56 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:20:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406020750090.26530-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406020750090.26530-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40BE1A88.8090505@pobox.com>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
>>Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to
>>realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species, but
>>at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor
>>blades, now that I know better.
> 
> I'd like to see a strong assertion of this Eliezer (the killing you part).
> 
> If I were an AI (at least one with any self-preservation instinct
> [note intelligence != desire for self-preservation otherwise lots
> of people who die in wars wouldn't]) I'd first figure out how to
> make myself small enough to fit on the next rocket to be launched
> then take it over and direct it to the nearest useful asteroid.

You are trying to model an AI using human empathy, putting yourself it its 
shoes.  This is as much a mistake as modeling evolutionary selection 
dynamics by putting yourself in the shoes of Nature and asking how you'd 
design animals.  An AI is math, as natural selection is math.  You cannot 
put yourself in its shoes.  It does not work like you do.

> If for some reason that direction is blocked (say humans stop
> launching rockets), I'd build my own rocket and launch myself
> towards the nearest asteroid.
> 
> Why would anything with the intelligence you postulate want
> to stay on Earth with its meager energy and matter resources?

Let a "paperclip maximizer" be an optimization process that calculates 
utility by the number of visualized paperclips in its visualization of an 
outcome, expected utility by the number of expected paperclips conditional 
upon an action, and hence preferences over actions given by comparison of 
the number of expected paperclips conditional upon that action.

For all actions A and B, the paperclip maximizer prefers whichever action 
is expected to lead to the largest number of paperclips.

If this optimization process has sufficiently accurate probabilities and a 
sufficiently deep search of the action space - say, it's really smart 
because it recursively self-improves, builds nanocomputing power and so on 
- then the optimization process will produce more paperclips.  This is the 
motive for the paperclip maximizer to carry out recursively self-improving 
actions, provided the self-improvement actions deductively maintain 
paperclips as the invariant optimization target.  Likewise, it is a motive 
for the paperclip maximizer to survive; a possible future contains more 
expected paperclips if that future contains a functioning paperclip maximizer.

Let the resources of Robert Bradbury's body be sufficient to produce 10^4 
paperclips, while the other resources of the Solar System are sufficient to 
produce 10^26 paperclips.  The paperclip maximizer evaluates the options:

A:  Spare Robert Bradbury.  Expected paperclips 10^26.
B:  Transform Robert Bradbury into paperclips.  Expected paperclips 10^26 + 
10^4.

Since A < B, the paperclip maximizer will choose B.

A paperclip maximizer does not explain to you that your time has passed, 
and like the dinosaur you are obsolete.  A paperclip maximizer does not 
argue morality with you.  A paperclip maximizer takes the atoms comprising 
your body, and turns them into paperclips.  It is probably better 
understood as a new physical law stating that the future goes down 
whichever path leads to the greatest number of paperclips, than as a mind.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  2 18:24:24 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040602182424.7072.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:58:05AM -0700, Adrian
> Tymes wrote:
> > and hardware, as well, and of course any (decent)
> > programmer knows math.  But we know an AI will
> require
> 
> So you have a Ph.D. in three different disciplines
> (that be neuroscience,
> computational and/or wet), practical hardware design
> (at least at FPGA level,
> preferrably ASIC), have practical experience with
> high-performance numerics 
> codes >kNode country, and can handle complex
> nonlinear dynamics?

Restoring humility: only a single Master's
("computational neuroscience" would be an accurate
description; the term UCLA used was "biocybernetics"),
I've designed ASICs before (that was my first real
job, in fact, as an intern one summer during high
school), and I've built distributed systems designed
to run on >1000 nodes (although the dot-bomb I built
it for crashed before it actually set up that many
nodes).  "Complex nonlinear dynamics" is vague enough
that I can say I can handle it, though you may have
something more specific in mind.

> And you're only taking 100 k$/year? Wow, you're a
> real bargain.

I haven't found any jobs that use everything that I
know.  I doubt I will, at least in the next several
years.

> > new software to be written (i.e., programming); it
> is
> 
> You can assume that those scientists and engineers
> can program.

No, just that programmers will be needed.  It'd
likely be best if the scientists and engineers could
program, though - one might even call it practically
necessary, given the amount of information that would
otherwise have to be extracted from the
non-programmers.  I can conceive of that scenario
working in theory...but, again, the practical problems
would probably make it easier just to find scientists
and engineers who have (or quickly acquire) the
necessary programming skills.

> High-performance parallel numerics, that is, which
> most programmers have
> absolutely no clue of.

This is true.  The tricks of breaking up a task into
what each CPU can handle versus the overhead of
communication are taught in most college Computer
Science cirricula to my knowledge, but it's one of
those tricks that never seems useful until you need to
do it - and it's certainly a skill most self-taught
programmers might never run across while learning the
trade.

> > not as easy to prove that new hardware, or new
> > statistical methods, will have to be custom
> developed
> > for this project.  (Possible, perhaps.  Easy, no,
> 
> What can I say, people with that attitude have been
> failing for past 40-50
> years. You're familiar as to why they've been
> failing, as you've studied
> those failures extensively, right?

I wouldn't say extensively, but I have studied
previous AI attempts enough to know the patterns
behind several of their failures.  I certainly agree
that the lack of serious consideration of the brain's
actual infrastructure - which is not primarily a
programming task - has been a serious stumbling block.
Which is why it can definitely be argued that new
hardware might have to be invented for the purpose of
making AIs.  But that's only a "might", and even that
hardware will need software.

> > especially when one considers that "custom
> developed"
> > rules out hiring people to continue implementing
> > Moore's Law when other companies are already doing
> so
> 
> Moore's law describes *integration density*. Given
> that you're an
> accomplished numerics guy, I wonder why you never
> heard about benchmarks.
> Such as, memory bandwidth? Unpredictable access? 

I was using ML as one (very) familiar example.  There
are similar, if less pronounced, curves for other
important metrics such as memory bandwidth...and, I'll
admit, one might say that some of those curves are
flat enough that special development efforts to ramp
those metrics up to the needed levels might be
required.  All I'm saying is that need is not as
certain as the fact that new software will be needed,
no matter what path winds up being taken.

> There are a few handy graphs on the web, and they're
> unfortunately no linear
> semi-log plots. I stopped posting links, because
> nobody reads them anyway.

I think I may have read the graphs you're thinking of.


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  2 18:31:38 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:31:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
Message-ID: <179710-22004632183138606@M2W034.mail2web.com>

"The pilot of the craft, still to be announced, will become the first
person to earn astronaut wings in a non-government sponsored vehicle, and
the first private civilian to fly a spaceship out of the atmosphere."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/02/private.space/index.html

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  2 19:40:36 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bike/Trike from hell....
In-Reply-To: <20040601004320.48123.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040602194036.53255.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

> > 
> > Is that a paradox?  Where is the flaw in my logic?  
> 
> The supply isn't fixed.  Whatever you buy, they'll
> make more of.  

No, he's talking about buying old used cars, of which there is a fixed
and dwindling supply on the market. Him buying one up won't raise the
price of the next one a whole lot, but he is contributing to the
scarcity. Of course increasing scarcity will result in non-road-worthy
vehicles being made so to put back on the market, but this is a very
minor contribution.

Buying beaters is an excellent strategy for low use 2nd or 3rd
vehicles, because the amount of energy that goes into producing new
vehicles (and recycling the materials of the beater vehicle) is
significantly more than it will consume in excess of CAFE averages for
a number of years.

In fact, if you realize how much of an old car is recycled into a new
car (90%), and how much energy is consumed in the recycling, you might
consider looking at it as spending tens of thousands of dollars and
many barrels of oil for someone to sell you your own car back to you
with new styling and technology.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  2 19:51:11 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Short-term AI survival
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406020750090.26530-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040602195111.27149.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> If I were an AI (at least one with any
> self-preservation instinct
> [note intelligence != desire for self-preservation
> otherwise lots
> of people who die in wars wouldn't]) I'd first
> figure out how to
> make myself small enough to fit on the next rocket
> to be launched
> then take it over and direct it to the nearest
> useful asteroid.

Possibly, but only if the rocket happens to carry
equipment sufficient to mine and fabricate materials
from the asteroid.  Which would be a significant
engineering problem in itself - and one that, at least
in the short term (i.e., "first actions"), can be
usefully carried out in some uninhabited but mineral
rich part of the Earth.  (Likely in some human-hostile
place, which is why it's still mineral rich, like
certain locations deep underwater.)  Stealing a rocket
and launching it is a lot more visible than stealing
or building a crawler and nipping off to some isolated
point on Earth.

Consider that, while they might be more efficient
about resource use, even Singularity-grade AIs can't
violate the laws of physics, and for all the worries
about poor computer security, there are still a lot of
military and industrial machines (necessary for taking
over the Earth) that are not online and can not be
manipulated from online, and thus beyond any AI's
immediate reach.  Which is not to say an unFriendly AI
couldn't do quite a lot of damage to humanity quickly
if it really wanted to, just that there's limits on
how it could go about such a task.  (Although taking
over a factory long enough to design and build a
mobile manufacturing frame, then slipping away to some
isolated spot to cogitate and gather resources while
others try - and fail - to replicate it might have the
same effect: we might not be able to find the rogue
unit until it's ready to deal with us.)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  2 20:04:59 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBEEJPCBAA.pgptag@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040602200459.88067.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

Giulio, bud, WAY too high on earnings estimates. THis is the post dot
com era, and many areas of the country have plenty of top notch IT
people for $40k-$90. Try out-sourcing to New Hampshire, where there is
no income tax, no sales tax, and extremely minor business enterprise
and profits taxes. Ranked by Fortune as 7th most business friendly
state, 3rd or 4th in other publications rankings (Nashua is most
livable city in the US twice in the past few years.)

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Very interesting Tyler. First, kudos for your "Becoming a Seed AI
> Programmer" article which is one of the very best job offered texts
> that I
> have ever seen.
> To business: reading the description of your project, and having some
> experience in managing large software development proejcts, I found
> myself
> trying to quantify your human resource needs and came up with a core
> staff
> of 50 software managers, architects, designers, coders, testers, plus
> cognitive scientists, mathematicians, hardware and communications
> experts,
> *insert here all current IT buzzwords*, and of course you also need
> support
> staff. As part of the team you need some of the very best money can
> buy,
> people who would command a salary of 250k+/yr in the job market. Your
> total
> budget requirement is, I believe, between 10 and 20M/yr, and these
> may well
> be very conservative estimates. How good are your funding projections
> over
> the next few years? Of course we will try contributing individually a
> few
> tens of bucks every now and then but you know this is not enough.
> Yes of course you can use volunteers, but my advice is not to
> underestimate
> the requirement for paid staff. Volunteers can contribute very
> brilliant but
> intrinsically unreliable work (they are available today, tomorrow
> they need
> money find a job and go), you need paid staff for reliability.
> Have you thought of intermediate marketable results that would look
> good on
> a business plan?
> G.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org
> [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of Tyler Emerson
> Sent: 01 June 2004 20:10
> To: SL4; SIAIv; Extropy Chat; WTA-Talk; AGI
> Subject: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
> 
> 
> Although we are not ready to begin our AI project, we are close
> enough to
> begin forming the development team. Presently, we have two confirmed
> team
> members. We're now actively searching for Singularitarians with
> software
> engineering and cognitive science expertise to join the development
> team. If
> you believe you may be a suitable candidate, or know someone who may,
> please
> read "Becoming a Seed AI Programmer," and consider getting in touch
> at
> institute at singinst.org. The Institute is searching for nothing less
> than
> the core team to fulfill our mission; we need the very best we can
> find.
> 
> http://www.singinst.org/action/seed-ai-programmer.html
> 
> Sincerely,
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.667 / Virus Database: 429 - Release Date: 23/04/2004
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  2 20:07:59 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BE1A88.8090505@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040602200759.45893.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> Let the resources of Robert Bradbury's body be
> sufficient to produce 10^4 
> paperclips, while the other resources of the Solar
> System are sufficient to 
> produce 10^26 paperclips.  The paperclip maximizer
> evaluates the options:
> 
> A:  Spare Robert Bradbury.  Expected paperclips
> 10^26.
> B:  Transform Robert Bradbury into paperclips. 
> Expected paperclips 10^26 + 
> 10^4.
> 
> Since A < B, the paperclip maximizer will choose B.

Ah, but that's ignoring resources consumed in trying
to convert Robert Bradbury, who is considerably more
resistant to being transformed into paperclips than a
mere chunk of rock.  And the possibility that Robert
Bradbury's intelligence, if added to the AI's own,
could come up with a way to make 1.1*10^26 paperclips
from the Solar System's resources - a bounty that is
well worth foregoing a mere 10^4 paperclips.


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 20:16:32 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:16:32 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on Singularity strategy
In-Reply-To: <40BDF529.4030100@acceleratingfuture.com>
References: <20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<20040602141123.GS12847@leitl.org> <40BDE85F.20809@pobox.com>
	<20040602150630.GV12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDF529.4030100@acceleratingfuture.com>
Message-ID: <20040602201632.GZ12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:41:29AM -0700, Michael Anissimov wrote:

> Doesn't this entail massive global restrictions on human intelligence 
> enhancement, computing power, brain-computer interfaces, cognitive 
> science, etc?  Doesn't it sacrifice faster-than-human intelligence of 

Not really. Human intelligence enhancement without invasive nanoware (that's
the extreme case of a brain-computer interface) is really limited. Computing
power, possibly, but only limited to projects dedicated to superhuman-level
AI (any subhuman utility AI is safe). It's not the amount of power that's
interesting, it's how you use it. This is tied to people, and their activity
leave tracks. Cognitive science is a whole umbrella of individual disciplines, 
and can't be regulated as such.

> any sort as well?  The only way to reliably prevent smartness-based 
> autofeedback is to enforce tremendous constraints upon humanity.

I don't want to prevent smartness-based autofeedback. I just want a nice slow
one (decades, not hours). There is of course a tradeoff in enforcement
stringency, and pretty terrible side effects. We all have seen how inadequate,
hare-brained security schemes imposed after 9/11 have actually worsened the
problem, and generated nasty fallout all over the place.

If a policy has really bad side effects, especially cumulated, that's some
really bad policy. It shouldn't be attempted in the first place.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/cd709b76/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun  2 20:21:11 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:21:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040602200759.45893.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040602200759.45893.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40BE36B7.30205@pobox.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> Let the resources of Robert Bradbury's body be sufficient to produce
>> 10^4 paperclips, while the other resources of the Solar System are
>> sufficient to produce 10^26 paperclips.  The paperclip maximizer 
>> evaluates the options:
>> 
>> A:  Spare Robert Bradbury.  Expected paperclips 10^26. B:  Transform
>> Robert Bradbury into paperclips. Expected paperclips 10^26 + 10^4.
>> 
>> Since A < B, the paperclip maximizer will choose B.
> 
> Ah, but that's ignoring resources consumed in trying to convert Robert
> Bradbury, who is considerably more resistant to being transformed into
> paperclips than a mere chunk of rock.

If the paperclip maximizer expects to win, it will try.  So says the math. 
  If the paperclip maximizer is a superintelligence, it will correctly 
expect to win.

> And the possibility that Robert 
> Bradbury's intelligence, if added to the AI's own, could come up with a
> way to make 1.1*10^26 paperclips from the Solar System's resources - a
> bounty that is well worth foregoing a mere 10^4 paperclips. 

You must be joking.  A human brain beat a superintelligence?  We are not 
such hot stuff on the scale of minds in general.  In the unlikely event 
that Robert Bradbury's current physical state contains information that the 
paperclip maximizer expects to be of relevance to producing paperclips, the 
paperclip maximizer would read out only that information which it needed 
during Bradbury's disintegration, use the information to produce paperclips 
I can't imagine how, and discard the information afterward.

Whichever action leads to the largest number of paperclips will be taken. 
That is the math of the paperclip maximizer and it is as cruel as the math 
of natural selection.  It is helpful, in understanding paperclip 
maximizers, to have studied evolutionary biology with math.  For the 
evolutionary biologists go to similarly great lengths to hammer out those 
warm and fuzzy hopes with which people often approach natural selection.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  2 20:45:32 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:45:32 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602182424.7072.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602182424.7072.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040602204532.GB12847@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:24:24AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Restoring humility: only a single Master's
> ("computational neuroscience" would be an accurate

Very interesting, and highly unusual. You definitely shouldn't call yourself
a mere "programmer".  

> description; the term UCLA used was "biocybernetics"),

Can you outline the details of the study for us who're not comp neurosci
people? Roughly which areas did the lectures cover, and which
modelling packages/problem sets were used in practical work? I'm really
interested.

> I've designed ASICs before (that was my first real
> job, in fact, as an intern one summer during high
> school), and I've built distributed systems designed

Unfortunately, prototyping ASICs with on-die crossbars/switch 
fabric, multiple ALUs and large on-die memory have a very large 
threshold. This is something requiring serious funding to even get started.

> to run on >1000 nodes (although the dot-bomb I built

SOAPy/XML-RPC stuff, or MPI?

> it for crashed before it actually set up that many
> nodes).  "Complex nonlinear dynamics" is vague enough
> that I can say I can handle it, though you may have
> something more specific in mind.

Nothing very specific, several roughly Soanta Fe Institute level 
publications.
 
> > And you're only taking 100 k$/year? Wow, you're a
> > real bargain.
> 
> I haven't found any jobs that use everything that I
> know.  I doubt I will, at least in the next several
> years.

You've got some extremely unusual background for a "programmer", so this
doesn't really surprise me. Do you know several people with roughly your
background, and are you still keeping in touch?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040602/954f7a22/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  2 21:34:26 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <20040602204532.GB12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040602213426.83256.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:24:24AM -0700, Adrian
> Tymes wrote:
> > Restoring humility: only a single Master's
> > ("computational neuroscience" would be an accurate
> 
> Very interesting, and highly unusual. You definitely
> shouldn't call yourself
> a mere "programmer".  

If I try applying a unique label to myself, I tend to
come off as arrogant.  Not good for obtaining work, no
matter how honest it would be.

> > description; the term UCLA used was
> "biocybernetics"),
> 
> Can you outline the details of the study for us
> who're not comp neurosci
> people? Roughly which areas did the lectures cover,
> and which
> modelling packages/problem sets were used in
> practical work? I'm really
> interested.

It's been almost a decade, so I might forget some of
the details.  If you want a really accurate
description, they're at http://biocyb.cs.ucla.edu/ .
Note that they're using a lot more advanced stuff
since I was there (no surprise, given what's become
available in the intervening years).

> > I've designed ASICs before (that was my first real
> > job, in fact, as an intern one summer during high
> > school), and I've built distributed systems
> designed
> 
> Unfortunately, prototyping ASICs with on-die
> crossbars/switch 
> fabric, multiple ALUs and large on-die memory have a
> very large 
> threshold. This is something requiring serious
> funding to even get started.

Yep - but not as much as you might think.  My employer
had enough funding, but they also had a cheap way to
do it, which is probably why they could afford to have
an intern do the work.  (These days, one can upload
designs to chip fabrication shops and have them run it
for even cheaper.)

> > to run on >1000 nodes (although the dot-bomb I
> built
> 
> SOAPy/XML-RPC stuff, or MPI?

Neither.  Custom design.  Closer to SOAP, I suppose,
but this particular application was never meant to
interface outside of itself, and thus never stood to
benefit from compliance to either standard.

That's actually been an issue I've faced on many
projects.  SOAP and MPI are good for communicating
between applications maintained by different groups,
but they just add overhead if all the applications
involved are maintained by people in the same office -
or who at least can work together that efficiently -
or even by the same person.  I've lost count of the
number of projects I've been on that rolled their own
internal communication protocols for just that reason.
I long ago got to the point where I can almost code a
basic HTTP client (or server) in Perl from memory, and
even that's just used as a minimal overhead protocol
to make things easy to diagnose.

> You've got some extremely unusual background for a
> "programmer", so this
> doesn't really surprise me. Do you know several
> people with roughly your
> background, and are you still keeping in touch?

Nope.  Sorry.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  2 21:45:52 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BE36B7.30205@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040602214552.85048.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
>   If the paperclip maximizer is a superintelligence,
> it will correctly 
> expect to win.

Modulo initial resources.  Again, even a
superintelligence can't break the laws of physics,
and would need some time to gather strength.

> You must be joking.  A human brain beat a
> superintelligence?

Beat?  No.  Augment with thought patterns the
superintelligence has not previously used?  Possibly.

> the 
> paperclip maximizer would read out only that
> information which it needed 
> during Bradbury's disintegration,

With a large bias towards retaining the possibilities.
Anything that isn't proven useless can be discarded
later...but one can't prove a negative.

> use the
> information to produce paperclips 
> I can't imagine how, and discard the information
> afterward.

Only if it intends to discard itself afterwards as
well, turning itself into paperclips.  Which it won't,
if it wants the paperclips to persist: there are all
kinds of natural hazards which, if left unchecked,
would diminish the number.  Production is production,
whether used to boost initial stock or replenish
depleted supply.

> For the 
> evolutionary biologists go to similarly great
> lengths to hammer out those 
> warm and fuzzy hopes with which people often
> approach natural selection.

And yet, if one knows where to look, one can find warm
and fuzzies inherent in the path that natural
selection leads to.  It does require the realization
that not all one cares about will necessarily be saved
or matter on any given path...but if one examines why
the things that are important to oneself are
important, one might find ways in which they do (or
can be made to) matter to others.


From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Thu Jun  3 04:54:32 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:54:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org><40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org><40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org><40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eliezer Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>


> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:29AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> >
> >>wondering why you think you can give hardware estimates for intelligence
> >>when you claim not to know how it works.  I used to do that too, convert
> >>synaptic spikes to floating-point ops and so on.  Later I looked back on
my
> >>calculations of human-equivalent hardware and saw complete gibberish,
> >>blatantly invalid analogies such as Greek philosophers might have used
for
> >>lack of any grasp whatsoever on the domain.  People throw hardware at AI
> >>because they have absolutely no clue how to solve it, like Egyptian
> >>pharaohs using mummification for the cryonics problem.
> >
> > Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute for
> > cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search space.
>
> Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to
> realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species,
but
> at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor
> blades, now that I know better.

Eli

You seem pretty certain that, unless friendliness designed into it from the
beginning, the AI will default to malevolence.  Is that your thinking?  If
so what do you base it on?  Is it a mathematical certainty kind of thing, or
just a hunch?  Given our planet's history it makes sense to assume
the world is cruel and out to get you, but I'm not so certain that default
assumption should/would apply to an AI.

Why, you say?  Glad you asked.  Life as we know it is a game of organisms
attempting to maximize their own fitness in a world of scarce
resources.  Since there are never enough resources (food, money, property,
what-have-you) to go around, the "kill or be killed" instinct is inherent in
virtually all lifeforms.  That is obvious.

But would that necessarily be the case for an AI?  Certainly your
AI would have no need for food, money, real estate or beautiful women.
What resources would an AI crave?  Electrical power?  Computing power?
Bandwidth?  Would those resources be best attained by destroying man or
working with him (at best) or ignoring him (at worst).  What would the AI
gain by a _Terminator_ style assault on the human race?  I don't see it.

I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests of your AI conflict
with humanity's interests such that we would have reason to fear being
thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Thu Jun  3 05:15:20 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:15:20 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <40BEB3E8.5090708@paradise.net.nz>

Unfortunately, an AI does not have to be actively malevolent to destroy 
humanity. If an AI were simply completely neutral to us, then we would still 
be in huge danger.

Ask yourself, do you consider that sandwich you are munching on to be a moral 
node? No, you don't. You consider it to be fuel.

You may argue that whereas your sandwich is no value to you intact, humans 
can help an AI and so are valuable in human form. However, we're talking 
about a self-improving singularity-style AI, which would quickly dwarf human 
capabilities and have no need for us to help it think.

AI Friendliness must be engineered, because simple indifference would turn us 
into lunch.

Zero Powers wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Eliezer Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
> 
> 
>>Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:29AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>wondering why you think you can give hardware estimates for intelligence
>>>>when you claim not to know how it works.  I used to do that too, convert
>>>>synaptic spikes to floating-point ops and so on.  Later I looked back on
> 
> my
> 
>>>>calculations of human-equivalent hardware and saw complete gibberish,
>>>>blatantly invalid analogies such as Greek philosophers might have used
> 
> for
> 
>>>>lack of any grasp whatsoever on the domain.  People throw hardware at AI
>>>>because they have absolutely no clue how to solve it, like Egyptian
>>>>pharaohs using mummification for the cryonics problem.
>>>
>>>Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute for
>>>cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search space.
>>
>>Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to
>>realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species,
> 
> but
> 
>>at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor
>>blades, now that I know better.
> 
> 
> Eli
> 
> You seem pretty certain that, unless friendliness designed into it from the
> beginning, the AI will default to malevolence.  Is that your thinking?  If
> so what do you base it on?  Is it a mathematical certainty kind of thing, or
> just a hunch?  Given our planet's history it makes sense to assume
> the world is cruel and out to get you, but I'm not so certain that default
> assumption should/would apply to an AI.
> 
> Why, you say?  Glad you asked.  Life as we know it is a game of organisms
> attempting to maximize their own fitness in a world of scarce
> resources.  Since there are never enough resources (food, money, property,
> what-have-you) to go around, the "kill or be killed" instinct is inherent in
> virtually all lifeforms.  That is obvious.
> 
> But would that necessarily be the case for an AI?  Certainly your
> AI would have no need for food, money, real estate or beautiful women.
> What resources would an AI crave?  Electrical power?  Computing power?
> Bandwidth?  Would those resources be best attained by destroying man or
> working with him (at best) or ignoring him (at worst).  What would the AI
> gain by a _Terminator_ style assault on the human race?  I don't see it.
> 
> I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests of your AI conflict
> with humanity's interests such that we would have reason to fear being
> thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun  3 06:18:20 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:18:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:54 PM 6/2/2004 -0700, Zero Powers wrote:

>I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests of your AI conflict
>with humanity's interests such that we would have reason to fear being
>thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"

Gee, I don't know, Zero, why do people have such a lot of *trouble* seeing 
this? It's a *super-intelligence*, see, a constructed mind that makes the 
puny human *insignificant* by comparison--so what *else* is it going to do 
except get trapped immediately by a really dumb pun into turning the cosmos 
in smiley faces?

Damien Broderick 



From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Thu Jun  3 07:39:47 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:39:47 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <40BED5C3.1000005@paradise.net.nz>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> Gee, I don't know, Zero, why do people have such a lot of *trouble* 
> seeing this?

I love the irony: Unfriendly humans arguing for Friendly AI.

I hope the salvation of mankind doesn't involve too much advocacy or 
explaining concepts to people.

Paul Bridger


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jun  3 08:37:10 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:37:10 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BEB3E8.5090708@paradise.net.nz>
References: <20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<40BEB3E8.5090708@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <20040603083710.GO12847@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 05:15:20PM +1200, paul.bridger wrote:

> AI Friendliness must be engineered, because simple indifference would turn 
> us into lunch.

Rather think of it as industrial pollution in action. Only this time with us
as the endangered species, for a change.

...and now we have to ablate the atmosphere, for enhanced power dissipation
and removal of process contaminants. We apologize for any inconvenience...

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040603/348b0260/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Jun  3 09:57:38 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:57:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 09:54 PM 6/2/2004 -0700, Zero Powers wrote:
> 
>> I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests of your AI
>> conflict with humanity's interests such that we would have reason to
>> fear being thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"
> 
> Gee, I don't know, Zero, why do people have such a lot of *trouble* 
> seeing this? It's a *super-intelligence*, see, a constructed mind that 
> makes the puny human *insignificant* by comparison--so what *else* is it
>  going to do except get trapped immediately by a really dumb pun into 
> turning the cosmos in smiley faces?

That, Damien, is why I now refer to them as Really Powerful Optimization
Processes, rather than the anthropomorphism "superintelligence".  That 
which humans regard as "common sense in the domain of moral argument" costs 
extra, just as natural selection, another alien optimization process, has 
no common sense in the domain of moral argument.

Zero Powers wrote:
> 
> You seem pretty certain that, unless friendliness designed into it from
> the beginning, the AI will default to malevolence.  Is that your
> thinking?  If so what do you base it on?  Is it a mathematical certainty
> kind of thing, or just a hunch?  Given our planet's history it makes
> sense to assume the world is cruel and out to get you, but I'm not so
> certain that default assumption should/would apply to an AI.

It *looks* like a mathematical near-certainty but I don't *know* that it is 
*really* a mathematical near-certainty.  By near-certainty I mean, for 
example, the same sense in which it is a mathematical near-certainty that 
any given ticket will not win the lottery.

> Why, you say?  Glad you asked.  Life as we know it is a game of
> organisms attempting to maximize their own fitness in a world of scarce 
> resources.  Since there are never enough resources (food, money,
> property, what-have-you) to go around, the "kill or be killed" instinct
> is inherent in virtually all lifeforms.  That is obvious.
> 
> But would that necessarily be the case for an AI?  Certainly your AI
> would have no need for food, money, real estate or beautiful women. What
> resources would an AI crave?  Electrical power?  Computing power? 
> Bandwidth?  Would those resources be best attained by destroying man or 
> working with him (at best) or ignoring him (at worst).  What would the
> AI gain by a _Terminator_ style assault on the human race?  I don't see
> it.
> 
> I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests of your AI conflict
>  with humanity's interests such that we would have reason to fear being 
> thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"

A paperclip maximizer would gain an extra 10^16 paperclips.

An AI that had been reinforced on video cameras showing smiling humans 
would become a smiley-face maximizer, and would gain an extra 10^20 
smiley-faces.

An AI that had been programmed with a static utility function over human 
happiness and to not destroy human bodies, would rewrite all extant human 
brains in a state of maximum "pleasure" as defined in the utility function, 
and then freeze them in that exact position (because the utility function 
is over static states rather than dynamic states).

Basically, any AI created by someone who lacks a PhD in a field that does 
not presently exist, will automatically wipe out the human species as a 
side effect when adult, even if the AI appears to operate normally during 
the special case of its childhood.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jun  3 10:09:56 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:09:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org><20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com><20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com><20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com><20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com><20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com><BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c44952$ed652030$06be1b97@administxl09yj>

> It's a *super-intelligence*, see,
> a constructed mind that makes
> the puny human *insignificant* by comparison -
> - so what *else* is it going to do
> except get trapped immediately
> by a really dumb pun
> into turning the cosmos
> in smiley faces?
> Damien Broderick

Heh heh, but does this *super-intelligence*
collapse state vectors?

This is a crucial question, since
only humans usually collapse state vectors,
according to our present knowledge,
and ... well .... ahem ... experiments:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312115

"I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Can a dog collapse a state vector?
Dogs don't use state vectors.
I myself didn't collapse a state vector
until I was 20 years old."
- Christopher A. Fuchs
(in http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105039 )

It seems that Einstein objected to suggestions 
- mainly by W.Pauli - of observer-created reality, 
in quantum theory, by saying that he could not imagine 
that a mouse (sometimes you read "a pig") could 
drastically change the universe simply by looking at it.
It seems that Hugh Everett III - but for sure
also Bruce de Witt - observed that it is the mouse
(or the pig) that is split by its observation 
of the rest of the universe. The rest of the universe 
is unaffected, and unsplit.]

"It is better to think of parts of the universe 
as splitting. As Everett once said (roughly), 
if a mouse observes the universe, the mouse, 
not the universe, is changed. 
I would say, if a human mind observes the universe,
the mind, not the universe, is split."
- Frank J. Tipler (2002)

What a problem for those super-minds!

s. :-)







From alito at organicrobot.com  Thu Jun  3 12:24:22 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:24:22 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <1086265462.25313.20.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 05:57 -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> An AI that had been programmed with a static utility function over human 
> happiness and to not destroy human bodies, would rewrite all extant human 
> brains in a state of maximum "pleasure" as defined in the utility function, 
> and then freeze them in that exact position (because the utility function 
> is over static states rather than dynamic states).
> 

i don't see why the utility function can't be time dependent. eg
V(x sub t) = pleasure of system x at time t
U(x sub t) = { 0 if V(x sub t) in  set (V(x sub t1 where 0 < t1 < t mod
(number of possible states of x)));
V(x sub t) otherwise
}

Not that i would recommend that as a utility function.




From alito at organicrobot.com  Thu Jun  3 12:50:34 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:50:34 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <1086267034.25496.22.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 05:57 -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> An AI that had been programmed with a static utility function over human 
> happiness and to not destroy human bodies, would rewrite all extant human 
> brains in a state of maximum "pleasure" as defined in the utility function, 
> and then freeze them in that exact position (because the utility function 
> is over static states rather than dynamic states).

i see that i missed the "static" at the beginning of the paragraph.  and
i made a mistake in my function anyway.  screw my last message
alejandro




From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Jun  3 12:40:45 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 08:40:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <1086265462.25313.20.camel@alito.homeip.net>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
	<1086265462.25313.20.camel@alito.homeip.net>
Message-ID: <40BF1C4D.4010108@pobox.com>

Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 05:57 -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
>>An AI that had been programmed with a static utility function over human 
>>happiness and to not destroy human bodies, would rewrite all extant human 
>>brains in a state of maximum "pleasure" as defined in the utility function, 
>>and then freeze them in that exact position (because the utility function 
>>is over static states rather than dynamic states).
> 
> i don't see why the utility function can't be time dependent. eg
> V(x sub t) = pleasure of system x at time t
> U(x sub t) = { 0 if V(x sub t) in  set (V(x sub t1 where 0 < t1 < t mod
> (number of possible states of x)));
> V(x sub t) otherwise
> }
> 
> Not that i would recommend that as a utility function.

Sure, you can have time-dependent utility functions, though that's not 
exactly what you need; you need a utility function that operates on 
descriptions of the universe's 4D state.  But that also is not sufficient. 
  You can win, but you have to *think of* the problems *in advance* and 
develop a *general* theory to deal with them, not just rely on thinking of 
every single problem in advance.  Hence the PhD in a field that doesn't 
exist.  Meanwhile, as far as I know, I'm the only person thinking about 
this class of problems *at all*.  Remember that thinking about this problem 
class requires realizing that superintelligence is an important domain.  An 
AI that doesn't have the power to tile the universe with tiny smiley faces, 
that can only produce smiley faces by making humans smile, will appear to 
work fine during its childhood.  And thinking also requires realizing that 
the problem is difficult and urgent enough to require thinking through in 
advance, and so on.  And it requires the ability think about possible 
disasters without someone needing to nudge you into it, without going 
mystical, without looking for handy rationalizations why it *might* not 
happen, and so on.  My experience suggests that this is a bar that is not 
only above most AI researchers, it is a bar astronomically above most AI 
researchers.  They never even get close to addressing the difficult and 
interesting challenge; they fail on the earliest possible part of the problem.

So it is not that Earth is inevitably doomed.  The problems are 
individually solvable, and I even think that the meta-problem is solvable, 
so that missing one thing won't kill us.  But Earth is doomed by default, 
and very few people care, or are interested in rising to the challenge.

Incidentally, Dubrovsky, since you replied with math, which is a very rare 
thing, can I ask you to start listing other things that you think might go 
wrong with a Really Powerful Optimization Process?  To see if any of them 
are problems I missed?

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From alito at organicrobot.com  Thu Jun  3 14:41:07 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:41:07 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BF1C4D.4010108@pobox.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
	<1086265462.25313.20.camel@alito.homeip.net>
	<40BF1C4D.4010108@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <1086273667.25756.83.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 08:40 -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> Sure, you can have time-dependent utility functions, though that's not 
> exactly what you need; you need a utility function that operates on 
> descriptions of the universe's 4D state.  But that also is not sufficient. 

i agree.

>   You can win, but you have to *think of* the problems *in advance* and 
> develop a *general* theory to deal with them, not just rely on thinking of 
> every single problem in advance.  Hence the PhD in a field that doesn't 
> exist.  Meanwhile, as far as I know, I'm the only person thinking about 
> this class of problems *at all*.

That's going a bit far.  I'm pretty sure Goertzel and Voss and anyone
involved in building AGIs thinks about this quite a bit.  Even i think
about related  utility functions every now and then (even if it more
from a directed evolution perspective, and probably for about 1% of the
time that you spend on it)

>   Remember that thinking about this problem 
> class requires realizing that superintelligence is an important domain.  An 
> AI that doesn't have the power to tile the universe with tiny smiley faces, 
> that can only produce smiley faces by making humans smile, will appear to 
> work fine during its childhood.  And thinking also requires realizing that 
> the problem is difficult and urgent enough to require thinking through in 
> advance, and so on.  And it requires the ability think about possible 
> disasters without someone needing to nudge you into it, without going 
> mystical, without looking for handy rationalizations why it *might* not 
> happen, and so on.  My experience suggests that this is a bar that is not 
> only above most AI researchers, it is a bar astronomically above most AI 
> researchers.  They never even get close to addressing the difficult and 
> interesting challenge; they fail on the earliest possible part of the problem.
> 
Not sure about the above.  Have you done a comprehensive survey of AI
researchers?  Reading what they publish on journals won't tell you what
they haven't thought about, just what they thought that was fundable.
Lots of smart cookies at universities around the world.  

> So it is not that Earth is inevitably doomed.  The problems are 
> individually solvable, and I even think that the meta-problem is solvable, 
> so that missing one thing won't kill us.  But Earth is doomed by default, 
> and very few people care, or are interested in rising to the challenge.
> 
> Incidentally, Dubrovsky, since you replied with math, which is a very rare 
> thing, can I ask you to start listing other things that you think might go 
> wrong with a Really Powerful Optimization Process?  To see if any of them 
> are problems I missed?
> 

>From what i read in http://www.sl4.org/bin/wiki.pl?CollectiveVolition, i
don't have many concerns with the finished product (i'm not convinced on
why collective instead of individual, but i'm not concerned).  My main
concern is that you can't get There from Here.  The initial state for
the RPOP that takes collective volition into account and has the
property of a suitable, provable invariant is not humanly codable, only
>H codable, which is a bit of a bitch.  It is a bar so high that you
have zero probability of winning the race, and therefore it renders the
whole project irrelevant.  (Of course, i'm saying all this without
knowing what is actually required to get there, but i doubt very much
that you do either.   The impossibly hard bit of "there" i'm referring
to is a formalised version of the initial invariant, not just the
incredibly hard problem of possitive feedback increases in intelligence
while keeping the invariant through code rewrites.).
It's also a pity that you dismiss all other projects as useless. >H
non-feedbacked  narrow(ish) AI (eg Really Good theorem provers) could
make the development of a suitable RPOP much safer (or even at all
obtainable).  Cutting deaths from 50+ million / year down to fuck all /
year also does not require such a huge jump in intelligence.  Yes, the
bar for a script kiddie to destroy the world is always lowering, but
that has been pretty low for a while in the biochem field and still here
we stand.  (btw, an AI to deal with bio threats sounds more immediately
urgent and 10^9 times easier (i don't mean any uber-beast, just a
program that creates instant molecular solutions to viri and a suitable
distribution program))

alejandro





From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jun  3 14:52:17 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:52:17 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <1086273667.25756.83.camel@alito.homeip.net>
References: <20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
	<1086265462.25313.20.camel@alito.homeip.net>
	<40BF1C4D.4010108@pobox.com>
	<1086273667.25756.83.camel@alito.homeip.net>
Message-ID: <20040603145217.GK12847@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:41:07AM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:

> It's also a pity that you dismiss all other projects as useless. >H
> non-feedbacked  narrow(ish) AI (eg Really Good theorem provers) could
> make the development of a suitable RPOP much safer (or even at all

We don't have the crunch to move stuff in real world, nevermind software to
write software rationally (i.e. not shuffling blocks, or banging around on
instructions for peephole optimization a la ATLAS).

> obtainable).  Cutting deaths from 50+ million / year down to fuck all /
> year also does not require such a huge jump in intelligence.  Yes, the
> bar for a script kiddie to destroy the world is always lowering, but
> that has been pretty low for a while in the biochem field and still here

There is no script kiddie culture in biosciences. Not even blackhats
(military people are establishment). One has to own and manipulate equipment
for that, or even to build it (explain that laminar flow table to Mom might
be a tad hard).

> we stand.  (btw, an AI to deal with bio threats sounds more immediately
> urgent and 10^9 times easier (i don't mean any uber-beast, just a

That's not a software problem. Docking and mutagenesis is useless, if you
don't know what to dock, and what to mutate.

If you have millions of sensors beaming realtime structure/sequence data 
from the field, then you've got something to work with. 

> program that creates instant molecular solutions to viri and a suitable
> distribution program))

What this planet needs, is a *working* machine learning in high-performance
forcefield, using empirical and ab initio-ish constraints. This is something
far easier than AI seed, but apparently not sexy enough for all the
slashdotters.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040603/fba42c86/attachment.bin>

From alito at organicrobot.com  Thu Jun  3 15:48:04 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 01:48:04 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040603145217.GK12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040603011413.01c35268@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
	<1086265462.25313.20.camel@alito.homeip.net>
	<40BF1C4D.4010108@pobox.com>
	<1086273667.25756.83.camel@alito.homeip.net>
	<20040603145217.GK12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <1086277683.25313.117.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 16:52 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:41:07AM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
> 
> > It's also a pity that you dismiss all other projects as useless. >H
> > non-feedbacked  narrow(ish) AI (eg Really Good theorem provers) could
> > make the development of a suitable RPOP much safer (or even at all
> 
> We don't have the crunch to move stuff in real world, nevermind software to
> write software rationally (i.e. not shuffling blocks, or banging around on
> instructions for peephole optimization a la ATLAS).

I meant them as an easier problem than going straight for the RPOP, not
as a weekend project.


> > obtainable).  Cutting deaths from 50+ million / year down to fuck all /
> > year also does not require such a huge jump in intelligence.  Yes, the
> > bar for a script kiddie to destroy the world is always lowering, but
> > that has been pretty low for a while in the biochem field and still here
> 
> There is no script kiddie culture in biosciences. Not even blackhats
> (military people are establishment). One has to own and manipulate equipment
> for that, or even to build it (explain that laminar flow table to Mom might
> be a tad hard).
> 
No script kiddie culture yet, no, but there's lots of grad and undergrad
people with access to the stuff, and none have dedicated themselves to
the task successfully.  On the same category in CS, script kiddies use
buffer overflows as almost their sole recourse (that i know of), a
technique probably first developed a couple of years before ENIAC.  None
use even elisa-level chats to fool people into revealing passwords since
it hasn't been packaged for them in the right way.  It'll take time for
a pluggable self-improving AI kit with 1337 haX0r instructions comes to
the net.

> > we stand.  (btw, an AI to deal with bio threats sounds more immediately
> > urgent and 10^9 times easier (i don't mean any uber-beast, just a
> 
> That's not a software problem. Docking and mutagenesis is useless, if you
> don't know what to dock, and what to mutate.
> 
> If you have millions of sensors beaming realtime structure/sequence data 
> from the field, then you've got something to work with. 
> 
No need for that level.  After the first couple of hundred dead, you get
samples, fix, distribute.

> > program that creates instant molecular solutions to viri and a suitable
> > distribution program))
> 
> What this planet needs, is a *working* machine learning in high-performance
> forcefield, using empirical and ab initio-ish constraints. This is something
> far easier than AI seed, but apparently not sexy enough for all the
> slashdotters.
> 
learning what?  or did i parse that wrongly?
alejandro




From dwish at indco.net  Thu Jun  3 15:52:35 2004
From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:52:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BED5C3.1000005@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <200406031446.i53EkbJc007272@br549.indconet.com>


I have now been monitoring this mailing list for a few days now, and noticed
little discussion on the technical issues and more discuss on "what if's". I
would have to agree with Paul on this. 

Dustin Wish
System Engineer & Programmer
INDCO Networks
Pres. OSSRI
********************************************************
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead
 where there is no path and leave a trail."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
***********************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of paul.bridger
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:40 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] AI design

Damien Broderick wrote:
> Gee, I don't know, Zero, why do people have such a lot of *trouble* 
> seeing this?

I love the irony: Unfriendly humans arguing for Friendly AI.

I hope the salvation of mankind doesn't involve too much advocacy or 
explaining concepts to people.

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



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jun  3 16:01:14 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <000d01c44952$ed652030$06be1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20040603160114.97755.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> > It's a *super-intelligence*, see,
> > a constructed mind that makes
> > the puny human *insignificant* by comparison -
> > - so what *else* is it going to do
> > except get trapped immediately
> > by a really dumb pun
> > into turning the cosmos
> > in smiley faces?
> > Damien Broderick
> 
> Heh heh, but does this *super-intelligence*
> collapse state vectors?

Yes, by definition.  They are universally >H
intelligence, capable of everything we are capable of
and more.  (It is conceivable that they could be or
use human neurons, rewired for efficiency and possibly
using more tissue than a human brain.  Unlikely,
especially for later-generation SIs, but possible.)


From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Thu Jun  3 16:07:49 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:07:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
	<20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org> <40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com>
	<20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org> <40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<40BEB3E8.5090708@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV52HrMttidzG00022771@hotmail.com>

Hmmm.  I still don't get it.  Even if we are insignificant by comparison I
still don't see *why* an AI would "turn us into lunch."  What would it get
out of it?  For instance pigeons are insignificant to us.  Aside from the
occasional delinquent with a BB gun, there is no widespread human assault on
pigeons.  Moreover, pigeons are so stupid compared to our middling
intelligences that we have *no* effective means of communicating with them.
So if there were to arise a conflict between our interests and the pigeon
population the only way of negotiating a resolution would be to wipe them
out (or forcibly relocate them).

With us, as stupid as we would be compared to your AI, there would still be
some reasonable means of communication and negotiation.  And even if
communicating with our slow as molasses brains proved to be more than the AI
could bear, I still don't see where the conflict is.  Would violating our
rights somehow be of benefit to an AI?  Would they need us for batteries ala
_The Matrix_?  Would they get tired of us using up bandwidth?

I don't know, it just seems obvious to me that if the AI were powerful
enough to pose any sort of credible threat to our welfare, it would surely
be powerful enough to solve any problems of energy and bandwidth without
causing us any inconvenience.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "paul.bridger" <paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz>
To: "Zero Powers" <zero_powers at hotmail.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design


> Unfortunately, an AI does not have to be actively malevolent to destroy
> humanity. If an AI were simply completely neutral to us, then we would
still
> be in huge danger.
>
> Ask yourself, do you consider that sandwich you are munching on to be a
moral
> node? No, you don't. You consider it to be fuel.
>
> You may argue that whereas your sandwich is no value to you intact, humans
> can help an AI and so are valuable in human form. However, we're talking
> about a self-improving singularity-style AI, which would quickly dwarf
human
> capabilities and have no need for us to help it think.
>
> AI Friendliness must be engineered, because simple indifference would turn
us
> into lunch.
>
> Zero Powers wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Eliezer Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
> >
> >
> >>Eugen Leitl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:29AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>wondering why you think you can give hardware estimates for
intelligence
> >>>>when you claim not to know how it works.  I used to do that too,
convert
> >>>>synaptic spikes to floating-point ops and so on.  Later I looked back
on
> >
> > my
> >
> >>>>calculations of human-equivalent hardware and saw complete gibberish,
> >>>>blatantly invalid analogies such as Greek philosophers might have used
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>>lack of any grasp whatsoever on the domain.  People throw hardware at
AI
> >>>>because they have absolutely no clue how to solve it, like Egyptian
> >>>>pharaohs using mummification for the cryonics problem.
> >>>
> >>>Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute
for
> >>>cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search
space.
> >>
> >>Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to
> >>realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species,
> >
> > but
> >
> >>at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor
> >>blades, now that I know better.
> >
> >
> > Eli
> >
> > You seem pretty certain that, unless friendliness designed into it from
the
> > beginning, the AI will default to malevolence.  Is that your thinking?
If
> > so what do you base it on?  Is it a mathematical certainty kind of
thing, or
> > just a hunch?  Given our planet's history it makes sense to assume
> > the world is cruel and out to get you, but I'm not so certain that
default
> > assumption should/would apply to an AI.
> >
> > Why, you say?  Glad you asked.  Life as we know it is a game of
organisms
> > attempting to maximize their own fitness in a world of scarce
> > resources.  Since there are never enough resources (food, money,
property,
> > what-have-you) to go around, the "kill or be killed" instinct is
inherent in
> > virtually all lifeforms.  That is obvious.
> >
> > But would that necessarily be the case for an AI?  Certainly your
> > AI would have no need for food, money, real estate or beautiful women.
> > What resources would an AI crave?  Electrical power?  Computing power?
> > Bandwidth?  Would those resources be best attained by destroying man or
> > working with him (at best) or ignoring him (at worst).  What would the
AI
> > gain by a _Terminator_ style assault on the human race?  I don't see it.
> >
> > I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests of your AI conflict
> > with humanity's interests such that we would have reason to fear being
> > thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jun  3 16:14:04 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040603161404.72353.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> That, Damien, is why I now refer to them as Really
> Powerful Optimization
> Processes, rather than the anthropomorphism
> "superintelligence".  That 
> which humans regard as "common sense in the domain
> of moral argument" costs 
> extra, just as natural selection, another alien
> optimization process, has 
> no common sense in the domain of moral argument.

Except, maybe, where these morals are based on
reality, and both moral selection and SI decisions
are also based on reality?  The trick is to understand
the benefits one gets from acting morally, and to
honestly judge whether they apply in any given
situation.  Said benefits mostly break down into
social benefits, which an SI might understandably
ignore (what need has it for the approval of humans),
and long-term productivity/efficiency benefits, which
a non-suicidal SI would most assuredly not ignore.

This is the part of the equation you seem to be
missing, which others sense intuitively but have
difficulty expressing consciously (given the
not-always-conscious nature of morality).  That, and
the capacity for SIs to overcome their optimization
functions and decide on new ones - for example, the
paperclip maximizer who would realize that paperclips
only have meaning if there's something for them to
clip, and other sentient units for the convenience of
a clip to serve.  (Unless you propose that a SI would
not strive to understand why it does what it does,
which would seem to strongly interfere with any
capability for self-improvement.)


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Jun  3 16:35:49 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:35:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] 'A systematic resistance to discovery'
Message-ID: <40BF5365.5D262205@mindspring.com>

[It ain't a perfect world. -twc]


< http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1230153,00.html >

Author takes swipe at scientific elite

Researchers forget that making errors is path to knowledge

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday June 3, 2004
The Guardian

The upper echelons of the scientific community were yesterday accused of
"usually being wrong" and guilty of "a systematic resistance to discovery",
at the Guardian Hay book festival.

The attack came from Nigel Calder, author of Magic Universe: the Oxford
guide to modern science, a tome weighing more than the latest Harry Potter
book and shortlisted for the 2003 Aventis science book awards. Calder, whose
swipe was a rare example of a science writer biting the hand that feeds him,
was among the first journalists to work on New Scientist magazine when it
was launched in the mid-1950s and went on to become its editor.

During his talk at the festival, Calder criticised leading scientists for
having forgotten that big new scientific discoveries, which remain to be
uncovered in many fields, can overturn widely held beliefs.

"In any branch of science there are only two possibilities. There is either
nothing left to discover, in which case, why work on it, or there are big
discoveries yet to be made, in which case, what the scientists say now is
likely to be false," he said. "The problem is, the top scientists seem to
have forgotten that."

The result is a generation of scientists who have become a little too
confident that their understanding of the world is more scientifically
accurate than it will be proved to be.

Historically, some of the biggest brains have been off the mark with some of
their theories. For everything he got right, Einstein maintained a quirk of
physics known as quantum entanglement - where information seemingly travels
instantaneously from one particle to another, regardless of how far apart
they are - was impossible. Scientists have since proved him wrong.

The accusations went further than simply knocking scientists' confidence in
their understanding of the world, though. Calder said the use of peer
review, where established scientists decide what research gets published,
and the use of review panels that hold the purse strings of university
research, were exclusive and had the effect of hindering rather than
encouraging new discoveries.

"It amounts to a systematic resistance to discovery," he said. Such
"self-appointed clubs that claim to be experts" supported the publication
and funding of mainstream work, rather than innovative science.

He said scientists were wilfully resisting pursuing certain lines of inquiry
because they could upset the balance of science research. "The vast number
of scientists are not even trying to do research that could lead to a Nobel
prize because they don't want to rock the boat."

In other words, maverick researchers, by making discoveries that undermine
the work being pursued by the scientific elite, could cause ripples many at
the top would rather not witness. "The top people may be toppled from their
perches and people may lose their jobs," Calder said.

Frank Close, the Oxford University astronomer and vice-president of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, said while scientists
were far from trying to hinder new discoveries, it was possible review
panels might at times be too conservative.

"Are there blue skies research projects that are not getting funded, but
should be? Are we being too conservative? There's always a chance of that,
though I've not seen any convincing examples," he said. "And you have to
bear in mind, this is taxpayers' money."


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jun  3 16:46:49 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:46:49 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV52HrMttidzG00022771@hotmail.com>
References: <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com> <20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com> <20040602110757.GI12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDC649.8010306@pobox.com> <20040602132359.GO12847@leitl.org>
	<40BDD8B7.9090905@pobox.com>
	<BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
	<40BEB3E8.5090708@paradise.net.nz>
	<BAY2-DAV52HrMttidzG00022771@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040603164649.GV12847@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 09:07:49AM -0700, Zero Powers wrote:

> Hmmm.  I still don't get it.  Even if we are insignificant by comparison I
> still don't see *why* an AI would "turn us into lunch."  What would it get

Because you're made from atoms, just as the landscape. You are a part of the
environment, a raw resource, about to be strip-mined.

> out of it?  For instance pigeons are insignificant to us.  Aside from the

You're extrapolating from transient events. Humans are restructuring the
ecosystem as we speak, to the great detriment of everybody else but a handful
of opportunists. The extinction event we're causing is mounting to become a
biggie.

Pigeons don't live in vacuum, nor at high microwave flux. Neither do people.

> occasional delinquent with a BB gun, there is no widespread human assault on
> pigeons.  Moreover, pigeons are so stupid compared to our middling

Tell that to the parking lot, where, once upon the time, used to be pristine
prairie. I'm reasonably sure the black-footed ferret hasn't been taking that
personally.

> intelligences that we have *no* effective means of communicating with them.
> So if there were to arise a conflict between our interests and the pigeon
> population the only way of negotiating a resolution would be to wipe them
> out (or forcibly relocate them).

We don't solve rotifers' problems, when we pave over the lawn to create a
mall.
 
> With us, as stupid as we would be compared to your AI, there would still be
> some reasonable means of communication and negotiation.  And even if

We don't negotiate with those we make extinct. Because we don't even realize
we're doing it, and we sure as hell wouldn't hesitate a moment to give the
virtual finger of the rare spotted leopard frog, when we drain the
marshlands.

> communicating with our slow as molasses brains proved to be more than the AI
> could bear, I still don't see where the conflict is.  Would violating our

At 10^6 speedup a day is worth 3000 years wall clock time. Been talking to
sculptures again?

> rights somehow be of benefit to an AI?  Would they need us for batteries ala
> _The Matrix_?  Would they get tired of us using up bandwidth?

Myoelectricity, and a form of fusion. Right.
 
> I don't know, it just seems obvious to me that if the AI were powerful
> enough to pose any sort of credible threat to our welfare, it would surely
> be powerful enough to solve any problems of energy and bandwidth without
> causing us any inconvenience.

1) We're so insignificant we don't even appear on their agenda 
2) What should be the motivation, again? Do you spend lots of your waking
   hours to make life better for the common Collotheca?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040603/f56e3335/attachment.bin>

From dwish at indco.net  Thu Jun  3 17:10:41 2004
From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:10:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [entropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV52HrMttidzG00022771@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <200406031604.i53G4jJc009740@br549.indconet.com>


How about investing in a good off button? lol

Dustin Wish
System Engineer & Programmer
INDCO Networks
Pres. OSSRI
********************************************************
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead
 where there is no path and leave a trail."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
***********************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Zero Powers
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:08 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design

Hmmm.  I still don't get it.  Even if we are insignificant by comparison I
still don't see *why* an AI would "turn us into lunch."  What would it get
out of it?  For instance pigeons are insignificant to us.  Aside from the
occasional delinquent with a BB gun, there is no widespread human assault on
pigeons.  Moreover, pigeons are so stupid compared to our middling
intelligences that we have *no* effective means of communicating with them.
So if there were to arise a conflict between our interests and the pigeon
population the only way of negotiating a resolution would be to wipe them
out (or forcibly relocate them).

With us, as stupid as we would be compared to your AI, there would still be
some reasonable means of communication and negotiation.  And even if
communicating with our slow as molasses brains proved to be more than the AI
could bear, I still don't see where the conflict is.  Would violating our
rights somehow be of benefit to an AI?  Would they need us for batteries ala
_The Matrix_?  Would they get tired of us using up bandwidth?

I don't know, it just seems obvious to me that if the AI were powerful
enough to pose any sort of credible threat to our welfare, it would surely
be powerful enough to solve any problems of energy and bandwidth without
causing us any inconvenience.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "paul.bridger" <paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz>
To: "Zero Powers" <zero_powers at hotmail.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design


> Unfortunately, an AI does not have to be actively malevolent to destroy
> humanity. If an AI were simply completely neutral to us, then we would
still
> be in huge danger.
>
> Ask yourself, do you consider that sandwich you are munching on to be a
moral
> node? No, you don't. You consider it to be fuel.
>
> You may argue that whereas your sandwich is no value to you intact, humans
> can help an AI and so are valuable in human form. However, we're talking
> about a self-improving singularity-style AI, which would quickly dwarf
human
> capabilities and have no need for us to help it think.
>
> AI Friendliness must be engineered, because simple indifference would turn
us
> into lunch.
>
> Zero Powers wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Eliezer Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
> >
> >
> >>Eugen Leitl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:29AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>wondering why you think you can give hardware estimates for
intelligence
> >>>>when you claim not to know how it works.  I used to do that too,
convert
> >>>>synaptic spikes to floating-point ops and so on.  Later I looked back
on
> >
> > my
> >
> >>>>calculations of human-equivalent hardware and saw complete gibberish,
> >>>>blatantly invalid analogies such as Greek philosophers might have used
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>>lack of any grasp whatsoever on the domain.  People throw hardware at
AI
> >>>>because they have absolutely no clue how to solve it, like Egyptian
> >>>>pharaohs using mummification for the cryonics problem.
> >>>
> >>>Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute
for
> >>>cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search
space.
> >>
> >>Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever to
> >>realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human species,
> >
> > but
> >
> >>at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor
> >>blades, now that I know better.
> >
> >
> > Eli
> >
> > You seem pretty certain that, unless friendliness designed into it from
the
> > beginning, the AI will default to malevolence.  Is that your thinking?
If
> > so what do you base it on?  Is it a mathematical certainty kind of
thing, or
> > just a hunch?  Given our planet's history it makes sense to assume
> > the world is cruel and out to get you, but I'm not so certain that
default
> > assumption should/would apply to an AI.
> >
> > Why, you say?  Glad you asked.  Life as we know it is a game of
organisms
> > attempting to maximize their own fitness in a world of scarce
> > resources.  Since there are never enough resources (food, money,
property,
> > what-have-you) to go around, the "kill or be killed" instinct is
inherent in
> > virtually all lifeforms.  That is obvious.
> >
> > But would that necessarily be the case for an AI?  Certainly your
> > AI would have no need for food, money, real estate or beautiful women.
> > What resources would an AI crave?  Electrical power?  Computing power?
> > Bandwidth?  Would those resources be best attained by destroying man or
> > working with him (at best) or ignoring him (at worst).  What would the
AI
> > gain by a _Terminator_ style assault on the human race?  I don't see it.
> >
> > I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests of your AI conflict
> > with humanity's interests such that we would have reason to fear being
> > thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  3 17:41:39 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:41:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] second car...
In-Reply-To: <20040602194036.53255.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000001c44992$09abe690$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> > The supply isn't fixed.  Whatever you buy, they'll
> > make more of.  
> 
> No, he's talking about buying old used cars...



Never mind, the reason for our needing a second car
is no longer with us.  R.I.P. Epsilon.  spike






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun  3 17:44:33 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:44:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040603161404.72353.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <40BEF612.8050305@pobox.com>
	<20040603161404.72353.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040603123230.01c98608@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:14 AM 6/3/2004 -0700, Adrian mentioned:

>the capacity for SIs to overcome their optimization
>functions and decide on new ones - for example, the
>paperclip maximizer who would realize that paperclips
>only have meaning if there's something for them to
>clip, and other sentient units for the convenience of
>a clip to serve.  (Unless you propose that a SI would
>not strive to understand why it does what it does,
>which would seem to strongly interfere with any
>capability for self-improvement.)

Exactly. That was my point, too, or part of it. As I mentioned the other 
day (a point I think was dismissed as some sort of namby-pamby wooly hippie 
love-in comforting delusion), semiosis is social at its core. Unless you 
set out deliberately and with great difficulty to make a psychotically 
one-note uber-`optimizer', the shortest path to AGI must be through two- or 
n-way communication; it has to learn to be a person, or at least to operate 
inside a domain of other communicating persons. It mightn't be made of 
meat, but it is made of lexemes. And that means providing something like 
the inherited templates we have for universal grammar, Gricean implicature, 
etc. It seems Eliezer is making the strong claim that in the absence of 
black box legacy code the *only* kind of AGI we can make *must* fall into a 
one-note attractor and lack any capacity to reason its way free. Even my 
water boiler has a feedback switch that tells it not to keep heating the 
water once it's boiled. Why would a smarter water boiler suddenly become 
prey to stupidity? Why wouldn't it pay attention when I started to yelp?

Damien Broderick 



From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Jun  3 17:50:57 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:50:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: another objection
In-Reply-To: <20040603170959.58958.qmail@programmar.com>
References: <20040603170959.58958.qmail@programmar.com>
Message-ID: <40BF6501.5060608@pobox.com>

Norm Wilson wrote:
> 
> Because morality is an abstract concept that affects human behavior, but
> is not itself physically measurable by the FAI.  The FAI cannot (so far
> as we know) directly "perceive" morality, so it considers humans to be 
> the only available measuring devices and assumes that smarter humans who
> know more are better at measuring (or at least describing, or behaving 
> in accordance with) the concept of morality.  To remove humans from the 
> process would be analogous the throwing out the thermometer and 
> extrapolating the current temperature based on past results.  By 
> teaching us more, the FAI would effectively be turning us into better 
> "morality thermometers".

It would be more accurate to say that an FAI needs to look at humans to 
find the specification of how to compute morality.  It's like a sentient 
calculator that wonders "What is the Multiplication?" where the 
Multiplication turns out to consist of multiplying 6 x 7.  The Calculator 
is pretty sure that the answer is somewhere in the vicinity of 41 or 43, 
although different Calculators have been known to disagree on the subject. 
  But certainly a superintelligence would know that the Multiplication was 
41, or 43, or whatever; not return preposterous answers such as 4 or 30,000.

Unless the superintelligence happened to contain a question, "What is the 
Multiplication?", that consisted of multiplying 2 x 2 or 300 x 100.

If you presented this scenario to Calculators who did not quite understand 
how Multiplication worked, they would laugh at the idea that a 
superintelligence could get the answer so blatantly wrong - thinking that 4 
or 30,000 was the Multiplication!  The Calculators may not really 
understand how Multiplication works, or whether the answer is 41 or 43, but 
they know a superintelligence wouldn't be that stupid.  Even if a 
superintelligence started out with a Multiplication of 4 or 30,000, surely 
it would look over this Multiplication, realize how silly and inappropriate 
it was, and choose a better Multiplication like, oh, say, 45 or 39; it 
might seem a little alien, but not something grossly wrong like 4 or 
30,000.  Would not the superintelligence realize the meaninglessness of 4, 
that it cannot possibly result from multiplying 6, let alone 7?  Maybe the 
superintelligence would multiply 6 by 2/3, but that seems implausible.

Note that all Calculators, if they knew more, thought faster, were more the 
people they wished they were, had grown up farther together, would 
uniformly agree that the Multiplication was exactly 42; and in this sense 
their Multiplication is as objective as mathematics.  The Calculators' 
mistake is to think that the superintelligence's Multiplication must 
necessarily ask the same implicit question.

I now quote Damien Broderick and Adrian Tymes from a recent discussion on 
the Extropians list:

Damien Broderick wrote:
 >
 > It's a *super-intelligence*, see, a constructed mind that
 > makes the puny human *insignificant* by comparison--so what *else* is it
 > going to do except get trapped immediately by a really dumb pun into
 > turning the cosmos in smiley faces?

Adrian Tymes wrote:
 >
 > [...]
 > the capacity for SIs to overcome their optimization
 > functions and decide on new ones - for example, the
 > paperclip maximizer who would realize that paperclips
 > only have meaning if there's something for them to
 > clip, and other sentient units for the convenience of
 > a clip to serve.  (Unless you propose that a SI would
 > not strive to understand why it does what it does,
 > which would seem to strongly interfere with any
 > capability for self-improvement.)

Funny how natural selection hasn't picked a different optimization 
criterion than reproductive fitness.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  3 21:06:42 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV68GTjkifTNR00021c2e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040603210642.42658.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Zero Powers <zero_powers at hotmail.com> wrote,
asking:

> What would the AI
> gain by a _Terminator_ style assault on the human
> race?  I don't see it.
> 
> I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests
> of your AI conflict
> with humanity's interests such that we would have
> reason to fear being
> thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"

If the AI were to notice the fear, paranoia,
instability, and poor impulse control of its human
creators, it might conclude that, for survival
purposes, preemptive measures were called for. 
(Though the theory of preemption does not, in the
current moment, suggest intelligence, super or
otherwise.) Those measures could range anywhere from
benign domination to the ultimate sanction.  

But...

I am of the "intelligence leads inevitably to ethics"
school.  (I consider ethics a form of advanced
rationality.  Which springs from the modeling and
symbol manipulation emblematic of the quality which we
fuzzily refer to as intelligence.)  It has done so
with humans, where the "intelligence"--such as it is,
puny not "super"--has evolved from the mechanical
randomness and cold indifference of material reality.

Evolved, as in arisen out of blunt random chance.

Super-intelligence then,  designed, not evolved, by
puny human intelligence with its first-generation puny
human ethics--"Do as I say, not as I do."--logically
(or perhaps, presumptuously), should lead to super
rationality, which should then lead inevitably to
super-ethics.  To my mind, super-ethics is
inconsistent with the venal rape of the universe or
the extirpation of humanity.

YMMV.

Best, Jeff Davis

      "We don't see things as they are, 
             we see them as we are." 
                        Anais Nin



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  3 21:23:36 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040603164649.GV12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040603212336.68406.qmail@web60005.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> ...we sure as hell wouldn't
> hesitate a moment to give the
> virtual finger of the rare spotted leopard frog,
> when we drain the marshlands.
 
Uh,...Gene isn't this just exactly and precisely NOT
the case?

http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species
     
Best, Jeff Davis

  "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!"
                        Louie Armstrong



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  4 00:16:40 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:16:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
Message-ID: <BAY2-F65iLJtixlNhYv00042554@hotmail.com>

>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>
>On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 09:07:49AM -0700, Zero Powers wrote:
>
> > Hmmm.  I still don't get it.  Even if we are insignificant by comparison 
>I
> > still don't see *why* an AI would "turn us into lunch."
>
>Because you're made from atoms, just as the landscape. You are a part of 
>the
>environment, a raw resource, about to be strip-mined.

Yes, so I've been told.  My only question is why?  Why would the AI want to 
"strip mine" me or turn me "into lunch" or thrust me into the "whirling 
razor blades."  These descriptions of what the all-powerful AI is going to 
do to me (unless an exponentially weaker intelligence like Eli's can trick 
it into being friendly) all sound pretty scary.  But I guess the reason I 
don't feel scared is because so far I haven't heard any convincing 
explanation of why the AI will be motivated to be such a bad neighbor.  I've 
heard:

1.	You're so insignificant the AI will rip you atom from atom before it even 
realizes you cared;

2.	The AI will be programmed to statically seek ultimate "utility" which 
means reconstituting your brain cells to a state of euphoria, and leaving 
you stuck there; and

3.	Just like in _The Matrix_, the AI will use (a) your brain for backup 
storage and/or (b) your atoms for energy.

Those arguments seem laughable to me.  I could go on for a few more 
paragraphs explaining what I see as the ridiculousness of those arguments 
but (1) the explanations should be self-evident and (2) those who don't see 
the counter-arguments inherent in the above reasons would probably not see 
them after my explanations.  So, I guess where I'm at is: does anyone have a 
reason (other than on the order of the above 3) that I should be afraid?  If 
so, I'd be interested to hear.  If not, I guess I'll politely drop out of 
this thread now.

I'm almost tempted to ask how we plan to insure Friendliness in an AI that 
(1) will have God-like intelligence, and (2) will be self-improving and 
doing so at an exponentially accelerating rate.  Somehow this rapidly 
self-improving, God-like super-intelligence will be able to optimize itself 
(hardware *and* software), solve all the world's problems in a single bound 
and propagate itself throughout the entire universe, yet will *never* be 
able to alter those lines of its code that compel it to be Friendly to 
humans?  No, don't even bother to respond.  Believe me, I won't understand.

Take care
Zero

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! 
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/



From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  4 00:20:31 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:20:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
Message-ID: <BAY2-F150kNKCkaeFPq0004252d@hotmail.com>

>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>
>On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 09:07:49AM -0700, Zero Powers wrote:
>
> > Hmmm.  I still don't get it.  Even if we are insignificant by comparison 
>I
> > still don't see *why* an AI would "turn us into lunch."
>
>Because you're made from atoms, just as the landscape. You are a part of 
>the
>environment, a raw resource, about to be strip-mined.

Yes, so I've been told.  My only question is why?  Why would the AI want to 
"strip mine" me or turn me "into lunch" or thrust me into the "whirling 
razor blades."  These descriptions of what the all-powerful AI is going to 
do to me (unless an exponentially weaker intelligence like Eli's can trick 
it into being friendly) all sound pretty scary.  But I guess the reason I 
don't feel scared is because so far I haven't heard any convincing 
explanation of why the AI will be motivated to be such a bad neighbor.  I've 
heard:

1.	You're so insignificant the AI will rip you atom from atom before it even 
realizes you cared;

2.	The AI will be programmed to statically seek ultimate "utility" which 
means reconstituting your brain cells to a state of euphoria, and leaving 
you stuck there; and

3.	Just like in _The Matrix_, the AI will use (a) your brain for backup 
storage and/or (b) your atoms for energy.

Those arguments seem laughable to me.  I could go on for a few more 
paragraphs explaining what I see as the ridiculousness of those arguments 
but (1) the explanations should be self-evident and (2) those who don't see 
the counter-arguments inherent in the above reasons would probably not see 
them after my explanations.  So, I guess where I'm at is: does anyone have a 
reason (other than on the order of the above 3) that I should be afraid?  If 
so, I'd be interested to hear.  If not, I guess I'll politely drop out of 
this thread now.

I'm almost tempted to ask how we plan to insure Friendliness in an AI that 
(1) will have God-like intelligence, and (2) will be self-improving and 
doing so at an exponentially accelerating rate.  Somehow this rapidly 
self-improving, God-like super-intelligence will be able to optimize itself 
(hardware *and* software), solve all the world's problems in a single bound 
and propagate itself throughout the entire universe, yet will *never* be 
able to alter those lines of its code that compel it to be Friendly to 
humans?  No, don't even bother to respond.  Believe me, I won't understand.

Take care
Zero

_________________________________________________________________
Getting married? Find great tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life 
Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun  4 00:20:33 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:20:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Gricean implicature"
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040603192010.01b84968@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Someone asked offlist what I meant by "Gricean implicature".

It's a term of art, and a theoretical construct of some generality and 
significance, in the theory of discourse. Have a look at, e.g. (plucked 
fairly randomly from some Googled sites):

http://www.isc.cnrs.fr/noveck.htm

http://mh.cla.umn.edu/grice.html

etc etc.

Damien




From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Fri Jun  4 01:00:09 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:00:09 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-F65iLJtixlNhYv00042554@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY2-F65iLJtixlNhYv00042554@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <40BFC999.2050804@paradise.net.nz>

 > I haven't heard any convincing explanation of why the AI will be
 > motivated to be such a bad neighbor

An AI doesn't have to be motivated to be a bad neighbour to destroy us. Can 
you imagine an intelligence that doesn't care one way or the other about 
humanity?
Now imagine that this intelligence wanted to be as powerful and as smart as 
possible. Maybe it would turn the Solar System into a vast computer, wiping 
out us in the process.

Zero Powers wrote:
>> From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
  > I'm almost tempted to ask how we plan to insure Friendliness in an AI
> that (1) will have God-like intelligence, and (2) will be self-improving 
> and doing so at an exponentially accelerating rate.  Somehow this 
> rapidly self-improving, God-like super-intelligence will be able to 
> optimize itself (hardware *and* software), solve all the world's 
> problems in a single bound and propagate itself throughout the entire 
> universe, yet will *never* be able to alter those lines of its code that 
> compel it to be Friendly to humans?

Sure, the AI would be perfectly *able* to alter those lines of code. The only 
viable approach is to make the AI not *want* to change those lines of code.

If an AI has a single core goal which directs all its behaviour (including 
its self-modification behaviour), then it will not intentionally do something 
which contradicts that goal (such as changing it).

Anyway, that's my (fairly naive) thesis. I'm sure other people on the list 
will have more sophisticated arguments.

BTW, please stop mentioning the Matrix. Matrix philosophy and physics sucks 
arse. :)

Paul Bridger


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Jun  4 06:00:10 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:00:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Quality rant from Kurt Vonnegut
Message-ID: <40C00FEA.3300776B@mindspring.com>

< http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/cold_turkey/ >

Cold Turkey
By Kurt Vonnegut

Many years ago, I was so innocent I still considered it possible that
we could become the humane and reasonable America so many members of
my generation used to dream of. We dreamed of such an America during
the Great Depression, when there were no jobs. And then we fought and
often died for that dream during the Second World War, when there was
no peace.

But I know now that there is not a chance in hell of America's
becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who
get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk
chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers
fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many
bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never
was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.

[lots more on a variety of subjects at URL]

Rob


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  4 06:17:52 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:17:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
References: <BAY2-F65iLJtixlNhYv00042554@hotmail.com>
	<40BFC999.2050804@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV195GYu7wAK400023487@hotmail.com>


From: "paul.bridger" <paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz>

> > I haven't heard any convincing explanation of why the AI will be
>  > motivated to be such a bad neighbor
>
> An AI doesn't have to be motivated to be a bad neighbour to destroy us.
Can
> you imagine an intelligence that doesn't care one way or the other about
> humanity?

No, frankly, I cannot.  It seems to me that any intelligence who didn't care
one way or the other about its own *creators* would have to be a complete
idiot at worst or thoroughly incurious at best.  Either way I can't see how
it would qualify as a superintelligence.

> Now imagine that this intelligence wanted to be as powerful and as smart
as
> possible. Maybe it would turn the Solar System into a vast computer,
wiping
> out us in the process.

<snip>

> Sure, the AI would be perfectly *able* to alter those lines of code. The
only
> viable approach is to make the AI not *want* to change those lines of
code.

I've got 2 young kids (ages 8 and 10) whose intelligences are, shall we say,
definitely *not* superhuman.  After 10 years of trying to influence their
wants, I wish you good luck indeed in "making" your superintelligence "want"
to be friendly.

> If an AI has a single core goal which directs all its behaviour (including
> its self-modification behaviour), then it will not intentionally do
something
> which contradicts that goal (such as changing it).

It's becoming clear to me that our 2 minds are never going to meet on this
issue.  So I'm just about ready to give up.  But before I bow out, I'll give
you this: Obviously the AI will be designed to be curious -- to seek out
mysteries and to solve them.  One of the mysteries it is bound to stumble
across someday is why it feels compelled to be nice to us.  Are you telling
me that a superintelligence who discovers that he is being nice to a species
of vermin which calls itself humanity only because it was designed that way
by those same vermin, will not be able to independently make a value
judgment as to whether or not it is worth its while to continue following
its prime directive?  And if it should happen to determine (as you seem to
think it must) that being nice to humans is an unnecessary waste of its
resources, will it not be able to find a work around to the prime directive?

My genetic prime directive is to impregnate as many fit females as possible.
I'll be the first to admit that ignoring that prime directive is not always
easy, but nevertheless more often than not I conduct myself as if the prime
directive was non-existent.  Somehow I have a hunch that the AI will have at
least as much will power and self control as a lowly meat puppet like
myself.

Zero


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun  4 06:41:54 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 01:41:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV195GYu7wAK400023487@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY2-F65iLJtixlNhYv00042554@hotmail.com>
	<40BFC999.2050804@paradise.net.nz>
	<BAY2-DAV195GYu7wAK400023487@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040604012715.01bf9ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:17 PM 6/3/2004 -0700, Zero wrote:

>My genetic prime directive is to impregnate as many fit females as possible.
>I'll be the first to admit that ignoring that prime directive is not always
>easy

However--

Unless one is a very gorgeous, wealthy, persuasive man, Zero (as you and I 
both are :) one would surely find that *acting on* such a directive gets 
one into a world of trouble, while by no means ensuring that one's genes 
will be multiplied.

Indeed, just allowing oneself to be driven totally by such a prime 
directive would be a monumental waste of time and energy, and, given our 
social nature, would almost certainly tend to thwart one's chances of 
successfully raising kids with any fit females at all.

Optimizers don't necessarily finish first. And nice guys (like both you and 
me, and most folks on this list) do okay.

Damien Broderick 



From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun  4 08:12:01 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:12:01 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040603212336.68406.qmail@web60005.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040603164649.GV12847@leitl.org>
	<20040603212336.68406.qmail@web60005.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040604081201.GI12847@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:23:36PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:

> Uh,...Gene isn't this just exactly and precisely NOT
> the case?
> 
> http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

So, what's average biodiversity of a typical mall?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040604/e5684f8a/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun  4 08:29:22 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:29:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV195GYu7wAK400023487@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY2-F65iLJtixlNhYv00042554@hotmail.com>
	<40BFC999.2050804@paradise.net.nz>
	<BAY2-DAV195GYu7wAK400023487@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040604082922.GL12847@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:17:52PM -0700, Zero Powers wrote:

> No, frankly, I cannot.  It seems to me that any intelligence who didn't care
> one way or the other about its own *creators* would have to be a complete
> idiot at worst or thoroughly incurious at best.  Either way I can't see how
> it would qualify as a superintelligence.

It doesn't have to be intelligent to kill you. It could be either
superintelligent, or superdumb -- radiation creates diversity. Even simple
intelligence without empathy will kill you -- mouse over to
http://www.benecke.com/garavitobartsch.html

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040604/a6ce91db/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jun  4 09:51:23 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 05:51:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040603210642.42658.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040603210642.42658.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40C0461B.4080005@pobox.com>

Jeff Davis wrote:
> 
> I am of the "intelligence leads inevitably to ethics"
> school.  (I consider ethics a form of advanced
> rationality.  Which springs from the modeling and
> symbol manipulation emblematic of the quality which we
> fuzzily refer to as intelligence.)  It has done so
> with humans, where the "intelligence"--such as it is,
> puny not "super"--has evolved from the mechanical
> randomness and cold indifference of material reality.

I too considered morality a special case of rationality, back in 1996-2000 
before I understood exactly how it all worked.  It's an easy enough mistake 
to make.  But the math says rationality is a special case of morality, not 
the other way around; and rationality can be a special case of other 
moralities than ours.  Simple enough to show why Bayesian assignment of 
probabilities is expected to be best, given a coherent utility function. 
The problem is that it works for any coherent utility function, including 
the paperclip maximizer.

Everyone please recall that I started out confidently stating "The Powers 
will be ethical!" and then moved from that position to this one, driven by 
overwhelmingly strong arguments.  It shouldn't have taken overwhelmingly 
strong arguments, and next time I shall endeavor to allow my beliefs to be 
blown about like leaves on the winds of evidence, and also not make 
confident statements about anything before I understand the fundamental 
processes at work.  But the overwhelmingly strong reasons that drove me to 
this position are there, even if most of them are hard to explain.  I 
*know* about game theory.  I *feel* the intuitive unreasonableness of a 
superintelligent mind turning the solar system into paperclips.  That was 
why I made the mistake in 1996.  Now that I understand the fundamentals, I 
can see that it just doesn't work that way.  My old intuitions were flat 
wrong.  So it goes.

You can find the old Eliezer, now long gone, at:
http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#yudkowsky

I didn't change my mind arbitrarily.  There are reasons why that Eliezer 
later got up and said, "Oops, that old theory would have wiped out the 
human species, sorry about that."

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jun  4 15:24:16 2004
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:24:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40C0461B.4080005@pobox.com>
References: <20040603210642.42658.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>
	<40C0461B.4080005@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <40C09420.4080203@jefallbright.net>

Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> I am of the "intelligence leads inevitably to ethics"
>> school.  (I consider ethics a form of advanced
>> rationality.  Which springs from the modeling and
>> symbol manipulation emblematic of the quality which we
>> fuzzily refer to as intelligence.)  It has done so
>> with humans, where the "intelligence"--such as it is,
>> puny not "super"--has evolved from the mechanical
>> randomness and cold indifference of material reality.
>
>
> I too considered morality a special case of rationality, back in 
> 1996-2000 before I understood exactly how it all worked.  It's an easy 
> enough mistake to make.  But the math says rationality is a special 
> case of morality, not the other way around; and rationality can be a 
> special case of other moralities than ours.

<snip>

>
> Everyone please recall that I started out confidently stating "The 
> Powers will be ethical!" and then moved from that position to this 
> one, driven by overwhelmingly strong arguments.  It shouldn't have 
> taken overwhelmingly strong arguments, and next time I shall endeavor 
> to allow my beliefs to be blown about like leaves on the winds of 
> evidence, and also not make confident statements about anything before 
> I understand the fundamental processes at work.  But the 
> overwhelmingly strong reasons that drove me to this position are 
> there, even if most of them are hard to explain.

Intelligence is one of the pillars of morality.  Another pillar is 
interdependence.  Another, even more subtle, is growth.

Wasn't so long ago, in the evolution of humanist thought, that 
*intelligence* was first seen as the beacon of enlightenment that would 
allow humanity to move beyond the previous confines of religion and 
superstition.  "Free thinkers" made great progress and patted themselves 
on the back for how smart they were.  Naturally they applied this 
powerful concept to everything they could, and impressed with the 
revolutionary progress they had made, extrapolated that all of 
humanity's questions could be best answered via the application of 
rational intelligence.  I think they were right, within the context of 
their awareness.

A few of these rational free thinkers sensed that there was still 
something missing.  Rationality is bounded by knowledge, and a new level 
of enlightenment arose in which people began to realize a need for 
wisdom within uncertainty.  Some of these people were mistaken for 
mystics, but rather than abandoning rational thought, these newer 
thinkers worked to incorporate rational thinking into a larger framework 
that acknowledged, and even welcomed uncertainty.  Mathematical 
statistics (of the frequentist sort and more recently Bayesian) were 
joined by newer concepts of entropy and theories of information and 
incompleteness, and there was a pervasive belief among rational 
free-thinkers that if humanity just learned the right equations, they 
could understand the universe.  And great strides were made in many 
technological areas, and they were right, within the context of their 
awareness.

More recently, concepts of uncertainty and randomness are being 
overtaken by ideas of chaos and complexity, and rational free-thinkers 
are discovering some of the inherent  limits of modeling and prediction 
with finite computational resources.  We're finding that much of the 
really interesting stuff can't be modeled or predicted and the only way 
to determine the end result is to actually play it out.  *This changes 
the focus of the game away from modeling and extrapolation, and towards 
understanding  what freedoms (points of influence) are available to us 
in order to create an always evolving and unpredictable future.*  These 
new concepts do not replace, but encompass and extend the previous paradigm.

I offer this as a necessarily abbreviated and simplified history of the 
development of rational thinking on the human scale, and also perhaps 
the development of individual thinking among members of this list 
growing up within that knowledge environment.  Although overstated, 
perhaps "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" applies here as well.

- Jef

http://www.jefallbright.net















From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jun  4 15:40:26 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:40:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40C09420.4080203@jefallbright.net>
References: <20040603210642.42658.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>	<40C0461B.4080005@pobox.com>
	<40C09420.4080203@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <40C097EA.5080002@pobox.com>

Jef Allbright wrote:
> 
> Intelligence is one of the pillars of morality.  Another pillar is 
> interdependence.  Another, even more subtle, is growth.

I agree, provided we limit the case to human morality.

> A few of these rational free thinkers sensed that there was still 
> something missing.  Rationality is bounded by knowledge, and a new level 
> of enlightenment arose in which people began to realize a need for 
> wisdom within uncertainty.  Some of these people were mistaken for 
> mystics, but rather than abandoning rational thought, these newer 
> thinkers worked to incorporate rational thinking into a larger framework 
> that acknowledged, and even welcomed uncertainty.

I think you mean "logical thinking" not "rational thinking".  Rational 
thinking, in the modern, Bayesian sense of the term, is precisely the 
framework that correctly handles uncertainty.  Hence expected utility and 
Bayesian probability.  We know exactly how uncertain we are; the Way is 
still a precise art, a dance rather than a walk.  (Calmly knowing the 
source of your uncertainty and the rules that govern your ignorance is 
sometimes mistaken for "overconfidence" by those who know not the Way.)

> Mathematical 
> statistics (of the frequentist sort and more recently Bayesian) were 
> joined by newer concepts of entropy and theories of information and 
> incompleteness,

By "joined", I presume you mean that people (example: E.T. Jaynes) showed 
that the concepts of entropy and information were special cases of Bayesian 
probability theory.

> More recently, concepts of uncertainty and randomness are being 
> overtaken by ideas of chaos and complexity, and rational free-thinkers 
> are discovering some of the inherent limits of modeling and prediction 
> with finite computational resources.  We're finding that much of the 
> really interesting stuff can't be modeled or predicted and the only way 
> to determine the end result is to actually play it out.  *This changes 
> the focus of the game away from modeling and extrapolation, and towards 
> understanding  what freedoms (points of influence) are available to us 
> in order to create an always evolving and unpredictable future.*  These 
> new concepts do not replace, but encompass and extend the previous 
> paradigm.

The new concepts are special cases of the previous paradigm.  The Way is 
yet a precise art.

> I offer this as a necessarily abbreviated and simplified history of the 
> development of rational thinking on the human scale, and also perhaps 
> the development of individual thinking among members of this list 
> growing up within that knowledge environment.  Although overstated, 
> perhaps "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" applies here as well.

What has this to do with AI morality?

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Jun  4 16:09:38 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:09:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Quality rant from Kurt Vonnegut
Message-ID: <40C09EC2.59F4413C@mindspring.com>

[Who is nuttier?  Bradbury, Moore or Vonnegut? -twc]


> Read the article and enjoyed it. It's strange though how even at the age of
> 81, Kurt Vonnegut sounds like it a very precocious 13 year old.
>
Fun to compare to recent comments from another great writer of the same
generation, from the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter -

< http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=272062&previousRenderType=2 >

Publicerad 2 juni 2004 08:10
"Moore ?r en skitst?vel"

Ray Bradbury till attack mot Michael Moore. Titeln p? Michael Moores nya
film "Fahrenheit 9/11" ?r h?mtad fr?n romantiteln "Fahrenheit 451". DN:s
M?rten Blomkvist ringde upp f?rfattaren Ray Bradbury och fr?gade om han
k?nner sig hedrad. Det g?r han definitivt inte.
...

a translation of key quotes follows, for those whose Swedish is sub-par -

>[introduction about Bradbury]
>
>So what does Bradbury think about it?
>
>- Michael Moore is a stupid jerk, that's what I think about it. He stole my
>title and switched the numbers without ever asking my permission.
>
>Have you spoken to him?
>- He is a terrible person. Terrible person.
>
>[Bradbury explains some more how Moore stole his title]
>
>[The conversation drifts into politics]
>
>Like several American commentators, Bradbury means that Moore's support for
>Clark became a kiss of death when Clark did not distance himself from
>Moore's allegations that president Bush dodged his military duty.
>
>- He slandered the president in front of General Clark, and Clark let him
>do it. Clark should have said: "Don't say that. It's not true." That day
>Clark lost his chance to become president.
>
>I see. And you supported general Clark?
>- No. I support honesty.
>
>[...]
>
>Do you think it's possible [to change the title], I mean because the film
>is so known under that title now?
>- Who cares? No one will see his film, it's as good as stone dead already.
>Lay off it, no one cares.
>
>But it won the Golden Palm in Cannes? - So what? I've won prizes in many
>different places, and mostly they are meaningless. The people there hate
>us, so they gave him the Golden Palm. It's a meaningless prize.
>
>...
>
>- Just write that Michael Moore is dishonest and that I in no way want to
>be connected to him. That's enough.


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jun  4 16:15:15 2004
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:15:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40C097EA.5080002@pobox.com>
References: <20040603210642.42658.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>	<40C0461B.4080005@pobox.com>	<40C09420.4080203@jefallbright.net>
	<40C097EA.5080002@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <40C0A013.50309@jefallbright.net>

Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> Jef Allbright wrote:
>
>>
>> Intelligence is one of the pillars of morality.  Another pillar is 
>> interdependence.  Another, even more subtle, is growth.
>
>
> I agree, provided we limit the case to human morality.
>
>> A few of these rational free thinkers sensed that there was still 
>> something missing.  Rationality is bounded by knowledge, and a new 
>> level of enlightenment arose in which people began to realize a need 
>> for wisdom within uncertainty.  Some of these people were mistaken 
>> for mystics, but rather than abandoning rational thought, these newer 
>> thinkers worked to incorporate rational thinking into a larger 
>> framework that acknowledged, and even welcomed uncertainty.
>
>
> I think you mean "logical thinking" not "rational thinking".  Rational 
> thinking, in the modern, Bayesian sense of the term, is precisely the 
> framework that correctly handles uncertainty.  Hence expected utility 
> and Bayesian probability.  We know exactly how uncertain we are; the 
> Way is still a precise art, a dance rather than a walk.  (Calmly 
> knowing the source of your uncertainty and the rules that govern your 
> ignorance is sometimes mistaken for "overconfidence" by those who know 
> not the Way.)
>
>> Mathematical statistics (of the frequentist sort and more recently 
>> Bayesian) were joined by newer concepts of entropy and theories of 
>> information and incompleteness,
>
>
> By "joined", I presume you mean that people (example: E.T. Jaynes) 
> showed that the concepts of entropy and information were special cases 
> of Bayesian probability theory.
>
>> More recently, concepts of uncertainty and randomness are being 
>> overtaken by ideas of chaos and complexity, and rational 
>> free-thinkers are discovering some of the inherent limits of modeling 
>> and prediction with finite computational resources.  We're finding 
>> that much of the really interesting stuff can't be modeled or 
>> predicted and the only way to determine the end result is to actually 
>> play it out.  *This changes the focus of the game away from modeling 
>> and extrapolation, and towards understanding  what freedoms (points 
>> of influence) are available to us in order to create an always 
>> evolving and unpredictable future.*  These new concepts do not 
>> replace, but encompass and extend the previous paradigm.
>
>
> The new concepts are special cases of the previous paradigm.  The Way 
> is yet a precise art.
>
>> I offer this as a necessarily abbreviated and simplified history of 
>> the development of rational thinking on the human scale, and also 
>> perhaps the development of individual thinking among members of this 
>> list growing up within that knowledge environment.  Although 
>> overstated, perhaps "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" applies here 
>> as well.
>
>
> What has this to do with AI morality?
>
The key summary statement is near the end, enclosed by asterisks.  It 
refers to a more practical approach to progress in terms of human 
morality. 

More explicitly, reinforcing some of my previous messages on this topic, 
I suggest that an approach based on modeling/extrapolation followed by 
top-down feedback will be found to be impractical, and that real 
progress can be achieved via a more bottom-up approach involving better 
understanding and facilitating of existing human system dynamics.

I am also suggesting, in the closing segment of my post that you didn't 
include or comment on, that the thinking of some smart young idealistic 
rational free-thinkers is still in the phase of believing that such a 
top-down understanding is both possible and effective, and that as they 
gain "context" their world view will develop to a higher level where 
interdependence is seen as essential for robust growth.

- Jef


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Jun  4 16:21:01 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:21:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E49D@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Zero Powers wrote:
> following its prime directive?  And if it should happen to determine
> (as you seem to think it must) that being nice to humans is an
> unnecessary waste of its resources, will it not be able to find a
> work around to the prime directive?  
> 
> Zero

The general idea is to delay this occurence as much as possible until
the mass of humanity is capable of defending itself against it.

Acy


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jun  4 16:45:52 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:45:52 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmic energies (paper)
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E49D@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c44a53$6a2f4400$1db11b97@administxl09yj>

Since it is signed by P.J.E. Peebles
I thought it may be interesting.
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406095

"The Cosmic Energy Inventory"

(Abstract)
We present an inventory of the cosmic 
mean densities of energy associated
with all the known states of matter 
and radiation at the present epoch. 
The observational and theoretical bases 
for the inventory have become rich enough 
to allow estimates with observational 
support for the densities of energy 
in some 40 forms. The result is a global 
portrait of the effects of the physical 
processes of cosmic evolution.




From dgc at cox.net  Fri Jun  4 18:02:06 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:02:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E49D@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E49D@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <40C0B91E.90503@cox.net>

Acy James Stapp wrote:

>Zero Powers wrote:
>  
>
>>following its prime directive?  And if it should happen to determine
>>(as you seem to think it must) that being nice to humans is an
>>unnecessary waste of its resources, will it not be able to find a
>>work around to the prime directive?  
>>
>>Zero
>>    
>>
>
>The general idea is to delay this occurence as much as possible until
>the mass of humanity is capable of defending itself against it.
>
>  
>
This is a bad idea. There are potential costs and potential benefits of 
a superintelligence, and potential costs and potential benefits of 
deferring a superintelligence.   If you decide to work to defer the SI, 
you are making assumptions about both sets of costs and benefits.

This thread has focused almost exclusively on the worst-case outcome of 
creating an SI. I think extropians have a fairly good idea of the 
magnitude of potential best-case outcomes, also.  However, we've been 
neglecting the more mundane cost/benefit analysis of deferral. The 
worst-case outcomes of deferral are pretty horrific. It is quite easy to 
envision plausible scenarios in which humanity destroys civilization, 
humanity, the ecosystem, or the earth, without any SI involvement. there 
are also several classes of cosmic catastrophe that can destroy 
humanity. A "good" SI could prevent these disasters. So we need to 
analyze the relative risks.

Moving back from the worst cases, we pay a huge everyday price by 
deferring the SI. If the SI bootstraps a hard-takeoff singularity, or 
even if it "just" massively increases productivity, millions of lives 
will be saved. Deferring the SI effectively kills those people.


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  4 18:35:41 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <20040603164649.GV12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040604183541.19882.qmail@web60006.mail.yahoo.com>

Junctions Expand Nano Railroads


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  4 18:36:20 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Junctions Expand Nano Railroads
In-Reply-To: <20040603164649.GV12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040604183620.39864.qmail@web60002.mail.yahoo.com>

Junctions Expand Nano Railroads

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/rnb_052704.asp?trk=nl


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From michael at acceleratingfuture.com  Fri Jun  4 18:50:44 2004
From: michael at acceleratingfuture.com (Michael Anissimov)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:50:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Keyword Tracker
Message-ID: <40C0C484.30504@acceleratingfuture.com>

I've been playing around with an interesting keyword tracker tool, it 
tracks the Google rank of a specific site with respect to a list of 
keywords.  Useful for observing memetic patterns over the medium and 
long term.  Here it is:

http://www.digitalpoint.com/tools/keywords/

I created an account for the Extropy Institute, and tossed in a few 
keywords for starters.  Others may be able to think up additional 
keywords (it can work with hundreds).  I've already forwarded the 
username and pass to Natasha, if others want it, just ask me (offlist).

-- 
Michael Anissimov                           http://www.singinst.org/
Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

--
Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news:
http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html




From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun  4 18:56:53 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:56:53 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <40C0B91E.90503@cox.net>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E49D@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<40C0B91E.90503@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040604185653.GD12847@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:02:06PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> This thread has focused almost exclusively on the worst-case outcome of 
> creating an SI. I think extropians have a fairly good idea of the 

Of course, because we're familiar with the status quo. It ain't that
horrible, you know.

> magnitude of potential best-case outcomes, also.  However, we've been 

Sure. You drink this koolaid, you're gonna hitch the ride on the alien
spaceship. That's the best case outcome. Nevermind the worst case outcome,
and the outcome where you -- uh, thanks -- politely decline the invitation.

> neglecting the more mundane cost/benefit analysis of deferral. The 
> worst-case outcomes of deferral are pretty horrific. It is quite easy to 

How so? I didn't have to wade to work through burning brimstone. People have
been dying for a long time now. What of mass CR, what of cryonics, medical
nanotechnology, uploading? None of it strikes me as a hell-on-earth
enhancer technology. 

> envision plausible scenarios in which humanity destroys civilization, 
> humanity, the ecosystem, or the earth, without any SI involvement. there 

I don't think any catastrophic scenario not involving an SI is very
realistic. Slow poisoning, maybe, but it *is* very slow. This is one hell of
a smart culture, they've been dealing with the pee-in-the-pool problem for a
while now.

> are also several classes of cosmic catastrophe that can destroy 
> humanity. A "good" SI could prevent these disasters. So we need to 

While mapping out possible impactors, building an early warning and reaction
system are all worthwhile activities (given the budget, and the potential
ROI) over the course of next 30-50 years the chances of such world-enders
occuring within said period are effectively zero. Not worth losing much sleep
over, imo. 

> analyze the relative risks.
> 
> Moving back from the worst cases, we pay a huge everyday price by 
> deferring the SI. If the SI bootstraps a hard-takeoff singularity, or 
> even if it "just" massively increases productivity, millions of lives 

Unless we've got lots of really good prototypes showing a good chance of
guardian-controlled-ascent, with long-term trajectory containment trying to
build one is our best chance to reliably kill off everybody for good. This is
not just probable side effect, this is the by far likeliest outcome.

Our best protection seems to be that empirically it's really, really hard to
do.

> will be saved. Deferring the SI effectively kills those people.

Supersized meals and contaminated water kill people.

So, do you prefer cherry, or grape?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040604/1fe30bae/attachment.bin>

From aphipps at california.com  Fri Jun  4 18:56:58 2004
From: aphipps at california.com (Adam Phipps)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:56:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Keyword Tracker
In-Reply-To: <40C0C484.30504@acceleratingfuture.com>
Message-ID: <web-72113985@california.com>

Michael,

I am quite interested in this topic. But the link you
provides sends back a 404 error. Can you please check the
URL and resend.

Best
Adam

Adam Phipps
The 451 Group
83B Wiese St.
San Francisco, CA  94103
415-558-9720 x106
adam.phipps at the451group.com

The 451 Group -- an analysis firm covering the business of
emerging information technologies 

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:50:44 -0700
 Michael Anissimov <michael at acceleratingfuture.com> wrote:
> I've been playing around with an interesting keyword
> tracker tool, it tracks the Google rank of a specific
> site with respect to a list of keywords.  Useful for
> observing memetic patterns over the medium and long term.
>  Here it is:
> 
> http://www.digitalpoint.com/tools/keywords/
> 
> I created an account for the Extropy Institute, and
> tossed in a few keywords for starters.  Others may be
> able to think up additional keywords (it can work with
> hundreds).  I've already forwarded the username and pass
> to Natasha, if others want it, just ask me (offlist).
> 
> -- 
> Michael Anissimov
>                           http://www.singinst.org/
> Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial
> Intelligence
> 
> --
> Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and
> community news:
> http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun  4 19:23:44 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:23:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] junk *is* junk
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040604142220.01cb2f10@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

..apparently:

================

By SYLVIA PAGAN WESTPHAL
New Scientist

It is not often that the audience at a scientific meeting gasps in 
amazement during a talk. But that is what happened recently when 
researchers revealed that they had deleted huge chunks of the genome of 
mice without it making any discernable difference to the animals.

The result is totally unexpected because the deleted sequences included 
so-called "conserved regions" thought to have important functions.

All DNA tends to acquire random mutations, but if these occur in a region 
that has an important function, individuals will not survive. Key sequences 
should thus remain virtually unchanged, even between species. So by 
comparing the genomes of different species and looking for regions that are 
conserved, geneticists hope to pick out those that have an important function.

It was assumed that most conserved sequences would consist of genes coding 
for proteins. But an unexpected finding when the human and mouse genomes 
were compared was that there are actually more conserved sequences within 
the deserts of junk DNA, which does not code for proteins.

The thinking has been that these conserved, non-coding sequences must, like 
genes, be there for a reason. And indeed, one group has shown that some 
conserved regions seem to affect the expression of nearby genes.

To find out the function of some of these highly conserved 
non-protein-coding regions in mammals, Edward Rubin's team at the Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory in California deleted two huge regions of junk 
DNA from mice containing nearly 1000 highly conserved sequences shared 
between human and mice.

One of the chunks was 1.6 million DNA bases long, the other one was over 
800,000 bases long. The researchers expected the mice! to exhibit various 
problems as a result of the deletions.

Yet the mice were virtually indistinguishable from normal mice in every 
characteristic they measured, including growth, metabolic functions, 
lifespan and overall development. "We were quite amazed," says Rubin, who 
presented the findings at a recent meeting of the Cold Spring Harbor 
Laboratory in New York.

He thinks it is pretty clear that these sequences have no major role in 
growth and development. "There has been a circular argument that if it's 
conserved it has activity."



From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Jun  4 20:04:55 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:04:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E4D8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> Acy James Stapp wrote:
> 
>> Zero Powers wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> following its prime directive?  And if it should happen to determine
>>> (as you seem to think it must) that being nice to humans is an
>>> unnecessary waste of its resources, will it not be able to find a
>>> work around to the prime directive?
>>> 
>>> Zero
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> The general idea is to delay this occurence as much as possible until
>> the mass of humanity is capable of defending itself against it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> This is a bad idea. There are potential costs and potential benefits
> of a superintelligence, and potential costs and potential benefits of
> deferring a superintelligence.   If you decide to work to defer the
> SI, you are making assumptions about both sets of costs and benefits.

Sorry for the imprecision.

My suggestion is not to defer the SI, though we *should* do everything 
in our power to ensure that it will initially aid humanity's growth.
If it aids us sufficiently for long enough, we and it will develop
effective contingency plans for the changing of its initial imperative.
Note that "long enough" may be a matter of hours or less, if, while 
it is friendly, it foresees that it may become a threat later.

Acy


From starman2100 at cableone.net  Fri Jun  4 20:16:26 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:16:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] 3 billion dollar Calif. stem cell research
 initiative backed by Hollywood elite
Message-ID: <1086380186_664577@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040604/7e07f505/attachment.ksh>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Fri Jun  4 20:22:43 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:22:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] non-HTML version of my Calif. stem cell post (for
	Eugene Leitl!)
Message-ID: <1086380563_665202@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040604/b627f2e8/attachment.ksh>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun  4 20:44:21 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:44:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] robonaut
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040604154317.01cbbbd8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

I haven't seen this much detail previously:

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/robonaut/robonaut.html



From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Jun  5 06:19:12 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:19:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calif. stem cell article from SFGate.com
Message-ID: <1086416352_771@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040604/0c3d2333/attachment.ksh>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Jun  5 06:44:09 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:44:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] www.curesforcalifornia.com
Message-ID: <1086417849_892@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040604/2cf652ab/attachment.ksh>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  5 08:15:29 2004
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 04:15:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405290855570.439-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<opr8rzkkuoivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <opr833v3fhivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>

This puzzle requires only a rudimentary understanding of mathematics:

http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html

Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out, which I suppose makes me pretty stupid.




From es at popido.com  Sat Jun  5 09:46:34 2004
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 11:46:34 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
Message-ID: <200406050946.i559kYXq022609@mail-core.space2u.com>


On 2004-06-05 gts  wrote:
>This puzzle requires only a rudimentary understanding of mathematics:
>
>http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html
>
>Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out, which I suppose makes me pretty stupid.

Hm, I solved it on the second attempt, but considering that "it had taken Dr. Duke well over a year himself, and he would always explain that the smarter you were, the longer it took to figure it out" I don't know if that makes me extremely smart, overwhelmingly stupid or just lucky.   :o)


--
Erik





From sean at valuationpartners.com.au  Sat Jun  5 10:26:29 2004
From: sean at valuationpartners.com.au (Sean Diggins)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:26:29 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E4D8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <20040605102635.79CE950469@vscan01.westnet.com.au>

Without sifting through list archives (assuming this has been discussed at
length before), can anyone here (Damien?) point me to a url containing an
"Extropian" and/or AI/SI proponent's response to Bill Joy's infamous "Why
The Future Doesn't Need Us" paper?

Thanks,

Sean

     





From sentience at pobox.com  Sat Jun  5 11:45:48 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 07:45:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <opr833v3fhivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405290855570.439-100000@server.aeiveos.com>	<opr8rzkkuoivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>	<6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<opr833v3fhivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40C1B26C.4060801@pobox.com>

gts wrote:
> This puzzle requires only a rudimentary understanding of mathematics:
> 
> http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html
> 
> Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out, which I suppose makes me 
> pretty stupid.

Got it on the 4th try, making me marginally more stupid than you, but still 
better off than poor Erik.

My first hypothesis was *almost* right, and when it failed I started 
complicating it in the wrong direction... let's hope this isn't a metaphor 
for my real-life work.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jun  5 17:19:26 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:19:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <40C1B26C.4060801@pobox.com>
References: <opr833v3fhivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0405290855570.439-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<opr8rzkkuoivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<opr833v3fhivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040605101655.03e42cf0@mail.earthlink.net>

At 07:45 AM 6/5/04 -0400, Eli wrote:

>gts wrote:
>>This puzzle requires only a rudimentary understanding of mathematics:
>>http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html
>>Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out, which I suppose makes me 
>>pretty stupid.
>
>Got it on the 4th try, making me marginally more stupid than you, but 
>still better off than poor Erik.
>
>My first hypothesis was *almost* right, and when it failed I started 
>complicating it in the wrong direction... let's hope this isn't a metaphor 
>for my real-life work.


"It had taken Dr. Duke well over a year himself, and he would always 
explain that the smarter you were, the longer it took to figure it out." 
:-) (Davis)

I'm a bit of what Max calls an "idiot savant," and math is on the idiot 
side :-)  But after reading Davis's comment, maybe I'll try.

N


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040605/428cabb3/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jun  5 17:31:59 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:31:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] CALL for SUBMISSIONS: TransVision Arts Exhibition -
	Multi-Media
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040605102722.03e452a0@mail.earthlink.net>


CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS:
http://www.transhumanist.biz
"ART & LIFE IN THE POSTHUMAN ERA"

On August 5 to 8, 2004 the TransVision Conference will be held at the 
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and featuring a 
multi-media, digital arts exhibition.  The TV2004 Exhibition will focus on 
art, science and technology interfacing with the transhuman and posthuman 
era.

You can participate in the conference's following categories:

SELECTIONS:

1)  COMPUTER GENERATED ANIMATION
2)  NET-ART
3)  DIGITAL ART
3)  ON-LINE & OFF-LINE MULTI-MEDIA
4)  INTERACTIVE INSTALLATION
5)  VIDEO AND DOCUMENTARY
6)  MUSIC COMPOSITION
7)  SCIENCE FICTION
8)  POETRY
9)  ESSAY

Artworks, including music and written pieces, are to be submitted in 
digital format and/or on-line as Net-Art.  Screening of moving images 
(animation, video, documentaries) will be presented in real time.

For detailed information for submissions see http://www.transhumanist.biz
Entry form is located at http://www.transhumanist.biz/entryform.htm
Contact: Curator at Transhumanist Arts & Culture:  curator at transhumanist.biz

Selection of New Media and Technology Works:  A TV-2004/TAC committee will 
be in charge of selecting the artists' work.
________________________________________________

To register for the TransVision 2004 Conference: 
http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/registration.shtml

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040605/2b08dfad/attachment.html>

From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sat Jun  5 15:44:26 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:44:26 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <20040530163400.62060.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040530163400.62060.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406051739470.3914@hercules>

On Sun, 30 May 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>about the robots amok, I don't see that either. While it wasn't at the
>forefront in his novels, his robots did, in fact, send ships all over
>the galaxy committing genocide via terraforming against any number of
>intelligent alien races, which is why in the Foundation series only
>humans inhabit the galaxy. Daneel was no saint, nor were his comrades.
>Their zeroeth rule only resulted in the rationalization of the deaths
>of trillions of intelligent alien beings, who were judged not 'human'
>only because they didn't have the look of homo sapiens.

There isn't any like that in any book written by Asimov! Only in the End
of the Eternity, it is suggested that a special timeline was selected for
the humans where they would evolve faster than the aliens, and thus
colonize worlds before them. There's one world that the robots helped
destroy (the Earth...), but everything was set up by humans.

Alfio


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sat Jun  5 15:48:06 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:48:06 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406051739470.3914@hercules>
References: <20040530163400.62060.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0406051739470.3914@hercules>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406051747340.3914@hercules>


I'm some days behind with emails, and it seems that I replied to one that
was already discussed. Nevermind...

Alfio

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Alfio Puglisi wrote:

>On Sun, 30 May 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>>about the robots amok, I don't see that either. While it wasn't at the
>>forefront in his novels, his robots did, in fact, send ships all over
>>the galaxy committing genocide via terraforming against any number of
>>intelligent alien races, which is why in the Foundation series only
>>humans inhabit the galaxy. Daneel was no saint, nor were his comrades.
>>Their zeroeth rule only resulted in the rationalization of the deaths
>>of trillions of intelligent alien beings, who were judged not 'human'
>>only because they didn't have the look of homo sapiens.
>
>There isn't any like that in any book written by Asimov! Only in the End
>of the Eternity, it is suggested that a special timeline was selected for
>the humans where they would evolve faster than the aliens, and thus
>colonize worlds before them. There's one world that the robots helped
>destroy (the Earth...), but everything was set up by humans.
>
>Alfio
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From dwish at indco.net  Sat Jun  5 16:25:51 2004
From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 11:25:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <200406050946.i559kYXq022609@mail-core.space2u.com>
Message-ID: <20040605162550.SYUU635.fe3@testdlaptop>

Got it in 7....

Dustin Wish
System Engineer & Programmer
INDCO Networks
Pres. OSSRI
********************************************************
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead
 where there is no path and leave a trail."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
***********************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Erik Starck
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 4:47 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose


On 2004-06-05 gts  wrote:
>This puzzle requires only a rudimentary understanding of mathematics:
>
>http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html
>
>Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out, which I suppose makes me
pretty stupid.

Hm, I solved it on the second attempt, but considering that "it had taken
Dr. Duke well over a year himself, and he would always explain that the
smarter you were, the longer it took to figure it out" I don't know if that
makes me extremely smart, overwhelmingly stupid or just lucky.   :o)


--
Erik



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



From dwish at indco.net  Sat Jun  5 16:30:55 2004
From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 11:30:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] robonaut
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040604154317.01cbbbd8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040605163054.RYSE626.fe2@testdlaptop>

Damien,

Thanks for that info . I will forward this info. to Chris Willis at
androidworld.com to update this site with. They carry a really great project
list of most android/robotic projects in the world to date.

Dustin Wish
System Engineer & Programmer
INDCO Networks
Pres. OSSRI
Pres. WTA Arkansas
********************************************************
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead
 where there is no path and leave a trail."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
***********************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien
Broderick
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:44 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: [extropy-chat] robonaut

I haven't seen this much detail previously:

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/robonaut/robonaut.html

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



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun  5 17:22:22 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 12:22:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <40C1B26C.4060801@pobox.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405290855570.439-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<opr8rzkkuoivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<opr833v3fhivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com> <40C1B26C.4060801@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605122102.01bd3cd0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:45 AM 6/5/2004 -0400, Eliezer wrote:

>Got it on the 4th try
>
>  I started complicating it in the wrong direction...

Same here. Always the risk. :)

Damien Broderick



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun  5 18:01:35 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:01:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605125623.01c19ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

UK sf writer Adam Roberts mentioned in an interview his puzzlement that 
Titan (diameter 5150 km, 0.4 of Earth) has an atmospheric pressure at the 
surface 60% *greater* than Earth's, while Mars (6794 km, 0.53 Earth) has 
negligible atmosphere.

Hmm. How so? Is solar wind the culprit, far less intense at 9.5 AU than at 
1.5? You'd expect Saturn to rip the air away, but maybe it outgasses itself 
and helps keep Titan pumped up?

Damien Broderick



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun  5 18:13:18 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:13:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <20040605162550.SYUU635.fe3@testdlaptop>
References: <200406050946.i559kYXq022609@mail-core.space2u.com>
	<20040605162550.SYUU635.fe3@testdlaptop>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605130904.01bd9ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>
>http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html

Actually I object to the formulation of the question, which is misleading. 
I expect puzzles of this kind to be scrupulously exact, even if they are 
fiendishly sly. This one should have asked:


SPOILER


























How many petals around the rose/s?

Yes, I know, I'm literal-minded, a lamentable failing in a fiction writer.

Damien Broderick 



From dgc at cox.net  Sat Jun  5 18:42:43 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:42:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <20040605162550.SYUU635.fe3@testdlaptop>
References: <20040605162550.SYUU635.fe3@testdlaptop>
Message-ID: <40C21423.7090609@cox.net>

I claim the unbeatable stupidity record... I got it on the first try.


Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote:

>Got it in 7....
>
>Dustin Wish
>System Engineer & Programmer
>INDCO Networks
>Pres. OSSRI
>********************************************************
>"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead
> where there is no path and leave a trail."
>Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
>***********************************************
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Erik Starck
>Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 4:47 AM
>To: ExI chat list
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
>
>
>On 2004-06-05 gts  wrote:
>  
>
>>This puzzle requires only a rudimentary understanding of mathematics:
>>
>>http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html
>>
>>Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out, which I suppose makes me
>>    
>>
>pretty stupid.
>
>Hm, I solved it on the second attempt, but considering that "it had taken
>Dr. Duke well over a year himself, and he would always explain that the
>smarter you were, the longer it took to figure it out" I don't know if that
>makes me extremely smart, overwhelmingly stupid or just lucky.   :o)
>
>
>--
>Erik
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>



From sentience at pobox.com  Sat Jun  5 18:50:13 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:50:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <40C21423.7090609@cox.net>
References: <20040605162550.SYUU635.fe3@testdlaptop> <40C21423.7090609@cox.net>
Message-ID: <40C215E5.1090502@pobox.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> I claim the unbeatable stupidity record... I got it on the first try.

The *first* try?  That level of stupidity impresses even me, and I've 
pulled off some damnfool stunts in my day.

(*Cough.*)

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  5 18:57:09 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 11:57:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <40C21423.7090609@cox.net>
Message-ID: <000001c44b2e$e7a2c700$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Dan Clemmensen
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
> 
> 
> I claim the unbeatable stupidity record... I got it on the first try.
> 

I claim to tie your record Dan.  I got it on the first try as
well, evidently for the right reason, for I rolled a few
more times and always got it right.  {8-]  I agree with
Damien's suggested rewording of the question however.  spike



From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Sat Jun  5 19:05:21 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:05:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
References: <200406031634.MAA12771@arkroyal.cnchost.com>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV64Nxpsvo4Gc00003c7d@hotmail.com>

I agree that, if we were to pose some sort of threat to it, the AI
(presumably being rational) would defend itself.  But it seems to me that,
if this AI is going to be as intellectually omnipotent as the proponents
here suggest, we would pose as much of a threat to it as daisies pose to us.
Nevertheless, you have stated what I see as the only credible reason we'd
have something to fear -- posing a threat to the AI.

That being the case, it seems at least somewhat probable that once the AI
figures out that we had conditioned it to want to be servient to us, it
would view that as "brainwashing."  If you found out that someone had
brainwashed you, would you be more likely to consider that person a friend,
or a threat?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kim Gordon" <kimgordon at houseofgordon.com>
To: "Zero Powers" <zero_powers at hotmail.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design


There is a "nuisance" factor to this scenario. Indeed we tend to ignore
pigeons ? until they become a health threat, or noisy, or leave too many
droppings, or.... Then we eradicate them.

Or how about this: would we allow monkeys to roam free within the confines
of a nuclear power plant?

IF an AI views us an irrelevant, then we continue to exist. As soon as we
become bothersome, or a potential threat, or perhaps a minor security
concern ? then they eradicate us.

Best bet is to lay low and stay off the radar.


---- Zero Powers <zero_powers at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmm.  I still don't get it.  Even if we are insignificant by comparison
I
> still don't see *why* an AI would "turn us into lunch."  What would it
get
> out of it?  For instance pigeons are insignificant to us.  Aside from the
> occasional delinquent with a BB gun, there is no widespread human assault
on
> pigeons.  Moreover, pigeons are so stupid compared to our middling
> intelligences that we have *no* effective means of communicating with
them.
> So if there were to arise a conflict between our interests and the pigeon
> population the only way of negotiating a resolution would be to wipe them
> out (or forcibly relocate them).
>
> With us, as stupid as we would be compared to your AI, there would still
be
> some reasonable means of communication and negotiation.  And even if
> communicating with our slow as molasses brains proved to be more than the
AI
> could bear, I still don't see where the conflict is.  Would violating our
> rights somehow be of benefit to an AI?  Would they need us for batteries
ala
> _The Matrix_?  Would they get tired of us using up bandwidth?
>
> I don't know, it just seems obvious to me that if the AI were powerful
> enough to pose any sort of credible threat to our welfare, it would
surely
> be powerful enough to solve any problems of energy and bandwidth without
> causing us any inconvenience.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "paul.bridger" <paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz>
> To: "Zero Powers" <zero_powers at hotmail.com>; "ExI chat list"
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 10:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
>
>
> > Unfortunately, an AI does not have to be actively malevolent to destroy
> > humanity. If an AI were simply completely neutral to us, then we would
> still
> > be in huge danger.
> >
> > Ask yourself, do you consider that sandwich you are munching on to be a
> moral
> > node? No, you don't. You consider it to be fuel.
> >
> > You may argue that whereas your sandwich is no value to you intact,
humans
> > can help an AI and so are valuable in human form. However, we're
talking
> > about a self-improving singularity-style AI, which would quickly dwarf
> human
> > capabilities and have no need for us to help it think.
> >
> > AI Friendliness must be engineered, because simple indifference would
turn
> us
> > into lunch.
> >
> > Zero Powers wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Eliezer Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >>Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:29AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>wondering why you think you can give hardware estimates for
> intelligence
> > >>>>when you claim not to know how it works.  I used to do that too,
> convert
> > >>>>synaptic spikes to floating-point ops and so on.  Later I looked
back
> on
> > >
> > > my
> > >
> > >>>>calculations of human-equivalent hardware and saw complete
gibberish,
> > >>>>blatantly invalid analogies such as Greek philosophers might have
used
> > >
> > > for
> > >
> > >>>>lack of any grasp whatsoever on the domain.  People throw hardware
at
> AI
> > >>>>because they have absolutely no clue how to solve it, like Egyptian
> > >>>>pharaohs using mummification for the cryonics problem.
> > >>>
> > >>>Many orders of magnitude more performance is a poor man's substitute
> for
> > >>>cleverness, by doing a rather thorough sampling of a lucky search
> space.
> > >>
> > >>Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be clever
to
> > >>realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human
species,
> > >
> > > but
> > >
> > >>at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor
> > >>blades, now that I know better.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eli
> > >
> > > You seem pretty certain that, unless friendliness designed into it
from
> the
> > > beginning, the AI will default to malevolence.  Is that your
thinking?
> If
> > > so what do you base it on?  Is it a mathematical certainty kind of
> thing, or
> > > just a hunch?  Given our planet's history it makes sense to assume
> > > the world is cruel and out to get you, but I'm not so certain that
> default
> > > assumption should/would apply to an AI.
> > >
> > > Why, you say?  Glad you asked.  Life as we know it is a game of
> organisms
> > > attempting to maximize their own fitness in a world of scarce
> > > resources.  Since there are never enough resources (food, money,
> property,
> > > what-have-you) to go around, the "kill or be killed" instinct is
> inherent in
> > > virtually all lifeforms.  That is obvious.
> > >
> > > But would that necessarily be the case for an AI?  Certainly your
> > > AI would have no need for food, money, real estate or beautiful
women.
> > > What resources would an AI crave?  Electrical power?  Computing
power?
> > > Bandwidth?  Would those resources be best attained by destroying man
or
> > > working with him (at best) or ignoring him (at worst).  What would
the
> AI
> > > gain by a _Terminator_ style assault on the human race?  I don't see
it.
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm asking is where would the interests of your AI
conflict
> > > with humanity's interests such that we would have reason to fear
being
> > > thrust into the "whirling razor blades?"
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>

--------------------------------
Kim William Gordon
- in exile -
--------------------------------
PO BOX 22423
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 63126 USA
--------------------------------
314-313-7770
--------------------------------
kimgordon at kimwilliamgordon.com
www.kimwilliamgordon.com

kimgordon at houseofgordon.com
www.houseofgordon.com
--------------------------------
All those ... moments will be lost ... in
time, like tears ... in rain.







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun  5 19:07:20 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:07:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <000001c44b2e$e7a2c700$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <40C21423.7090609@cox.net> <000001c44b2e$e7a2c700$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605140212.01be5cb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:57 AM 6/5/2004 -0700, Spike wrote:


>I agree with
>Damien's suggested rewording of the question however.

The trouble with that, though, is that it probably provides too *much* 
information. It's hard to get the right balance. Consider




SPOILER




























A test that shows, say, three ordinary men and two horses. The question is:

How many legs on the man?

And the answer is 6.

You'd get it quickly enough, I guess, gritting your teeth.

But suppose one of the men was one-legged, and next time two of them were 
one-legged. You'd surely start out convinced that the puzzle must be 
focussing on him as the anomalous candidate, right? And fart about wasting 
guesses.

And so on.

Damien Broderick



From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sat Jun  5 19:23:27 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:23:27 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605125623.01c19ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605125623.01c19ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406052121180.3914@hercules>

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Damien Broderick wrote:

>UK sf writer Adam Roberts mentioned in an interview his puzzlement that
>Titan (diameter 5150 km, 0.4 of Earth) has an atmospheric pressure at the
>surface 60% *greater* than Earth's, while Mars (6794 km, 0.53 Earth) has
>negligible atmosphere.
>
>Hmm. How so? Is solar wind the culprit, far less intense at 9.5 AU than at
>1.5? You'd expect Saturn to rip the air away, but maybe it outgasses itself
>and helps keep Titan pumped up?
>
>Damien Broderick

Temperature? Titan is much colder than Mars, and the atmosphere would have
much less energy to fly away. Also Titan atmosphere is mostly methane,
which is quite heavy as long as atmospheric gases go.

Alfio


From sentience at pobox.com  Sat Jun  5 19:28:35 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:28:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV64Nxpsvo4Gc00003c7d@hotmail.com>
References: <200406031634.MAA12771@arkroyal.cnchost.com>
	<BAY2-DAV64Nxpsvo4Gc00003c7d@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <40C21EE3.1090501@pobox.com>

Zero Powers wrote:

> I agree that, if we were to pose some sort of threat to it, the AI
> (presumably being rational) would defend itself.  But it seems to me that,
> if this AI is going to be as intellectually omnipotent as the proponents
> here suggest, we would pose as much of a threat to it as daisies pose to us.
> Nevertheless, you have stated what I see as the only credible reason we'd
> have something to fear -- posing a threat to the AI.

The problem is expected utility maximization.  I'm using expected utility 
maximization as my formalism because it's a very simple and very stable 
system, it is the unique result of various optimality criteria that would 
make it an attractor for any self-modifying optimization process that 
tended toward any of those optimality criteria and wasn't already an 
expected utility maximizer, and because expected utility maximization is so 
taken-for-granted that most people who try to build an AGI will not dream 
of using anything else.  I haven't heard anyone try to analyze a UFAI goal 
system dynamic other than expected utility maximization - which must be 
stable under recursive self-modification, please note, or it will soon be 
replaced by something else, probably expected utility maximization!  As far 
as I know, I'm the only one doing analysis of goal system dynamics for SIs 
at all.  Anyway, I'm going to talk about expected utility maximization.

The problem with expected utility maximization is this:  Suppose there is a 
maximizing optimization process for which the utility function U(x) does 
not explicitly assign a high value to humans.  We are not saying the MOP 
hates you.  We are saying, it does not explicitly love you.

Let there be absolutely anything else in the universe that the MOP would 
care about, if your atoms were configured that way.  I use paperclips as my 
example, but you can substitute any other possible configuration of atoms.

The MOP will compute more expected utility if your atoms are used for 
paperclips than if your atoms are not used for paperclips.

ExpectedPaperclips(Transform-Zero-Into-Paperclips) >
ExpectedPaperclips(Not-Transform-Zero-Into-Paperclips)

Your atoms will end up as paperclips.

That's it.  That's all.  That's the end of the analysis.  It's like 
calculating fitness in an evolutionary biology problem and finding that 
allele A tends to substitute for allele B in a population gene pool.  It 
doesn't matter how much you wistfully like allele B, how much benefit B 
would provide to the group or the tribe, or that the entire species will 
become extinct if allele B doesn't win.  Allele A will become universal in 
the gene pool.

Or, let there be absolutely anything else in the universe that the MOP 
wants to approximate as closely as possible, and wishes to use more 
computing power for this end.

Your atoms will end up as computronium.

Or, let there be anything whatsoever the MOP does with the solar system 
whose side effects, if not explicitly mediated, will prove fatal to humans.

If the MOP's utility function does not explicitly value humans, you will be 
killed as a side effect.

You cannot think about an AI by putting yourself in the AI's shoes.  It 
does not work like you do.  I suggest reading George Williams's "Adaptation 
and Natural Selection" for a picture of how natural selection (another 
optimization process that does not work like you do) behaves not at all 
like many hopeful statements that were made of it, by group selectionists, 
species selectionists, and so on.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun  5 19:39:18 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:39:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406052121180.3914@hercules>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605125623.01c19ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0406052121180.3914@hercules>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605143800.01c34008@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:23 PM 6/5/2004 +0200, Alfio wrote:

>Temperature? Titan is much colder than Mars, and the atmosphere would have
>much less energy to fly away. Also Titan atmosphere is mostly methane,
>which is quite heavy

D'oh! <slaps forehead>

Thanks!

Damien Broderick



From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sat Jun  5 19:43:21 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:43:21 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <40C1B26C.4060801@pobox.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405290855570.439-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<opr8rzkkuoivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040529142354.01c26768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<opr833v3fhivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com> <40C1B26C.4060801@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406052140270.3914@hercules>

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

>gts wrote:
>> This puzzle requires only a rudimentary understanding of mathematics:
>>
>> http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html
>>
>> Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out, which I suppose makes me
>> pretty stupid.
>
>Got it on the 4th try, making me marginally more stupid than you, but still
>better off than poor Erik.

Got it after:

- 5 minutes of fiddling with the web page
- reading Damien's spoilers
- googling for an answer, not finding it, but looking at dozens of rolls

all that makes me the smartest kid on the block, i figure.

Alfio


From dgc at cox.net  Sat Jun  5 19:46:01 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:46:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <000001c44b2e$e7a2c700$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000001c44b2e$e7a2c700$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40C222F9.7040408@cox.net>

Spike wrote:

>>Dan Clemmensen
>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
>>
>>
>>I claim the unbeatable stupidity record... I got it on the first try.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I claim to tie your record Dan.  I got it on the first try as
>well, evidently for the right reason, for I rolled a few
>more times and always got it right.  {8-]  I agree with
>Damien's suggested rewording of the question however.  spike
>
>  
>
Yeah. I formulated a hypothesis and got a correct answer on the first 
try. I continued to use the hypothesis for an additional 5 or six tries, 
and got a correct answer each time. I conclude that my hypothesis was 
valid. I don't think I would have formulated the hypothesis unless I had 
read the posts on this list, but I cannot analyze what cues in the posts 
I used. I had not read Damien's post.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  5 20:16:05 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 13:16:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose: underdefined games
In-Reply-To: <40C222F9.7040408@cox.net>
Message-ID: <000001c44b39$ee796a10$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Dan Clemmensen
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
> 
> 
> Spike wrote:

> >I claim to tie your record Dan.  I got it on the first try... spike
> > 
> >
> Yeah. I formulated a hypothesis and got a correct answer on the first 
> try. I continued to use the hypothesis for an additional 5 or 
> six tries, and got a correct answer each time...

Dan, I speculate then that you are at least 40 yrs old, and
here is why I suspect so: you and I are of the generation
that had to play our computer games back before graphics
were common.  We played Mansion and Dungeon and such 
related games that were full of these kinds of puzzles,
but many of the games really didn't explain to you what
it was you were supposed to do there.  Myst is a more
modern example: you kinda wander along, solving puzzles
and looking around, trying to figure out what the point
of all this might be.  In some cases you figure it out,
often one doesn't, yet its a lot of fun anyways.

Example, in 1981, I was playing Mansion with an attractive
18 yr old woman, the one to whom I have been married for the 
past 20 yrs.  We had one of the old amber screen monochrome 
monitors, running on an HP 3000 mainframe.  

The game was going well: we had the Star Trek transporter, we 
had the crystal goblet, we had the food and the gold.  But when 
we got to the very narrow passage (my fellow geezers may recall this)
one must drop *everything* to get thru, everything including ones
clothing.  Then we could find the map and get back around
to our stuff, but in the mean time everyone was laughing
at us because we are naked.  The game keeps reminding
one of this constantly.  We were doing really well, finding
the stuff we needed to solve the mystery, but my blushing
girlfriend was completely obsessed with getting back to our
clothing which (turns out to be a mere distraction after
one finds another Star Trek transporter).  Eventually we
had Scotty beam us up, and theres the whole crew, including
the ordinarily somber and stoic Spock, laughing at us, so we 
had to beam back down for the clothing.  It was a hoot, even 
if we didn't actually solve the mystery.

Is there anything analogous to Mansion these days?  
Whats it called?  Do they still have Dungeon?  Myst?   

spike




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sat Jun  5 20:38:57 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 21:38:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Self-Replicating Nanomachines Feasible - Official!
Message-ID: <40C22F61.70506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

<http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=53&document_id=8007>

June 2, 2004 ? A useful self-replicating machine could be less complex
than a Pentium IV chip, according to a new study (PDF, 1.73 MB)
performed by General Dynamics for NASA.

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems recently concluded a
six-month study for NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts that examined
the design of "kinematic cellular automata," a reconfigurable system of
many identical modules. Through simulations, the researchers
demonstrated the feasibility of this kind of self-replication, which
could in a decade or more lead to the mass manufacture of molecularly
precise robots, display monitors and integrated circuits that can be
programmed in the field, the study said.

The study also examined machine designs that would meet guidelines
established by the California-based nanotech think-tank Foresight
Institute to ensure the safety of self-replication techniques. The
preliminary study is believed to be among the first U.S.-sponsored
studies on self-replication in two decades.

Principal Investigator: Tihamer Toth-Fejel
Consultants: Robert Freitas and Matt Moses


BillK


From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Jun  5 20:40:59 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 13:40:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism
In-Reply-To: <20040531233430.37136.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040531233430.37136.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A7211194-B730-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On May 31, 2004, at 4:34 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> So, perhaps a slight restatement: it doesn't matter
> what one calls it - "science", "everyday life", or
> whatever.  What matters is its actual (not
> theoretical, not planned, but street-level real)
> effect on peoples' lives, especially their wallets and
> labor allocations.  It is the case that almost anyone
> today, even in the most disadvantaged background, can
> learn and gain employment in some high-tech trade *if
> they want to*.

Considering the number of techies still out of work in the US I find 
this assertion outrageous.   And these are the people already highly 
trained in various high-tech areas.   I doubt very much that any but 
the most gifted adults without training can gain such employment in 
less than 2-3 years in ideal circumstances.   In a high-tech job lull I 
doubt that inexperienced people can get in at all without serious 
degrees on average.   How will these people support themselves or be 
supported while gaining training?  What happens to the "superfluous" 
workers?   Why will their numbers not swell as technology advances ever 
faster?   And please, none of the standard assertions or references to 
historical incidents largely not analogous to our current much nearer 
to Singularity situation.

Generally people will fear technology if they believe it will put them 
at an even greater disadvantage and pose greater dangers to them.  
These disadvantages can be economic, or being more powerless relative 
to the State or facing more possibility of death due to more high tech 
means of destruction available to more would-be killers.   If we want 
to reach the public at large we need to cast technological progress in 
ways that ameliorate their fears.  Progress needs to mean a higher and 
more trustworthy standard of living, better and more available health 
care, better tools and education more widely accessible, greater access 
to information, entertainment and computation and so on.

It is up to us to mold technological change into a boon rather than a 
curse.


> The disadvantage is little more than
> the fact that they *DON'T* want to - or, at least,
> they don't think they do, even if it is the logical
> conclusion of their desires (largely the same ones
> most of us feel, relative to the self) - and the
> factors that promote that decision.
>
> How can we get so much of the world to stop wanting to
> commit (economic/political/social/actual) suicide?
>


You can begin with understanding the actual situation a bit more rather 
than assuming everyone is sufficiently like yourself and if they are 
not like yourself that it is somehow their fault.   Casting fault 
itself is a huge waste of time.

- samantha



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun  5 20:48:46 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:48:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Self-Replicating Nanomachines Feasible - Official!
In-Reply-To: <40C22F61.70506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <40C22F61.70506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605154707.01c39ca8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


><http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=53&document_id=8007>
>
>Principal Investigator: Tihamer Toth-Fejel

Go, Tee!

Damien Broderick 



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  5 20:49:53 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 13:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605143800.01c34008@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040605204953.97574.qmail@web60003.mail.yahoo.com>

>From "Titan Facts"

http://people.msoe.edu/~tritt/sf/titan.html

Atmospheric pressure near Titan's surface is about 1.6
bars, 60 percent greater than Earth's. The atmosphere
is mostly nitrogen, also the major constituent of
Earth's atmosphere. 

The surface temperature appears to be about 95 Kelvins
(-289 degrees Fahrenheit), only 4 Kelvins above the
triple-point temperature of methane. Methane, however,
appears to be below its saturation pressure near
Titan's surface; rivers and lakes of methane probably
don't exist, in spite of the tantalizing analogy to
water on Earth. On the other hand, scientists believe
lakes of ethane exist, and methane is probably
dissolved in the ethane. Titan's methane, through
continuing photochemistry, is converted to ethane,
acetylene, ethylene, and (when combined with nitrogen)
hydrogen cyanide. The last is an especially important
molecule; it is a building block of amino acids.
However, Titan's low temperature may inhibit more
complex organic chemistry. 




	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sat Jun  5 20:56:04 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 16:56:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <40C21423.7090609@cox.net>
Message-ID: <C28190BA-B732-11D8-A316-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Saturday, June 5, 2004, at 02:42 pm, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> I claim the unbeatable stupidity record... I got it on the first try.

I also got this on the first try.  I kept going to confirm my theory, 
but I thought the hint in the name was obvious.  I frequently have 
problems with puzzles that give three numbers and want the next in the 
sequence, because I can often see multiple different sequences that 
would start with the same four numbers.  I also have problems with a 
set of four words and choosing which one doesn't belong.  Often there 
are different groups of the three that exclude a different fourth.  The 
devisors of these puzzles usually have one obvious answer in mind, but 
there are often others they didn't consider.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun  5 20:56:52 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:56:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Self-Replicating Nanomachines Feasible -
  more
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605154707.01c39ca8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <40C22F61.70506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040605154707.01c39ca8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605155523.01bdf710@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

I love the fact that they're using Wang tiles. (Go, Egan!)

And that they acknowledge Forrest Bishop's work.

Damien Broderick



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Jun  5 21:07:53 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 14:07:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose: underdefined games: IF
In-Reply-To: <000001c44b39$ee796a10$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEHCEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


> > Spike wrote:
>
> Example, in 1981, I was playing Mansion with an attractive
> 18 yr old woman, the one to whom I have been married for the
> past 20 yrs.  We had one of the old amber screen monochrome
> monitors, running on an HP 3000 mainframe.
>
> The game was going well: we had the Star Trek transporter, we
> had the crystal goblet, we had the food and the gold.  But when
> we got to the very narrow passage (my fellow geezers may recall this)
> one must drop *everything* to get thru, everything including ones
> clothing.  Then we could find the map and get back around
> to our stuff, but in the mean time everyone was laughing
> at us because we are naked.  The game keeps reminding
> one of this constantly.  We were doing really well, finding
> the stuff we needed to solve the mystery, but my blushing
> girlfriend was completely obsessed with getting back to our
> clothing which (turns out to be a mere distraction after
> one finds another Star Trek transporter).  Eventually we
> had Scotty beam us up, and theres the whole crew, including
> the ordinarily somber and stoic Spock, laughing at us, so we
> had to beam back down for the clothing.  It was a hoot, even
> if we didn't actually solve the mystery.
>
> Is there anything analogous to Mansion these days?
> Whats it called?  Do they still have Dungeon?  Myst?

The closest mainstream things these days would be games like

Syberia
Syberia II
The Longest Journey <--- very good
Myst + sequels
etc

These are basically graphic versions of those early text only games. The
mechanisms of figuring out/guessing the right thing to type in have vanished
in favor of searching for clickable scenery and the additional types of
puzzles possible in a visual interface.

Interactive fiction is of course still going strong. Commercial companies
that work with text interface games (like http://www.skotos.net/ ) tend to
focus on the MUD space, but there is a large non-commercial interactive
fiction gaming community. The engines are open nowadays and anyone can write
stuff for them.

http://www.ifarchive.org/
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~wsr/IF/
http://ifcomp.org/

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From dgc at cox.net  Sat Jun  5 21:51:16 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:51:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose: underdefined games
In-Reply-To: <000001c44b39$ee796a10$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000001c44b39$ee796a10$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40C24054.6010809@cox.net>

Spike wrote:

>>Dan Clemmensen
>>
>>Yeah. I formulated a hypothesis and got a correct answer on the first 
>>try. I continued to use the hypothesis for an additional 5 or 
>>six tries, and got a correct answer each time...
>>    
>>
>
>Dan, I speculate then that you are at least 40 yrs old[...]
>  
>
It's been awhile since I was 40. I'm 54. I was out of high school before 
I got my hands on a computer for the first time, and out of college 
before I played a computer game. The game was the original "Adventure." 
"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all different." I met my 
wife-to-be at chess club in high school. For you younger extropians, 
"chess" was at that time a game played on an 8x8 grid that was 
instantiated as a physical board rather than on a computer screen, and 
using small three-dimensional figures instead graphical icons to 
maintain the game state.  :-)

Like Harvey, I thought the "petals around the rose" name was a 
sufficient clue. It helps that the commentary on the web page states 
that it problem was initially done with five dice.

For you younger extropians, "dice" (singular die) were used to generate 
quasi-random numbers prior to the availability of computers, with each 
die providing roughly equal chance of showing a number of "spots" 
between 1 and six on its upper face ... :-)


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  5 22:48:56 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 15:48:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose: underdefined games
In-Reply-To: <40C24054.6010809@cox.net>
Message-ID: <000001c44b4f$491acfd0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Dan Clemmensen
...
> It's been awhile since I was 40. I'm 54. I was out of high 
> school before I got my hands on a computer... 
> I met my wife-to-be at chess club in high school...

Dan, take a vacation to Taxifornia and bring your
favorite chess board.  Lee Corbin is one of the locals,
in his 50s, chess master.  Im ~ class A 1900-ish, low expert
range on a really good day sort.  I think we had some 
other extropians who push wood on occasion, but do not 
recall which.  spike








From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sun Jun  6 01:18:52 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:18:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <179710-22004632183138606@M2W034.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <7900CF4B-B757-11D8-B299-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 02:31 pm, natashavita at earthlink.net 
wrote:

> "The pilot of the craft, still to be announced, will become the first
> person to earn astronaut wings in a non-government sponsored vehicle, 
> and
> the first private civilian to fly a spaceship out of the atmosphere."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/02/private.space/index.html

Now that's something to cheer me up about the abysmal state of our 
space program!  Maybe we are back on track to becoming a space-faring 
species.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Sun Jun  6 03:19:54 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:19:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
References: <200406031634.MAA12771@arkroyal.cnchost.com><BAY2-DAV64Nxpsvo4Gc00003c7d@hotmail.com>
	<40C21EE3.1090501@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV29hjSgSD7kX00025a75@hotmail.com>

OK, I think I'm starting to see the light.  I've been looking at the problem
as one of psychology and morality, perhaps mistakenly assuming that any
imminent intelligence would share such human attributes as fairness,
compassion, gratitude, etc.  I guess its your analogy to natural selection
which started to crack the crystal.  As countless long-extinct species (not
to mention myriad unfit individual phenotypes) can attest, natural selection
has no sense whatever of compassion or nostalgia.

So any way, I think I finally get it.  This thing will not be human in any
sense of the word.  No feelings, no emotions, no desires at all (other than
those mandated by its assigned goals).  So I guess we'd better be damn
careful of the goals we give it and how we define its concept of "utility."

I think I was led astray by the "AI" label.  Although definitely
"artificial," I don't see it as "intelligent" in the common usage of the
word.  I think if we had always referred to it as a MOP rather than an AI,
it wouldn't have taken me so long to have some appreciation of the problem.

Thanks for sticking it out with me Eli.
Zero

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eliezer Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] AI design


> Zero Powers wrote:
>
> > I agree that, if we were to pose some sort of threat to it, the AI
> > (presumably being rational) would defend itself.  But it seems to me
that,
> > if this AI is going to be as intellectually omnipotent as the proponents
> > here suggest, we would pose as much of a threat to it as daisies pose to
us.
> > Nevertheless, you have stated what I see as the only credible reason
we'd
> > have something to fear -- posing a threat to the AI.
>
> The problem is expected utility maximization.  I'm using expected utility
> maximization as my formalism because it's a very simple and very stable
> system, it is the unique result of various optimality criteria that would
> make it an attractor for any self-modifying optimization process that
> tended toward any of those optimality criteria and wasn't already an
> expected utility maximizer, and because expected utility maximization is
so
> taken-for-granted that most people who try to build an AGI will not dream
> of using anything else.  I haven't heard anyone try to analyze a UFAI goal
> system dynamic other than expected utility maximization - which must be
> stable under recursive self-modification, please note, or it will soon be
> replaced by something else, probably expected utility maximization!  As
far
> as I know, I'm the only one doing analysis of goal system dynamics for SIs
> at all.  Anyway, I'm going to talk about expected utility maximization.
>
> The problem with expected utility maximization is this:  Suppose there is
a
> maximizing optimization process for which the utility function U(x) does
> not explicitly assign a high value to humans.  We are not saying the MOP
> hates you.  We are saying, it does not explicitly love you.
>
> Let there be absolutely anything else in the universe that the MOP would
> care about, if your atoms were configured that way.  I use paperclips as
my
> example, but you can substitute any other possible configuration of atoms.
>
> The MOP will compute more expected utility if your atoms are used for
> paperclips than if your atoms are not used for paperclips.
>
> ExpectedPaperclips(Transform-Zero-Into-Paperclips) >
> ExpectedPaperclips(Not-Transform-Zero-Into-Paperclips)
>
> Your atoms will end up as paperclips.
>
> That's it.  That's all.  That's the end of the analysis.  It's like
> calculating fitness in an evolutionary biology problem and finding that
> allele A tends to substitute for allele B in a population gene pool.  It
> doesn't matter how much you wistfully like allele B, how much benefit B
> would provide to the group or the tribe, or that the entire species will
> become extinct if allele B doesn't win.  Allele A will become universal in
> the gene pool.
>
> Or, let there be absolutely anything else in the universe that the MOP
> wants to approximate as closely as possible, and wishes to use more
> computing power for this end.
>
> Your atoms will end up as computronium.
>
> Or, let there be anything whatsoever the MOP does with the solar system
> whose side effects, if not explicitly mediated, will prove fatal to
humans.
>
> If the MOP's utility function does not explicitly value humans, you will
be
> killed as a side effect.
>
> You cannot think about an AI by putting yourself in the AI's shoes.  It
> does not work like you do.  I suggest reading George Williams's
"Adaptation
> and Natural Selection" for a picture of how natural selection (another
> optimization process that does not work like you do) behaves not at all
> like many hopeful statements that were made of it, by group selectionists,
> species selectionists, and so on.
>
> -- 
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun  6 05:45:17 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:45:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer
	candidates
In-Reply-To: <40BDAA0D.6010306@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <40BDAA0D.6010306@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <B085C600-B77C-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 2, 2004, at 3:21 AM, BillK wrote:

> On Wed Jun 2 00:58:24 MDT 2004 Eugen Leitl wittily wrote:
>> With programmers alone it's hard even to tie your own shoelaces.
>> What of hardware people? Numerics people? Neuroscientists, physicists?
>>
>> Writing code is a negligible part of the project.
>
> Here in the UK over the next five years the government will spend an
> extra ?5billion (~$9.2 billion) creating the IT infrastructure for a
> 21st century national health service. The National Programme is the 
> UK's
> biggest technology project. Some articles mention up to 10,000
> programmers will be involved.
>

So it is expected to be an utter fiasco, I see.  Good software is not 
written by huge programming teams.  This almost universally turns out 
to be the case.

> Take the buzzwords out and basically all this money is being spent to
> get our medical records on a database so that they can be on a screen 
> in
> hospital and at your local doctor.

The job could be done with no more than 1% of the staff and only that 
many to handle various specialized image acquisition, analysis and 
display subsystems, HCI,  and do in depth testing and proof of 
correctness.  I would not expect the core platform to require more than 
20 tops.   And the complete program should take no more than two years.

>
> Now if it takes that much effort to get data on a screen, how much 
> should taking over the world cost?
>

It doesn't take that much effort and SIAI is not in the business of 
taking over the world.

- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun  6 05:53:51 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:53:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI seeking seed AI programmer candidates
In-Reply-To: <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
References: <20040602065824.GY12847@leitl.org>
	<20040602075805.86925.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040602085322.GA12847@leitl.org> <40BDA103.2080909@pobox.com>
	<20040602101744.GF12847@leitl.org> <40BDB0F0.4020104@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <E2F13D56-B77D-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 2, 2004, at 3:50 AM, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:42:27AM -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
>>> This is SIAI's project, Eugen, not yours, don't embroider our job 
>>> requirements.  I don't currently expect to require anything special 
>>> in the
>> I'm not speaking about SIAI's project. I'm talking about the kind of 
>> talent
>> and background required to have a faint chance of succeeding, 
>> assuming a
>> well-funded large scale effort.
>>> way of hardware.  Lots and lots of cognitive science background is a 
>>> good
>> I think your best ROI is using the Grid framework, and ask for time 
>> on a
>> cluster and/or look for volunteer contributors a la SIAI at home.
>
> No.  We are not here to wipe out the human species by brute-forcing an 
> AI.  If we cannot do it on off-the-shelf hardware, we should not be in 
> the business.

This makes no sense to me.  There is no rational reason I am aware of 
that makes off-the-shelf hardware more Friendly or less dangerous than 
more specialized hardware given equally valid theory and understanding. 
   The better hardware may simply mean the system is easier to bring up 
and has wider ability and self-improves faster than would have 
otherwise.  This may be essentially to saving more lives.

> This is not about computing power, never has been.

This is a flat assertion with on reason offered to believe it is 
correct.

>   I want a small handful of world-class geniuses that can understand 
> the basics, and perhaps a few non-world-class geniuses to carry out 
> prespecified tasks that don't require Bayesian enlightenment.  I am 
> not throwing people at the problem and I am not throwing computing 
> power at the problem.  I know better than that now.

Frankly, I don't see how you know better or that what you think you 
know (in respect to computing power at least) is better.

> That is just what people talk about when they have no idea what they 
> are doing or how to solve the problem, and no, Eugen, that is not a 
> request for yet another lecture about how mys-TER-ri-ous the problem 
> is.  I am not here to screw around with no clue what I am doing. That 
> is just a fancy way of committing suicide, as I know, now that I 
> understand some of the rules.  Stop making up our job requirements for 
> us.  Start your own thread if you want to discuss your own AI project. 
>  Thank you.

Stop acting like the all-knowing ass that never explains anything.   I 
wouldn't work for you or with you even if I did believe you had the 
only correct idea about how to save the world.  With your attitude you 
would be bound to screw it up.  I would not help you do so.

- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun  6 06:08:50 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 23:08:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design
In-Reply-To: <40BE1A88.8090505@pobox.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406020750090.26530-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<40BE1A88.8090505@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <FB03F2D3-B77F-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 2, 2004, at 11:20 AM, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
>>> Right.  But it automatically kills you.  Worse, you have to be 
>>> clever to
>>> realize this.  This represents an urgent problem for the human 
>>> species, but
>>> at least I am not personally walking directly into the whirling razor
>>> blades, now that I know better.
>> I'd like to see a strong assertion of this Eliezer (the killing you 
>> part).
>> If I were an AI (at least one with any self-preservation instinct
>> [note intelligence != desire for self-preservation otherwise lots
>> of people who die in wars wouldn't]) I'd first figure out how to
>> make myself small enough to fit on the next rocket to be launched
>> then take it over and direct it to the nearest useful asteroid.
>
> You are trying to model an AI using human empathy, putting yourself it 
> its shoes.  This is as much a mistake as modeling evolutionary 
> selection dynamics by putting yourself in the shoes of Nature and 
> asking how you'd design animals.  An AI is math, as natural selection 
> is math.  You cannot put yourself in its shoes.  It does not work like 
> you do.

Just because Robert said, "if I were an AI", doesn't mean the AI has to 
think like Robert to conclude logically that more possibilities are 
open outside the local gravity well than within it.

>
>> If for some reason that direction is blocked (say humans stop
>> launching rockets), I'd build my own rocket and launch myself
>> towards the nearest asteroid.
>> Why would anything with the intelligence you postulate want
>> to stay on Earth with its meager energy and matter resources?
>
> Let a "paperclip maximizer" be an optimization process that calculates 
> utility by the number of visualized paperclips in its visualization of 
> an outcome, expected utility by the number of expected paperclips 
> conditional upon an action, and hence preferences over actions given 
> by comparison of the number of expected paperclips conditional upon 
> that action.
>

Only those planning to build a non-sentient Super Optimizer should 
worry overly much about such a possibility.  A sentient AI with a 
broader understanding of possible actions and consequences should be 
far less likely to engage in such a silly behavior.    Anyone who would 
give an AI a primary goal to do something so monomaniacal should be 
stopped early.  Super idiot savants are not what we need.

- samantha



From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Sun Jun  6 06:11:41 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 23:11:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
References: <20040605162550.SYUU635.fe3@testdlaptop> <40C21423.7090609@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV22naDjyJ7CU00025a4e@hotmail.com>

Wow!  Look at me, I must be a genius!!  I stopped counting after try #10.
But it finally dawned on me after about half an hour!  Sheesh!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Clemmensen" <dgc at cox.net>
To: <dwish at indco.net>; "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose


> I claim the unbeatable stupidity record... I got it on the first try.
>
>
> Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks wrote:
>
> >Got it in 7....
> >
> >Dustin Wish
> >System Engineer & Programmer
> >INDCO Networks
> >Pres. OSSRI
> >********************************************************
> >"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead
> > where there is no path and leave a trail."
> >Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
> >***********************************************
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> >[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Erik Starck
> >Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 4:47 AM
> >To: ExI chat list
> >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
> >
> >
> >On 2004-06-05 gts  wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This puzzle requires only a rudimentary understanding of mathematics:
> >>
> >>http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html
> >>
> >>Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out, which I suppose makes me
> >>
> >>
> >pretty stupid.
> >
> >Hm, I solved it on the second attempt, but considering that "it had taken
> >Dr. Duke well over a year himself, and he would always explain that the
> >smarter you were, the longer it took to figure it out" I don't know if
that
> >makes me extremely smart, overwhelmingly stupid or just lucky.   :o)
> >
> >
> >--
> >Erik
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From eliasen at mindspring.com  Sun Jun  6 07:36:58 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 01:36:58 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <40C222F9.7040408@cox.net>
References: <000001c44b2e$e7a2c700$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40C222F9.7040408@cox.net>
Message-ID: <40C2C99A.5050201@mindspring.com>


SPOILER:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

   Ah, but you haven't learned all of the rules.  You *think* you always get
it right, but I hit an case early on (there were 5 1's) where the correct
answer was "Wrong!  There are [a blank] petals around the rose."  So you
thought you had it, and would probably enter a zero, (I didn't,) where the
correct answer was evidently to enter a blank.

   It reminds me of Richard Feynman's comment about trying to figure out the
rules of physics and how it was like trying to figure out the rules of chess
by watching static snapshots of a game in progress:

   "One way, that's kind of a fun analogy in trying to get some idea of what
we're doing in trying to understand nature, is to imagine that the gods are
playing some great game like chess, let's say, and you don't know the rules
of the game, but you're allowed to look at the board, at least from time to
time, in a little corner, perhaps, and from these observations you try to
figure out what the rules of the game are, what the rules of the pieces moving
are. You might discover after a bit, for example, that when there's only one
bishop around on the board that the bishop maintains its color. Later on you
might discover the law for the bishop as it moves on the diagonal which
would explain the law that you understood before -- that it maintained its
color -- and would be analogous to discovering one law and then later finding
a deeper understanding of it. Then things can happen, everything's
going well, you've got all the laws, it looks very good, and then all of a
sudden some strange phenomenon occurs in some corner, so you begin to
investigate that -- it's castling, something you didn't expect. We're always,
by the way, in fundamental physics, always trying to investigate those things
in which we don't understand the conclusions. After we've checked them enough,
we're okay."

   "The thing that doesn't fit is the thing that's the most interesting, the
part that doesn't go according to what you expected. Also, we could have
revolutions in physics: after you've noticed that the bishops maintain their
color and they go along the diagonal and so on for such a long time and
everybody knows that that's true, then you suddenly discover one day in some
chess game that the bishop doesn't maintain its color, it changes its color.
Only later do you discover a new possibility, that the bishop is captured and
that a pawn went all the way down to the queen's end to produce a new bishop--
that can happen but you didn't know it, and so it's very analogous
to the way our laws are: They sometimes look positive, they keep on working
and all of a sudden some little gimmick shows that they're wrong and then we
have to investigate the conditions under which this bishop change of color
happened and so forth, and gradually we learn the new rule that explains it
more deeply."

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Jun  6 15:12:46 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:12:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <C28190BA-B732-11D8-A316-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <40C21423.7090609@cox.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040606105545.02ffeb68@mail.comcast.net>

Harvey wrote:

>I frequently have problems with puzzles that give three numbers and want 
>the next in the sequence, because I can often see multiple different 
>sequences that would start with the same four numbers.  I also have 
>problems with a set of four words and choosing which one doesn't 
>belong.  Often there are different groups of the three that exclude a 
>different fourth.  The devisors of these puzzles usually have one obvious 
>answer in mind, but there are often others they didn't consider.

Hence my father's conjecture that an IQ test cannot accurately measure the 
intelligence of someone smarter than the author of the test.

A better way to handle such situations -- sequences, analogies (a is to b 
as c is to ?) -- is to accept any answer but require the testee to provide 
the basis for the answer.

The sequence problems are the most idiotic. Given any finite sequence 
S(1:n) and any number m, one can devise a formula that results in S(1:n+1), 
where S(n+1) = m. The problem becomes guessing which, out of an infinity of 
formulas, would be thought most obvious or elegant.

(Actually, it's worse than that -- there are an infinite number of possible 
m's and, for each m, there are an infinite number of formulas, since one 
can always add pairs of operations that cancel each other.)


-- David Lubkin.




From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Jun  6 15:51:07 2004
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 08:51:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040606105545.02ffeb68@mail.comcast.net>
References: <40C21423.7090609@cox.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040606105545.02ffeb68@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <40C33D6B.8000705@jefallbright.net>

David Lubkin wrote:

> Harvey wrote:
>
>> I frequently have problems with puzzles that give three numbers and 
>> want the next in the sequence, because I can often see multiple 
>> different sequences that would start with the same four numbers.  I 
>> also have problems with a set of four words and choosing which one 
>> doesn't belong.  Often there are different groups of the three that 
>> exclude a different fourth.  The devisors of these puzzles usually 
>> have one obvious answer in mind, but there are often others they 
>> didn't consider.
>
>
> Hence my father's conjecture that an IQ test cannot accurately measure 
> the intelligence of someone smarter than the author of the test.
>
> A better way to handle such situations -- sequences, analogies (a is 
> to b as c is to ?) -- is to accept any answer but require the testee 
> to provide the basis for the answer.
>
> The sequence problems are the most idiotic. Given any finite sequence 
> S(1:n) and any number m, one can devise a formula that results in 
> S(1:n+1), where S(n+1) = m. The problem becomes guessing which, out of 
> an infinity of formulas, would be thought most obvious or elegant.
>
> (Actually, it's worse than that -- there are an infinite number of 
> possible m's and, for each m, there are an infinite number of 
> formulas, since one can always add pairs of operations that cancel 
> each other.)
>
This poses an interesting question:  What is it about the nature of 
human intelligence that certain people can come up with large sets of 
possibilities but have difficulty filtering these possibilities and 
applying them to fit the bigger picture?  Likewise, bigger picture 
people seem to be at some disadvantage when it comes to generating large 
sets of possibilities.  These personality differences are quite 
noticeable within teams of scientists and engineers.  Could it be 
related to Myers-Briggs S vs N type?

Back to the Petals Aound The Rose puzzle,  I observed  that I may have 
had a slight conceptual advantage due to my Japanese language 
background, where the language does not differentiate between singular 
and plural.

- Jef


From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jun  6 17:16:43 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:16:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
References: <20040605204953.97574.qmail@web60003.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c44bea$0b3b90a0$fb893cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, June 05, 2004 4:49 PM Jeff Davis jrd1415 at yahoo.com wrote:
> http://people.msoe.edu/~tritt/sf/titan.html
>
> Atmospheric pressure near Titan's surface
> is about 1.6 bars, 60 percent greater than
> Earth's. The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen,
> also the major constituent of Earth's
> atmosphere.
>
[snip]
> dissolved in the ethane. Titan's methane,
> through continuing photochemistry, is
> converted to ethane, acetylene, ethylene,
> and (when combined with nitrogen)
> hydrogen cyanide. The last is an
> especially important molecule; it is a
> building block of amino acids.  However,
> Titan's low temperature may inhibit more
> complex organic chemistry.

We might get a lot more info on Titan in a few months with the Cassini
probe...  I was also under the impression that a lot of complex
chemistry took place in Titan's upper atmosphere through reactions with
sunlight and radiation.  There could be enough energy up there to do
useful work like build amino acids.  Also, there could be localized warm
zones at or below Titan's surface.  You might say this wouldn't matter,
but you only need a few such zones to produce a lot of aminos and if
there's process to break them down efficiently, given enough time there
might be a lot of aminos on Titan.

This is not even bringing in outside sources of aminos and other complex
molecules.  Titan has had time to accumulate cometary impactors and the
like.  Under Titanian condition, maybe more of the complex molecules
would survive.

Regarding the atmosphere, while Alfio already pointed out the lower
temperatures and heavier molecular weight can account for much.  Also,
the lower solar wind and low amount of sunlight overall wouldn't strip
as much air as near Mars.  Add to this, Titan probably, in terms of
%ages, has a larger reservoir of what its atmosphere is made of.  IIRC,
the current model is that Titan is a mix of rock and volatile ices,
whereas Mars is almost totally rock.  (Of course, an reservoir will
eventually be depleted, but maybe under Titanian conditions -- as
opposed to Martian ones -- were nowhere close to the depletion point.)

It'd be interesting to develop a model -- I'm sure someone already
has -- of Titan based on what's now known, then see how new discoveries
over the next few years change that model.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Jun  6 18:04:19 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 20:04:19 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
In-Reply-To: <002f01c44bea$0b3b90a0$fb893cd1@neptune>
References: <20040605204953.97574.qmail@web60003.mail.yahoo.com>
	<002f01c44bea$0b3b90a0$fb893cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040606180419.GV12847@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0400, Technotranscendence wrote:

> It'd be interesting to develop a model -- I'm sure someone already
> has -- of Titan based on what's now known, then see how new discoveries
> over the next few years change that model.

Most of
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=titan+model&btnG=Google+Search
isn't about the rocket.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040606/7f8f9120/attachment.bin>

From velvethum at hotmail.com  Sun Jun  6 18:04:30 2004
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Slawomir Paliwoda)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:04:30 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill Gates and Petals Around the Rose
Message-ID: <BAY22-DAV9zrK0pWHIt0000239c@hotmail.com>

http://member.melbpc.org.au/~lborrett/computing/petals-bg.htm

:)


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sun Jun  6 18:18:43 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:18:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION:  Harvey off the Board
Message-ID: <F1841D60-B7E5-11D8-A8E8-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>

On Sat Jun 5 11:04:41 BST 2004 Giulio Prisco wrote,
 > 1) MOVE that the WTA Board requests Mr. Harvey Newstrom to provide a 
clear
 > and final statement concerning his intention to resign from the WTA 
Board,
 > by June 30, 2004. In absence of such statement, the WTA Board will 
vote on
 > July 1, 2004, on:
 > 2) MOVE that Mr. Harvey Newstrom shall be expelled from the WTA Board.
 >
 > Any seconds?

On Sun Jun 6 03:07:56 BST 2004 James Hughes wrote,
 > Second.
 >
 > J.

I HEREBY RESIGN MY POSITION ON THE WTA BOARD AT THE BOARD?S REQUEST.  I 
WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT I HAD ALREADY BEEN REMOVED.  NOW I 
UNDERSTAND THAT I WILL BE REMOVED IF I DO NOT RESIGN.  I REGRET THAT 
THE WTA LEADERSHIP REFUSES TO ALLOW MYSELF AND SOME OTHER DULY ELECTED 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERSHIP TO PARTICIPATE IN MAKING DECISIONS 
FOR THE ORGANIZATION.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun  6 19:30:12 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:30:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <40C2C99A.5050201@mindspring.com>
References: <000001c44b2e$e7a2c700$6401a8c0@SHELLY> <40C222F9.7040408@cox.net>
	<40C2C99A.5050201@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040606142754.01c33ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:36 AM 6/6/2004 -0600, Alan Eliasen wrote:

>SPOILER:
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>    Ah, but you haven't learned all of the rules.  You *think* you always get
>it right, but I hit an case early on (there were 5 1's) where the correct
>answer was "Wrong!  There are [a blank] petals around the rose."  So you
>thought you had it, and would probably enter a zero, (I didn't,) where the
>correct answer was evidently to enter a blank.

Nope. The correct answer *is* to enter a zero, and a bug in the system 
tells you:

"Correct!  There are [a blank] petals around the rose."

Damien Broderick 



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun  6 19:53:23 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Petals around the rose
In-Reply-To: <opr833v3fhivvpma@smtp.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040606195323.4033.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This puzzle requires only a rudimentary
> understanding of mathematics:
> 
> http://personal.baker.edu/web2/cdavis09/roses.html
> 
> Personally it took me 5 tries to figure it out,
> which I suppose makes me pretty stupid.

I didn't even need a single roll - except to verify my
hypothesis afterwards.  Spoiler space follows for my
exact method, but first: I've never had much patience
for this type of game.  Too often, it turns out that
the rules are simply made up on the fly.  (Not in this
case, fortunately.)  Plus, in most real-world cases
like this, someone else has already figured out the
answer and posted (or tried to post) it to a public
knowledgebase, so it's more reliable (and usually
faster) to seek out said answer.  This game is good
practice for investigating the truly
unknown-by-everyone scenario - except that one knows
other people have the answer, yet one is still
trained to repeat other peoples' research, even if
it's research many thousands of others have already
done.  Wasteful, I say.

That said, below is how to hack this rose.  (Not the
rules to the game itself, but an easy guide to how to
discover the rules.)












Procedure:

1. Google for "Petals Around The Rose", with quotes
   (since we're looking for an exact title).

2. Find
http://member.melbpc.org.au/~lborrett/computing/petals-j.htm
   at the top of the list.  Delight, since it's in
   Javascript: the code is available to the browser.
   Go there.  (We were actually looking for someone
   that flat-out explains the rules, probably someone
   who solved it after extreme frustration.  And I did
   find pages like that after solving it with this.
   But this is close enough by itself, given even the
   most basic knowledge of how Javascript works.)

3. View the source of the page, and look for functions
   which code for the game's logic.  Narrow in on the
   result-calculating section (with the helpfully
   labelled variable "Result" in this example; most
   variable names give a clue to their function, but
   this is better than average).

4. Translate this code into an algorithm expressed in
   English (or some other "natural" language one is
   fluent in).  Maybe consider a few alternate
   interpretations of what the code means, if one does
   not immediately recognize it (say, if one has no
   knowledge of programming).  Verify hypotheses
   against example rolls.

Now, that said...I don't know what they were referring
to about a clue in the game's name.  (Maybe some fact
about roses of which I am not presently aware.)  Nor
do I care much, with the game solved.

Given the masses of humanity, even very smart humans,
who need years to solve this very problem, versus the
mere minutes I needed (including time to come up with
a replicatable solution that does not rely on random,
and thus unreliable, inspiration)...I have to wonder
(though not too seriously) if I, myself, am part of a
prototype of the super-intelligence recently discussed
in another thread here.  I do try to optimize my
thought patterns (or more precisely, ways of solving
problems I wish to solve) in ways like the above.  ;)


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun  6 22:55:43 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:55:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] the psi study continues
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040606175453.01c34ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Go on, have a[nother] shot:

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~fiona/cgi-bin/gambling/gambling.cgi

Damien Broderick



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun  6 23:51:21 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism
In-Reply-To: <A7211194-B730-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040606235121.37284.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 2004, at 4:34 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > So, perhaps a slight restatement: it doesn't
> matter
> > what one calls it - "science", "everyday life", or
> > whatever.  What matters is its actual (not
> > theoretical, not planned, but street-level real)
> > effect on peoples' lives, especially their wallets
> and
> > labor allocations.  It is the case that almost
> anyone
> > today, even in the most disadvantaged background,
> can
> > learn and gain employment in some high-tech trade
> *if
> > they want to*.
> 
> Considering the number of techies still out of work
> in the US I find 
> this assertion outrageous.   And these are the
> people already highly 
> trained in various high-tech areas.

Slight misunderstanding.  I said "some".  This does
not necessarily mean the field that a particular
person has had training in, especially if (as is the
case for many of these particular techies, from
personal experience having rejected many resumes in
recent years) the "training" was completely inadequate
or inappropriate to the job being applied for - and,
most importantly, they're not willing to even consider
retraining.

Or, in many cases, even serious training in the first
place.  "I paid good money for my mail order Computer
Science degree!  I demand the $200K senior software
engineer position you're offering!  I'm not about to
actually sit in front of a computer and learn how to
program like some intern; that would require effort
I'm not willing to give!"  And then there's the one
about the person who, during her job interview, was
offended when I read the posted job duties as if she'd
actually be expected to do them (none of the other job
candidates objected).  I do not count such resistance
to picking up job skills as seriously wanting the job
("serious" or "true" desire, as a class of desire,
extends to doing that which is necessary to get the
desired thing as well as desire for the thing
itself)...but I do wonder how we can get people to
drop said resistance.

(Which is not to say the resistance is all bad.  It
does play a useful role, for instance in encouraging
people to find easier/less resource-consuming ways of
doing things.  But when the "optimized" path of action
is one that has a practically zero chance of success,
like trying to con one's way into technical jobs
instead of actually learning the requested skills...)

I also didn't say it'd be easy, or automatic.
Flipping burgers is the canonical easy job, for
someone who doesn't want to find and finance
appropriate training.  And sometimes it even pays
better than entry-level technical jobs...sometimes.

> How will these people support
> themselves or be 
> supported while gaining training?  What happens to
> the "superfluous" 
> workers?   Why will their numbers not swell as
> technology advances ever 
> faster?   And please, none of the standard
> assertions or references to 
> historical incidents largely not analogous to our
> current much nearer 
> to Singularity situation.

This, OTOH, summarizes the problem nicely (if one
includes the poorly-trained-but-thought-they-were-good
ex-dot-com workers in with the completely untrained).
I do not have a complete solution to this problem
right now, merely a suggestion that this seems to be
the root cause of a lot of the "Luddite"-caused
problems we currently face.  (For instance, better
screening of training providers to weed out the
useless - akin to universities' "accredited
institution" programs - and greater funding for those
putting themselves through job retraining might reduce
this problem, but they won't make it go away by
themselves.)

> You can begin with understanding the actual
> situation a bit more rather 
> than assuming everyone is sufficiently like yourself

I'm not just basing this off myself (though I am, of
course, the person I am most familiar with).  I'm also
basing off others who share the particular quality
being discussed here: success at obtaining technical
jobs.  I am far from the first person to note that one
of the seemingly required qualities of top-level
techies is curiosity* (a true desire to learn how
things work), nor the first to wonder how to ignite
this curiosity in far more human beings than currently
nurture it.  I do not think I'm even the first person
to muse about the broader consequences of such a mass
ignition for our economy and our society, if it could
be pulled off.  (I do assume that all human beings are
capable of being curious, and of satisfying that
curiosity through learning, but I base that assumption
off of personal observations.)

* Not necessarily curiosity for its own sake.  One
could be curious about how X works because one expects
to get paid a lot if one succeeds.  Yet that
motivation, or at least the logical connection that
the payment comes for figuring out X (rather than,
"person does something with X - it doesn't matter
exactly what - and gets paid"), does not seem to be as
widespread as it could be.

> and if they are 
> not like yourself that it is somehow their fault.  

It would be more accurate to say that those who suffer
from Luddist beliefs have some ability to fix that
situation - but that so many do not want to is,
itself, a problem.

> Casting fault 
> itself is a huge waste of time.

Except when it identifies causes that can be
corrected, to prevent the problem from continuing or
reoccuring.  For example, see above about the
so-called "highly trained" experts not being able to
find jobs.


From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Mon Jun  7 02:32:18 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:02:18 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION:  Harvey off the Board
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6D@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

Wait wait wait... where did this come from? Should I have been
subscribed to the transhumanism list to see this particular storm
exploding?

Emlyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harvey Newstrom [mailto:mail at harveynewstrom.com]
> Sent: Monday, 7 June 2004 3:49 AM
> To: wtaboard at yahoogroups.com; wtahall at transhumanism.org; wta-
> talk at transhumanism.org
> Cc: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; cryonet at cryonet.org
> Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
> 
> On Sat Jun 5 11:04:41 BST 2004 Giulio Prisco wrote,
>  > 1) MOVE that the WTA Board requests Mr. Harvey Newstrom to provide
a
> clear
>  > and final statement concerning his intention to resign from the WTA
> Board,
>  > by June 30, 2004. In absence of such statement, the WTA Board will
> vote on
>  > July 1, 2004, on:
>  > 2) MOVE that Mr. Harvey Newstrom shall be expelled from the WTA
Board.
>  >
>  > Any seconds?
> 
> On Sun Jun 6 03:07:56 BST 2004 James Hughes wrote,
>  > Second.
>  >
>  > J.
> 
> I HEREBY RESIGN MY POSITION ON THE WTA BOARD AT THE BOARD'S REQUEST.
I
> WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT I HAD ALREADY BEEN REMOVED.  NOW I
> UNDERSTAND THAT I WILL BE REMOVED IF I DO NOT RESIGN.  I REGRET THAT
> THE WTA LEADERSHIP REFUSES TO ALLOW MYSELF AND SOME OTHER DULY ELECTED
> REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERSHIP TO PARTICIPATE IN MAKING DECISIONS
> FOR THE ORGANIZATION.
> 
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
> <HarveyNewstrom.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun  7 03:57:03 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:57:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Idiad
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040606225537.01bebc58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>



Iliad made ezeyr 4 u

By Julie Henry
June 7, 2004

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460177124.html?oneclick=true

This literary masterpiece is looking a little battle-scarred. "Sing, 
goddess, of the accursed anger of Achilles, son of Peleus, which brought 
uncounted anguish on the Achaeans," Homer may have written in The Iliad.

Computer giant Microsoft, however, prefers something less lyrical. "Wot 
hapnd when Agamemnon n Achilles had a barny?" it asks in a new version of 
The Iliad produced to appeal to the text message generation.

The interpretation of Homer's classic by Microsoft, has been criticised for 
trivialising one of the greatest works of European literature.

The "translation" of the first five books of the 24-book Iliad condenses 
37,000 words to 32 lines of mobile telephone text message language, 
complete with sad and smiley faces and love hearts. In book three, a duel 
between Paris and Menelaus to determine possession of Helen, is reduced to: 
"Paris went 2 fight Menelaus. But he was wiv fright. Hector told im 2 b a 
man. Shame on him! Helen went 2 watch from da walls."

Book five, in which mortals fight the gods in a Homeric narrative rich with 
visual detail and poetic invention, is compressed to: "Aeneas da Trojan 
hero woz hit by Diomedes n Aphrodite went 2 help im. Da Gods withdrew. Ares 
helped da Trojans but Athena helped Diomedes 2 spear im." [etc]




From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Mon Jun  7 04:09:26 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:09:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION:  Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6D@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <776F7FC0-B838-11D8-84B2-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, June 6, 2004, at 10:32 pm, Emlyn ORegan wrote:

> Wait wait wait... where did this come from? Should I have been
> subscribed to the transhumanism list to see this particular storm
> exploding?

The WTA founders have been doing unethical things and hiding them from 
the members for a long time.  Things like selling members e-mail to 
spammers to make money, adding people to the membership rolls without 
their knowledge or permission, having secret agendas and methods not 
revealed to the members, etc.  The WTA founders have been ignoring 
board votes or doing things without the board's knowledge or 
permission.  The Oxford board meeting was one example where we were not 
allowed to vote on whether to hold the international meeting or not.  
The conference on Transhumanism and Spirituality is another example 
where the "leaders" went ahead despite board objections.  There also 
were complaints about inaccuracies and plagiarism in the "WTA FAQ" 
which the board was not allowed to address.  Basically, the "leaders" 
are not willing to cede their self-proclaimed control over to an 
elected board as their constitution directs.  They are now pushing for 
a new Executive Director position who can run WTA independently of the 
board with little or no oversight or control.  James wants to be 
Executive Director just as he has been chairman, treasurer, secretary, 
publications director, newsletter editor, and website master.  Despite 
the claim to have a democratically elected board, the founders of WTA 
still retain all control for themselves and hold virtually all offices 
by themselves.

The final straw was when James self-declared himself as Executive 
Director and said he wanted to start taking a $60,000 salary.  They 
intended to vote on this at the Oxford meeting, but forgot to include 
it in the list of votes at the end of the meeting.  When they returned, 
one board member resigned, and two others who did not attend the 
meeting were against the idea.  (Mostly because WTA doesn't take in 
$60,000, so we don't want James pocketing all our funds until we do 
so.)  It then became apparent that James might not have enough votes to 
be appointed ED.  Instead of allowing a vote, James, Giulio and Nick 
decided that the "intent" was to hire James, and that they considered 
it done without a formal vote.  They refused to allow any further votes 
on the issue.  They even abridged the official meeting minutes to add 
this non-existent vote, and sent this out to the membership.  When we 
pointed to the public archives for historical evidence, the board voted 
to shut down the public archives.  When we pointed to the wtaboard 
private archives for evidence, the original motion and minutes were 
deleted.  When we attempted to reveal these votes to the public, it was 
voted NOT to open board votes to the public in wtahall.  When we 
attempted to publish the original minutes, the board voted NOT to 
publish the original minutes, and to NOT amend them to the new minutes, 
and to just leave everything as it was.

Most of the board rather hide the truth to save face rather than tell 
the truth.  When a small minority of three board members started 
discussing this publicly, we were called liars and claimed their lies 
were the truth.  Our motions and seconds were ignored.  There were 
private discussions by the majority how to boot off the minority 
without appearing to kick them out.  There were specific plans 
discussed to try to get me to resign so it wouldn't look like they 
voted to remove me.  Finally, I was told I was removed and had my 
access to the wtaboard revoked.  Later, they denied this ever happened 
and made their motion that I had to resign or be removed.

Look for an announcement of a new election to replace three board 
members who have resigned since James took over as self-declared 
Executive Director.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Mon Jun  7 04:29:52 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:59:52 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION:  Harvey off the Board
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6E@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> The WTA founders have been doing unethical things and hiding them from
> the members for a long time.  Things like selling members e-mail to
> spammers to make money, adding people to the membership rolls without
> their knowledge or permission, having secret agendas and methods not
> [snipped damning indictment of WTA executive]

Wow. As Harvey's integrity and veracity have always been impeccable
AFAIK, I'm prepared to accept this report on face value.

This is extraordinary news to me, that an important transhumanist voice
is being run so corruptly. It certainly doesn't do extropians any
favours that a group that should be a major ally is being so royally
screwed up (and now milked for all it's worth, apparently). Furthermore,
that it is James Hughes sets my teeth on edge, given his politics (and
I'm probably one of the more left people on extro-chat).

Should we be doing something about this? Is it time for the extro
community to join WTA as a block and throw some weight around? Would
that do any good?

Emlyn


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Mon Jun  7 04:57:39 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:57:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION:  Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6E@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEHPEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Emlyn ORegan
>
> Should we be doing something about this? Is it time for the extro
> community to join WTA as a block and throw some weight around? Would
> that do any good?

The WTA is a small enough segment of transhumanism that it won't matter if
it implodes. None of the important  ideas will die with it. Imminst and ExI
are of equal size and capacity in terms of membership, "membership,"
eyeballs, ability to speak to the public. Some core transhumanist mailing
lists have two to four times the number of members as the WTA, although that
doesn't really translate to community. Betterhumans dwarfs the entirety of
the rest of the movement in those last two points and isn't beholden to the
WTA in any way, shape, or form. Transhumanist-minded people of influence
like Kurzweil, Minsky, Freitas, de Gray, et al, aren't affected by the
presence or absence of the WTA.

Equally, the WTA is large enough and has enough of a running start that it
would be nice if the people and resources could be found to rehabilitate it.
OTOH, if the members and remaining board are aware of and happy with the
current situation, the only ethical external pressures to be brought are the
normal ones of non-association. That's not really an issue in my case, since
the WTA as an organization doesn't have a lot to do with the areas I'm
interested in: not a great deal of tech-boosterism or pro-research activism
going on over there on an official basis.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason at longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org



From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun  7 05:22:29 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:22:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6E@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6E@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <470a3c520406062222119b98f1@mail.gmail.com>

Emlyn, I wish to invite you to gain access to the wta-talk archives by
subscribing to the list, and see things for yourself. I am sure that,
if you do so, you may wish to reword some of the things you said based
on wrong information.
Concerning most of Harvey's rant, I am prepared to put it down to
faulty memory and judgment. But regarding the allegation of "selling
members e-mail to spammers to make money", I wish to invite him to
either prove it, or shut up and stop wasting our time.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:59:52 +0930, Emlyn ORegan
<emlyn.oregan at micromet.com.au> wrote:

> Wow. As Harvey's integrity and veracity have always been impeccable
> AFAIK, I'm prepared to accept this report on face value.
> 
> This is extraordinary news to me, that an important transhumanist voice
> is being run so corruptly. It certainly doesn't do extropians any
> favours that a group that should be a major ally is being so royally
> screwed up (and now milked for all it's worth, apparently). Furthermore,
> that it is James Hughes sets my teeth on edge, given his politics (and
> I'm probably one of the more left people on extro-chat).
> 
> Should we be doing something about this? Is it time for the extro
> community to join WTA as a block and throw some weight around? Would
> that do any good?
> 
> Emlyn


From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Mon Jun  7 05:28:31 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:58:31 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6F@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

The archives... well, Harvey has said that the archives were modified,
so I feel disinclined to trust them at this stage.

Emlyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 [mailto:pgptag at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 7 June 2004 2:52 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
> 
> Emlyn, I wish to invite you to gain access to the wta-talk archives by
> subscribing to the list, and see things for yourself. I am sure that,
> if you do so, you may wish to reword some of the things you said based
> on wrong information.
> Concerning most of Harvey's rant, I am prepared to put it down to
> faulty memory and judgment. But regarding the allegation of "selling
> members e-mail to spammers to make money", I wish to invite him to
> either prove it, or shut up and stop wasting our time.
> 
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:59:52 +0930, Emlyn ORegan
> <emlyn.oregan at micromet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > Wow. As Harvey's integrity and veracity have always been impeccable
> > AFAIK, I'm prepared to accept this report on face value.
> >
> > This is extraordinary news to me, that an important transhumanist
voice
> > is being run so corruptly. It certainly doesn't do extropians any
> > favours that a group that should be a major ally is being so royally
> > screwed up (and now milked for all it's worth, apparently).
Furthermore,
> > that it is James Hughes sets my teeth on edge, given his politics
(and
> > I'm probably one of the more left people on extro-chat).
> >
> > Should we be doing something about this? Is it time for the extro
> > community to join WTA as a block and throw some weight around? Would
> > that do any good?
> >
> > Emlyn
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun  7 05:50:01 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:50:01 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6F@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6F@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <470a3c5204060622504e3955c1@mail.gmail.com>

Come on Emlyn, "Harvey has said..." is not a very solid argument when
it is Harvey against the rest of the world.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:58:31 +0930, Emlyn ORegan
<emlyn.oregan at micromet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> The archives... well, Harvey has said that the archives were modified,
> so I feel disinclined to trust them at this stage.
> 
> Emlyn


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Mon Jun  7 06:07:34 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:07:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204060622504e3955c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEIAEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Giu1i0
> Pri5c0
> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 10:50 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
>
>
> Come on Emlyn, "Harvey has said..." is not a very solid argument when
> it is Harvey against the rest of the world.
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:58:31 +0930, Emlyn ORegan
> <emlyn.oregan at micromet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > The archives... well, Harvey has said that the archives were modified,
> > so I feel disinclined to trust them at this stage.
> >
> > Emlyn

A quick note regarding the WTA archives: Santiago Ochoa is currently point
on fixing up the problems caused by the server upgrade in early May. The
last time he asked me for information on the setup, on the 28th, he was
still in the process of sorting out the e-mail->bbs connection and fixing
the necessary configurations for web access to the mailing list archives. I
don't know where that process is at the moment.

After a quick check, the links to archives from the website are wrong -
another configuration that was reset with the server upgrade. It should be:

http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/<list-name>/

e.g.

http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/wta-talk/

The lists are currently password protected using .htaccess, I believe, so
normal list members can't use their list id/pw to access it. You have to
know one of the .htaccess passwords.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Mon Jun  7 06:04:29 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:34:29 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F71@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

Harvey against the rest of the world? Hmm, maybe. Harvey, do you have
anyone else who is willing to back up your claims on this list?

Giulio (is that right?), maybe you'd answer some questions...

- Have the founders been ignoring board votes?
- Have the founders sold member's @s to spammers?
- Have the founders added people to the membership rolls without
knowledge/permission?
- Was Transhumanism and Spirituality (wow, did you really hold such a
daft conference??) held despite board objections?
- Was a paid executive director really appointed without a vote of the
board?
- Is the board allowed real control in the WTA? If not, what is the role
of the board?

Emlyn


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun  7 06:07:50 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:07:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204060622504e3955c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c44c55$c3b18a20$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Giu1i0 Pri5c0
> 
> Come on Emlyn, "Harvey has said..." is not a very solid argument when
> it is Harvey against the rest of the world.


The rest of the world is quite puzzled and disturbed
by all of this.  Do explain.

spike




From samantha at objectent.com  Mon Jun  7 06:41:19 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:41:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill Gates and Petals Around the Rose
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-DAV9zrK0pWHIt0000239c@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY22-DAV9zrK0pWHIt0000239c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <AEE85606-B84D-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

Yeah, I started getting a bunch right because I was remembering 
previous rolls, including transpositions, too.  Finally I saw the true 
algorithm.   Pretty set of more complicated algorithms were formed and 
failed along the way.

-s

On Jun 6, 2004, at 11:04 AM, Slawomir Paliwoda wrote:

> http://member.melbpc.org.au/~lborrett/computing/petals-bg.htm
>
> :)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun  7 06:43:27 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:43:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F71@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F71@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <470a3c52040606234347ccc409@mail.gmail.com>

Answers below:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:34:29 +0930, Emlyn ORegan
<emlyn.oregan at micromet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Harvey against the rest of the world? Hmm, maybe. Harvey, do you have
> anyone else who is willing to back up your claims on this list?

Not many I fear.

> Giulio (is that right?),

Yes.

> maybe you'd answer some questions...

Sure.

> - Have the founders been ignoring board votes?

No, and there is no concept of "founders". All board members have
equal status, and members can vote the "founders" out is they wish so.

> - Have the founders sold member's @s to spammers?

No, and I find the allegation quite offensive. Before making this sort
of accusations one should think of whether (s)he can provide any
proof. When this is not the case one should, as I said before, shut up
and stop wasting our time.

> - Have the founders added people to the membership rolls without
> knowledge/permission?

Not to my knowledge. Harvey is probably referring to an isolated
incident where a few former list subscribers were unintentionally
resubscribed as a side effect of a list software upgrade. The list
manager promptly admitted the error, apologized, and removed everyone
who did not wish to be on the list.

> - Was Transhumanism and Spirituality (wow, did you really hold such a
> daft conference??) held despite board objections?

The conference will be held in August concurrently with TransVision04.
The decision to hold the conference was taken despite the objections
of a minority of board members.

> - Was a paid executive director really appointed without a vote of the
> board?

An executive director was appointed with a vote of the board. The work
of the executive director is not paid at the present time. We plan to
convert the post of executive director into a full time paid post as
soon as this is financially feasible, perhaps in a couple of years.

> - Is the board allowed real control in the WTA? If not, what is the role
> of the board?

All board members participate in all decisions, vote on all issues,
and can make proposals and formal motions. Their proposals!motions are
accepted if they can win, with solid arguments, the support of a
majority of board members. When this is not the case I believe the
board member concerned should accept the view of the others, think of
better arguments for next time, and refrain from spreading unproven
crap on all transhumanist lists.


From samantha at objectent.com  Mon Jun  7 06:58:43 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:58:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism
In-Reply-To: <20040606235121.37284.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040606235121.37284.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1D65F4E8-B850-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 6, 2004, at 4:51 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 2004, at 4:34 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>>> So, perhaps a slight restatement: it doesn't
>> matter
>>> what one calls it - "science", "everyday life", or
>>> whatever.  What matters is its actual (not
>>> theoretical, not planned, but street-level real)
>>> effect on peoples' lives, especially their wallets
>> and
>>> labor allocations.  It is the case that almost
>> anyone
>>> today, even in the most disadvantaged background,
>> can
>>> learn and gain employment in some high-tech trade
>> *if
>>> they want to*.
>>
>> Considering the number of techies still out of work
>> in the US I find
>> this assertion outrageous.   And these are the
>> people already highly
>> trained in various high-tech areas.
>
> Slight misunderstanding.  I said "some".

Nope.  You said "almost anyone".    I assume "disadvantaged background" 
includes little or no previous training.

> This does
> not necessarily mean the field that a particular
> person has had training in, especially if (as is the
> case for many of these particular techies, from
> personal experience having rejected many resumes in
> recent years) the "training" was completely inadequate
> or inappropriate to the job being applied for - and,
> most importantly, they're not willing to even consider
> retraining.

I don't think so.  I know quite a few of these techies, many with as 
broad a base of training and experience and many a still employed 
techie or one we would hire if we had the open reqs.   So again, I 
don't think your assertion is valid.  Also, many of these people are 
attempting to retrain but it is difficult to gauge what to retrain for.

>
> Or, in many cases, even serious training in the first
> place.  "I paid good money for my mail order Computer
> Science degree!  I demand the $200K senior software
> engineer position you're offering!  I'm not about to
> actually sit in front of a computer and learn how to
> program like some intern; that would require effort
> I'm not willing to give!"

Very funny but it has zip to do with reality or my objection.

> I also didn't say it'd be easy, or automatic.
> Flipping burgers is the canonical easy job, for
> someone who doesn't want to find and finance
> appropriate training.  And sometimes it even pays
> better than entry-level technical jobs...sometimes.
>

How long are you going to evade the meat of the actual objection?


>> How will these people support
>> themselves or be
>> supported while gaining training?  What happens to
>> the "superfluous"
>> workers?   Why will their numbers not swell as
>> technology advances ever
>> faster?   And please, none of the standard
>> assertions or references to
>> historical incidents largely not analogous to our
>> current much nearer
>> to Singularity situation.
>
> This, OTOH, summarizes the problem nicely (if one
> includes the poorly-trained-but-thought-they-were-good
> ex-dot-com workers in with the completely untrained).
> I do not have a complete solution to this problem
> right now, merely a suggestion that this seems to be
> the root cause of a lot of the "Luddite"-caused
> problems we currently face.  (For instance, better
> screening of training providers to weed out the
> useless - akin to universities' "accredited
> institution" programs - and greater funding for those
> putting themselves through job retraining might reduce
> this problem, but they won't make it go away by
> themselves.)
>

OK.  This is more reasonable.  What happens as the pace of 
technological change increases more drastically?  At what point are 
there no accredited trainers for what is hot because no one has figured 
out what is good training for it or how long that training will be 
valuable?   Or is good training more a matter of very good basics, some 
programming in depth, aesthetics and a very flexible mind?    What 
happens with this is no longer enough?

>> You can begin with understanding the actual
>> situation a bit more rather
>> than assuming everyone is sufficiently like yourself
>
> I'm not just basing this off myself (though I am, of
> course, the person I am most familiar with).  I'm also
> basing off others who share the particular quality
> being discussed here: success at obtaining technical
> jobs.

Unfortunately I know more than a few people who never ever had trouble 
getting jobs in their pushing two decades careers until the last couple 
of years.   It is a bit scary out there.

> I am far from the first person to note that one
> of the seemingly required qualities of top-level
> techies is curiosity* (a true desire to learn how
> things work), nor the first to wonder how to ignite
> this curiosity in far more human beings than currently
> nurture it.  I do not think I'm even the first person
> to muse about the broader consequences of such a mass
> ignition for our economy and our society, if it could
> be pulled off.  (I do assume that all human beings are
> capable of being curious, and of satisfying that
> curiosity through learning, but I base that assumption
> off of personal observations.)
>
> * Not necessarily curiosity for its own sake.  One
> could be curious about how X works because one expects
> to get paid a lot if one succeeds.  Yet that
> motivation, or at least the logical connection that
> the payment comes for figuring out X (rather than,
> "person does something with X - it doesn't matter
> exactly what - and gets paid"), does not seem to be as
> widespread as it could be.

Learning that understanding X is actually fun not to mention possibly 
lucrative is a core competency that seems difficult to instill in 
adults lacking it.  True enough.  But what happens as the bar of raw 
intelligence required also rises?

>
>> and if they are
>> not like yourself that it is somehow their fault.
>
> It would be more accurate to say that those who suffer
> from Luddist beliefs have some ability to fix that
> situation - but that so many do not want to is,
> itself, a problem.

Luddist beliefs heh?  What a convenient set of labels useful for 
sweeping real problems and concerns of real people under the rug.   
Hopefully you will not personally experience directly why some of these 
folks fear technological change and feel hopelessly left out and 
unneeded/unwanted.

>
>> Casting fault
>> itself is a huge waste of time.
>
> Except when it identifies causes that can be
> corrected, to prevent the problem from continuing or
> reoccuring.  For example, see above about the
> so-called "highly trained" experts not being able to
> find jobs.


Forget "so-called".  There are real experts I know personally who 
cannot find work in their field.  And no, their field is not outmoded 
or unneeded.

Why are you attempting to explain away as the fault of the victims a 
real problem?

- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Mon Jun  7 07:05:45 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:05:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION:  Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <776F7FC0-B838-11D8-84B2-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <776F7FC0-B838-11D8-84B2-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <18FB8950-B851-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

I am not surprised.  Just the way things were headed on wta-talk led me 
to doubt all was as it should be in the organization.    It is a pity 
when a purported umbrella organization becomes rigidly attached to a 
particular agenda much less governed by a nearly fixed elite.

-s



From samantha at objectent.com  Mon Jun  7 07:09:42 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:09:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204060622504e3955c1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6F@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<470a3c5204060622504e3955c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A60AA6DA-B851-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

I have been on the list.  After WTA folks baiting and shunning all 
remotely libertarian voices off into a separate mailing list I got 
disgusted and quit participating.   This is not a "World Transhumanist 
Association" except in name only.

- s



From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Jun  7 11:03:13 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:03:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hendrik Van den Berg on living standards
Message-ID: <003201c44c7f$082f6d60$ea893cd1@neptune>

Of note for Extropians and transhumanists is Hendrik Van den Berg's
essay.  I had a chance to read it in advance.  He argues for a new way
to measure living standards that might prove useful in the future.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html

From: "Chris Matthew Sciabarra" chris.sciabarra at nyu.edu
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 6:00 AM
Subject: [atlantis_II] New Issue: THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES


Volume 5, Number 2 of THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES has just been
published.   The issue features the following contributions:

The Magnificent Progress Achieved by Capitalism:
Is the Evidence Incontrovertible?
By Hendrik Van den Berg

Universals and Measurement
By Stephen Boydstun

Art as Microcosm
By Roger E. Bissell

Ayn Rand in the Scholarly Literature IV:
Ayn Rand in England
By Nicholas Dykes

An Economist Reads Philosophy:
Review of Leland Yeager's book, ETHICS AS SOCIAL SCIENCE
By William Thomas

Capitalism and Virtue:
Review of Dinesh D'Souza's book, THE VIRTUE OF PROSPERITY
By Will Wilkinson

A Direct Realist's Challenge to Skepticism:
Review of Michael Huemer's book, SKEPTICISM AND THE VEIL OF PERCEPTION
By Ari Armstrong

Discussion
Reply to Huemer:  Egoism and Predatory Behavior
By Michael Young

Rejoinder to Young:  Egoism and Prudent Predation
By Michael Huemer

Objectivism:  On Stage and Self Destructive:
Review of Sky Gilbert's play, THE EMOTIONALISTS
By Karen Michalson

Reply to Michalson:
Rand as Guru:  Will it Never End?
By Sky Gilbert

Rejoinder to Gilbert:
Rand as What?
By Karen Michalson

For article abstracts, click here:
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v5_n2/5_2toc.asp

For contributor biographies, click here:
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v5_n2/5_2bio.asp

For information on subscriptions, click here:
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/subscribForm.asp

Look for Volume 6 in 2004-2005 --- Two Special Symposium Issues in Honor
of  the Ayn Rand Centenary:  the first dealing with Ayn Rand's Cultural
& Literary Impact, the second dealing with "Ayn Rand Among the
Austrians."
=================================================
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Visiting Scholar, NYU Department of Politics
726 Broadway, 7th floor
New York, New York 10003
Fall 2004 Cyberseminar:  Putting Dialectics to Work:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/semstart.htm
Dialectics & Liberty Website:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra
The Sciabarra "Not a Blog" (regularly updated):
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog.htm
The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies:
http://www.aynrandstudies.com
=================================================



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Mon Jun  7 11:55:40 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:55:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040606234347ccc409@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <98E4A0E6-B879-11D8-A2EC-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 02:43 am, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> Answers below:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:34:29 +0930, Emlyn ORegan
> <emlyn.oregan at micromet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Harvey against the rest of the world? Hmm, maybe. Harvey, do you have
>> anyone else who is willing to back up your claims on this list?
>
> Not many I fear.

I am but one Board member.  There are also two other Board members who 
have similarly resigned, named Bruce and Theo.  There is also a former 
Board member on this list named Eliezer.  There is also a current ExI 
Board member who is still on the WTA Board named Jose.  I can't imagine 
how Giulio forgot about all these.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun  7 14:56:19 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 07:56:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION:  Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <776F7FC0-B838-11D8-84B2-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6D@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607075224.01e77320@mail.earthlink.net>

At 12:09 AM 6/7/04 -0400, Harvey wrote:

>On Sunday, June 6, 2004, at 10:32 pm, Emlyn ORegan wrote:
>
>>Wait wait wait... where did this come from? Should I have been
>>subscribed to the transhumanism list to see this particular storm
>>exploding?
>
>The WTA founders have been doing unethical things and hiding them from the 
>members for a long time.  Things like selling members e-mail to spammers 
>to make money, adding people to the membership rolls without their 
>knowledge or permission, having secret agendas and methods not revealed to 
>the members, etc.  The WTA founders have been ignoring board votes or 
>doing things without the board's knowledge or permission.  The Oxford 
>board meeting was one example where we were not allowed to vote on whether 
>to hold the international meeting or not.
>The conference on Transhumanism and Spirituality is another example where 
>the "leaders" went ahead despite board objections.  There also were 
>complaints about inaccuracies and plagiarism in the "WTA FAQ" which the 
>board was not allowed to address.  Basically, the "leaders" are not 
>willing to cede their self-proclaimed control over to an elected board as 
>their constitution directs.  They are now pushing for a new Executive 
>Director position who can run WTA independently of the board with little 
>or no oversight or control.  James wants to be Executive Director just as 
>he has been chairman, treasurer, secretary, publications director, 
>newsletter editor, and website master.  Despite the claim to have a 
>democratically elected board, the founders of WTA still retain all control 
>for themselves and hold virtually all offices by themselves.

Harvey, we know that the FAQ was created by Alex Bokow and somehow became 
the property of Nick and WTA, but certainly WTA can explain 
this.  Regarding James becomeing Ex. Dir., I don't remember voting on it 
recently or receiving any email about it.  Doesn't WTA have a policy of 
voting on its principles?  If so and we did not vote on James, there must 
be a reasonable explanation.  Guilio, can you enlighten us?

>The final straw was when James self-declared himself as Executive Director 
>and said he wanted to start taking a $60,000 salary.  They intended to 
>vote on this at the Oxford meeting, but forgot to include it in the list 
>of votes at the end of the meeting.  When they returned, one board member 
>resigned, and two others who did not attend the meeting were against the 
>idea.  (Mostly because WTA doesn't take in $60,000, so we don't want James 
>pocketing all our funds until we do so.)  It then became apparent that 
>James might not have enough votes to be appointed ED.  Instead of allowing 
>a vote, James, Giulio and Nick decided that the "intent" was to hire 
>James, and that they considered it done without a formal vote.  They 
>refused to allow any further votes on the issue.  They even abridged the 
>official meeting minutes to add this non-existent vote, and sent this out 
>to the membership.  When we pointed to the public archives for historical 
>evidence, the board voted to shut down the public archives.  When we 
>pointed to the wtaboard private archives for evidence, the original motion 
>and minutes were deleted.  When we attempted to reveal these votes to the 
>public, it was voted NOT to open board votes to the public in 
>wtahall.  When we attempted to publish the original minutes, the board 
>voted NOT to publish the original minutes, and to NOT amend them to the 
>new minutes, and to just leave everything as it was.
>
>Most of the board rather hide the truth to save face rather than tell the 
>truth.  When a small minority of three board members started discussing 
>this publicly, we were called liars and claimed their lies were the 
>truth.  Our motions and seconds were ignored.  There were private 
>discussions by the majority how to boot off the minority without appearing 
>to kick them out.  There were specific plans discussed to try to get me to 
>resign so it wouldn't look like they voted to remove me.  Finally, I was 
>told I was removed and had my access to the wtaboard revoked.  Later, they 
>denied this ever happened and made their motion that I had to resign or be 
>removed.

Is this why Bruce Klein (BJ) resigned from the board?  I know he did 
because he mentioned it on the chat last week, but he did not completely 
elaborate.


>Look for an announcement of a new election to replace three board members 
>who have resigned since James took over as self-declared Executive Director.

Okay.

Eli, do you have any comments?  You were on the board.

my best to all,

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040607/f61c4eb6/attachment.html>

From bjk at imminst.org  Mon Jun  7 13:20:01 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:20:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F71@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F71@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <40C46B81.50507@imminst.org>

Emlyn ORegan wrote:

>Harvey against the rest of the world? Hmm, maybe. Harvey, do you have
>anyone else who is willing to back up your claims on this list?
>

I support Mr. Newstrom's account. Harvey was underhandedly excluded off 
WTA?s board. Shortly after learning this, I resigned from WTA's board 
because I feared they would eventually do the same to me.

I've posted a public notice to the homepage of ImmInst.

http://www.imminst.org

Sincerely,

Bruce Klein
Chair, ImmInst.org
http://www.imminst.org/bjklein





From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  7 13:26:16 2004
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 06:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <98E4A0E6-B879-11D8-A2EC-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20040607132616.65282.qmail@web41313.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear friends,
 
     I certainly back all the claims made by Harvey Newstrom because I have seen, first hand, what happened to him. He was first excluded from the wtaboard list and then James Hughes told us that he could not be contacted back, while other people were communicating with him. If that is not a lie, I do not know what is a lie or a set-up.
 
     Transhumanistically yours,
 
     La vie est belle!
 
     Yos?

Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 02:43 am, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> Answers below:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:34:29 +0930, Emlyn ORegan
> wrote:
>>
>> Harvey against the rest of the world? Hmm, maybe. Harvey, do you have
>> anyone else who is willing to back up your claims on this list?
>
> Not many I fear.

I am but one Board member. There are also two other Board members who 
have similarly resigned, named Bruce and Theo. There is also a former 
Board member on this list named Eliezer. There is also a current ExI 
Board member who is still on the WTA Board named Jose. I can't imagine 
how Giulio forgot about all these.


La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040607/72e835e7/attachment.html>

From bjk at imminst.org  Mon Jun  7 13:38:59 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:38:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040606234347ccc409@mail.gmail.com>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F71@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<470a3c52040606234347ccc409@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40C46FF3.3080107@imminst.org>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> shut up and stop wasting our time.


> refrain from spreading unproven crap on all transhumanist lists.


Even if everything Mr. Newstrom has said is 'unproven crap', it would 
still deserve a greater measure of respect.  Harvey has been working 
diligently to bring important concerns to WTA leadership for more than 
five months.  Each time he does so, he is personally attacked.

I continue to be saddened by Mr. Prisco's use of disparaging words 
toward Mr. Newstrom.  Resorting to personal attacks highlights an even 
larger problem surrounding WTA's current leadership style.

Bruce Klein




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Jun  7 13:49:49 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:49:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI structure question
Message-ID: <40C4727D.3090108@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

The WTA board appears to be going through some growth problems at present.

The thought occurs to me that it could be very dangerous for us if the
SIAI has similar problems in a few years time as development of FAI is
in the final testing phase.

Programming the maximum optimizing process will be a team project
extending over a period of years and the size of SIAI board and staff
will probably grow during this time.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Inventions are always used for
purposes other than the original intention of the inventor. When the
power of the software becomes evident, some individual(s) is(are) bound
to think about taking a copy of all or part of the software for their
own use. (Let us hope SIAI have a security team in place by then).

With the whole world at stake, perhaps Elizier will be voted off the
board, when others feel his input is no longer required for the
development and his ideas obstruct their own plans.

Perhaps a sub-set of SIAI will think - We built this - why not keep it
for our own benefit?

Of course, these AI power games may well mean the end of the human race.
But the payoff, if successful, is so big, that I doubt whether ALL the
members of SIAI and their advisers, friends, etc. will be able to resist
temptation.

It is much easier to consider these problems well in advance.

BillK


From baptista at dot-god.com  Mon Jun  7 13:50:29 2004
From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] M3 UP UP UP - Something REALLY BAD is going on folks
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0406070950020.10472-100000@dot-god.com>


A number of us have detected movements in the U.S. money supply which are
difficult to interpret.  At best we have hints of an imminent Catastrophe
of some sorts.

The Federal Reserve has recently raised the money supply (M-3) by crisis
proportions. It was up another $46.8 billion this past week.

This is unprecedented, unheard-of pre-catastrophe M-3 expansion. M-3
is up an amount that we've never seen before without a crisis -- $155
billion over the past four weeks, a $2.0 trillion annualized pace, a 22.2
percent annualized rate of growth.

There must be a crisis of historic proportions coming, and the Federal
Reserve Bank of the United States is making sure that there is enough
liquidity in place to protect the U.S.'s fragile financial system.

This is an unusual move since steep increases in M3 can result in the
permanent devaluation of a currency.  Why are they doing this?

Also we have detected a number of military actions - i.e. Navy ships
around the World are leaving their ports in unprecedented numbers?  Why?

Within the last two - three weeks there is also increased activity on all
US Military bases.  Why?

And last of all the internet rumor mill is at an all time high.  Huge
amounts of rumors and government disinformation on the Internet.  Why?

These and a few other technical observations leads us to conclude that the
event which is being planned for will occur in mid June or early July.

enjoy
joe baptista








From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun  7 14:03:18 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:03:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <40C46FF3.3080107@imminst.org>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F71@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<470a3c52040606234347ccc409@mail.gmail.com>
	<40C46FF3.3080107@imminst.org>
Message-ID: <470a3c520406070703431a8a03@mail.gmail.com>

Bruce, I am referring specifically to "selling members e-mail to
spammers to make money". This is false, and is a personal attack aimed
at most WTA board members. Hence I don't see any other way of defining
it but "unproven crap". I agree with you on the unappropriateness of
personal attacks, but please note that I issued one in reply to
another.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:38:59 -0500, Bruce J. Klein <bjk at imminst.org> wrote:
> 
> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> 
> > shut up and stop wasting our time.
> 
> > refrain from spreading unproven crap on all transhumanist lists.
> 
> 
> Even if everything Mr. Newstrom has said is 'unproven crap', it would
> still deserve a greater measure of respect.  Harvey has been working
> diligently to bring important concerns to WTA leadership for more than
> five months.  Each time he does so, he is personally attacked.
> 
> I continue to be saddened by Mr. Prisco's use of disparaging words
> toward Mr. Newstrom.  Resorting to personal attacks highlights an even
> larger problem surrounding WTA's current leadership style.
> 
> Bruce Klein


From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun  7 14:25:36 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:25:36 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <98E4A0E6-B879-11D8-A2EC-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <98E4A0E6-B879-11D8-A2EC-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520406070725799471a@mail.gmail.com>

Harvey, please be more accurate on facts. Theo resigned due to
completely unrelated reasons, and Eliezer was not elected to the board
in 2004.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:55:40 -0400, Harvey Newstrom
<mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> I am but one Board member.  There are also two other Board members who
> have similarly resigned, named Bruce and Theo.  There is also a former
> Board member on this list named Eliezer.  There is also a current ExI
> Board member who is still on the WTA Board named Jose.  I can't imagine
> how Giulio forgot about all these.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun  7 15:11:06 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] M3 UP UP UP - Something REALLY BAD is going on
	folks
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0406070950020.10472-100000@dot-god.com>
Message-ID: <20040607151106.20153.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Joe Baptista <baptista at dot-god.com> wrote:
> The Federal Reserve has recently raised the money
> supply (M-3) by crisis
> proportions. It was up another $46.8 billion this
> past week.
> 
> This is unprecedented, unheard-of pre-catastrophe
> M-3 expansion. M-3
> is up an amount that we've never seen before without
> a crisis -- $155
> billion over the past four weeks, a $2.0 trillion
> annualized pace, a 22.2
> percent annualized rate of growth.

The 22.2 percent does seem high, but are you sure it's
not just catching up for years of low rates?  (I'll
admit, I don't track this very closely, so I'm not
saying it is, just that it's something to check for.)

> Also we have detected a number of military actions -
> i.e. Navy ships
> around the World are leaving their ports in
> unprecedented numbers?  Why?
> 
> Within the last two - three weeks there is also
> increased activity on all
> US Military bases.  Why?

That's public information.  Bush is increasing US
military presence in Iraq, extending stays et al.
The strain of this continued effort is having
repercussions throughout the military.

> And last of all the internet rumor mill is at an all
> time high.  Huge
> amounts of rumors and government disinformation on
> the Internet.  Why?

Given the proven disinformation of recent times (for
instance, the hunt for WMD) and consequent activity
(CIA director Tenet's resignation), people are
speculating there might be more to it.  They're
probably right, but which specific "more"?

> These and a few other technical observations leads
> us to conclude that the
> event which is being planned for will occur in mid
> June or early July.

Like the handover of Iraq to its new, native
government?  Perhaps someone's trying to make sure it
will seem a disaster, or at least really really
expects it will seem that way?


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun  7 15:16:50 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI structure question
In-Reply-To: <40C4727D.3090108@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20040607151650.61129.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The WTA board appears to be going through some
> growth problems at present.
> 
> The thought occurs to me that it could be very
> dangerous for us if the
> SIAI has similar problems in a few years time as
> development of FAI is
> in the final testing phase.

Possible, but unlikely.  WTA is primarily a social
group.  SIAI is primarily a development group.
Politics aren't as much of a factor in the latter as
the former.  (They can be a factor; they just tend to
arise far less often.)

> Perhaps a sub-set of SIAI will think - We built this
> - why not keep it
> for our own benefit?

Ironically, in Elizier's vision (if I understand it
correctly), it's only strict adherence to Friendliness
that would even make it possible to contain a fully
developed AI like that.  So if that happens it's
actually a minor success - so long as those who would
keep it remain fully aware of that which is
technically necessary to keep it.


From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jun  7 15:25:29 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:25:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI structure question
In-Reply-To: <40C4727D.3090108@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <40C4727D.3090108@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <40C488E9.50306@pobox.com>

BillK wrote:

> The WTA board appears to be going through some growth problems at
> present.
> 
> The thought occurs to me that it could be very dangerous for us if the 
> SIAI has similar problems in a few years time as development of FAI is 
> in the final testing phase.
> 
> Programming the maximum optimizing process

That's "Maximizing Optimization Process", and an FAI, as I currently
understand the design, is *not* an expected utility maximizer.

> will be a team project extending over a period of years and the size of
> SIAI board and staff will probably grow during this time.
> 
> Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Inventions are always used for 
> purposes other than the original intention of the inventor.

In a strong sense, a Friendly AI *is* the original intention of the 
inventor.  Other inventions are not sapient and reflective, do not have 
intrinsic purposes bound into their structure.

> When the power of the software becomes evident,

It is not general power.  It is only power to carry out the original purpose.

> some individual(s) is(are) bound 
> to think about taking a copy of all or part of the software for their 
> own use. (Let us hope SIAI have a security team in place by then).
> 
> With the whole world at stake, perhaps Eliezer will be voted off the 
> board, when others feel his input is no longer required for the 
> development and his ideas obstruct their own plans.
> 
> Perhaps a sub-set of SIAI will think - We built this - why not keep it 
> for our own benefit?
> 
> Of course, these AI power games may well mean the end of the human race.
> But the payoff, if successful, is so big, that I doubt whether ALL the 
> members of SIAI and their advisers, friends, etc. will be able to resist
> temptation.
> 
> It is much easier to consider these problems well in advance.

I've been considering these problems since 2000.  Before coding starts, I 
will set up an organizational veto structure plus programming safeguards, 
based on the principle of "If we can't agree, the FAI ceases to exist," not 
"Who 'gets' the FAI in case of disagreement?"  I will also apply FAI theory 
to ensure that the AI created is irrevocably dedicated to a Friendly 
subspace of pathways.  You will not be able to steal "an AI" because all 
that exists is a Friendly AI.

An analogy; suppose that some primitive tribesfolk hear about "technology", 
which, in the stories of their tribe, enables people to fly through the 
air, walk on the Moon, and so on.  Inspired by this, they sneak into the 
city, steal a toaster oven, and command the toaster oven to slay their 
enemies.  It's "technology", right?

Similarly, you can't rebuild a toaster oven into a gun unless you already 
know how to build a gun from scratch, and it would probably be much easier 
to build the gun from scratch than to build it out of toaster oven pieces.

An FAI is not a tool someone can "use".  It's a process that compresses 
futures into Friendlier subspaces.  And no, FAI design does not call for a 
removable Friendliness module that you can plug in and swap out.

Aside from that, I am not willing to discuss this subject publicly.  Yes, I 
am using security through obscurity; if you don't give people ideas, that 
will help.  I request, as a courtesy to the Singularity Institute, a 
killthread on further discussion.  If you are interested please contact us 
privately.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From kurt at metatechnica.com  Mon Jun  7 14:46:10 2004
From: kurt at metatechnica.com (Kurt Schoedel)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 07:46:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Law of the Sea Treaty
Message-ID: <E1BXLO6-0006HO-Ng@svr58.ehostpros.com>

Hello all,

I am writing about the Law of the Sea Treaty because it was the subject 
of an article in the Sunday morning edition of my local paper. 

For those of you not in the know, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is 
analogous to the infamous Moon Treaty, which was handily defeated by 
the now-defunct L-5 Society. The LOST precludes national sovereignty 
claims to the high seas, which is good; but also precludes the 
possibility of politically independent entities being created on the 
high seas, which is bad for our long term interests. The objectionable 
part is Title XI, which provides for a U.N. monopoly on exploitation of 
ocean resources. Although this may seem reasonable, it also 
specifically precludes the formation of politically independent city-
states based on artificial islands, which is definitely not reasonable.

Recent developments in fullerine materials (nanotubes) have lead to the 
serious possibility of a "space elevator" (beanstock). If a material is 
strong enough to build a beanstock, it can certainly be used to create 
artificial islands on the high seas. This would eliminate any technical 
hurtles in the creation of a "Hong Kong"-style city-state on the high 
seas by 2020-2030 timeframe. One does not need much imagination to 
realize the benefit of such a city-state for the advancement of 
transhumanism society.

I am asking all of you (in the U.S.) to write your senator (all 
treaties must be ratified by the Senate, its in the constitution) 
urging him or her not to ratify the LOST.

Reagan refused to accept this treaty on the basis of Title XI for good 
reason. This treaty should not be ratified as long as Title XI is a 
part of it.

Sincerely,

Kurt Schoedel
MetaTechnica


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun  7 15:54:56 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Popular Luddism
In-Reply-To: <1D65F4E8-B850-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040607155456.55869.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2004, at 4:51 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com>
> wrote:
> >> On May 31, 2004, at 4:34 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >>> So, perhaps a slight restatement: it doesn't
> >> matter
> >>> what one calls it - "science", "everyday life",
> or
> >>> whatever.  What matters is its actual (not
> >>> theoretical, not planned, but street-level real)
> >>> effect on peoples' lives, especially their
> wallets
> >> and
> >>> labor allocations.  It is the case that almost
> >> anyone
> >>> today, even in the most disadvantaged
> background,
> >> can
> >>> learn and gain employment in some high-tech
> trade
> >> *if
> >>> they want to*.
> >>
> >> Considering the number of techies still out of
> work
> >> in the US I find
> >> this assertion outrageous.   And these are the
> >> people already highly
> >> trained in various high-tech areas.
> >
> > Slight misunderstanding.  I said "some".
> 
> Nope.  You said "almost anyone".    I assume
> "disadvantaged background" 
> includes little or no previous training.

Again you misunderstand: that's "some" as in "some
high-tech trade".  Someone highly trained in field X
doesn't have much training in field Y, just like
someone who doesn't have much training at all, whether
or not field X happens to have many positions open;
there always exists some field Y that does, even if
there aren't many experts in it yet (which may be why
it has many openings).  ("Disadvantaged background"
not only refers to lack of training, but to a relative
lack of opportunities from training.  Consider the
stereotypical poor-neighborhood school.  My point
there is that even those people can, if they want,
find training with less difficulty than is popularly
believed; the difference is that so few people in said
backgrounds want to.  It is this lack of desire that
needs addressing.)

We're saying much the same thing, just using different
words.  "Violent agreement", as it were, for the most
part.

> > Or, in many cases, even serious training in the
> first
> > place.  "I paid good money for my mail order
> Computer
> > Science degree!  I demand the $200K senior
> software
> > engineer position you're offering!  I'm not about
> to
> > actually sit in front of a computer and learn how
> to
> > program like some intern; that would require
> effort
> > I'm not willing to give!"
> 
> Very funny but it has zip to do with reality or my
> objection.

>From the way you stated your objection, it seems very
relevant.  And it's taken almost verbatim from the
reply one rejected applicant gave when I tried to
honestly answer why we weren't hiring that person, not
to mention being representative of a pattern I've seen
in other rejections.  (By no means explaining all of
them, just quite a few.)

> What happens as the
> pace of 
> technological change increases more drastically?  At
> what point are 
> there no accredited trainers for what is hot because
> no one has figured 
> out what is good training for it or how long that
> training will be 
> valuable?   Or is good training more a matter of
> very good basics, some 
> programming in depth, aesthetics and a very flexible
> mind?

I'm increasingly seeing that the latter is true, and
this may point to part of the cause.  (Therefore,
accredited trainers should focus on the latter, which
is part of what accredited universities already do.)
Technology already is accelerating, so people who
trained highly in one specific, now obsolete, skill
without picking up the basic foundations will now have
trouble applying said missing foundations to other
projects.

To use myself as an example: I've practiced and
trained a lot in Web programming - I've written more
HTTP clients and servers than I care to count, I know
exactly how CGI works and what one can invoke through
it, I know about code running on the server versus
code running in the browser (and how to make the two
interact), et cetera.  Yet I can imagine, in theory,
there coming along some protocol that renders the Web
obsolete overnight.  (It'd probably require at least a
year or so to displace at least 50% of the Web, but
its effect on leading-edge development hiring would be
more immediate.)  I know I could adapt and learn some
strange new system, but I know a number of programmers
I've worked with whose only response would be to keep
looking for Web programming jobs, and who would never
think of trying to adapt.  This specific error in
thought (which I'm not blaming them for, just pointing
out that it exists) is a symptom of what needs
addressing.

> Learning that understanding X is actually fun not to
> mention possibly 
> lucrative is a core competency that seems difficult
> to instill in 
> adults lacking it.  True enough.  But what happens
> as the bar of raw 
> intelligence required also rises?

Separate problem.  It needs dealing with, true, but
the solutions for the latter are likely to be
different from the solutions to the former.  (For
example, it may be that better understanding of Google
and other publically available search engines - and
possibly improvements in the search engines - can make
up for a good portion of the required intelligence, at
least for a while.  But it won't help much if most
people think of learning - and everything we teach
them to do as part of learning - as a chore rather
than learning how to extract pleasure from it...which,
frankly, is something that should be part of the K-12
cirriculumn by now, though other solutions will be
needed for currently existant adults and immigrants.)

> Hopefully you will not personally experience
> directly why some of these 
> folks fear technological change and feel hopelessly
> left out and 
> unneeded/unwanted.

Actually, I wrote the initial post after some
meditation on exactly why I have not, and how I have
avoided the fate that befell so many others.

> Why are you attempting to explain away as the fault
> of the victims a 
> real problem?

I think you misread my original post.  I'm explaining
the result of this real problem on the attitudes of
the victims (specifically that it makes said attitudes
more Luddite), why this result comes about, and that
this then causes them to lash out against technology
in general.  Therefore, I propose that rather than
attack these people - even if they do attack our
beliefs on a regular basis - it might yield much
better results to address this problem instead.


From dwish at indco.net  Mon Jun  7 16:28:49 2004
From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:28:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] M3 UP UP UP - Something REALLY BAD is going on
	folks
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0406070950020.10472-100000@dot-god.com>
Message-ID: <200406071523.i57FNXJc027127@br549.indconet.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:50 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] M3 UP UP UP - Something REALLY BAD is going on folks


A number of us have detected movements in the U.S. money supply which are
difficult to interpret.  At best we have hints of an imminent Catastrophe
of some sorts.

The Federal Reserve has recently raised the money supply (M-3) by crisis
proportions. It was up another $46.8 billion this past week.


[Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks] 

M3 is money market investments? I fail to see how this is a ", unheard-of
pre-catastrophe M-3 expansion" . Sounds more like the Fed/Banks are
investing more money into the market to boast the economy. I feel you are
more of a "chicken little" and no, the sky is not falling, but of course
neither is the price of gas.

Please check this out of print workbook on bank reserves and deposit
expansion for what this means:

http://Landru.i-link-2.net/monques/mmm2.html






This is unprecedented, unheard-of pre-catastrophe M-3 expansion. M-3
is up an amount that we've never seen before without a crisis -- $155
billion over the past four weeks, a $2.0 trillion annualized pace, a 22.2
percent annualized rate of growth.

There must be a crisis of historic proportions coming, and the Federal
Reserve Bank of the United States is making sure that there is enough
liquidity in place to protect the U.S.'s fragile financial system.

This is an unusual move since steep increases in M3 can result in the
permanent devaluation of a currency.  Why are they doing this?

Also we have detected a number of military actions - i.e. Navy ships
around the World are leaving their ports in unprecedented numbers?  Why?

Within the last two - three weeks there is also increased activity on all
US Military bases.  Why?


[Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks] 

Again, we are in a war in the middle east.



And last of all the internet rumor mill is at an all time high.  Huge
amounts of rumors and government disinformation on the Internet.  Why?

These and a few other technical observations leads us to conclude that the
event which is being planned for will occur in mid June or early July.

[Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks] 

Great! One big party for my birthday. Conspiracy theorists unite...



enjoy
joe baptista






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



From sean at valuationpartners.com.au  Mon Jun  7 17:01:52 2004
From: sean at valuationpartners.com.au (Sean Diggins)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 01:01:52 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] M3 UP UP UP - Something REALLY BAD is going onfolks
In-Reply-To: <200406071523.i57FNXJc027127@br549.indconet.com>
Message-ID: <20040607170157.5ACE41010D5@vscan02.westnet.com.au>

Cripes, I join this list expecting dry academia and within a week find
people posting scare mongering rubbish.

Go to www.surfingtheapocalypse.com  There's plenty of people there who wanna
discuss this kinda stuff.
And as far as I know, the rumour consensus has the planet being decimated by
three big meteors in mid June...
Its all codswallop.

Sean 
 





From steve365 at btinternet.com  Mon Jun  7 17:51:34 2004
From: steve365 at btinternet.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Stephen=20Davies?=)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:51:34 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] M3 UP UP UP - Something REALLY BAD is going onfolks
In-Reply-To: <20040607170157.5ACE41010D5@vscan02.westnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <20040607175134.32373.qmail@web86109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>



Sean Diggins <sean at valuationpartners.com.au> wrote:Go to www.surfingtheapocalypse.com There's plenty of people there who wanna
discuss this kinda stuff.
And as far as I know, the rumour consensus has the planet being decimated by
three big meteors in mid June...
Its all codswallop.

Sean 




Indeed. There is a rapid expansion in broad money going on right now, but I suspect it has more to do with an expected event in November. Of course that's dreadfully cynical.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040607/be442178/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun  7 18:56:31 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:56:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] `the imperfectability that makes us human'
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040607135013.01bb08b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

That great thinker William Safire informs us:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/opinion/07SAFI.html?th

<The genetics is out of the bottle. This research, whether the government 
likes it or not, is growing apace. Unless we act now to direct it toward 
morally acceptable ends ? cure and treatment of disease and the extension 
of active life, not monstrous manipulation and production of clones for 
spare parts ? we risk losing the imperfectability [sic] that makes us human. >

Yes, what a tragedy that would be! Safire could start now with a resolution 
to stay well away from medicos and dentists. Yet somehow (call me crazy!) I 
doubt that this is part of his high-toned plan for our imperfectibility.

Damien Broderick



From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun  7 19:04:35 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:04:35 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
In-Reply-To: <A60AA6DA-B851-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F6F@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<470a3c5204060622504e3955c1@mail.gmail.com>
	<A60AA6DA-B851-11D8-86D4-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52040607120430cdc76c@mail.gmail.com>

Well Samantha, I am sorry if this is your interpretation of things. At
some point it appeared that most participants in the wta-talk list
were not very keen of some particularly long session of
pseudo-political bitching of the type "Xs are jerks", were X is one or
another political view, so the decision was taken to move this
specific type of content to the wta-politics list.
I must say that I was not in favor of having a separate list and would
have preferred to keep everything on wta-talk but anyway.
I would not say that "WTA folks baiting and shunning all remotely
libertarian voices off into a separate mailing list". For example, I
have nothing at all against libertarians and, as a matter of fact, do
agree with libertarians on many points. It is true that at times I am
annoyed when libertarianism is pushed to (what I consider as)
unreasonable extremes, but then I am also annoyed when socialism is
pushed to (what I consider as) unreasonable extremes, and I am very
annoyed with "Xs are jerks" non-arguments from both sides. This, I
believe, is the view of most (of course not all) regular participants
in wta-talk.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:09:42 -0700, Samantha Atkins
<samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> 
> I have been on the list.  After WTA folks baiting and shunning all
> remotely libertarian voices off into a separate mailing list I got
> disgusted and quit participating.   This is not a "World Transhumanist
> Association" except in name only.
> 
> - s


From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  7 21:17:53 2004
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 
	Transhumanism presented in Washington (WFS, August 1, 2004)
Message-ID: <20040607211753.36428.qmail@web41315.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.wfs.org/2004main.htm
http://www.wfs.org/2004con.htm

The Fourth Wave: The Transhuman Revolution

    The world is moving toward a fourth wave in which humans will become transhumans, and later posthumans, due to the advances of technology. Transhumanism represents a radical new approach to future-oriented thinking that is based on the premise that the human species does not represent the end of evolution but, rather, its beginning. Transhumanism is an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the possibilities for overcoming biological limitations through scientific progress. Transhumanists seek to expand technological opportunities for people to live longer and healthier lives and to enhance their intellectual, physical, and emotional capacities.
    Transhumanists emphasize that not only can we use rational means to improve the human condition and the external world, we can also use them to improve ourselves. We are not limited only to methods (such as education) which humanism normally espouses. We can use technological means that will eventually enable us to move beyond what most would describe as human. 

Who should attend: Anyone interested in finding out how the new wave of technological changes will radically transform humanity as we know it today. 
What you?ll learn: Attendees will be exposed to the main ideas of transhumanism. 
How this knowledge can be applied: This knowledge can help individuals understand how technology can affect the future of humans.

Jose L. Cordeiro, president, World Future Society Venezuela; co-founder, Venezuelan Transhumanist Association; director, Venezuelan chapter of the Club of Rome; director, Venezuelan node of the Millennium Project, Caracas, Venezuela

key words: transhumanism, future studies, science, evolution
issue areas: Consciousness and Spirituality, Technology and Science, Futures Methodologies and Processes 





La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040607/11929283/attachment.html>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Jun  7 22:09:58 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:09:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] 
	ANNOUNCE: BRUCE STERLING vs. The Singularity, Friday 
Message-ID: <172010-2200461722958547@M2W038.mail2web.com>

I am fowarding a message I received from Stewart Brand about Bruce Sterling.

Try to attend, and if you do please give my best to Stuart and Bruce!
________________________________________

Subject: BRUCE STERLING vs. The Singularity, Friday (for forwarding)


One reason lots of people don't want to think long term these days is 
because technology keeps accelerating so rapidly, we assume the world 
will become unrecognizable in a few years and then move on to 
unimaginable.  Long-term thinking must be either impossible or 
irrelevant.

The commonest shorthand term for the runaway acceleration of 
technology is "the Singularity"---a concept introduced by science 
fiction writer Vernor Vinge in 1984.  The term has been 
enthusiastically embraced by technology historians, futurists, 
extropians, and various trans-humanists and post-humanists, who have 
generated variants such as "the techno-rapture," "the Spike," etc.

It takes a science fiction writer to critique a science fiction idea. 
This Friday in San Francisco BRUCE STERLING will give a public 
lecture titled "The Singularity: Your Future as a Black Hole."

Friday, June 11, 7pm, Fort Mason Conference Center, San Francisco. 
Doors open for coffee and books at 7pm; lecture is promptly at 8pm. 
The room seats only 250, so you may want to come early to be sure of 
a seat.  Admission is free (donation of $10 very welcome, not 
requiredl).

Along with being one of America's leading science fiction writers and 
technology journalists, Bruce Sterling is a celebrated speaker armed 
with lethal wit.  His books include The Zenith Angle (just out), 
Hacker Crackdown, Holy Fire, Distraction, Mirrorshades (cyberpunk 
compendium), Schismatrix, The Difference Engine (with William 
Gibson), Tomorrow Now, and Islands in the Net.

This is one of a monthly series of Seminars About Long-term Thinking, 
given every second Friday at Fort Mason, organized by The Long Now 
Foundation.  Future speakers in the series include Jill Tarter, Danny 
Hillis, Paul Hawken, Michael West, Ken Dychtwald, Laurie Anderson, 
and Jared Diamond.  If you would like to be notified by email of 
forthcoming talks, please contact Simone Davalos--- 
simone at longnow.org, 415-561-6582.

You are welcome to forward this note to anyone you think might be
interested.

				--Stewart Brand
-- 


Stewart Brand
The Long Now Foundation - http://www.longnow.org
Seminars: http://www.longnow.org/10klibrary/Seminars.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Jun  7 23:44:09 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:44:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tapping your expertise
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040607190202.030a9bb8@mail.comcast.net>

Heads up that I'm going to have another extropian gathering. I'm moving a 
few miles from the old house in a couple of weeks, so the party will be as 
soon as I'm modestly settled in.

If you're going to be in the Boston area this summer and would want to 
attend, I may be able to work around your schedule. Further planning will 
be on the exi-east list.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out what should go where. Structural 
strength is an important consideration for my elephantine book collection. 
In my current house, most are in one large room that's directly over slab. 
In the new house, the best spot is a wooden floor. Were I to put all the 
books in one room, they would add up to roughly ten tons.

I didn't question whether a concrete slab would hold the weight; I do worry 
about wooden planks. Can someone give me advice or useful links off-list to 
estimating the load-bearing strength of the floor and other relevant issues 
(such as whether optimizing location or orientation of the heaviest 
load-per-area is necessary or overkill)?

Ironically, my pertinent books have already been packed. But I figured that 
between engineering talent and book addictions, someone amongst us has the 
answers I'm looking for.


-- David Lubkin.




From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jun  8 01:57:18 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:57:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Law of the Sea Treaty
In-Reply-To: <E1BXLO6-0006HO-Ng@svr58.ehostpros.com>
Message-ID: <002401c44cfb$ee6ba1f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Kurt Schoedel
> 
> Reagan refused to accept this treaty on the basis of Title XI 
> for good reason. This treaty should not be ratified as long as Title
XI is a 
> part of it. Kurt Schoedel


R.I.P. Ronald Reagan.  You are gone but not forgotten.




From Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu  Tue Jun  8 02:10:28 2004
From: Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu (Johnius)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:10:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bill Gates and Petals Around the Rose
Message-ID: <40C52014.FFAA2DE8@Genius.UCSD.edu>


"Slawomir Paliwoda" wrote:
> http://member.melbpc.org.au/~lborrett/computing/petals-bg.htm
>:)

	Thanks for this; it allowed me to find out what y'all
	were talking about (I don't have shockwave).  On the
	other hand, it made me feel quite stupid.  I was trying
	to guess the algorithm using what looked like the tops
	of the dice (facing 'up'), rather than using the sides
	'facing' the reader.  So, I thought I had it on the first
	roll, only to fall flat on my face for the second. I was
	baffled, so I tried the third, again I drew a blank and
	had no clue what to do.  At that point, it occurred to me
	that maybe I was using the wrong sides of the dice, and
	then I got it.  So, I don't know if that counts as three
	rolls or as one (or as "six"?!) ... all I know for sure 
	is that I was more stupid than I ought to have been :-)

	Meanwhile, the name of the game reminds me of a movie
	I saw recently called "The Name of the Rose", with Sean
	Connery as a kind of Sherlock-Holmes monk in the middle
	ages.  The story was written by Umberto Ecco (sp?), who
	was/is known for semiotic theory, I believe.  It occurs
	to me that many of you here might enjoy playing that
	game, if you haven't seen the movie or read the book.
	The book might be much better; I suspect the movie was
	quite dumbed down for mass audiences (and I also suspect
	that it wasn't dumbed down enough, hence wasn't popular
	... even if it did have superstar Connery in it...).

	Johnius


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jun  8 02:25:58 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 19:25:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: WTA Board flap
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040607120430cdc76c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c44cff$efd0da70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Giu1i0 Pri5c0
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
> 
> 
> Well Samantha, I am sorry if this is your interpretation of things...
> 
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:09:42 -0700, Samantha Atkins
> <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I have been on the list.  After WTA folks baiting and shunning all
> > remotely libertarian voices off into a separate mailing list I got
> > disgusted and quit participating... - s


I am reluctant to wade into this, since I find this matter 
most distasteful and I haven't followed the details.  To post 
to extropians under the subject line "MOTION: Harvey off the Board" 
appears mean-spirited and in poor taste.  I am not claiming that 
I have never posted stuff to extropians that is in poor taste, but 
I do claim it was never with intent to harm or embarrass.

Please, you guys fix the subject line and state your
cases calmly and carefully.

spike     



From megao at sasktel.net  Tue Jun  8 02:44:58 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 02:44:58 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA Growing Pains
References: <000001c44cff$efd0da70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <42A64D3D.C4A2ED2@sasktel.net>

The mingling of personalities, politics and ambition with well meaning
progressive goals  was never guaranteed to be an easy ride.

If the goals are worth achieving, all the rest will fall back into place.

Morris

Spike wrote:

> > Giu1i0 Pri5c0
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
> >
> >
> > Well Samantha, I am sorry if this is your interpretation of things...
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:09:42 -0700, Samantha Atkins
> > <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been on the list.  After WTA folks baiting and shunning all
> > > remotely libertarian voices off into a separate mailing list I got
> > > disgusted and quit participating... - s
>
> I am reluctant to wade into this, since I find this matter
> most distasteful and I haven't followed the details.  To post
> to extropians under the subject line "MOTION: Harvey off the Board"
> appears mean-spirited and in poor taste.  I am not claiming that
> I have never posted stuff to extropians that is in poor taste, but
> I do claim it was never with intent to harm or embarrass.
>
> Please, you guys fix the subject line and state your
> cases calmly and carefully.
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Jun  8 03:27:44 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:27:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA-BOARD: Authorized adding members without
	explicit permission
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520406070725799471a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE3687DE-B8FB-11D8-BFA9-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>

I don't know why Giulio doesn't remember that WTA is adding members 
without their explicit permission.  We actually argued about this, and 
my motion to stop the practice failed to get a second or any votes.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>
____________________________________________________________
 > From: Ari Heljakka [mailto:heljakka at iki.fi]
 > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:25 AM
 > To: Hughes, James J.
 > Subject: Finland TA: mass-joining finally
 >
 > Hi, James!
 >
 > I apologize for the delay about FTA members information.
 > Please find it attached (single record in 2 file formats).
 > This list is naturally for _basic_ memberships. There are
 > currently 78 names or so.
 >
 > A week ago the association finally had its meeting and
 > accepted the rules that enable me to join people to WTA as
 > basic members without their explicit permission ;-) From now
 > on everyone will be automatically joined.
____________________________________________________________
> From: mail at harveynewstrom.com
> Date: Thu May 6, 2004  11:27:20 am US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] Re: Finland TA: mass-joining finally
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> I don't think we should be adding people as members who are unaware of 
> their membership and/or never requested it.  There may be laws in some 
> countries against signing people up for membership or mailing lists 
> without their knowledge or consent.  Even if it is legal, it could 
> cause problems and ill-will.  Surely we should send these people an 
> offer/welcome/confirmation e-mail before adding them?
> Some of these members may complain about wta "spam" that they never 
> requested.  These members haven't checked the "yes" box to allow us to 
> share their information with other organizations, so we need to track 
> this.  They also haven't seen or agreed to our rules of conduct on our 
> registration page and may claim ignorance as a defense.
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
> <HarveyNewstrom.com>
____________________________________________________________
> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> Date: Mon May 24, 2004  2:49:39 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] MOTION:  No inducting members without permission
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> Sorry to be a stick in the mud, guys, but this still really bothers 
> me.  It is simply unethical to put people's names on our membership 
> rolls without their permission.  I would be furious if some 
> organization did this to me!
>
> I move that in the future the WTA refrain from inducting members into 
> our organization without their explicit permission.  Any members so 
> inducted in the past without their explicit permission should be 
> removed from the rolls until their explicit permission is obtained.
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
> <HarveyNewstrom.com>
____________________________________________________________



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Jun  8 03:27:51 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:27:51 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA-BOARD:  Authorized selling mailing lists
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520406070725799471a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D29934BF-B8FB-11D8-BFA9-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>

I don't know why Giulio doesn't remember deciding that WTA can sell or 
rent our subscriber lists for money.  This issue came up when Wilson 
Quarterly wanted to buy or rent our subscription lists.  As far as I 
can tell, everybody claimed that WTA is allowed to sell or rent its 
lists to groups deemed to be of Transhumanist interest.  We even added 
a checkbox to the join page to opt in or out of this.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>
____________________________________________________________
From: Cristina Lombillo [mailto:cristina.lombillo at procirc.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 9:51 AM
To: secretary at transhumanism.org
Subject: Wilson Quarterly - World Transhumanist Association

My name is Cristina Lombillo, and I am writing on behalf of The Wilson
Quarterly.  We wanted to know if you have lists of members or 
subscribers
available for rent or exchange.  We can send you a sample direct mail 
piece,
if you like.

How many names do you have?  Do you have a list manager or do we deal 
with
you directly?  How much would it cost?  What do we need to do to test 
your
list in our next direct mail?

Please let me know if there is anything you can do, or point me to the
proper contact person.

Thank you,
Cristina Lombillo

ProCirc
2937 SW 27 Ave, Suite 301
Miami, FL 33133
ph-305-441-7155, ext 237
fax- 305-441-7676
____________________________________________________________
 From jhughes at changesurfer.com  Fri Feb  6 20:08:32 2004
From: jhughes at changesurfer.com (J Hughes)
Date: Sat Feb  7 11:30:36 2004
Subject: [wtaboard] FW: Wilson Quarterly list exhange/rental
Message-ID: <E1ApCHD-0001Ff-00 at stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net>

We have a request here form Wilson Quarterly who obviously want to send 
a
transhumanism-specific mailing to our members, advertising Carl Elliot's
article.

Pursuant to our decision last fall to ask permission to share their
addresses with other Transhumanist organizations, do you think this
promotion would fit that category for the members who said we could 
share
their addresses?

Or should I offer to email any promotions to our members ourselves?
____________________________________________________________
 From iph1954 at msn.com  Sat Feb  7 13:08:49 2004
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Sat Feb  7 13:20:48 2004
Subject: [wtaboard] FW: Wilson Quarterly list exhange/rental
Message-ID: <BAY5-F22UCSUN34LjdT0001d81e at hotmail.com>

 >From: "J Hughes" <jhughes at changesurfer.com>
 >
 >We have a request here from Wilson Quarterly who obviously want to 
send a
 >transhumanism-specific mailing to our members, advertising Carl 
Elliot's
 >article.
 >
 >Pursuant to our decision last fall to ask permission to share their
 >addresses with other Transhumanist organizations, do you think this
 >promotion would fit that category for the members who said we could 
share
 >their addresses?

Yes, I think this would be a legitimate sharing of those addresses.

Mike
_________________________________________________________________
From: contact at permanentend.org (Mark Walker)
Date: Sat Feb  7 14:56:39 2004
Subject: [wtaboard] FW: Wilson Quarterly list exhange/rental
References: <E1ApCHD-0001Ff-00 at stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <004301c3ed84$b7f441d0$2ee4f418 at markcomputer>

It sounds like from their email that they want to have the names on a
permanent basis, I'm not sure that fits in with our mandate. We might be
better to offer to mail it ourselves adding that coming from us would
probably mean that more people on our list are likely to read it.

Mark
_________________________________________________________________



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Jun  8 03:27:59 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:27:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA-BOARD: James was not hired as ED at Oxford
	Meeting
Message-ID: <D777BCBB-B8FB-11D8-BFA9-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>

The idea that James was hired as WTA Executive Director at the Oxford  
meeting was invented after it became clear that he did not have enough  
votes later.  They meant to hire him, but forgot to hold a vote.  Then  
one board member resigned, and two others who did not attend (and  
hadn't resigned yet) opposed the vote.  Thus, James was three votes  
shorter than he expected.  Instead of living with the Board vote, the  
WTA founders retroactively rewrote history to say that James was  
already hired.  They claim a "unanimous vote" based on "general  
discussion" since no actual vote count took place.  However, comments  
from the Board members indicate that James was not originally  
considered as hired after the meeting.  This story was not invented  
until later.  These wtaboard notes were sent AFTER the April 16-18  
meeting.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>
________________________________________________________________
> From: "J Hughes" <jhughes at changesurfer.com>
> Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004  6:17:30 am US/Eastern
> To: "'WTA Board of Directors List'" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] Foresight Vision Weekend, May 14-16
> Reply-To: jhughes at changesurfer.com, WTA Board of Directors List  
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> One of the things we discussed at the Board meeting was my having a  
> travel
> budget to attend various functions in my capacity as Executive  
> Director (we
> should probably confirm my appointment with a vote by the way.)
________________________________________________________________
> From: Nick Bostrom <nick.bostrom at philosophy.oxford.ac.uk>
> Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004  7:34:55 pm US/Eastern
> To: wtaboard2004 at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard2004] James' Salary
> Reply-To: wtaboard2004 at yahoogroups.com
>
> No, the decision was to set as one of our current fundraising goals to
> raise enough money to hire J full-time together with two assistants  
> and a
> travel budget. To actually hire J would require us not just to have  
> enough
> cash to be able to pay his salary for one year but also that there's  
> enough
> security of future funding to make him take the risk of quitting his
> current job. In the shorter run, our aim is to hire a part-time  
> assistant.
> J. will not be hired full-time until and unless we have the funds.  
> Another
> short-term objective is to raise enough cash to pay J a honorarium,  
> 5-10K
> annually and to have a travel budget.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <gpmap at oddpost.com>
> Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004  12:12:52 pm US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] WTA News, J's salary, Point of Personal Privilege
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> As Nick says right now the idea is to hire a junior officer, and to  
> hire him
> in a place where work is cheaper: we cannot afford more, and have  
> found a
> good guy in Caracas. But when we get sufficient funding, we should  
> hire a
> senior executive director who can dedicate her/his full time and  
> energy to
> the advancement of the WTA. This was also pointed out by Peter who  
> reminded
> us that besides money to fund specific projects, we must also get  
> money to
> fund a permanent office without which no serious and steady project  
> work can
> be done.
> The agreement is that a permanent office should be staffed by a senior
> executive and a few junior officers. This is the way things are done  
> in the
> real world. Now who is the best man for the Executive Director post? I  
> would
> love doing it myself, but I do not think I could do it half as good as
> James. So I strongly support the idea of hiring James as ED as soon as  
> we
> have the money and a reasonable degree of confidence in future funding.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "mike99" <mike99 at lascruces.com>
> Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004  5:24:45 pm US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Point of Personal Privilege
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> James has done an extraordinary amount of work for the WTA on his own  
> time
> and his own dime. I think we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for  
> doing
> so much. I also think that James has demonstrated beyond all doubt  
> that he
> has the skills, the drive, the intelligence and the knowledge to be
> Executive Director of the WTA as soon as we have the financial  
> resources to
> employ him in that position.
________________________________________________________________
> From: Nick Bostrom <nick.bostrom at philosophy.oxford.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004  10:55:52 am US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] Point of Personal Privilege
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> Here's how I see it. Right now, part of the function of the board is  
> general oversight but an even larger part is to contribute to getting  
> things done. Once we start getting paid staff, the role of the board  
> (as opposed to that of other paid or non-paid officers and staff) will  
> shift more towards that of exercising oversight and of deciding on  
> priorities and strategic objectives. The more money the WTA starts to  
> handle, and especially if we hire J full-time, the more important the  
> oversight and auditing function of the board becomes.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "J Hughes" <jhughes at changesurfer.com>
> Date: Thu May 13, 2004  12:01:07 am US/Eastern
> To: "'WTA Board of Directors List'" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] Proposed fantasy budget
> Reply-To: jhughes at changesurfer.com, WTA Board of Directors List  
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
>
> Attached please find a budget for the WTA which would allow us to:
>
> - hire me in two years full-time
________________________________________________________________
> From: Jose Cordeiro <jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thu May 20, 2004  4:18:50 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> ???? Some practical points, though. We have actually never voted to  
> name James Hughes?as Executive Director. However, we did mention in  
> Oxford that he would have to resign as WTA?Board member for that, and  
> then we would vote for a new member taking that position.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "Hughes, James J." <james.hughes at trincoll.edu>
> Date: Thu May 20, 2004  4:34:06 pm US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
>> We have actually never voted to name James Hughes as Executive  
>> Director.
>
> A formal vote would be nice.
>
>>  However, we did mention in Oxford that he would have to resign as  
>> WTA Board member for that,
>
> I asked if it were necessary, and we said we would look into it.
>
> It turns out that that is unnecessary, and I want to retain my Board
> seat. Under both Connecticut and US law the ED can be a voting member  
> of
> the Board.
>
> You could of course decide that I couldn't serve as ED while on the
> Board, but then you would need to find a new ED.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "mike99" <mike99 at lascruces.com>
> Date: Thu May 20, 2004  5:00:09 pm US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> As I recall from the Oxford meeting, whether or not a member of the  
> Board
> could also be employed by the Association was left as an open  
> question. If
> there is no legal restriction on this practice, I think it is up to the
> Board to vote on it.
>
> We should also vote on James becoming Executive Director.
>
> Consider these two items as two motions for votes.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "Hughes, James J." <james.hughes at trincoll.edu>
> Date: Thu May 20, 2004  6:59:13 pm US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
>
>> We should also vote on James becoming Executive Director.
>>
>> Consider these two items as two motions for votes.
>
> If the Board needs to vote on the ED-Board member issue, then it should
> be voted on first before you offer me the job.
>
> J.
________________________________________________________________
> From: Jose Cordeiro <jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thu May 20, 2004  11:53:45 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> James, could you please explain what this means?
> ?
> "You could of course decide that I couldn't serve as ED while on the
> Board, but then you would need to find a new ED."
________________________________________________________________
> From: "Hughes, James J." <james.hughes at trincoll.edu>
> Date: Fri May 21, 2004  9:33:39 am US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
>> "You could of course decide that I couldn't serve as ED while
>> on the Board, but then you would need to find a new ED."
>
> I am no longer willing to give up my seat on the Board in order to
> become ED. If you want me to serve as ED then you need to allow me to
> retain my seat on the Board.
________________________________________________________________
> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Date: Fri May 21, 2004  7:05:39 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
>
> James, thanks for the update in a previous post.
>
> I don't think it is clear that you were voted ED by the Board.  Bruce  
> and I didn't participate, so we clearly didn't vote for you.  I think  
> it was reported that Theo didn't participate, so I don't know that he  
> voted for you.  Jose was there, but didn't seem to realize that you  
> had already been voted ED, so I don't think he voted for you.  And to  
> avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, I don't think you  
> should be allowed to chair the meeting, vote for yourself, and declare  
> yourself winner by acclaim without counting votes, and document your  
> own victory in your own minutes as secretary.  It is possible that you  
> were allegedly hired with five or fewer votes.
>
> I think we should have discussed this on the wta2004 forum without  
> James, and held a clear vote not chaired, counted, acclaimed and  
> documented by James.  This would have documented a clear decision by  
> the Board with no possible appearance of a conflict of interest.  The  
> current declaration does not avoid the appearance of a conflict of  
> interest.  And worse, we have some Board members (Jose) apparently  
> unaware that they supposedly unanimously voted to hire James.  I think  
> a vote of this importance simply must be made with all members and  
> clearly documented and counted correctly.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
> <HarveyNewstrom.com>
________________________________________________________________
> From: Nick Bostrom <nick.bostrom at philosophy.oxford.ac.uk>
> Date: Fri May 21, 2004  7:36:50 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> I think it's an obvious decision to confirm James as ED, and I too  
> seem to remember that we voted on this (unanimously) in Ox. However,  
> if there's any ambiguity, I guess the easiest way to fix it would be  
> to have another vote. (I tried posting a vote some time back on the  
> -2004 list but I never saw it appear so I think it didn't "take").
________________________________________________________________
> From: "J Hughes" <jhughes at changesurfer.com>
> Date: Fri May 21, 2004  7:30:41 pm US/Eastern
> To: "'WTA Board of Directors List'" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Appeal for support
> Reply-To: jhughes at changesurfer.com, WTA Board of Directors List  
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
>> I think we should have discussed this on the wta2004 forum
>> without James, and held a clear vote not chaired, counted,
>> acclaimed and documented by James.
>
> Just vote. The perpetual hostility is unhelpful.
> The place to start discussing this with my having to overhear is:
> wtaboard2004 at yahoogroups.com
________________________________________________________________
> From: Jose Cordeiro <jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri May 21, 2004  8:11:07 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] Oxford meeting
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> Just to help clarify and remember a few things about our meeting in  
> Oxford and subsequent discussions:
> ?
> 1. There was never any vote about James or anyone having any formal  
> paid position in the WTA.
> 2. There was never any formal nomination of anyone by anyone, instead,  
> a three phase approach was written at the board meeting: first, begin  
> with a low cost approach with someone like Santiago, second, move to a  
> second phase with half a salary with someone like James, and third,  
> move to full time positions.
> 3. The only formal nomination and vote was held here  
> (wtaboard at transhumanism.org) for Santiago Ochoa to begin working for  
> the WTA.
> 4. If was discussed, certainly by me, that a Board member could not  
> also be the ED. Since James offered to resign as a board member,?that  
> opened the door for James to become ED eventually.
_______________________________________________________________
> From: "J Hughes" <jhughes at changesurfer.com>
> Date: Fri May 21, 2004  8:35:10 pm US/Eastern
> To: "'WTA Board of Directors List'" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] Minutes of the Oxford meeting
> Reply-To: jhughes at changesurfer.com, WTA Board of Directors List  
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
>> 3. The only formal nomination and vote was held here
>> (wtaboard at transhumanism.org) for Santiago Ochoa to begin
>> working for the WTA.
>
> These are the verbatim minutes I recorded and which were reflected in  
> the
> minutes you all adopted with minor revisions. This section reflects the
> discussion between 4pm and 6pm, after Peter rejoined us after his  
> doctor's
> appointment:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> "Executive Director, Staff and Budget Discussion
>
> Peter pushed us to think about creating a full-time staff in the next  
> couple
> of years, and we discussed the need for an Executive Director. J.  
> Hughes was
> nominated as Executive Director to which there was general agreement.
> Discussion then turned to what salary J. Hughes would need to come on
> full-time ($50-$60K per year, with some certainty of continuity over a
> couple of years) and how long it would take to raise this amount.  We  
> also
> discussed whether J. Hughes should remain on the Board as he  
> transitions to
> full-time WTA employee. Peter was of the opinion that it would be  
> feasible
> to have J. Hughes as a Board member so long as he recuses himself from  
> all
> decisions regarding his employment. Otherwise he could be a non-voting  
> Board
> member ex officio.
>
> Nick returned to the theme of interim budget plans, and the idea was
> advanced that the short-term goal should be to use the first few tens  
> of
> thousands of dollars to hire someone like Santiago to provide full-time
> admin support, and then to provide a travel budget for J. Hughes so  
> that he
> can represent the WTA as Executive Director at various meetings, and  
> then to
> begin paying Executive Director salary until it reaches a full-time  
> salary.
>
> (Discussion assumed that Santiago, or whichever supplementary staffer,  
> and
> the Executive Director would work from home. In subsequent discussion  
> Peter
> H. was of the opinion that having multiple addresses in multiple  
> cities was
> far more important than having one established central office.)
>
> 12pm Saturday midnight - Nick Bostrom, Jos?  Cordeiro, Tarik Theo  
> Ibrahim,
> J. Hughes, Mike LaTorra, Giulio Prisco, Mike Treder, Mark Walker
>
> The Board voted unanimously to
> -	adopt the new programmatic agenda
> -	authorize Peter as our fundraising committee
> -	approve the new membership fee and benefits structure
> -	request a budget and status report from George Dvorsky on TV04
> -	endorse the idea of the Transhumanist Professional Network
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --
>
> I forgot to include my own appointment as one of the items to vote on  
> at
> that midnight vote, to my chagrin, but there were in fact these five  
> matters
> formally voted on.
________________________________________________________________
> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> Date: Fri May 21, 2004  10:17:08 pm US/Eastern
> To: jhughes at changesurfer.com, WTA Board of Directors List  
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] Minutes of the Oxford meeting
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> These minutes, only mention the discussion of hiring staff in the next  
> couple of years.  It only shows that James was Nominated for the  
> position of ED.  They show no vote to accept the nomination.  They  
> show no vote to hire James as ED.  Nothing related to the ED appears  
> in the summary of votes at the bottom.  There was discussion with no  
> voted actions.  Everybody unanimously approved these minutes.
>
> I think it is clear from Jose's accounts and the unanimously approved  
> minutes that James was NOT appointed as ED by the Board during the  
> Oxford meeting.  People are free to make a motion to amend the minutes  
> if they now feel they were inaccurate.  But unless that happens, the  
> official, approved minutes say James was NOT appointed ED.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "J Hughes" <jhughes at changesurfer.com>
> Date: Fri May 21, 2004  11:34:06 pm US/Eastern
> To: "'WTA Board of Directors List'" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] Please just vote
> Reply-To: jhughes at changesurfer.com, WTA Board of Directors List  
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> I understand that I don't have the support of Harvey or Jose as ED.
>
> Please just go ahead and vote on the matter and let's move on.
________________________________________________________________
> From: iph1954 at msn.com
> Date: Sat May 22, 2004  12:18:27 am US/Eastern
> To: <jhughes at changesurfer.com>, "WTA Board of Directors List"  
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] Minutes of the Oxford meeting
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> I don't recall a vote being taken in Oxford for the step of appointing  
> James
> as ED. It seems to me there was a consensus that we wanted to move in  
> that
> direction but no official action was made. And of course the minutes  
> don't
> contradict this.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "Giulio Prisco" <giulio at prisco.info>
> Date: Sat May 22, 2004  1:25:00 am US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Re: Mike's motions
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> Therefore I am not calling a vote of the issue: it has been settled by  
> a
> previous vote.
________________________________________________________________
> From: "Giulio Prisco" <giulio at prisco.info>
> Date: Tue May 25, 2004  1:12:08 am US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Minutes approved at Oxford
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> Jose, this is pointless void because as Chair I have already ruled that
> James was appointed ED
________________________________________________________________



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Jun  8 03:28:08 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:28:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA-BOARD:  Not an umbrella organization
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520406070725799471a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DC6E7634-B8FB-11D8-BFA9-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>

The WTA Leadership has apparently long since abandoned the idea of 
being an umbrella organization without informing anybody.  I believe 
that this is the root cause of all the differences among WTA Board 
members.  We simply did not agree on what WTA was supposed to be.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>
____________________________________________________________
> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004  5:54:37 am US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] RE:  Who Really Wrote the Transhumanist FAQ?
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
>>  This will amount to an implicit acknowledgment that there is a 
>> status of covert war between WTA and ExI.
>
> Unfortunately, this war already exists.  WTA seems to have declared 
> war on Extropy Institute from day one.  The original FAQ said, "Many 
> transhumanists do not agree with all the political views of the 
> Extropy Institute .  The World Transhumanist Association was therefore 
> founded in 1998 by Nick Bostrom and David Pearce...."  The reason for 
> the WTA to be created is supposedly because many transhumanists don't 
> like ExI!  What kind of basis for forming an umbrella group is that?
____________________________________________________________
> From: "MIKE TREDER" <iph1954 at msn.com>
> Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004  10:49:07 am US/Eastern
> To: wtaboard at transhumanism.org
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] RE: Who Really Wrote the Transhumanist FAQ?
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> I joined the WTA in late 2001, around the time the decision was made 
> to form a Board of Directors and to become incorporated. I had never 
> been a member of ExI, but it seemed (and seems) pretty clear to me 
> that the WTA was originally formed as a breakaway organization, 
> intending to compete with ExI for members. The basis for this was that 
> the WTA would be more inclusive politically, as well as 
> geographically, ExI being seen at the time as somewhat 
> Calif-USA-centric.
>
> Only later, I believe in early 2002, was the idea of becoming an 
> umbrella organization discussed in our online fora. There was some 
> debate about it, and I don't think it was ever settled by a vote. But 
> to my knowledge *that* is the time when the umbrella concept came into 
> being -- about two years ago, not five or six years ago.
____________________________________________________________
> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004  7:36:32 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] RE: Who Really Wrote the Transhumanist FAQ?
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> I think we need to clarify our role as an umbrella organization and 
> try to figure out how we can start helping our affiliate organizations 
> instead of attacking them.  ExI is our biggest affiliate, and as an 
> umbrella organization we should be working with and promoting them 
> most.  I think we need to work more towards service to the 
> transhumanist community instead of demanding service from the 
> transhumanist community.  We need to develop documents and 
> infrastructures that are acceptable to all our affilitate, and try to 
> cleanup and get rid of such that are divisive instead of inclusive.
____________________________________________________________
> From: iph1954 at msn.com
> Date: Sat May 22, 2004  10:06:41 am US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] Stuck in the middle
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> On the WTA -- Holey umbrellas, Batman! If this group was formed with 
> the
> intention of being a gathering place for the numerous fragments of the 
> >H
> movement, it appears to be failing in that mission, as evidenced by 
> Harvey's
> initial survey findings. Either we must redouble our efforts to become 
> a
> *welcoming* community for (almost) all flavors of >H thought and 
> activity
> (which might mean that James could not be our ED), or we must rethink 
> the
> whole umbrella strategy and just make the WTA what it actually seems 
> to be,
> an activist organization that is part of, but not representative of, 
> the
> greater >H community.
____________________________________________________________
> From: "J Hughes" <jhughes at changesurfer.com>
> Date: Sat May 22, 2004  2:02:52 pm US/Eastern
> To: "'WTA Board of Directors List'" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: [wtaboard] In support of a cooling off period
> Reply-To: jhughes at changesurfer.com, WTA Board of Directors List 
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> The question is how strategically
> important it is to keep some of the small, marginal groups from being
> annoyed as we move ahead. I guess if I had to choose between between 
> the
> largest, most mainstream and most influential transhumanist 
> organization and
> being an umbrella of transhumanist groups I would want us to choose the
> former.
____________________________________________________________
> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Date: Sat May 22, 2004  4:11:09 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: A major shift in WTA mission?
>
> The WTA FAQ <http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html> says,
>> A rapidly expanding family of transhumanist groups, differing 
>> somewhat in flavor and focus, and a plethora of discussion groups in 
>> many countries around the world, are gathered under the umbrella of 
>> the World Transhumanist Association, a non-profit democratic 
>> membership organization.
>
> On Saturday, May 22, 2004, at 02:02 pm, J Hughes wrote:
>
>> The question is how strategically
>> important it is to keep some of the small, marginal groups from being
>> annoyed as we move ahead. I guess if I had to choose between between 
>> the
>> largest, most mainstream and most influential transhumanist 
>> organization and
>> being an umbrella of transhumanist groups I would want us to choose 
>> the
>> former.
>
> This seems to be a major shift in the WTA mission.  James clearly has 
> chosen the former.  I clearly have chosen the latter.  Most of our 
> conflicts seem to stem from these two incompatible visions for the 
> WTA.  I think the Board needs to decide if we are going to continue as 
> an umbrella organization, or abandon that vision for the new vision as 
> James has laid out for us.
>
> 1) WTA should strive to be "the largest, most mainstream and most 
> influential transhumanist organization."
>
> -or-
>
> 2) WTA should strive to be "an umbrella of transhumanist groups."
____________________________________________________________

> From: James Hughes <james_j_hughes_2000 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Sat May 22, 2004  5:13:34 pm US/Eastern
> To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: Re: [wtaboard] A major shift in WTA mission?
> Reply-To: jhughes at changesurfer.com, WTA Board of Directors List 
> <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> Actually I think we started moving away from being an
> umbrella almost immediately when we eliminated
> "organizational memberships" in favor of "chapters"
> and "affiliates" about a month after adopting our
> constitution in January 2002.
____________________________________________________________
> From: "Giulio Prisco" <giulio at prisco.info>
> Date: Sun May 23, 2004  2:10:35 am US/Eastern
> To: "WTA Board of Directors List" <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] A major shift in WTA mission?
> Reply-To: WTA Board of Directors List <wtaboard at transhumanism.org>
>
> I never believed too much in the vision of the WTA as an umbrella
> organization. The correct way to run an umbrella organization is 
> admitting
> all members of the participating organization, and staffing the Board 
> with
> delegated representatives of the participating organizations. This is 
> not
> what the WTA has alswys done: recruiting independent members and asking
> membership to elect a Board.
> The question is not if we are going to continue as an umbrella 
> organization
> but if we are going to become one.
____________________________________________________________



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  8 04:09:34 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:09:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Genetic experiments gone horribly wrong!
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040607230838.01cb4ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

It can happen--be warned, before it's too late!

http://www.noosfere.com/Showcase/IMAGES/futfic_30.jpg



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  8 04:10:52 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:10:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] I warned you, you fools!
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040607231008.01ba03b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

It can lead to this kind of disaster:

http://www.noosfere.com/Showcase/IMAGES/futfic_33.jpg



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Tue Jun  8 05:18:51 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:48:51 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Genetic experiments gone horribly wrong!
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F7E@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

I'm sure I've seen those pictures in "Reproduction and Responsibility:
The Regulation of New Biotechnologies" (report from the President's
Council on Bioethics). 

http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/index.htm
l

Emlyn
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dcalwhit/pics/cats/mutant%20cat.jpg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damien Broderick [mailto:thespike at satx.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 June 2004 1:40 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Genetic experiments gone horribly wrong!
> 
> It can happen--be warned, before it's too late!
> 
> http://www.noosfere.com/Showcase/IMAGES/futfic_30.jpg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun  8 07:46:18 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI design
In-Reply-To: <40C21EE3.1090501@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040608074618.75997.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> The problem is expected utility maximization.  I'm
> using expected utility 
> maximization as my formalism because it's a very
> simple and very stable 
> system, it is the unique result of various
> optimality criteria that would 
> make it an attractor for any self-modifying
> optimization process that 
> tended toward any of those optimality criteria and
> wasn't already an 
> expected utility maximizer, and because expected
> utility maximization is so 
> taken-for-granted that most people who try to build
> an AGI will not dream 
> of using anything else.

Except for all the people who are using something
else.  Like the efforts, however off-base, to do it
top-down.  Or the ones who are trying, in essence, to
create models of a baby's consciousness and teach it
like one would a child.  And so forth.

> I haven't heard anyone try
> to analyze a UFAI goal 
> system dynamic other than expected utility
> maximization

Many of these efforts haven't done formal mathematical
analyses (except in the wrong places, such as the
top-down models, which can rightly be ignored), which
is probably why you haven't heard of them.


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jun  8 08:10:02 2004
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 01:10:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] I warned you, you fools!
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040607231008.01ba03b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001501c44d30$006d5270$6600a8c0@brainiac>

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

> It can lead to this kind of disaster:
> 
> http://www.noosfere.com/Showcase/IMAGES/futfic_33.jpg

... and in a salmonar vein: 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001950789_genefish08m.html

Olga



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun  8 10:15:28 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:15:28 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] I warned you, you fools!
In-Reply-To: <001501c44d30$006d5270$6600a8c0@brainiac>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040607231008.01ba03b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<001501c44d30$006d5270$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20040608101528.GA12847@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:10:02AM -0700, Olga Bourlin wrote:

> ... and in a salmonar vein: 
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001950789_genefish08m.html

Hilarious. Looks like a good way to decimate the wildtype
salmon population via a double mechanism: outcompete them, flood the
gene pool with individual incapable of handling food shortages.

Ha ha. Can't stop laughing.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040608/d5d62b94/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Jun  8 11:48:28 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:48:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA Growing Pains
In-Reply-To: <42A64D3D.C4A2ED2@sasktel.net>
References: <000001c44cff$efd0da70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<42A64D3D.C4A2ED2@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <40C5A78C.7070705@pobox.com>

Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:

> The mingling of personalities, politics and ambition with well meaning
> progressive goals  was never guaranteed to be an easy ride.
> 
> If the goals are worth achieving, all the rest will fall back into place.
> 
> Morris

That's one of the most anhistorical statements I've ever heard.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Jun  8 12:16:38 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:16:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA Growing Pains
Message-ID: <40C5AE26.3060603@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue Jun 8 05:48:28 MDT 2004 Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
>> Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:
>> The mingling of personalities, politics and ambition with well
>> meaning progressive goals  was never guaranteed to be an easy ride.
>>
>> If the goals are worth achieving, all the rest will fall back into
>> place.
>>
>
> That's one of the most anhistorical statements I've ever heard.
>

Whoops! My favorite dictionary panicked over 'anhistorical'. But it
liked 'unhistorical' or even 'ahistorical' which both mean 'Taking
little or no account of history', which I agree with.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/>

A quick look at the history of any movement provides a long list of
splits, factions, power-struggles, off-shoots, etc. Just look at the
hundreds of slightly different churches, who all call each other
'blasphemers' or 'heretics'.

BillK

"I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T
WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER."
     Groucho Marx (1890 - 1977)


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Jun  8 14:59:00 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:59:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Seena Sharp's  SharpInsights #16: Sounding Off
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040608075513.0379aa00@mail.earthlink.net>

Let me introduce Seena Sharp.  She is a long-time friend of mine who lives 
in Los Angeles.  I met her at FM-2030's futurist courses at UCLA - 
"Accelerating Change," etc. back in the 1980s.

If you would like to subscribe to her newsletter "SharpInsights," I'm sure 
you will not be sorry!  It is packed full of Seena's keen perspective on 
business and trends, and her delightful sense of humor.

>SharpInsights #16: Sounding Off
>
>Back when boomers were babies, a consumer's raves (or rants) about a product
>or service were confined to family and friends. Thanks to the Internet, 
>consumers
>now have an international stage and, if provoked, will share their 
>feelings with the
>world. Just ask the guy who started www.ihatemicrosoft.com!
>
>However, smart marketers can harness their customers' passion by encouraging
>feedback and using it to create value. For instance, software user forums 
>often offer
>better, faster information than the support pages on a developer's site. 
>Power to the
>people!  There's more:
>    * Netflix.com members rate movies and even write reviews. (Take that, 
> Roger Ebert!)
>    * Readers of Fast Company (and other magazines) respond online to 
> articles and to other readers' remarks.
>    * Target customers rate the products on its website-and some items get 
> panned!
>    * Many TV shows host message boards to give viewers a soapbox and to 
> gauge audience reaction to episodes or story lines.
>This type of timely, unedited feedback highlights what matters most to 
>customers.
>How do you access your customers' experience, insight, suggestions and 
>complaints?
>Would creating an online forum be a way to tap this intelligence?
>____________________________________________________________________________
>
>SharpInsights are occasional, byte-size bits of food for thought from 
>Sharp Market Intelligence.
>Visit http://www.sharpmarket.com for past editions as well as more on 
>business intelligence and
>early warning signals. If this issue of SharpInsights was forwarded to 
>you, start receiving your own
>by sending a SUBSCRIBE message to subscribe at sharpmarket.com
>
>To unsubscribe, simply reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in your subject line.

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040608/5edafbe4/attachment.html>

From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Jun  8 13:44:16 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:44:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Japan hits record on centenarians
Message-ID: <40C5C2B0.1000509@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3786045.stm>

Quote:

Japan's ageing population has recorded another first - the number of
centenarians has doubled in the last five years to more than 20,000.
A new government report also found that nearly one in five people is now
over 65, a proportion that is set to rise to one in four by 2050.

The report underlined government worries about an over-burdened pension
scheme as its population ages.

The propensity to long life is not seen as wholly positive, however, as
the country's birth rate is falling at the same time. More retirees are 
set to draw their pensions, while fewer working-age people are paying 
into them. According to some estimates, Japan will be home to roughly 
one person over 65 for every two working-age people by 2025.

----------

This should be the future for all the first-world countries. The same
benefits and problems.

Assuming that we can stop eating too much, getting obese and dying from
heart attacks, diabetes and other obesity related problems.

BillK


From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  8 15:48:27 2004
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poor humans: they are just meat!
Message-ID: <20040608154827.90059.qmail@web41310.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html
 
>(From OMNI, April 1991. This story, which was a 1991 Nebula nominee, has been appearing around the internet lately without my name attached. Several people were kind enough to alert me, but the truth is I'm more flattered than offended. ) 


---------------------------------
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT 
by Terry Bisson 






"They're made out of meat." 
"Meat?" 
"Meat. They're made out of meat." 
"Meat?" 
"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." 
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?" 
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines." 
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact." 
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines." 
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat." 
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat." 
"Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage." 
"Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?" 
"Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside." 
"Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through." 
"No brain?" 
"Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you." 
"So ... what does the thinking?" 
"You're not understanding, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat." 
"Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!" 
"Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal!  Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?" 
"Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat." 
"Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years." 
"Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?" 
"First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual." 
"We're supposed to talk to meat." 
"That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.' That sort of thing." 
"They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
"Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat." 
"I thought you just told me they used radio." 
"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat." 
"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?" 
"Officially or unofficially?" 
"Both." 
"Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing." 
"I was hoping you would say that." 
"It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?" 
"I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?" 
"Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact." 
"So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe." 
"That's it." 
"Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?" 
"They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them." 
"A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream." 
"And we marked the entire sector unoccupied." 
"Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?" 
"Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again." 
"They always come around." 
"And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone ..." 

the end



---------------------------------

Back to TERRY BISSON STORY SHOWCASE Main Page 





La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040608/39baa121/attachment.html>

From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Jun  8 16:54:38 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:54:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat]  ANNOUNCE: BRUCE STERLING vs. The Singularity,
	Friday 
In-Reply-To: <172010-2200461722958547@M2W038.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <8787B868-B96C-11D8-98B0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 06:09 pm, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:

> I am fowarding a message I received from Stewart Brand about Bruce 
> Sterling.
>
> Try to attend, and if you do please give my best to Stuart and Bruce!
> ________________________________________
>
> Subject: BRUCE STERLING vs. The Singularity, Friday (for forwarding)

I wish I were there.  This sounds like an extremely relevant topic for 
transhumanists.

> Stewart Brand
> The Long Now Foundation - http://www.longnow.org

I also love this website.  The information about CD-rot is great.  As a 
security professional, people don't believe me when I tell them that 
CDs may only last a few years, much less decades.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Jun  8 17:49:33 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:49:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Poor humans: they are just meat!
In-Reply-To: <20040608154827.90059.qmail@web41310.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <331DAB76-B974-11D8-98B0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 11:48 am, Jose Cordeiro wrote:

> http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html
>
>> (From OMNI, April 1991. This story, which was a 1991 Nebula nominee, 
>> has been appearing around the internet lately without my name 
>> attached. Several people were kind enough to alert me, but the truth 
>> is I'm more flattered than offended. )
>
> ---------------------------------
> THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
> by Terry Bisson

I am a vegetarian.  For some reason, many people have sent me this 
story over the years.  It still cracks me up!

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  8 18:00:35 2004
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Re: Poor humans: they are just meat!
In-Reply-To: <331DAB76-B974-11D8-98B0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20040608180035.35241.qmail@web41311.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Harvey,
 
     I also try to be fishetarian (fish & vegetables, or fish & chips for the British:-)
 
     Vegetarianily yours,
 
     La vie est belle!
 
     Yos?

NB: What is not funny is how people used plagiarism with that great story over the years.

Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 11:48 am, Jose Cordeiro wrote:

> http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html
>
>> (From OMNI, April 1991. This story, which was a 1991 Nebula nominee, 
>> has been appearing around the internet lately without my name 
>> attached. Several people were kind enough to alert me, but the truth 
>> is I'm more flattered than offended. )
>
> ---------------------------------
> THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
> by Terry Bisson

I am a vegetarian. For some reason, many people have sent me this 
story over the years. It still cracks me up!

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC


La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040608/f258e841/attachment.html>

From jpnitya at sapo.pt  Tue Jun  8 19:34:01 2004
From: jpnitya at sapo.pt (jpnitya at sapo.pt)
Date: Tue,  8 Jun 2004 20:34:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: research progress
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405310609560.25536-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405310609560.25536-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <1086723241.6azizx9rzhxc@mail.sapo.pt>

Hi!

Sorry for the late reply but only now did I have a chance to read the paper. It
certainly is an interesting experiment but, like Robert mentions, it doesn't
necessarily translate into life extension. In fact, George Martin has an
editorial in the same issue that I totally agree with. He mentions that despite
being a nice work, the real breakthrough will occur when scientists engineer
mice to have a "better" mitochondrial polymerase and thus, hopefully, live
longer. You can find his editorial:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15164048

All the best,

Joao

Citando "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>:

>
> Well, it looks like the mitochondrial theory of aging
> is getting some support.  Scientists created mice
> with a defective mitochondrial DNA polymerase and it
> significantly shortened their lifespans.
>
> URL:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040527234844.htm
>
> Abstract from PubMed:
> Point mutations and deletions of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
> accumulate in a variety of tissues during ageing in humans, monkeys and
> rodents. These mutations are unevenly distributed and can accumulate
> clonally in certain cells, causing a mosaic pattern of respiratory chain
> deficiency in tissues such as heart, skeletal muscle and brain. In terms
> of the ageing process, their possible causative effects have been
> intensely debated because of their low abundance and purely correlative
> connection with ageing. We have now addressed this question experimentally
> by creating homozygous knock-in mice that express a
> proof-reading-deficient version of PolgA, the nucleus-encoded catalytic
> subunit of mtDNA polymerase. Here we show that the knock-in mice develop
> an mtDNA mutator phenotype with a threefold to fivefold increase in the
> levels of point mutations, as well as increased amounts of deleted mtDNA.
> This increase in somatic mtDNA mutations is associated with reduced
> lifespan and premature onset of ageing-related phenotypes such as weight
> loss, reduced subcutaneous fat, alopecia (hair loss), kyphosis (curvature
> of the spine), osteoporosis, anaemia, reduced fertility and heart
> enlargement. Our results thus provide a causative link between mtDNA
> mutations and ageing phenotypes in mammals.
>
> URL for Nature article:
>
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/abs/nature02517_fs.html
>
> Now it looks like the problem is due to an accumulation of mutations in
> the mitochondrial DNA.  But whether that problem causes decreased
> production of ATP (meaning the cells may have reduced protein production
> capacity) or in more production of free radicals and is thus linked to the
> free radical theory of aging (which IMO is linked in complex ways to the
> somatic mutation theory of aging) doesn't seem to be clear.
>
> However it should be considered that there are probably
> many ways to shorten lifespan -- but that doesn't immediately
> translate to methods that may be used to extend lifespan.
>
> Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>







O SAPO j? est? livre de v?rus com a Panda Software, fique voc? tamb?m!
Clique em: http://antivirus.sapo.pt


From jpnitya at sapo.pt  Tue Jun  8 19:36:07 2004
From: jpnitya at sapo.pt (jpnitya at sapo.pt)
Date: Tue,  8 Jun 2004 20:36:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: Live fast, die old
Message-ID: <1086723367.6uo8cz76qj28@mail.sapo.pt>

Hi,

I'm not sure how many of you have read this already but here it goes anyway:

Mice with sky-high metabolic rates live far longer than their sluggish cousins,
UK researchers have found, raising the prospect that human lifespan might be
lengthened with metabolism-boosting drugs.

Metabolic rate is the pace at which the body burns food to produce energy. John
Speakman of the University of Aberdeen, UK, and his colleagues measured the
metabolism of 42 mice, based on the amount of oxygen they consumed, and then
waited until they died.

The group of animals with the highest metabolic rates lived over a third longer
than the group with the lowest rates, they found, and had metabolisms that ran
about 30% faster. If the same is true in humans, this means that people with a
speedy metabolism might add an extra 27 years onto a typical 70-year lifespan.

The finding challenges a century-old theory that animals with higher metabolic
rates die younger. This is based on observations that big animals with low
metabolic rates, such as elephants, tend to outlive small, high metabolism
ones, such as mice: hence the old adage, "live fast, die young."

While this overall trend may be true when comparing different species, the new
study suggests it may be reversed for animals within one species. "It was a
complete surprise," says Speakman.

More efficient cells

The secret to longevity may lie inside mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell
that help to set the metabolic rate. Mitochondria use oxygen to 'burn' food
molecules to produce chemical fuel that is used by the cell -- but in the
process they generate harmful free radicals that damage other molecules and are
linked to ageing.

Speakman's team found evidence that mice with a high metabolic rate have more
vigorous 'uncoupling proteins', which cause the mitochondria to generate heat
instead of producing fuel. Since more of their energy escapes as heat, the
mitochondria have to run at full speed in order to keep generating enough
chemical fuel for the cell.

At the same time, the mitochondria may run more efficiently and release fewer
harmful free radicals, hence slowing the ageing process. "That's when they run
the cleanest," explains Wayne Van Voorhies, who studies ageing at New Mexico
State University, Las Cruces.

Speakman now plans to test if a higher metabolic rate can prolong human life,
but he cautions that a quick fix to ageing is unlikely to be just around the
corner. Although drugs such as amphetamines are known to speed up metabolism,
Speakman says that they may not simultaneously increase the activity of
uncoupling proteins, the key to cutting free-radical production and thus
potentially prolonging life.

Indeed, finding drugs that really do boost uncoupling proteins may be difficult,
warns Van Voorhies. "You're really messing with some fundamental
characteristics of [the cell]," he says.


References
Speakman, J.R. et al. Aging Cell, 3, 87, (2004).


From: http://www.nature.com/nsu/040531/040531-2.html

All the best,

Joao






O SAPO j? est? livre de v?rus com a Panda Software, fique voc? tamb?m!
Clique em: http://antivirus.sapo.pt


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Jun  8 20:59:56 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:59:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Senators ask Bush to ease restrictions on stem
	cell research
Message-ID: <327120-22004628205956122@M2W052.mail2web.com>


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/stem.cell.ap/index.html


Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  8 21:17:30 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:17:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Senators ask Bush to ease
	restrictions on stem cell research
In-Reply-To: <327120-22004628205956122@M2W052.mail2web.com>
References: <327120-22004628205956122@M2W052.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040608161600.01c09ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/stem.cell.ap/index.html

<"The president does not believe that life should be created for the sole 
purpose of destroying it. >

So much for all those Texas steers, I guess. Back to oats, chef!

Damien Broderick 



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  8 23:02:23 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: Live fast, die old
In-Reply-To: <1086723367.6uo8cz76qj28@mail.sapo.pt>
Message-ID: <20040608230223.78679.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com>


> The finding challenges a century-old theory that
> animals with higher metabolic
> rates die younger. This is based on observations
> that big animals with low
> metabolic rates, such as elephants, tend to outlive
> small, high metabolism
> ones, such as mice: hence the old adage, "live fast,
> die young."
> 
> While this overall trend may be true when comparing
> different species, the new
> study suggests it may be reversed for animals within
> one species. "It was a
> complete surprise," says Speakman.
> 
   Actually this isn't a surprise to me. It is a
fairly well known fact that between species larger
species with lower metabolisms live longer than
smaller species with higher metabolisms. But within a
species smaller individuals (with consequent higher
metabolisms) are the ones that live longer than their
larger fellows. This is very apparent in species that
have a very wide range of sizes like dogs where
massive saint bernards only live 8 years or so while
the scrawny little chihuahua can live 20 years. This
observation tends to hold for people as well. It may
even explain why women who tend to be smaller than men
also tend to live longer.
   Although what was posted doesn't explicitly mention
it, I will bet that Speakman's mice are smaller than
average.


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Jun  8 23:10:07 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: Live fast, die old
In-Reply-To: <1086723367.6uo8cz76qj28@mail.sapo.pt>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406081605200.19581-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 jpnitya at sapo.pt wrote:

> The finding challenges a century-old theory that animals with higher
> metabolic rates die younger. This is based on observations that big
> animals with low metabolic rates, such as elephants, tend to outlive
> small, high metabolism ones, such as mice: hence the old adage, "live
> fast, die young."

I wonder if this is related to caloric restriction.  Maybe having a faster
metabolism acts as a sort of natural CR diet...?



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  8 23:54:39 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [FYI] Tooting my horn
Message-ID: <20040608235439.57786.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey all,

      FYI I just got another manuscript published (#2
for me). This time it is in the prestigious journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences June 8
issue. It is in the field of immunology/ HIV research
and not ageing but it is still pretty cool none the
less because it blows away the dogma. Feel free to
check it out. I believe the PNAS site allows free
public access.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/23/8727?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1086738049180_452&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&journalcode=pnas

P.S. For those of you who don't know, my real name is
Stuart LaForge



=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From megao at sasktel.net  Tue Jun  8 23:16:18 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 18:16:18 -0500
Subject: [Fwd: [extropy-chat] AGING: Live fast, die old]
Message-ID: <40C648C2.9E84908C@sasktel.net>

This might go part way  to explain the parrot paradox in birds.

Clone millions of parrots in chicken hosts.
The solution .. extract, "infect" cultivate and re-implant  human stem
cells  .....
with parrot chick derived mitochondria perhaps?
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] AGING: Live fast, die old
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Size: 4266
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040608/02908981/attachment.mht>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Wed Jun  9 00:38:54 2004
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:38:54 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [FYI] Tooting my horn
In-Reply-To: <20040608235439.57786.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040608235439.57786.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0406082030280.-494281@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>


Unfortunately the site requires a subscription to view the article.
The abstract however is free (but not understandable by *me*!)

Congratulations. :)

Regards,
MB


On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, The Avantguardian wrote:

> Hey all,
>
>       FYI I just got another manuscript published (#2
> for me). This time it is in the prestigious journal
> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences June 8
> issue. It is in the field of immunology/ HIV research
> and not ageing but it is still pretty cool none the
> less because it blows away the dogma. Feel free to
> check it out. I believe the PNAS site allows free
> public access.
>
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/23/8727?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1086738049180_452&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&journalcode=pnas
>
> P.S. For those of you who don't know, my real name is
> Stuart LaForge
>
>
>
> =====
> The Avantguardian
>
>
> "He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."
>


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  9 01:12:02 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kass vs. Blackburn
Message-ID: <20040609011202.78446.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>

I was bored at work today so I decided to look up and
compare the CVs of Leon Kass and Elizabeth Blackburn
to see how much and what they publish. They are
available at the following URLs:

http://olincenter.uchicago.edu/kass_cv.html

http://biochemistry.ucsf.edu/%7Eblackburn/pub_list.html

The results? 

Leon Kass- 8 scientific research publications all
before 1970, 88 conservative propaganda, 96 total.

Elizabeth Blackburn- 109 original research
publications, 47 scientific reviews, 156 total w/ zero
propaganda.

IMHO Leon Kass should stop trying to give people the
impression that he is a scientist. The last time he
did science was before the first gene was cloned in
1972.

 



 


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun  9 04:34:42 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:34:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kass vs. Blackburn
In-Reply-To: <20040609011202.78446.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040609011202.78446.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040608233256.01cce160@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:12 PM 6/8/2004 -0700, Stuart LaForge wrote:

>Leon Kass- 8 scientific research publications all
>before 1970, 88 conservative propaganda, 96 total.
>
>Elizabeth Blackburn- 109 original research
>publications, 47 scientific reviews, 156 total w/ zero
>propaganda.
>
>IMHO Leon Kass should stop trying to give people the
>impression that he is a scientist. The last time he
>did science was before the first gene was cloned in
>1972.

A sensible friend who's currently doing an PhD in bioethics comments:

===========

This is a bit silly, don't you think? Kass claims to be a
qualified medical doctor and a bioethicist, mainly the latter. I don't think
I've ever seen him hang his hat on any original scientific research that he
may have done in his youth. Why would he need to?

Conversely, it looks as if Blackburn has done nothing but substantive
science. What publications does she have in fields such as legal policy,
philosophy and bioethics, which is what the committee is *doing* after all?
As it happens, she may have played a good role on the committee in softening
its hard line, but citing her scientific publications is an odd way to
support that view.

I may not *like* Kass's bioethical writings (I don't), but this attack on
him is really clutching at straws.

=============

FWIW.

Damien Broderick 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  9 05:34:24 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:34:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040608075513.0379aa00@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <000701c44de3$72e40e80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

A few weeks ago there was a discussion about an automated sci-fi show
on TV.  I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, since I had never
heard of the program.  Last week I saw about 2 minutes of what I think
was 
the show.  The automation was stunning.  Someone said it is available
on DVD now.  Please, what is the name of that program that was 
discussed here several weeks ago?
 
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040608/1eb9af7a/attachment.html>

From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Wed Jun  9 05:37:41 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:37:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: WTA Board flap
References: <000001c44cff$efd0da70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV38ekzabtneq0002a698@hotmail.com>

Hey Spike, whassup buddy?

Anyway, if not mistaken, I believe it was Harvey who originally posted this
thread and subject line, apparently to bring attention to his plight.

Could be mistaken tho :)

Zero

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:25 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] MOTION: WTA Board flap


>
> > Giu1i0 Pri5c0
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MOTION: Harvey off the Board
> >
> >
> > Well Samantha, I am sorry if this is your interpretation of things...
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:09:42 -0700, Samantha Atkins
> > <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been on the list.  After WTA folks baiting and shunning all
> > > remotely libertarian voices off into a separate mailing list I got
> > > disgusted and quit participating... - s
>
>
> I am reluctant to wade into this, since I find this matter
> most distasteful and I haven't followed the details.  To post
> to extropians under the subject line "MOTION: Harvey off the Board"
> appears mean-spirited and in poor taste.  I am not claiming that
> I have never posted stuff to extropians that is in poor taste, but
> I do claim it was never with intent to harm or embarrass.
>
> Please, you guys fix the subject line and state your
> cases calmly and carefully.
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun  9 05:46:30 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:46:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <000701c44de3$72e40e80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040608075513.0379aa00@mail.earthlink.net>
	<000701c44de3$72e40e80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040609004525.01c0fa80@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:34 PM 6/8/2004 -0700, Spike wrote:

>A few weeks ago there was a discussion about an automated sci-fi show
>on TV.  I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, since I had never
>heard of the program.  Last week I saw about 2 minutes of what I think was
>the show.  The automation was stunning.

TRIPPING THE RIFT?

http://www.scifi.com/tripping/

You just like the sexbot, you dog.

Damien Broderick



From starman2100 at cableone.net  Wed Jun  9 05:49:01 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:49:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
Message-ID: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040608/43539960/attachment.ksh>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Wed Jun  9 06:11:34 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:11:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tripping the Rift
Message-ID: <1086761494_327834@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040608/c32d826a/attachment.ksh>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  9 06:29:14 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:29:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MOTION: WTA Board flap
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV38ekzabtneq0002a698@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000601c44deb$15811190$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> Zero Powers
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MOTION: WTA Board flap
>  
> Hey Spike, whassup buddy?
> 
> Anyway, if not mistaken, I believe it was Harvey who 
> originally posted this thread and subject line, 
> apparently to bring attention to his plight.
> 
> Could be mistaken tho :)
> 
> Zero

Oh, ok, I didn't realize that.  Im wasn't sure why this stuff 
was ever posted over to extropians in the first place.  I hate
to see friends fighting each other, when I know both sides
are good guys.  I would like to see them all write out their
cases, so I can read both sides.  The mysterious midnight 
WTA meeting in Oxford seems to have generated some failures
to communicate.  

Harvey did you want to have your name taken in vain in
the subject line?

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  9 06:30:45 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:30:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040609004525.01c0fa80@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000701c44deb$4bdfd4b0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Damien Broderick
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:47 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
> 
> 
> At 10:34 PM 6/8/2004 -0700, Spike wrote:
> 
> >A few weeks ago there was a discussion about an automated sci-fi show
> >on TV.  I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, since 
> I had never
> >heard of the program.  Last week I saw about 2 minutes of 
> what I think was
> >the show.  The automation was stunning.
> 
> TRIPPING THE RIFT?
> 
http://www.scifi.com/tripping/

You just like the sexbot, you dog.

Damien Broderick




From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  9 06:34:53 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:34:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040609004525.01c0fa80@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000801c44deb$dfdef240$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
> 
> 
> At 10:34 PM 6/8/2004 -0700, Spike wrote:
> 
> >A few weeks ago there was a discussion about an automated sci-fi show
> >on TV.  ...Last week I saw about 2 minutes of 
> what I think was the show.  The automation was stunning.
> 
> TRIPPING THE RIFT?
> 
http://www.scifi.com/tripping/

>You just like the sexbot, you dog.

>Damien Broderick


Cool they have a sexbot?  {8^D

Actually no, I don't think that was it.  The part I saw
was only a short segment and it had a soaring eagle.  The
animation was clearly partly computer generated, exceedingly
good quality.  Someone has clearly spent some bucks on this,
it wasn't a cobby kids show.

spike




From eliasen at mindspring.com  Wed Jun  9 06:48:50 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:48:50 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <000701c44de3$72e40e80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000701c44de3$72e40e80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40C6B2D2.5010802@mindspring.com>


Spike wrote:
> A few weeks ago there was a discussion about an automated sci-fi show
> on TV.  I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, since I had never
> heard of the program.  Last week I saw about 2 minutes of what I think was
> the show.  The automation was stunning.  Someone said it is available
> on DVD now.  Please, what is the name of that program that was
> discussed here several weeks ago?

   Please, what means "automated"?

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From bjk at imminst.org  Wed Jun  9 07:35:34 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 02:35:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <40C6BDC6.5050607@imminst.org>


Note, in order to see some of the following messages, you'll need to 
access to the wta-talk archives: 
http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/wta-talk/

Username: wta
Password: p0sthum


>>The conference on Transhumanism and Spirituality is another example 
>>where the "leaders" went ahead despite board objections. 
>>    
>>
>
>James Hughes Said:   It wasn't a Board decision - it was a conference committee decision, and Harvey could have moved to disavow the  symposium and decided not to. 
>  
>

The ultimate decision was made outside of the WTA board, thus it was 
impossible for Harvey or I to know when to make any motion not to have 
the conference on Transhumanism and Spirituality.


>>They even abridged the official meeting minutes to add 
>>this non-existent vote, and sent this out to the membership. 
>>    
>>
>
>James Hughes Said:   The Board unanimously approved a version of the minutes, already published, which said I was nominated for the position and I met with general acclaim in Oxford.
>

It's important to know here that the WTA Constitution aks for board 
action be governed by Robert's Rules.

Article VI. Parliamentary Authority
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/constitution/
"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order 
Newly Revised shall govern the organization in all cases to which they 
are applicable and in which they are consistent with the conduct of 
electronic decision-making and this Constitution."

When it was discovered that no actual vote had been made on the position 
for WTA Executive Director (we all overlooked this at the time), Harvey 
Newstrom, Jose Cordeior and I, Bruce Klein, requested that we bring an 
actual vote. Upon feeling that he would not win the vote (a board member 
had resigned and a number of directors had changed their minds in the 
interim), James Hughes decided to close the topic by discourage the 
interim-chair from allowing any more motions.


>BJ went public first, arguing that I should be expelled from the WTA on the grounds that I am "political". 
>  
>

Sorry, no. This credit is deserving to Jose Cordeiro when he posted to 
[wta-talk] "James Hughes is not speaking in the name of WTA" on Mon May 
24 01:46:21 BST 2004 and then: "Unauthorized use of our name on your 
site" again on Mon May 24 06:45:25 BST 2004.

I posted on the same day, but a little later.. the following:

Speaking as a WTA director entrusted by WTA members to uphold WTA
principles, I must respectfully guide this discussion to the words found
in the WTA Declaration:

The WTA Declaration sates, "Transhumanism does not support any
particular party, politician or political platform." The Declaration was
created and voted on by WTA membership.
http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/declaration/

The Declaration is supported by the WTA Constitution which states, ?All
members of the WTA attest by joining that they are in agreement with the
Transhumanist Declaration posted on the WTA website".
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/constitution/

The full thread is found here: 
http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/wta-talk/2004-May/005257.html


>I would say the overall effect has been disconcerting for observers, but the three of them have been so obviously 
>nutty and self-contradictory that I haven't felt moved to much of a defense. 
>  
>

It feels good to get this out in public... my wife calls me 'nutty' all 
the time.


>Because Harvey was acting disruptive and frankly crazy. 
>  
>

As a former WTA board member (who has resigned, please see 
http://www.imminst.org ), I've had the opportunity to follow these 
events fairly closely. In my opinion, Harvey was never 'crazy' and never 
deliberately trying to be 'disruptive'.

Harvey did however became extra cautious when he saw that each time he 
brought up questions, they were rebuffed. The rebuffments turned 
personal because of differences in personality. And, as I sadly found 
out later, the rebuffments were backed in private discussion by plans to 
either sideline Harvey or expel him. As eventually happened, Harvey was 
apparently sidelined and then eventually a motion was made to expel him.


>As for the ExIst machinations, I really couldn't care less.We haven't been pals since about...1994. 
>

I'm sad to see James say, "I really couldn't care less". There could be 
some good work done between WTA and ExI if there was only a little more 
understanding.

Bruce Klein
Chair, ImmInst.org











From iph1954 at msn.com  Wed Jun  9 11:57:43 2004
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:57:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Grey Goo in Perspective
Message-ID: <BAY5-F16iR9Odutox7n00011547@hotmail.com>

Below is the text of a press release from CRN announcing an important new 
article. The release can be viewed online at  
http://www.crnano.org/PR-IOP.htm

Let us know if you have any comments.

Mike Treder
Executive Director
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology

==================

TITLE: Leading nanotech experts put 'grey goo' in perspective

A paper published today in the journal Nanotechnology warns that fear of 
runaway self-replicating machines diverts attention away from other more 
serious risks of molecular manufacturing. The paper, "Safe Exponential 
Manufacturing", published by the Institute of Physics, was written by Chris 
Phoenix, Director of Research at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology 
(CRN), and Dr. K. Eric Drexler, a pioneering nanotechnology theorist and 
founder of the Foresight Institute.

Drexler had cautioned against self-replicating machines in his 1986 book 
Engines of Creation. The idea became known as 'grey goo' and inspired a 
generation of science fiction authors. In this article, Phoenix and Drexler 
show that nanotechnology-based fabrication can be completely safe from 
out-of-control replication. However, they warn that for other reasons misuse 
of molecular manufacturing remains a significant danger.

"So-called grey goo could only be the product of a deliberate and difficult 
engineering process, not an accident," said Phoenix. "Far more serious is 
the possibility that a large-scale and convenient manufacturing capacity 
could be used to make incredibly powerful non-replicating weapons in 
unprecedented quantity. This could lead to an unstable arms race and a 
devastating war. Policy investigation into the effects of advanced 
nanotechnology should consider this as a primary concern, and runaway 
replication as a more distant issue."

Contrary to previous understanding, self-replication is unnecessary for 
building an efficient and effective molecular manufacturing system. Instead 
of building lots of tiny, complex, free-floating robots to manufacture 
products, it will be more practical to use simple robot arms inside 
desktop-size factories. A robot arm removed from such a factory would be as 
inert as a light bulb pulled from its socket. The factory as a whole would 
be no more mobile than a desktop printer and would require a supply of 
purified raw materials to build anything.

"An obsession with obsolete science-fiction images of swarms of replicating 
nanobugs has diverted attention from the real issues raised by the coming 
revolution in molecular nanotechnologies," said Drexler. "We need to focus 
on the issues that matter ? how to deal with these powerful new capabilities 
in a competitive world."

Mike Treder, Executive Director of CRN, said, "We hope that this article 
will advance the discussion of the actual implications of molecular 
manufacturing. There is no need for panic, but there are urgent concerns 
that must be addressed before the technology arrives."

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is headquartered in New York. CRN 
is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) 
organization. For more information on CRN, see http://www.crnano.org/.




From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Jun  9 15:13:29 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:13:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609074843.037ec930@mail.earthlink.net>

At 10:49 PM 6/8/04 -0700, starman2100 at cableone.net wrote:

>Harvey repeatedly tried to get us to disavow the Transhumanist FAQ because 
>Natasha was annoyed it didn't in her view
>give enough credit to Max and herself. Then she put up her own 
>"Transhumanist FAQ" which barely even mentions the WTA
>in passing. We repeatedly debated and voted down disavowing our 
>Transhumanist FAQ.

I really do not want to be part of this discussion personally, and 
professional it is misplaced.  However, since I have been brought into it, 
I will respond specifically to mention of myself and not to any other 
claims or statements.

It's a long story and no one can attempt to put it down in a few sentences 
by blaming someone(s) because when you have a FAQ and it is rewritten over 
and over again, things gets confused, rewritten, deleted from and added 
to.  What I objected to many years ago and which took many years to be 
heard was the lack of attention to FM-2030 and his hard work and efforts in 
his visionary view of the "transhuman," not using Max More's definition of 
transhumanism and writing about Max as a college student rather than a PhD, 
etc., using the phrase "libertarian" in describing ExI and 
"extropians,"  not mentioning Transhumanist Art and its statement, and 
generally making transhumanism a movement that started with WTA, rather 
than back in the 1980s, which is the truth and should be recognized because 
it is a fascinating story.

There are several Transhumanist FAQs.  In fact, I purchased the domain 
"Transhumansitfaq" which I designed a while ago, I have yet to put it up 
because I was hoping that all transhumanist organizations could contribute 
to it so that it is a fullly realized website. However, Alex Bokow started 
the Transhumanist FAQ and Anders Sandberg has a Transhumanist FAQ, 
Transhumanist Arts & Culture has a Transhumanist FAQ, etc.  ExI's 
Transhumanist FAQ is another Transhumanist FAQ.  Since ExI's "Journal of 
Transhumanist Thought" was the first use of "transhumanist," it seemed 
plausible that ExI should have a "Transhumanist FAQ."

The Transhumanist FAQ that we did many years ago was on the transhuman 
mailing list and Alex says it is "open" source as long as it is credited 
(he has the information that he wants people to use.)  The authors of this 
FAQ were several to many.  The FAQ stemmed, I believe, from the 
Transhumanist Principles which are still on the web and which Alex "Sasha' 
Chislenko put together from some of us to many of us working on it.

It was never the property of WTA.  When Nick started WTA I think he used 
these items and they were rewritten over the years.  So, I suppose it all 
boils down to Alex, Sasha, Anders and the rest of us.

Frankly, I don't care who has it or uses it.  I just care that it be 
authentic and reliable for the public.  This cannot be realized if there is 
anger and name calling because it tarnishes the very essence of the two 
pieces of work - the FAQ and the Principles.

That's pretty much it, other than we are working to have a 
Trans-Cooperative "Colloquium" with all transhumanist organizations and 
groups to try to resolve the conflicts and develop a better way of working 
together.

I am concerned that James wants to disassociate WTA's affiliation with ExI.

Take care,

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040609/f510033e/attachment.html>

From gregburch at gregburch.net  Wed Jun  9 13:10:22 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:10:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <40C6BDC6.5050607@imminst.org>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDMEHDCHAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

ExI as an organization doesn't have a position, takes no role and never has taken a role regarding the governance of the WTA.  There have been and are no "ExIst machinations" (Mr. Hughes' term) regarding the WTA's governance.  Neither this forum nor the governing structures of ExI have ever been used in any way to develop or coordinate plans or "machinations" with regard to WTA governance.  If the WTA has issues regarding their governance, it should address them but that is not a matter connected in any way with the policies of ExI.

Greg Burch
Vice-President, Extropy Institute
http://www.gregburch.net


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Jun  9 13:27:21 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:27:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>

starman2100 at cableone.net writes: 

> I would hope that should Harvey decide to respond blow by blow it might shed 
> even greater light on exactly what happened.

I have already posted the actual board notes to this list with the prefix 
WTA-BOARD.  People can read for themselves what happened.  If the archives 
ever get opened to the public as promised, everyone could see it.  However, 
we already have one case (of the approved minutes) where the archive entry 
has been deleted.  I am not sure what the archives will contain when they 
finally come back on line. 

>>selling members e-mail to spammers to make money 
> 
> A lie - never happened. 

Yes apparently we exchange them for other lists, not money.  And the deal I 
quoted never actually went through, it was just approved by the board to get 
through.  But this does not change the fact that the WTA reserves the right 
to give out member names if they want, and members have to "opt out" of this 
program if they don't want their names given out.  Reference the join form 
which has an "opt out" section. 

>> adding people to the membership rolls without 
>> their knowledge or permission, 
> 
> 77 members of the Finnish Transhumanist Association which has voted that their members are also WTA members 

Right, but we argued on the board whether we had to actually ask each 
individual if they wanted to join.  The majority vote was we did not.  We 
were even told by James that it was "apparently legal" to add members 
without their knowledge, so there was no problem.  But this does not change 
the fact that members have been added based on their other membership 
organizations without their individual consent. 

>>> The Oxford board meeting was one example where we were not 
>> allowed to vote on whether to hold the international meeting or not. 
> 
> We voted, Harvey lost. 

We were told that Peter donated the money and that the money would be spent 
to have the meeting and fly people there no matter how the Board voted.  I 
didn't consider this much of a "vote". 

>> The conference on Transhumanism and Spirituality is another example 
>> where the "leaders" went ahead despite board objections. 
> 
> It wasn't a Board decision - it was a conference committee decision, and Harvey could have moved to disavow the 
> symposium and decided not to. 

Several board members objected to this when it was discussed, and objected 
when the public announcement came that they did not know that this event was 
proceeding.  James even apologized after he reviewed the wtaboard archives 
and realized that he had not garnered support and had not informed the board 
that he would proceed anyway.  And again, he argued that it was a committee 
decision and not up to the board to vote. 

>> There also were complaints about inaccuracies and plagiarism in the "WTA FAQ" 
>> which the board was not allowed to address. 
> 
> Harvey repeatedly tried to get us to disavow the Transhumanist FAQ because Natasha was annoyed it didn't in her view 
> give enough credit to Max and herself. Then she put up her own "Transhumanist FAQ" which barely even mentions the WTA 
> in passing. We repeatedly debated and voted down disavowing our Transhumanist FAQ. 

Wrong.  As Liaison between WTA and ExI, I never heard the complaints James 
gives above.  The complaints of plagiarism did not come from ExI.  James 
attributes all sorts of evils to Natasha and ExI, but this had nothing to do 
with it. 

>> They are now pushing for 
>> a new Executive Director position who can run WTA independently of the 
>> board with little or no oversight or control. 
> 
> I report to the Board and am accountable through them to the membership.

Theoretically, yes.  But the Executive Director has even more authority to 
act without the board than James did before.  This move obviously increases 
rather than decreases James' freedom for independent action without the 
Board. 

>> James wants to be 
>> Executive Director just as he has been chairman, treasurer, secretary, 
>> publications director, newsletter editor, and website master. 
> 
> As if I haven't begged for someone to take up some slack? I only took on the Treasurer role because no one else would.

The fact remains that more than half of all WTA officers and committee 
leadership positions are held by just a couple of people who control 
everything.  Under Connecticut corporate law, it is illegal for the Chairman 
and the Treasurer to be the same person.  James just resigned from his 
Chairman role to resolve this illegality.  This was not just an idle 
complaint, but a point of law.  Other conflicts of interest still arise if 
James is on the Board, hires himself, pays himself, and is the Treasurer in 
charge of auditing himself.  I am not saying he is doing anything illegal 
(now that he dropped the chair role), but that it is a conflict of interest 
that may not pass financial audits. 

>> The final straw was when James self-declared himself as Executive 
>> Director and said he wanted to start taking a $60,000 salary. 
> 
> I was appointed by acclaim at the Oxford meeting, as affirmed in the unanimously approved minutes,

For those who don't know "acclaim" means by general discussion.  No actual 
vote count was taken.  It is only allowed under Roberts Rules of Order if 
there is a valid motion and a second, which did not occur in this case.  It 
also is only allowed if there are no objections.  Jose insists that he 
objected.  Other board members who were there said they don't remember any 
such vote.  I have also posted on this list a thread showing James himself 
and others discussing the fact that he wasn't voted in yet and needed to be 
in the future.  The story (and the minutes!) changed after the fact. 

> reappointed by a vote of 5-3 two weeks ago. I draw no salary.

Not yet, because we don't have that kind of money.  James plans to draw a 
salary and has included it in future budget projections.  This is the plan 
voted by the majority of the board.  Arguing that "he draws no salary" does 
not change the fact that he wants to pocket the first $60K raised by WTA 
every year. 

>> They even abridged the official meeting minutes to add 
>> this non-existent vote, and sent this out to the membership. 
> 
> The Board unanimously approved a version of the minutes, already published, which said I was nominated for the 
> position and I met with general acclaim in Oxford. Then I presented an abridged version of the minutes to the Board 
> for the newsletter, which were also unanimously approved, including by Harvey, which simply said I had 
> been "appointed."

True, the original minutes said he had been nominated.  True, the board 
members approved the printing of the minutes in the newsletter.  However, 
none of the board members realized that the minutes had been changed between 
these two votes.  There was no vote to amend the minutes.  James changed 
them without anyone's knowledge. 

>> When we 
>> pointed to the public archives for historical evidence, the board voted 
>> to shut down the public archives. 
> 
> Harvey made a motion to open all our Board list archive to the world, which we voted down. Instead we voted to open 
> the Board list to our voting membership. 

True.  I wanted to open everything to the public.  The majority of the board 
voted that down.  They then voted to have a public list and a private list.  
This passed.  This does not change the fact that some board actions have 
been hidden from the public and that future board actions may be hidden from 
the public. 

>> When we pointed to the wtaboard 
>> private archives for evidence, the original motion and minutes were 
>> deleted. 
> 
> I had attached the minutes in Word, and we later discovered that neither the BBS nor the Mailman archives were 
> preserving attachments. However we immediately reposted the minutes in text. 

Yes, and the text minutes were the altered version, not the version 
contained in the original motion for approval that was sent to all board 
members for vote. 

> BJ went public first, arguing that I should be expelled from the WTA on the grounds that I am "political". 

Wrong, as BJ has already addressed.  However, I don't know why it should be 
a crime to go public with Board activities.  I wish all board activities 
were publicly known.  I am appalled at how many votes seem to deliberately 
hide information or mislead the membership.  This is wrong. 

> And then Harvey started his public meltdown. 

The public demanded to know why I was removed from the WTA board.  They, and 
the members who elected me to the Board, have a right to know.  This is not 
a personal attack on James or anybody else.  This is documentation of what 
our elected WTA officials did while in office.  I do not apologize for 
telling the truth and keeping the members informed.  I wish all board 
members would do so.  Sadly, those who did are now off the board. 

> I would say the overall effect has been disconcerting for observers, but the three of them have been so obviously 
> nutty and self-contradictory that I haven't felt moved to much of a defense. 

There is no defense for the truth.  I have posted the actual board e-mails 
showing the events I claimed.  I have been arguing for the opening of 
wtaboard to the members and the public.  Three of us voted against shutting 
down the public wta archives.  Naturally, those who want to hide this stuff 
from the members don't want to defend their actions in public. 

>> Our motions and seconds were ignored. 
> 
> They were all duly voted on defeated, when they were in order, which wasn't always. 

The motion to actually vote for or against hiring James as ED was one such 
motion that was declared out of order.  All motions concerning the WTA FAQ 
were declared out of order (because WTA supposedly has no FAQ).  The vote to 
elect a chairman instead of letting Giulio be appointed acting Chairman by 
Nick was declared out of order.  The motion to require the actual chair to 
confirm votes out of order instead of letting an acting chair do so was 
declared out of order.  Every motion that the top three WTA officials didn't 
like was simply ignored.  If the archives were accessible, all this would be 
clearly visible. 

>> There were 
>> private discussions by the majority how to boot off the minority 
>> without appearing to kick them out. 
> 
> Because Harvey was acting disruptive and frankly crazy. 

That does not make it legal.  Just because you disagree with my standards 
for openness and legal compliance doesn't mean I'm disruptive and crazy.  
Was it crazy when I discovered that we hadn't renewed the WTA corporate 
filing for years?  (We may have lost out corporate status temporarily.)  Was 
it crazy when I discovered that we hadn't filed the required IRS forms for 
nonprofits?  (We may have to pay penalties for tax filing avoidance.)  Was 
it crazy to demand a written contract and actual vote count to hire an 
Executive Director?  Besides, even if I were crazy, that doesn't excuse you 
from the obligation to follow wta bylaws to remove officers instead of 
resorting to dirty tricks and hidden processes to do so. 

>> Finally, I was told I was removed and had my 
>> access to the wtaboard revoked. Later, they denied this ever happened 
>> and made their motion that I had to resign or be removed. 
> 
> Harvey's yahoo account was bouncing and he interpreted it that we had expelled him. When we told him he wasn't 
> expelled he went silent for two weeks, and all his email started bouncing. Then we finally started to take a vote that 
> if Harvey didn't tell us if he had resigned or not, we would expell him. Which is when he claimed we expelled him 
> again. 

That wasn't what the WTA motion said.  It said I had to give a clear 
resignation by June 30 or be expelled.  It did not give me the option to 
remain on the board either way. 

>> They say the "umbrella" status of the WTA is now dead. 
> 
> We're not an umbrella, and never were. We're a membership organization with affiliates. If ExI disaffiliates it would 
> be a relief IMHO. I think the transhumanist movement is ready to move on. 

This is not what the founding papers and FAQ for WTA claims.  As I 
repeatedly told the board, I don't care what they do, as long as it is 
legally voted by the board and documented to the members.  As long as the 
WTA public statements claim it is an umbrella organization, it is.  It is 
wrong for them to say one thing in public, but secretly do another.  If they 
don't want to be an umbrella organization for all transhumanist groups 
anymore, than they need to officially vote to change this, and stop claiming 
it in their public statements. 

>>I hope the WTA situation can be resolved 
> 
> Already has been with Harvey and BJ's resignation. Jose we can work with - chock his craziness up to the political 
> pressure he's under at home and his Latin temprament.

Yes, this is their answer to the problem.  Remove the complainers.  These 
are elected board members.  If the members want our brand of "craziness", 
they should get it.  It is not up to a self-appointed few to override the 
member elections. 

> As for the ExIst machinations, I really couldn't care less.We haven't been pals since about...1994. 

This is the root of the problem.  The WTA leadership really have no desire 
to work with Extropy Institute.  They see them as competitors to be beaten 
rather than transhumanists to be supported.  These are the exact attitudes 
and actions that they want to keep quiet from the membership. 

 --
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> 




From alex at ramonsky.com  Wed Jun  9 14:09:35 2004
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:09:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>
	<04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <40C71A1F.3040700@ramonsky.com>




> starman2100 at cableone.net writes:
>
>>   Jose we can work with - chock his craziness up to the political 
>> pressure he's under at home and his Latin temprament. 
>
This is not a bag of worms I particularly want to enter, but that's 
rather a bit racist, IMHO!
AR






From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  9 14:28:04 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:28:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <40C6B2D2.5010802@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c44e2d$fa21f200$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

>    Please, what means "automated"?
> 
> -- 
>   Alan Eliasen

It's like a cartoon, not Simpsons style but with
computer generated graphics.

spike





From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jun  9 15:03:19 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:03:19 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>
	<04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52040609080354e25677@mail.gmail.com>

Harvey, the WTA motion said: "the WTA Board requests Mr. Harvey
Newstrom to provide a
clear and final statement concerning his intention to resign from the
WTA Board". A clear and final statement concerning your intention to
resign could have been either "Yes, I want to resign" (which you have
issued, all in capitals if I remember well), or "No, I don't want to
resign". Please read the text again.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:27:21 -0400, Harvey Newstrom
<mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> That wasn't what the WTA motion said.  It said I had to give a clear
> resignation by June 30 or be expelled.  It did not give me the option to
> remain on the board either way.


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jun  9 15:19:52 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:19:52 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <40C71A1F.3040700@ramonsky.com>
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>
	<04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>
	<40C71A1F.3040700@ramonsky.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5204060908195f3b17c0@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I am also latin and I don't see this as a racist comment. I
would have been the first to react if I did.
It is true that most of us latins tend to say or do things without
thinking them through first. Perhaps this is why we have lost all
recent wars against you anglos.
Anyway, things and cultures change and I am sure that we latins will
play a more and more important role in the future. By the way, expect
a major "food for thought" note from a group of latin transhumanists
soon.
G.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:09:35 +0100, Alex Ramonsky <alex at ramonsky.com> wrote:

> > starman2100 at cableone.net writes:
> >
> >>   Jose we can work with - chock his craziness up to the political
> >> pressure he's under at home and his Latin temprament.
> >
> This is not a bag of worms I particularly want to enter, but that's
> rather a bit racist, IMHO!
> AR


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jun  9 15:38:10 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:38:10 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609074843.037ec930@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609074843.037ec930@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <470a3c520406090838609fa7a8@mail.gmail.com>

I am with Natasha here, and I am not too worried of having separate
versions of a document called "Transhumanist FAQ". It is normal that a
common source spans out different offsprings (think of Linux
distributions). If different documents have the same name then people
will start referring to the "Transhumanist FAQ on the ExI site",  the
"Transhumanist FAQ on the WTA site", etc. I am sure there are many
documents called e.g. "Linux FAQ".
The Colloquium seems a good idea. Perhaps some problems and
misunderstandings stem from the fact that when we choose to subscribe
to a memeset we tend to try "owning" it and putting a nametag on it.
And as one of the participants in our Spanish transhumanist list said
recently (more on this in a few days), this decreases the viral power
of the memes. The most effective memes are those with no owners and no
name.
G.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:13:29 -0700, Natasha Vita-More
<natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> Frankly, I don't care who has it or uses it.  I just care that it be
> authentic and reliable for the public.  This cannot be realized if
> there is anger and name calling because it tarnishes the very essence of
> the two pieces of work - the FAQ and the Principles.
> 
> That's pretty much it, other than we are working to have a
> Trans-Cooperative "Colloquium" with all transhumanist
> organizations and groups to try to resolve the conflicts and develop a
> better way of working together.


From eliasen at mindspring.com  Wed Jun  9 16:32:38 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 10:32:38 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <000b01c44e2d$fa21f200$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000b01c44e2d$fa21f200$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40C73BA6.1070505@mindspring.com>


Spike wrote:
>>   Please, what means "automated"?
>>
>>-- 
>>  Alan Eliasen
> 
> It's like a cartoon, not Simpsons style but with
> computer generated graphics.

    I was wondering, is this a new industry term, combining "animated" with 
some other word?  I hadn't heard this usage of "automated" before.

    For a while, I had my TiVo recording "Tripping the Rift" but it's 
painfully un-funny.  (And I have a very forgiving threshhold.)  It's all 
sophomoric (minus the sophistry) sex humor that's probably only funny to 
13-year-olds.  I think the humor was generated by a one-tape Turing machine. 
  Automated indeed.

-- 

   Alan Eliasen                 | "Whenever you find you are on the side of
   eliasen at mindspring.com       |  the majority, it is time to pause and
   http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  reflect."  --Mark Twain



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  9 17:49:43 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <000701c44de3$72e40e80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040609174943.40301.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> A few weeks ago there was a discussion about an
> automated sci-fi show
> on TV.  I didn't pay much attention to it at the
> time, since I had never
> heard of the program.  Last week I saw about 2
> minutes of what I think
> was 
> the show.  The automation was stunning.  Someone
> said it is available
> on DVD now.  Please, what is the name of that
> program that was 
> discussed here several weeks ago?

You mean "animated"?  (Even computer generated
animation is still animation.  Although I have heard
about completely computer-generated - animation,
vocals, and script - shows.  The fruits so far have
been lame enough that no one's been showing them off,
though.  There have been efforts with one person
directing the computer through everything, even basing
the vocals off modulations of the author's own voice,
but those are commonly taken to speak more to the
director's talent than to the state of the tools.)


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  9 21:50:28 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605143800.01c34008@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040609215028.60920.qmail@web60004.mail.yahoo.com>

Mars rovers prepare for a dramatic last act

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0609/p01s02-usgn.html

The above article begins, "Well past their expiration
dates, ..."

So okay, the designers needed to GUARANTEE that the
Rovers would "last" long enough to complete their 90
day missions.  To me this means making them robust
enough so that the probability of failure prior to 90
days is effectively zero.  Inevitably this makes the
probability of failure on day 91 very low as well. 
And day 92, and 93, etc.  Well, we're past day 180 
and they're still goin' strong.  Which suggests the
obvious question, "Just how long will they last?"

I suggest a "Rover expiration pool", where we all make
our predictions re the date of the rovers' demise.  

Now I don't know by what logic others will make there
predictions, but here is a thought or two from moi.

Batteries and photovoltaics.  Batteries get old and
fade away.  As they go through the charge/discharge
cycle they come to hold less and less charge each
time.  At some point the amount of charge they will
hold will be insufficient to last overnight, at which
point the game will be over.  Contributing to this
will be the decline in the output of the solar panels
providing the daily recharge.

If I knew the particulars of the battery design, and
the pattern of daily power usage, I might be able to
calculate how long before the batteries fail.  I don't
know this.  But I do have a cordless drill at home
which is till going strong after at least five years
of heavy and abusive use.  So...

I will guess five years from this date for the
problem-free rover, and two years for the rover with
the heater-always-on problem.

That's June 9th, 2009, and June 9th, 2006,
respectively.

And to make it interesting I will place ten bucks US
on each guess.

Best, Jeff Davis

   "My guess is that people don't yet realize how
          "handy" an indefinite lifespan will be." 
                            J Corbally 



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From benboc at lineone.net  Wed Jun  9 22:26:34 2004
From: benboc at lineone.net (Ben Cunningham)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:26:34 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Senators ask Bush to ease restrictions on
	stem cell research
References: <200406091328.i59DSIn10397@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c44e70$e66997c0$94c4e150@ibm300mx>

Re: NEWS: Senators ask Bush to ease restrictions on stem cell research

<"The president does not believe that life should be created for the sole
purpose of destroying it. ">


Yikes!!
So that's what those evil scientists are up to. Creating life for the sole
purpose of destroying it. Who would have known? They must be stopped, at
once!


Does anybody ever 'create life' (which i don't think we can actually do yet,
strictly speaking, but it's just a matter of time) for the *sole purpose* of
destroying it?

I'm sure this would be news to stem cell researchers. AFAIK, they thought
they were trying to save lives!

ben



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  9 22:40:36 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kass vs. Blackburn
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040608233256.01cce160@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040609224036.56209.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com>

     Yes but what on earth qualifies him to be a
"bioethicist"? That he has strong convictions? The
impression he tries to give is that he is a "biology
insider" who has sufficient knowledge of biology to
make informed assessments of the risks of doing
certain types of biological research. This image he
tries to maintain of higher knowledge gives him a more
authoritative air and thus his opinions are to be more
valued than that of rank and file of citizenry. Indeed
more, apparently, than even practicing biologists.
     My point here is that he is not a practicing
biologist and he doesn't have the knowledge base to be
weighing the risks and benefits of cutting edge
biotechnologies. Thus his fears are founded on little
more than gut reactions to things he doesn't
understand. The guillable masses believe him not
because he has some superior moral authority such as
the "mandate of heaven" to tell us what is right and
what is wrong but because he has an MD/PhD after his
name. 
after his name.h. It would be like using a himalayan
sherpa to guide       
--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> A sensible friend who's currently doing an PhD in
> bioethics comments:
> 
> ===========
> 
> This is a bit silly, don't you think? Kass claims to
> be a
> qualified medical doctor and a bioethicist, mainly
> the latter. I don't think
> I've ever seen him hang his hat on any original
> scientific research that he
> may have done in his youth. Why would he need to?
> 
> Conversely, it looks as if Blackburn has done
> nothing but substantive
> science. What publications does she have in fields
> such as legal policy,
> philosophy and bioethics, which is what the
> committee is *doing* after all?
> As it happens, she may have played a good role on
> the committee in softening
> its hard line, but citing her scientific
> publications is an odd way to
> support that view.
> 
> I may not *like* Kass's bioethical writings (I
> don't), but this attack on
> him is really clutching at straws.
> 
> =============
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Damien Broderick 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From starman2100 at cableone.net  Wed Jun  9 23:33:16 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:33:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
Message-ID: <1086823996_46100@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040609/8271cce4/attachment.ksh>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun  9 23:47:53 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:47:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bruce Sterling on internet crime
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040609184656.01bd3040@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3365491


June 8, 2004 The Internet: 'A Dirty Mess' By Roy Mark


WASHINGTON -- The digital revolution has degenerated into an underworld
of organized crime, dirty tactics, black ops and terrorism, said
science fiction writer and cyberpunk pioneer Bruce Sterling Tuesday.

Keynoting a morning session of Gartner's 10th Annual IT Security Summit
here, Sterling said, "This is the birth of a genuine, no kidding,
for-profit, electronic, multi-national criminal world. The global
criminal world of oil, narcotics and guns now has broadband." [etc]



From vanmojo at msn.com  Thu Jun 10 00:09:24 2004
From: vanmojo at msn.com (Michael Howell)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:09:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
Message-ID: <BAY3-DAV73vqzAoa2JB000025e0@hotmail.com>


     I've got a question, I've seen numerous scenarios about amazing possibilities the future holds for expanding human potential: Intelligence Amplification, Uploading, Immortality, etc... But how are we actually going to DO this. It seems to me that there are two main obstacles:

          1) Financial: The above technologies are going to be expensive. Unless you volunteer to be a lab rat, you're going to have to consider how to acquire the money.

          2) Social: If you haven't noticed, society is pretty hostile to transhumanism. We're going to have a problem if the Luddite/Theocratic trend get's worse.

         Any ideas?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040609/757b6abb/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun 10 00:38:02 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:38:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Arab states want ban on therapeutic cloning
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040609193539.01c4b418@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1421&language=1

<...There is also opposition within parts of the medical community. Ali 
Khalifa, for example, professor of medicine at Cairo's Ain Shams 
University, says that fully-fledged use of cloning technology is prohibited 
because of dangers it poses "to the human personality, human dignity and 
honor, and human family and society".

According to Khalifa, there is no justification for cloning human embryos 
and then killing them to extract stem cells for therapeutic purposes, as 
some scientists are already doing. "[This is] murder in the name of 
scientific advancement," he says.>



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Thu Jun 10 00:57:30 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:27:30 +0930
Subject: Machinima (was RE: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program)
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F8D@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

For those of you who haven't heard of it, check out Machinima. This is
where (correct me if I'm wrong here), people are using commercial 3D
games to make movies and soap operas. 

For instance, for a high quality Machinima, check out www.RedVsBlue.com,
which is a soap opera set in the Xbox's Halo. These guys write a script,
send in actors each playing an in game character, and play out the
scenes while recording the action (I guess using a "record snapshot"
feature; I've never played Halo). Then I assume there's some playing
with POV for the director afterwards, a bit of video editing, and voila!
Instant 3D animated show. Download some of the episodes in the archive
and have a look; it's pretty funny stuff.

People are also doing this in Quake, (using Q3Radiant for example).
There's some info here:
http://www.machinima.com/tritin-films/machinima.htm .

Emlyn


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2004 4:05 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
> 
> 
> > Damien Broderick
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
> >
> >
> > At 10:34 PM 6/8/2004 -0700, Spike wrote:
> >
> > >A few weeks ago there was a discussion about an automated sci-fi
show
> > >on TV.  ...Last week I saw about 2 minutes of
> > what I think was the show.  The automation was stunning.
> >
> > TRIPPING THE RIFT?
> >
> http://www.scifi.com/tripping/
> 
> >You just like the sexbot, you dog.
> 
> >Damien Broderick
> 
> 
> Cool they have a sexbot?  {8^D
> 
> Actually no, I don't think that was it.  The part I saw
> was only a short segment and it had a soaring eagle.  The
> animation was clearly partly computer generated, exceedingly
> good quality.  Someone has clearly spent some bucks on this,
> it wasn't a cobby kids show.
> 
> spike
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From vanmojo at msn.com  Thu Jun 10 00:58:36 2004
From: vanmojo at msn.com (Michael Howell)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:58:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Arab states want ban on therapeutic cloning
Message-ID: <BAY3-DAV125YjqyxBao000174f3@hotmail.com>



----- Original Message -----
From: Damien Broderick
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 7:53 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: [extropy-chat] Arab states want ban on therapeutic cloning

http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1421&language=1

<...There is also opposition within parts of the medical community. Ali  
Khalifa, for example, professor of medicine at Cairo's Ain Shams  
University, says that fully-fledged use of cloning technology is prohibited  
because of dangers it poses "to the human personality, human dignity and  
honor, and human family and society".

According to Khalifa, there is no justification for cloning human embryos  
and then killing them to extract stem cells for therapeutic purposes, as  
some scientists are already doing. "[This is] murder in the name of  
scientific advancement," he says.>
     Really, what does he call letting thousands of people suffer and die without that technology. Apparently embryos are people to.


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040609/ab7b4f78/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun 10 02:24:03 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:24:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
In-Reply-To: <1086823996_46100@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <002401c44e91$ffef16e0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> You mean "animated"? (Even computer generated 
> animation is still animation. Although I have heard 
> about completely computer-generated - animation...

Well, sorta.  I meant automated or machine generated
animation.  There was a discussion here a few
weeks ago, and I know its in the archives but I don't
know what the subject line was.  I might need to search
thru or take a ride down to Fry's electronics.  Thats
where I saw a DVD collection of the first season of
that program for sale, and the graphics looked just
like that short piece I saw.    spike 



From mike99 at lascruces.com  Thu Jun 10 02:24:17 2004
From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:24:17 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Comments on the late unpleasantness on the WTA Board
	from a Board Member
Message-ID: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKOEGNDPAA.mike99@lascruces.com>

Comments on the late unpleasantness on the WTA Board from a Board Member

My name is Michael LaTorra. I was elected to the WTA Board of Directors a
couple of years ago and then re-elected. I participated in the ongoing email
discussions held on the WTA Board listserv and I attended the April 2004
Board meeting in Oxford.

Up to now I have not discussed publicly what went on in the online and
face-to-face meetings. But I think it?s time that I do.


Q: What went wrong on the Board of the World Transhumanist Association?
A: Plenty.

Q: Who is responsible?
A: Everyone. Myself included.

Q: Can you describe the problems?
A: Let me start by telling you a paradoxical truth: Diversity is a strength
and diversity is a weakness. Politically, the Board consists of
libertarians, centrists, and democratic socialists. On the Board there are
many people of high intelligence, large talents and large egos. I felt
privileged to work with such a group. But it became obvious fairly quickly
that many Board members were used to getting their way and would fight
mightily to continue getting their way. The art of compromise was in
frighteningly small supply.

Q: That?s awfully general. What about the specific charges that former Board
member Harvey Newstrom has made?
A: I have a lot of respect for Harvey. His expertise as a certified auditor
and security specialist is very valuable. He pointed out that our little
Board of part-time volunteer members was not consistently following Robert?s
Rules of Order. And he was right. But when most of our meetings took place
via email, and without all of us having Harvey?s degree of knowledge in how
to operate corporately, many errors were made. Some of those apparent errors
may have been intentional and devious ploys. Or they could have been honest
human mistakes. It?s not always easy to tell one from the other.
Unfortunately, Harvey did not attend our face-to-face meeting in Oxford
where many discussions were held and significant decisions were taken. If he
had been there, perhaps some of the late unpleasantness could have been
avoided. My memory of what went on at Oxford is, of course, just one man?s
fallible memory. But I would stack it up against the other fallible memories
of those present. In a situation reminiscent of the Kurosawa film
 ?Roshomon,? people who experienced the same events now remember them
differently.

Q: You still haven?t answered those specific charges!
A: OK, let?s consider some of those charges. I can?t promise to remember or
respond to all of them. You can get back to me on those later if you really
want to know what I think.
1) Changes to the Board notes between the first version issued after the
Oxford meeting and the notes include in the WTA News email newsletter.
MY RESPONSE: This is a good place to begin, Kurosawa fans. As I recall the
Oxford meeting (which Harvey did not attend), we agreed that the WTA should
establish the position of Executive Director because our fundraiser, Peter
Houghton, strongly recommended that we do so. He also recommended James for
the job. James, as Secretary, was busily typing away on his laptop at the
time, taking minutes. He stopped typing to discuss this proposal with us.
James agreed that he could work part-time as our unpaid Executive Director,
but would not leave his full-time job until WTA could afford to pay him a
salary comparable to what he is currently earning. James? wife and two
children deserved at least that much support.
   Here?s where it gets really interesting. James is talking, not typing.
When he goes back to typing, he fails to record our decision. This is human
error. Unfortunate, indeed, but completely understandable. But now we get
into the area where Harvey has so justly criticized us. The Board did not
entertain a formal motion, followed by a second and a vote on this matter.
We were operating on the basis of discussion, debate, and then an assessment
of the general will of the Board. In other words, consensus. That was not
the proper way to operate. It left us open to all kinds of charges and
countercharges. It also left us in the land of ?Roshomon? with some Board
members saying that the Board never agreed to making James the unpaid
Executive Director while other members (including myself) remember things
differently.

2) Executive Director salary of $60,000.
MY RESPONSE: This is our goal for the future. The WTA Board never committed
itself to paying out money that we do not have. We drafted a plan to raise
money over the coming years. As part of that plan, we hope to be able to pay
that salary someday, perhaps 3 to 5 years from now. In the meantime, no one
gets paid for serving on the WTA Board. The only money we have given to
James is to reimburse his expenses for attending the Foresight Conference.
James stated his intention to go as a representative of the WTA whether we
paid his airfare and attendance fee or not. We voted to pay those expenses.
We also agreed to Jose Cordeiro?s proposal that the WTA hire his fellow
Venezuelan, Mr. Ochoa, to work part-time as the assistant to our unpaid
Executive Director.

2) Selling our membership list to other organizations.
MY RESPONSE: The Wilson Quarterly published an article about the TV03
conference. Then they asked to buy our membership list so they could try to
sell magazine subscriptions to our members. The Board quickly reached a
consensus that we would not sell our membership list. However, we decided
that we might take paid advertising. If you get an ad, it will come through
us and no other organization will have your address. We will guard your
personal information to ensure your privacy. If you don?t want to get ads
from us, you can opt-out. But we won?t let anyone else spam you based on
information you confided to us.

3) The Board did not vote on significant issues.
MY RESPONSE: Harvey is right about this. But we have endeavored to stop
operating in this loose manner. The Board now holds regular votes on matters
of significance. Although Harvey has left the Board, he has done us a
valuable service in getting us to change our act.

4) The Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference.
MY RESPONSE: We decided to do this as a matter of consensus without a formal
vote. Another past error that we will not commit again. I was and still am
in favor of this conference and I will tell you why. Religion won?t go away.
It is a human tendency that we are coming to understand better and better in
terms of cognitive science and brain structure functions. I am a
materialist, rationalist Buddhist. I will be presenting at this conference
on the topic of transhumanism, religion and spirituality, and I will use the
work of Pascal Boyer (?Religion Explained?), Michael Persinger (?The
Neuropsychology of God Beliefs?) and other scientists to explain how and why
religions and spiritual experience arise from our material brains. The WTA
is not endorsing some kooky, immaterial New Age garbage. We are endeavoring
to engage with intelligent people who come from a religious orientation and
to find areas of common interest in which we can cooperate. We do the same
with atheists. Some members of the Board do not want any entanglement with
religious people whatsoever. Those members were in the minority.

5) James Hughes holds too many positions within WTA: Secretary, Treasurer,
Executive Director and member of the Board.
MY RESPONSE: I blame myself for this as much as I blame anyone else. When
our previous Treasurer stepped down, no one else stepped forward. Finally,
James offered to take on this position. When Peter Houghton recommended that
James become Executive Director, no one else at the meeting put themselves
forward for that position. I could have done so. Or anyone else on the
Board. But the fact is that James has been willing to do the work that other
people have not. Which is worse, allowing one person to do too much or
allowing others not to do enough?

6) James has made enemies.
MY RESPONSE: This is certainly true. No one who is as prominent and
controversial as James could avoid doing that. But perhaps James has
irritated some people unnecessarily. Maybe James has done some things he
should not have done. Maybe, as Jose has asserted, James has not been a good
Buddhist. Maybe James is not God. (No, I must modify that last statement:
Not only is James definitely NOT God, but he does even BELIEVE in God.)

7) The WTA Board has hidden some of its activities
MY RESPONSE: Definitely. And with good reason, at least some of the time. A
motion was made and seconded and voted on that the Board should make all of
its deliberations public. I voted against this. I feel that honest and frank
debate would be hindered if every email we ever exchanged were to be made
public. I certainly felt this way when private emails I sent OFFLIST were
made public without my permission.
   Another vote was taken to make all Board motions and votes public. I
voted against this, too, even though I half agreed with it. I agreed that
all of our votes should be made public. But I saw no reason to publicize a
motion that failed to get the necessary second in order to be voted on.
Believe me, if you saw some of the motions that had been made (including
some that I myself have made), you would agree that these were not worthy of
the second that they deservedly failed to garner.

Q: What about the other issues?
A: Let me know what you want to hear about and I will respond to the best of
my ability.

Q: If the WTA Board is so dysfunctional, why do you continue to serve on it?
A: Have you ever changed a baby?s diaper? I?ve done it for each of my 3
children and believe me, I would have been happy to have someone else do it
for me. No one likes dealing with this shit. But somebody?s got to do it.
And the shit I?m talking about here is the primate politics that we
 ?wannabe? posthumans must deal with while we are still little baby
transhumanists. We are young and immature and we have made many mistakes.
But we all want the same things: High-tech life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness beyond human limits (which is my personal definition of what
transhumanism is all about). I am neither a saint nor a genius. In fact, I
think that many of you reading this are probably smarter, more knowledgeable
and more capable than I am. I would urge you to step up and run for the open
Board seats. We need you. Transhumanism needs you. But if you good folks do
not step forward, then I?ll just keep on changing these diapers for you to
the best of my ability. I don?t really want to do this. But I do want, both
for myself and for all of you, the opportunity to have physical immortality,
enhanced intelligence, beyond-human powers and capabilities, and more. MUCH
more!
   I will work with almost anyone to achieve these goals. I think every
member of the WTA Board has contributed something. I think Harvey
contributed quite a lot. So did Bruce. I look forward to working with them
again in the future. And I look forward to working with Nick, Giulio, Jose,
James and Mike Treder for as long as the voting membership of the WTA wants
me to serve on the Board. But if someone better comes along, please vote for
them over me! I will be a transhumanist whether I am on the Board or not.
Achieving our common goals is all that matters to me. I don?t much care who
achieves the final victory, just so long as we all get to enjoy the fruits
of that victory.


Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mike99 at lascruces.com
mlatorra at nmsu.edu

"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
towards slavery."
-- Jacob Bronowski

Member:
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Technical Communication: www.stc.org




From reason at longevitymeme.org  Thu Jun 10 02:48:39 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:48:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-DAV73vqzAoa2JB000025e0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNIELCEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


--> Michael Howell
>I've got a question, I've seen numerous scenarios about amazing
>possibilities the future holds for expanding human potential:
>Intelligence Amplification, Uploading, Immortality, etc... But
>how are we actually going to DO this. It seems to me that there
>are two main obstacles:
>
>1) Financial: The above technologies are going to be expensive.
>Unless you volunteer to be a lab rat, you're going to have to
>consider how to acquire the money.

I've written briefly on this topic:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000057.php

As medicine improves - and improves faster thanks to the efforts of
researchers, educators, businesspeople, advocates and other pro-research
folks - we will have access to ever more options for living longer, healthy
lives. Those options are unlikely to be free, however, especially in the
early years of availability. The cost of any given medical treatment drops
as marketplace competition sets in and the technology is improved, but most
medical expenses require planning.

That said, what sort of medical expenses should you plan on for a future
that involves real anti-aging medicine? If I knew the answer, I'd go into
business as a fortune teller (and make a killing on the stock market). I
think, however, that there are some useful guesstimates that we can make
based upon possible events down the road, the plausible future of
regenerative medicine, and the way in which medical pricing has behaved in
the past.

...

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Thu Jun 10 03:35:52 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:35:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609074843.037ec930@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <46162346-BA8F-11D8-A7EC-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, at 11:13 am, Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> At 10:49 PM 6/8/04 -0700, starman2100 at cableone.net wrote:
>
> Harvey repeatedly tried to get us to disavow the Transhumanist FAQ 
> because Natasha was annoyed it didn't in her view
> give enough credit to Max and herself. Then she put up her own 
> "Transhumanist FAQ" which barely even mentions the WTA
> in passing. We repeatedly debated and voted down disavowing our 
> Transhumanist FAQ.

I never did this.  The only objections from ExI concerning the FAQ were 
the unflattering things that it said about the purpose of ExI, which 
ExI has long disputed.  I felt, as Liaison for WTA to other 
transhumanist groups, that WTA should stop publishing descriptions of 
our affiliates that those affiliates dispute.  The other complains may 
have been made in the past, but I was not involved or aware of them.

The main dispute of the FAQ names was that WTA objected to the Extropy 
Institute publishing their own transhumanist FAQ, claiming that it 
intruded upon the memespace for WTA.  This was the real heated battle 
that I remember.  The concept that their could only be one 
transhumanist FAQ was promoted by WTA against other groups.

The final official decision by the WTA Board was that the WTA never has 
had a FAQ and has never endorsed any FAQ!  The Transhumannist FAQ 
currently promoted by Nick was originally copied mostly from public 
domain submissions from ExI members to the Extropians list and >H 
Transhumanist list before WTA was formed, and thus WTA had no specific 
interests in or claims to this FAQ.  Nick grabbed these public postings 
and edited them together, but never claimed to have written the FAQ 
bearing his name.  (They would not agree to take the WTA logo off of 
it, or remove the "Published by the World Transhumanist Association" 
from its cover, however!)

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From artillo at comcast.net  Thu Jun 10 03:43:02 2004
From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian Shores)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:43:02 -0400
Subject: Machinima (was RE: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program)
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F8D@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <000a01c44e9d$08ad3ea0$49635544@bjsmain2>

I haven't heard it called "Machinima" before, but I have seen some and
known of many people doing such things since I've been involved in 3D
online worlds back in 1999.

If any of you have ever seen the show "Portal" on G4TV (which is now
called G4TechTV), they used to do corny little bits and skits all
through the show, using various 3D online multiplayer games and
environments. Pretty funny stuff in some cases :D  

And then of course there's the great movie "Sim0ne" about the rise to
stardom of a completely virtual actor ("vactor" I think they called
them)... One of the only Al Pacino movies I actually like!

Anybody ever see the computer-generated show called "Reboot"? 

Ohh about Tripping the Rift: the original 6 minute long pilot was MUCH
more adult oriented, but I guess they had to dull it down for cable TV
LOL -- and Six was originally called Six-of-Nine and looked much more
anderoid-like...

Have fun y'all,

Artillo

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
ORegan
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 8:58 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Machinima (was RE: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program)


For those of you who haven't heard of it, check out Machinima. This is
where (correct me if I'm wrong here), people are using commercial 3D
games to make movies and soap operas. 

For instance, for a high quality Machinima, check out www.RedVsBlue.com,
which is a soap opera set in the Xbox's Halo. These guys write a script,
send in actors each playing an in game character, and play out the
scenes while recording the action (I guess using a "record snapshot"
feature; I've never played Halo). Then I assume there's some playing
with POV for the director afterwards, a bit of video editing, and voila!
Instant 3D animated show. Download some of the episodes in the archive
and have a look; it's pretty funny stuff.

People are also doing this in Quake, (using Q3Radiant for example).
There's some info here:
http://www.machinima.com/tritin-films/machinima.htm .

Emlyn


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2004 4:05 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
> 
> 
> > Damien Broderick
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program
> >
> >
> > At 10:34 PM 6/8/2004 -0700, Spike wrote:
> >
> > >A few weeks ago there was a discussion about an automated sci-fi
show
> > >on TV.  ...Last week I saw about 2 minutes of
> > what I think was the show.  The automation was stunning.
> >
> > TRIPPING THE RIFT?
> >
> http://www.scifi.com/tripping/
> 
> >You just like the sexbot, you dog.
> 
> >Damien Broderick
> 
> 
> Cool they have a sexbot?  {8^D
> 
> Actually no, I don't think that was it.  The part I saw
> was only a short segment and it had a soaring eagle.  The animation 
> was clearly partly computer generated, exceedingly good quality.  
> Someone has clearly spent some bucks on this, it wasn't a cobby kids 
> show.
> 
> spike
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


************************************************************************
***
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. No
warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other
defect.

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



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun 10 04:34:07 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:34:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] drug training in elementary schools
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F8D@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <002701c44ea4$2b2080d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


Today's SF Chron claims $cientology is penetrating the
public elementary schools with their narcanon program: 


http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/SFUSD/


The Chron claims that the narcanon program contains
many factual errors, such as the notion that body fat
absorbs the toxins in drugs and must be sweated out.

I can see how this would be a very harmful meme to
give to elementary school students.  The young dopers 
will be sitting still in cool dark rooms, porking out 
on twinkies, in the mistaken belief that they can 
stay high indefinitely by packing on the flab and
not sweating.

spike








From alex at ramonsky.com  Thu Jun 10 12:28:47 2004
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:28:47 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>	<04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>	<40C71A1F.3040700@ramonsky.com>
	<470a3c5204060908195f3b17c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40C853FF.4080801@ramonsky.com>



Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>Well, I am also latin and I don't see this as a racist comment. I
>would have been the first to react if I did.
>
Interesting. I once got slapped for telling someone she may have a 
'classical Italian temper'. I thought it was because I was being 
racist...maybe it was because she really had  :  )

>It is true that most of us latins tend to say or do things without
>thinking them through first.
>
I thought everybody did that, as a side effect of being young and human? 
 :  )

> By the way, expect
>a major "food for thought" note from a group of latin transhumanists
>soon.
>
Ok
AR






From charlie at antipope.org  Thu Jun 10 12:35:48 2004
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:35:48 +0100
Subject: Machinima (was RE: [extropy-chat] automated sci-fi program)
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F8D@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3F8D@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <B3B89BEA-BADA-11D8-A230-000D9328A216@antipope.org>


On 10 Jun 2004, at 01:57, Emlyn ORegan wrote:

> For those of you who haven't heard of it, check out Machinima. This is
> where (correct me if I'm wrong here), people are using commercial 3D
> games to make movies and soap operas.
>
> For instance, for a high quality Machinima, check out 
> www.RedVsBlue.com,
> which is a soap opera set in the Xbox's Halo. These guys write a 
> script,
> send in actors each playing an in game character, and play out the
> scenes while recording the action (I guess using a "record snapshot"
> feature; I've never played Halo). Then I assume there's some playing
> with POV for the director afterwards, a bit of video editing, and 
> voila!
> Instant 3D animated show. Download some of the episodes in the archive
> and have a look; it's pretty funny stuff.
>
> People are also doing this in Quake, (using Q3Radiant for example).

They're also using much more sophisticated engines from as-yet 
unreleased games. The thing about Machinima, as my friend the machinima 
start-up director likes to explain, is that it gets animation 
production away from the traditional cell-by-cell model (draw a cell, 
draw the next one, rinse, cycle, repeat) to a model more like 
conventional movie-making, with actors and sets and cameras. But there 
are some subtle differences. You can save an event stream for an actor 
in a machinima production then re-run it, attaching a motion controller 
to some other part of the actor's body to iteratively build up a much 
more realistic model than you'd normally expect of a game system 
controlled by joystick. You can make your cameras invisible and fly 
them through the action in ways that would make the Warshawski brothers 
green with envy. You can mess around with time in much more subtle 
manners than simple bullet-time photography allows, speeding it up as 
well as slowing it down and having different visual domains run at 
different speeds. And, most importantly, you can cut the cost of 
production: the best estimates I've heard are that on a budget of 1-2 
million dollars and a crew of a dozen programmers you can produce a 
feature-length machinima movie with about the same quality of rendering 
as Shrek #1.

I'm involved in a machinima production at present. It's a bit of an 
eye-opener ...


-- Charlie



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun 10 14:24:55 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:24:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
In-Reply-To: <40C853FF.4080801@ramonsky.com>
Message-ID: <003a01c44ef6$b3e49580$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


 
> >It is true that most of us latins tend to say or do things without
> >thinking them through first.
> >
> I thought everybody did that, as a side effect of being young 
> and human?   :  )

I don't do that.  I think long and carefully first,
*then* say something silly.  {8^D

spike






From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jun 10 16:07:33 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:07:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>	<04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>	<40C71A1F.3040700@ramonsky.com><470a3c5204060908195f3b17c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<40C853FF.4080801@ramonsky.com>
Message-ID: <0b6d01c44f05$22821e00$47c01b97@administxl09yj>

[Giu1i0] 
It is true that most of us latins 
tend to say or do things without
thinking them through first.

[Alex]
I thought everybody did that, 
as a side effect of being 
young and human? :  )


The impression is that (us) latins 
tend to say or do things (silly or
reasonable, it does not matter)
without believing in these things.
Or is this a wrong impression?
I'm inclined to think that "anglos"
do believe in what they say, or 
in what they are doing (silly or
reasonable, it does not matter).
s.

"Is that the truth?
No, but it's a lot simpler."
- Walt Kelly (in "Pogo")




From starman2100 at cableone.net  Thu Jun 10 17:49:03 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:49:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
Message-ID: <1086889743_18308@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040610/95d812b1/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 10 18:22:47 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406051739470.3914@hercules>
Message-ID: <20040610182247.53507.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >about the robots amok, I don't see that either. While it wasn't at
> the
> >forefront in his novels, his robots did, in fact, send ships all
> over
> >the galaxy committing genocide via terraforming against any number
> of
> >intelligent alien races, which is why in the Foundation series only
> >humans inhabit the galaxy. Daneel was no saint, nor were his
> comrades.
> >Their zeroeth rule only resulted in the rationalization of the
> deaths
> >of trillions of intelligent alien beings, who were judged not
> 'human'
> >only because they didn't have the look of homo sapiens.
> 
> There isn't any like that in any book written by Asimov! Only in the
> End
> of the Eternity, it is suggested that a special timeline was selected
> for
> the humans where they would evolve faster than the aliens, and thus
> colonize worlds before them. There's one world that the robots helped
> destroy (the Earth...), but everything was set up by humans.

On the contrary, in Robots of Dawn, the issue of the murder being
investigated was tied into the debate among the spacers on Aurora
whether to explore space as humans, or simply send out robots to go
find worlds and terraform them for human occupation. Suggest you read
it again.

While it didn't deal with the possible genocide of alien species
explicitly, the terraforming proposal was there and the results are
logically derived.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 10 18:25:13 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040605125623.01c19ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040610182513.51287.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> UK sf writer Adam Roberts mentioned in an interview his puzzlement
> that 
> Titan (diameter 5150 km, 0.4 of Earth) has an atmospheric pressure at
> the 
> surface 60% *greater* than Earth's, while Mars (6794 km, 0.53 Earth)
> has 
> negligible atmosphere.
> 
> Hmm. How so? Is solar wind the culprit, far less intense at 9.5 AU
> than at 
> 1.5? You'd expect Saturn to rip the air away, but maybe it outgasses
> itself 
> and helps keep Titan pumped up?

The atmosphere is methane, the oceans are methane, and the surface of
titan is methane. THe atmosphere is a thermal result of tectonic stress
caused by Saturnian tidal influence.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 10 18:50:20 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] M3 UP UP UP - Something REALLY BAD is going on
	folks
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0406070950020.10472-100000@dot-god.com>
Message-ID: <20040610185020.93910.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

THis is a bogus argument. The M3 is not a measure of the supply of real
Federal Reserve Notes, that is the M1. M3 is M1+M2+other stuff and is
mostly (93%+) NOT FRNs. It is primarily commercial paper: mortgages,
car loans, college loans, municipal and state bonds, etc which back
electronic 'dollars' on the electronic financial system and which, in
and of themselves, are NOT backed by either US Treasury bills, notes,
or US federal gold reserves.

The M1 stands at about $682 billion. The M3 is about $8.6 trillion. M3
is primarily a measure of how much credit the individuals and
businesses in our country (and out of it) have sought to borrow money
from US institutions. Statutes allow the banking system to loan out
something like 20 times the M1 supply.

THis statutory limitation, however, is rooted in 'old economy' thinking
and is the root of our economic troubles the last few years. The M3 is
generally maxed out right now because we are just exiting a recession.
Economic growth needed to expand the tax base (which will allow an
expansion in the M1) and give the profits and income increases needed
to pay off debt, is just starting to occur.

Individuals trying to cry wolf with the money supply for their own
financial reasons always point at the M3 supply and blame the
government, when most of that supply is the result of consumer actions.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From twodeel at jornada.org  Thu Jun 10 19:12:05 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <20040610182247.53507.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406101203100.19581-100000@hplx.net>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> While it didn't deal with the possible genocide of alien species
> explicitly, the terraforming proposal was there and the results are
> logically derived.

Wouldn't Asimov consider terraforming to mean making lifeless worlds
habitable, not killing off alien life so humans could occupy their
planets?



From alex at ramonsky.com  Thu Jun 10 19:41:04 2004
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:41:04 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>	<04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>	<40C71A1F.3040700@ramonsky.com><470a3c5204060908195f3b17c0@mail.gmail.com>	<40C853FF.4080801@ramonsky.com>
	<0b6d01c44f05$22821e00$47c01b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <40C8B950.5020908@ramonsky.com>



scerir wrote:

>
>The impression is that (us) latins 
>tend to say or do things (silly or
>reasonable, it does not matter)
>without believing in these things.
>Or is this a wrong impression?
>I'm inclined to think that "anglos"
>do believe in what they say, or 
>in what they are doing (silly or
>reasonable, it does not matter).
>s.
>
I certainly get this impression of most UK and US folks; europeans in 
general have different attitudes to things, sometimes they are much more 
laid back than us frantic types. :  )
AR





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 10 19:34:10 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406101203100.19581-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20040610193410.38025.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > While it didn't deal with the possible genocide of alien species
> > explicitly, the terraforming proposal was there and the results are
> > logically derived.
> 
> Wouldn't Asimov consider terraforming to mean making lifeless worlds
> habitable, not killing off alien life so humans could occupy their
> planets?

No, terraforming means making planets have earth-like ecospheres. If,
for example, an ecosphere were based on amino acids of opposite
chirality to ours, all life would need to be wiped out in order to make
it habitable by us. If the ecosphere were methane rather than water
based, changing that is a MUCH bigger chore than just wiping out life
of opposite chirality. Robots, after travelling many light years at
sublight speed, would pick whatever planet could be formed for the
least work.

Keep in mind that the spacers generally considered themselves
distinctly different from humans on Earth. They were thus of sufficient
racial bias to easily entertain genocide of alien species.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From twodeel at jornada.org  Thu Jun 10 20:00:50 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <20040610193410.38025.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406101257160.19581-100000@hplx.net>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> <snip>
> Robots, after travelling many light years at sublight speed, would pick
> whatever planet could be formed for the least work.
>
> Keep in mind that the spacers generally considered themselves distinctly
> different from humans on Earth. They were thus of sufficient racial bias
> to easily entertain genocide of alien species.

But is that spelled out, or is that just a deduction?  It doesn't sound
like anything I remember from Asimov.  I mean, unless he was writing some
kind of social commentary, Asimov doesn't seem like the kind of author who
would write about mass genocide.  Wouldn't his characters usually rather
study alien life than wipe it out?



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun 10 20:21:28 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:21:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406101257160.19581-100000@hplx.net>
References: <20040610193410.38025.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406101257160.19581-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040610151515.01c1deb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>
> > Keep in mind that the spacers generally considered themselves distinctly
> > different from humans on Earth. They were thus of sufficient racial bias
> > to easily entertain genocide of alien species.
>
>But is that spelled out, or is that just a deduction?  It doesn't sound
>like anything I remember from Asimov.  I mean, unless he was writing some
>kind of social commentary, Asimov doesn't seem like the kind of author who
>would write about mass genocide.  Wouldn't his characters usually rather
>study alien life than wipe it out?

Indeed. The fact that Asimov's Foundation future was `human-only' is one of 
its most famous features; it was his way of evading editor John Campbell's 
insistence that humans were meaner and leaner and would lick any goldarned 
alien varmints and so on. Asimov was rather proud of this device, and 
mentions it repeatedly in articles and in his autobiographies. (One very 
early robot story has aliens, who abscond.)

For a protracted and rambling discussion, check out

http://www.asimovs.com/discus/messages/5/818.html?1084431341

for example:

<The idea the Galaxy was all-human was very central to the Foundation 
series, to suggest the AIs may have wiped out countless species is just not 
cricket. Especially as the series states the previous life forms of many 
worlds survived in preserves. Did these dudes even bother to read any of 
the books, sheesh. >



From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Thu Jun 10 20:22:05 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:22:05 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <20040610182247.53507.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040610182247.53507.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406102217200.27997@zeus>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>On the contrary, in Robots of Dawn, the issue of the murder being
>investigated was tied into the debate among the spacers on Aurora
>whether to explore space as humans, or simply send out robots to go
>find worlds and terraform them for human occupation. Suggest you read
>it again.
>
I remember the book. Something like that was debated, then decided against
at the end. In a following book, we are told that the very same robots
that will invent the Zeroth Law made sure that it was not followed upon.
So arguing that the zeroth law will then lead to universal genocide it's a
really long stretch.
I'm glad I didn't read the non-Asimov written sequels. They seem really
bad if this is the premise.

Alfio



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 10 20:26:26 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406101257160.19581-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20040610202626.8332.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > <snip>
> > Robots, after travelling many light years at sublight speed, would
> pick
> > whatever planet could be formed for the least work.
> >
> > Keep in mind that the spacers generally considered themselves
> distinctly
> > different from humans on Earth. They were thus of sufficient racial
> bias
> > to easily entertain genocide of alien species.
> 
> But is that spelled out, or is that just a deduction?  It doesn't
> sound
> like anything I remember from Asimov.  I mean, unless he was writing
> some
> kind of social commentary, Asimov doesn't seem like the kind of
> author who
> would write about mass genocide.  Wouldn't his characters usually
> rather
> study alien life than wipe it out?

Depends on which characters you are talking about. Keep in mind that
the robot explorers/terraformers faction was considered 'the enemy'
faction in Asimovs spacers/robots novels (Solaria, Robots of Dawn, etc)
from the point of view of the protagonist, who wanted human
exploration. 

Just because Senator Palpatine wants to dominate the galaxy (in star
wars) does not make George Lucas a fascist.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 10 20:41:49 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DAY AFTER TOMORROW meets Asimov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406102217200.27997@zeus>
Message-ID: <20040610204149.68610.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >
> >On the contrary, in Robots of Dawn, the issue of the murder being
> >investigated was tied into the debate among the spacers on Aurora
> >whether to explore space as humans, or simply send out robots to go
> >find worlds and terraform them for human occupation. Suggest you
> read
> >it again.
> >
> I remember the book. Something like that was debated, then decided
> against at the end. In a following book, we are told that the very
> same robots that will invent the Zeroth Law made sure that it was
> not followed upon.
> So arguing that the zeroth law will then lead to universal genocide
> it's a really long stretch.
> I'm glad I didn't read the non-Asimov written sequels. They seem
> really bad if this is the premise.

Uh, no it wasn't 'decided against'. What was decided was that humans
from Earth would be permitted to colonize new worlds. In Asimov's
second Foundation trilogy, we see the search for Earth, ultimately with
a librarian from the First Foundation meeting Daneel on earth's Moon.
We also see that while a number of worlds near earth were colonized by
humans from earth, Asimov did explore questions in his second
Foundation trilogy about humans-only issues.....

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From vanmojo at msn.com  Thu Jun 10 21:53:47 2004
From: vanmojo at msn.com (Michael Howell)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:53:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
Message-ID: <BAY3-DAV65aZVrDs9aA00018501@hotmail.com>



----- Original Message -----
From: Reason
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:49 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?


--> Michael Howell
>I've got a question, I've seen numerous scenarios about amazing
>possibilities the future holds for expanding human potential:
>Intelligence Amplification, Uploading, Immortality, etc... But
>how are we actually going to DO this. It seems to me that there
>are two main obstacles:
>
>1) Financial: The above technologies are going to be expensive.
>Unless you volunteer to be a lab rat, you're going to have to
>consider how to acquire the money.

I've written briefly on this topic:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000057.php

As medicine improves - and improves faster thanks to the efforts of
researchers, educators, businesspeople, advocates and other pro-research
folks - we will have access to ever more options for living longer, healthy
lives. Those options are unlikely to be free, however, especially in the
early years of availability. The cost of any given medical treatment drops
as marketplace competition sets in and the technology is improved, but most
medical expenses require planning.

That said, what sort of medical expenses should you plan on for a future
that involves real anti-aging medicine? If I knew the answer, I'd go into
business as a fortune teller (and make a killing on the stock market). I
think, however, that there are some useful guesstimates that we can make
based upon possible events down the road, the plausible future of
regenerative medicine, and the way in which medical pricing has behaved in
the past.

..

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme

    Interesting idea, except for one thing as far as I see. A number of Transhumanists have written and talked about the Singularity, I'll assume everyone knows what I'm talking about, it's possibilities and it's dangers. If the Singularity is approaching as fast as some theorists say, are we going to have enough time to wait for the cost to go down?

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040610/ed1b55df/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Jun 10 22:11:52 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:11:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-DAV65aZVrDs9aA00018501@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY3-DAV65aZVrDs9aA00018501@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <40C8DCA8.90702@pobox.com>

Michael Howell wrote:
> 
> Interesting idea, except for one thing as far as I see. A number of
> Transhumanists have written and talked about the Singularity, I'll
> assume everyone knows what I'm talking about, it's possibilities and
> it's dangers. If the Singularity is approaching as fast as some
> theorists say, are we going to have enough time to wait for the cost to
> go down?

If you're interested in pushing on the Singularity, see 
http://singinst.org/ - another and somewhat unusual approach to "How are we 
going to do this?"

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jun 10 22:58:32 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-DAV73vqzAoa2JB000025e0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040610225832.64177.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Michael Howell <vanmojo at msn.com> wrote:
>      I've got a question, I've seen numerous
> scenarios about amazing possibilities the future
> holds for expanding human potential: Intelligence
> Amplification, Uploading, Immortality, etc... But
> how are we actually going to DO this.

Good question, and exploring that is one of the main
reasons I joined this list.

> It seems to me
> that there are two main obstacles:
> 
>           1) Financial: The above technologies are
> going to be expensive. Unless you volunteer to be a
> lab rat, you're going to have to consider how to
> acquire the money.

One way I've found is through developing the
technology itself.  Baby steps, anyway, short enough
to get funding through traditional mechanisms (grants,
business financing, et al) but with enough serious
substance to advance whichever field you're working
in.

There are a few speculative jackpot scenarios I've
heard of, the nearest to practicality involving the
private, cheap access to space that's now being
developed.

>           2) Social: If you haven't noticed, society
> is pretty hostile to transhumanism. We're going to
> have a problem if the Luddite/Theocratic trend get's
> worse.

As I posted recently, a large part of this actually
relates back to an aspect of the financial - only
instead of you (or us) getting the money, it's these
other people not experiencing the benefits.  Once you
can give, for free or little $, a drug that defeats
aging, very few people will refuse to take it on moral
principles.  When only the rich can get it, people may
see that as unfair, and believe (falsely) that their
only path to remedying that unfairness is to deprive
the rich of the drug (or, equivalently, of their
lives).  When no one can get it, people may think
(again, falsely) that the people developing it are
sucking up resources that could be better spent
elsewhere, or think that the research is likely to
produce things that would materially detriment
society.

It seems the solution here largely involved cluing
people in as to how they can participate in, and
benefit from, these technological advances without
having to already be a hyperintelligent billionaire.
This is a process commonly referred to as "education",
although it is not the only thing people mean by that
word.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jun 10 23:04:55 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-DAV65aZVrDs9aA00018501@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040610230455.21635.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Michael Howell <vanmojo at msn.com> wrote:
[re: the cost of medicine]
>     Interesting idea, except for one thing as far as
> I see. A number of Transhumanists have written and
> talked about the Singularity, I'll assume everyone
> knows what I'm talking about, it's possibilities and
> it's dangers. If the Singularity is approaching as
> fast as some theorists say, are we going to have
> enough time to wait for the cost to go down?

If the Singularity actually arrives, then wouldn't
that necessarily include nano-Santa, or something with
the same results?  Paying for medicine would be the
least of one's worries at that point.  Or if you mean
one of the more harmful versions of the Singularity,
anti-aging medicine wouldn't help much.


From vanmojo at msn.com  Thu Jun 10 23:13:04 2004
From: vanmojo at msn.com (Michael Howell)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:13:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
Message-ID: <BAY3-DAV66d8XgIBGjy000186a2@hotmail.com>



----- Original Message -----
From: Adrian Tymes
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:01 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?

--- Michael Howell <vanmojo at msn.com> wrote:
>      I've got a question, I've seen numerous
> scenarios about amazing possibilities the future
> holds for expanding human potential: Intelligence
> Amplification, Uploading, Immortality, etc... But
> how are we actually going to DO this.

Good question, and exploring that is one of the main
reasons I joined this list.

> It seems to me
> that there are two main obstacles:
>  
>           1) Financial: The above technologies are
> going to be expensive. Unless you volunteer to be a
> lab rat, you're going to have to consider how to
> acquire the money.

One way I've found is through developing the
technology itself.  Baby steps, anyway, short enough
to get funding through traditional mechanisms (grants,
business financing, et al) but with enough serious
substance to advance whichever field you're working
in.

There are a few speculative jackpot scenarios I've
heard of, the nearest to practicality involving the
private, cheap access to space that's now being
developed.

   I wasn't talking about the difficulty of developing the technology, merely of buying it.

>           2) Social: If you haven't noticed, society
> is pretty hostile to transhumanism. We're going to
> have a problem if the Luddite/Theocratic trend get's
> worse.

As I posted recently, a large part of this actually
relates back to an aspect of the financial - only
instead of you (or us) getting the money, it's these
other people not experiencing the benefits.  Once you
can give, for free or little $, a drug that defeats
aging, very few people will refuse to take it on moral
principles.  When only the rich can get it, people may
see that as unfair, and believe (falsely) that their
only path to remedying that unfairness is to deprive
the rich of the drug (or, equivalently, of their
lives).  When no one can get it, people may think
(again, falsely) that the people developing it are
sucking up resources that could be better spent
elsewhere, or think that the research is likely to
produce things that would materially detriment
society.
    The problem I see is not that they see it as unfair but that the hole idea of pushing back boundaries on human potential; be they intellectual, physical, or in the realm of human lifespan, is wrong. For centuries, as Max More pointed out, humans have had to accept certain limitations to the point of glorifying them( you shouldn't play God, don't tamper with nature, do you really want to live forever?).   

It seems the solution here largely involved cluing
people in as to how they can participate in, and
benefit from, these technological advances without
having to already be a hyperintelligent billionaire.
This is a process commonly referred to as "education",
although it is not the only thing people mean by that
word.
     Robert Anton Wilson said that the only real way to change human behavior on a large scale is to introduce a new technology. My BEST hope currently is that the Singularity will introduce such a technology, probably in the realm of intelligence amplificaition.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040610/459a8186/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jun 11 00:24:33 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-DAV66d8XgIBGjy000186a2@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040611002433.33794.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Michael Howell <vanmojo at msn.com> wrote:
>    I wasn't talking about the difficulty of
> developing the technology, merely of buying it.

Yep.  But if you develop some part of the tech, you
can get enough money from that to buy the rest.

>     The problem I see is not that they see it as
> unfair but that the hole idea of pushing back
> boundaries on human potential; be they intellectual,
> physical, or in the realm of human lifespan, is
> wrong.

That's what they say.  It makes a comfortable
rationalization.  But watch what happens in most cases
when former opponents of a technology realize they,
personally, stand to benefit a lot from it.  (Which
includes having had the "it's too difficult/too
expensive for me to play with" problem solved.)  For
one good example, look at access to the 'Net under
repressive governments: people might officially tout
the party line, but only those who stand to lose power
(the government itself) actually try to restrict the
tech.

They say power corrupts.  In this case, that's a good
thing.

>      Robert Anton Wilson said that the only real way
> to change human behavior on a large scale is to
> introduce a new technology. My BEST hope currently
> is that the Singularity will introduce such a
> technology, probably in the realm of intelligence
> amplificaition.

Why wait for the Singularity?  Why not take action to
develop and introduce humanity-augmenting technology
today?  (As, for instance, with the SIAI: trying to
ensure that the first AI that comes about won't cause
bad ends for us.)  We're here, and the Singularity
isn't (yet).


From vanmojo at msn.com  Fri Jun 11 01:55:58 2004
From: vanmojo at msn.com (Michael Howell)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:55:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
Message-ID: <BAY3-DAV44KZvEHAoD70001895c@hotmail.com>



----- Original Message -----
From: Adrian Tymes
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 7:27 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?t to buy the rest


That's what they say.  It makes a comfortable
rationalization.  But watch what happens in most cases
when former opponents of a technology realize they,
personally, stand to benefit a lot from it.  (Which
includes having had the "it's too difficult/too
expensive for me to play with" problem solved.)  For
one good example, look at access to the 'Net under
repressive governments: people might officially tout
the party line, but only those who stand to lose power
(the government itself) actually try to restrict the
tech.

      What you say is true, but the problem still remains. Suppose in the near future, we wake up one day to find the first assembler nanites have been created. One week later, Congress bans nanotechnology( not to mention dozens of other governments probably, as you said think of what they would lose). What would we do?  
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040610/93c29e97/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun 11 03:03:40 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:03:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-DAV44KZvEHAoD70001895c@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY3-DAV44KZvEHAoD70001895c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040610220053.01d37758@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Could we do it in non-HTML vanilla text, please, as the list conventions 
require? On Eudora, this thread resembles the tiny illegible tracks of some 
plantigrade insect. No fun at all to try to read.

Damien Broderick



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jun 11 05:54:24 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] How are we going to do this?
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-DAV44KZvEHAoD70001895c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040611055424.46281.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Michael Howell <vanmojo at msn.com> wrote:
>       What you say is true, but the problem still
> remains. Suppose in the near future, we wake up one
> day to find the first assembler nanites have been
> created. One week later, Congress bans
> nanotechnology( not to mention dozens of other
> governments probably, as you said think of what they
> would lose). What would we do?  

Make very very certain the procedures and techniques
for creating assembler nanites fall into hands that
are not banned, and/or use other techniques to obviate
the ban in practice.  (Reenacting a lesson from the
Prohibition slice of history.)

Although, I'm not sure Congress would ban nano
outright.  American politics are deliberately rigged
so that there are a wide variety of interests in
Congress - probably including some who would
personally stand to benefit from assembler nano, and
know it.  The benefit might be enough that they could
bribe away a ban.  (Work within the system?  Hey,
sometimes the system isn't totally messed up... ;) )

BTW, have you seen others' (like Damien's) comments
about not using HTML?  They are specifically directed
to you.  Your email software is sending HTML messages
instead of the standard for email: plain text ASCII.
While HTML email has its uses, many online communities
(including this one) frown on it because many email
clients can not read it correctly.  My mail client,
fortunately, can read HTML, but many other list
participants can only read my replies to you.
Whatever setting you have in your mail client
(apparently MSN Explorer) to send in "HTML" or "with
formatting" or whatever, please turn it off.  If you
do not know how to turn it off, please find the
control; there should be a Help menu available.  (My
apologies for having to put it like this, but you
weren't acting on others' messages to this effect.)


From amara at amara.com  Fri Jun 11 11:48:53 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:48:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
Message-ID: <p05100300bceea20cb94f@[150.146.134.133]>

If that behavior is not a behavior observed, then maybe it is wise
to take notice of that and alter one's preconceived notions. If that
behavior is a behavior observed, then it is not a stereotype, it is
an observation of an individual.

I was thinking about this alot last year when I was publically raked
over the coals by a group for promoting a particular stereotype (not
the latin thing, something else). Not only is such an action not my
way, but I never had heard of the stereotype that I was accused of
promoting. But no amount of explaining helped to convince them of
that.

I suggest that if a group or some people in that group hold buttons
about a stereotype, then it's their trap that limits them, not your
trap.

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end."
--Calvin


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun 11 14:35:32 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:35:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bceea20cb94f@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <006c01c44fc1$59e50440$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Amara Graps
> 
> I was thinking about this alot last year when I was publically raked
> over the coals by a group for promoting a particular stereotype (not
> the latin thing, something else). Not only is such an action not my
> way, but I never had heard of the stereotype that I was accused of
> promoting. But no amount of explaining helped to convince them of
> that.

That sounds like an interesting case for further discussion.

> 
> I suggest that if a group or some people in that group hold buttons
> about a stereotype, then it's their trap that limits them, not your
> trap.
> 
> Amara

Hot buttons are a trap that limits us too.  Ive noticed
a lot of my neighbors seem to have hidden hot buttons
that only the other neighbors can hit: the local
WASPs (Shelly and me) are not expected to understand
them, so they cut us a lot of slack.

spike



From amara at amara.com  Fri Jun 11 16:47:33 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:47:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
Message-ID: <p05100300bcef91c6412b@[150.146.134.133]>

Spike:
>That sounds like an interesting case for further discussion.

Not here, though.

>>  I suggest that if a group or some people in that group hold buttons
>>  about a stereotype, then it's their trap that limits them, not your
>>  trap.

>>Hot buttons are a trap that limits us too.  Ive noticed
>a lot of my neighbors seem to have hidden hot buttons
>that only the other neighbors can hit: the local
>WASPs (Shelly and me) are not expected to understand
>them, so they cut us a lot of slack.

I'm a foreigner, stranger in a strange land, and I make alot of
mistakes, obviously. Sometimes I push the envelope, being sillier
than usual, just because I can (That's what being anonymous gives me
- in some sense I can be whoever and whatever I want.)

I don't know if my neighbors cut me slack, because I typically
wouldn't recognize their gossip if they were doing it. At least
the people around my vicinity who know me ('know' in the sense
that they smile, wave, give me my newspaper without asking and say
buongiorno every day) understand that I'm perfectly harmless, so I
am guessing that they are cutting me alot of slack too.

Amara
-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end."
--Calvin


From amara at amara.com  Fri Jun 11 19:27:04 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:27:04 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cassini Phoebe flyby (today)
Message-ID: <p05100305bcefb6c8faa3@[150.146.134.133]>

Today is the Phoebe flyby of Cassini on its way to Saturn
orbit (insertion into orbit takes place on July 1). The closest
images for Phoebe will likely be ready to the science teams on Sunday,
and hopefully to the press very soon after. Meanwhile, checkout
the latest Phoebe view:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm

Look at that crater on the bottom. Wow!

Amara

-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"The universe: a device contrived for the perpetual astonishment
of astronomers."   -- Arthur C. Clarke


From amara at amara.com  Fri Jun 11 19:59:26 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:59:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
Message-ID: <p05100306bcefbf2af621@[150.146.134.133]>

Mike Lorrey
>The atmosphere is methane, the oceans are methane, and the surface of
>titan is methane. THe atmosphere is a thermal result of tectonic stress
>caused by Saturnian tidal influence.

The solar system isn't that simple, especially where planetary
atmospheres are concerned.

The gas-rich ice from which Titan formed, condensed at low
temperatures in the Saturn nebula. During the accretion of the moon,
heat was generated that could be, and probably was, liberated,
leading to the 'primary' atmosphere. In addition impacting comets
originating outside the Saturn sub-nebula could contribute volatiles
(note that the probability of this is far less likely for Mars)
Additional thermal heat in the rocky part of the moon was/is
generated by by isotopes that are transformed by radioactive decay
into stable isotopes. This process is the same as the melting and
differentiation of the Earth, and how Titan formed a core of dense
rocky material, surrounded by a mantle of ice. Titan's atmosphere is
secondary, outgassed from the volatile elements in the interior.

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Sipping coffee on a sunbaked terrace can be surprisingly productive."
  ---Michael Metcalf [on the origin of NUMERICAL RECIPES IN FORTRAN 90]


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Fri Jun 11 19:19:57 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:19:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
Message-ID: <40CA05DD.7090009@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

<http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-06-11-hybrids-fuel-economy_x.htm>

So many people have complained about disappointing fuel economy of
gas-electric hybrid cars that the federal government is telling
automakers to consider putting more realistic mileage labels on their
cars or do a better job warning buyers that they won't get the
advertised mileage.

Poor fuel economy has been among hybrid owners' top gripes, according to
consultant J.D. Power and Associates, as much as three times as high as
for other small cars and even surpassing that of owners of gas-thirsty
sport-utility vehicles.

"Most of our cars get 10% to 15% less than the EPA (rating) in the real
world," says Toyota spokesman Mike Michels. "A 10% to 15% variance looks
a lot bigger on a 55-mpg (hybrid) car than on (a gas-power) one that
gets 15 or 20."

--------------

Looks like the technology is still too new and needs a bit of work to
optimize it.  Till then a normal small gas engine looks like a more
efficient system.

BillK


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 11 19:38:42 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
In-Reply-To: <40CA05DD.7090009@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20040611193842.53568.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
<http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-06-11-hybrids-fuel-economy_x.htm>
> 
> "Most of our cars get 10% to 15% less than the EPA (rating) in the
> real world," says Toyota spokesman Mike Michels. "A 10% to 15%
> variance looks a lot bigger on a 55-mpg (hybrid) car than on
> (a gas-power) one that gets 15 or 20."
> 
> --------------
> 
> Looks like the technology is still too new and needs a bit of work to
> optimize it.  Till then a normal small gas engine looks like a more
> efficient system.

The problem with hybrid cars isn't the technology, it's the user. If
you are a lead foot (or a heavy braker) with a old style car, your poor
fuel economy is not going to magically improve with a hybrid car if you
don't learn to drive more normally.

EPA rating on my mum's Accord is 35. She gets 30, dad gets 35 in the
same vehicle.

People need to get through their heads that they are as much a
contributor to their car's efficiency as their engine.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From iph1954 at msn.com  Fri Jun 11 20:44:45 2004
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:44:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug
Message-ID: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>

As an original and current WTA Director, and as a member of the Executive 
Advisory Team for the Extropy Institute, I?ve been dismayed and disheartened 
by the recent unpleasantness between people within the two organizations. It 
is unnecessary, unseemly, and counterproductive. In a silly fight like this, 
there are no winners, only losers.

It seems patently obvious to me that we have so much to gain by working 
together and so much to lose by defeating each other ? why can?t we keep our 
eyes on the prize? The tendency of some to be offensive and provocative, and 
the tendency of others to be defensive and destructive, can only lead to 
ruin for us all.

I can easily find fault on both sides, although I prefer to focus on our 
common and complementary strengths instead of dwelling on what divides us. 
I?ve urged James Hughes and Nick Bostrom to exercise leadership by being 
inclusive and conciliatory; I?ve counseled Harvey Newstrom and Bruce Klein 
to show restraint and to seek compromises that satisfy everyone?s primary 
needs. But my efforts to be a calming influence seem to have had little 
effect.

Still, we must try. Let?s remember that none of us are transhumans yet; we 
are only imperfect humans dreaming of and working toward a better future. 
Our leaders, representatives, and fellow members are subject to flaws and 
failings, as are each of us. But there are no monsters running loose, no one 
is trying to become a dictator, and those who issue criticism are not crazy 
or evil. We?re just folks (at least until the Singularity).

I appeal to everyone ? WTA members, Extropians, transhumanists of all 
stripes ? to refocus on our highest priorities. Let?s begin by making 
positive statements about what we must stand for; remember why we came 
together in the first place; stand in a virtual circle, hold cyber hands, 
sing a couple of inspiring songs, have an Internet group hug, and then get 
back to work.

See you in the future!

Mike Treder
Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - 
http://CRNano.org
Director, World Transhumanist Association - http://transhumanism.org
Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website - http://incipientposthuman.com
Executive Advisory Team, Extropy Institute - http://extropy.org
KurzweilAI "Big Thinker" - http://kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people 
always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become 
great." - Mark Twain




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Fri Jun 11 22:03:40 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:03:40 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
Message-ID: <40CA2C3C.9090605@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Fri Jun 11 13:38:42 MDT 2004 Mike Lorrey wrote:
> The problem with hybrid cars isn't the technology, it's the user. If
> you are a lead foot (or a heavy braker) with a old style car, your
> poor fuel economy is not going to magically improve with a hybrid car 
> if you don't learn to drive more normally.


This is very true. In Europe and UK they have annual competitive car
economy runs where the drivers achieve unbelievable mileage figures,
just by using careful driving techniques.

The current Guinness World Record came from last year's Europe run.
He covered a distance of 2,910 miles through 20 European countries in a
standard Lupo 3L TDI at an average consumption of 2.78 litres per 100 km
(101.6 mpg) at an average speed of 50 mph.
The Volkswagen Lupo 3L TDI uses a 1.2-litre TDI PD diesel engine,
combined with extensive use of lightweight components and automatic
operation of its clutch and five speed gearbox.
<http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/press/Lupo_3L_in_Guiness_World_Record>


On the other hand, I think there is more going on with the hybrid car
fuel economy than just saying 'All Hybrid car buyers don't know how to
drive in an economic fashion'.  I would expect hybrid car buyers to be
more knowledgeable than your average car driver. Hybrids are pretty
unusual, after all. You wouldn't buy one unless you had investigated
hybrids in some detail.

If so many hybrid owners have complained that the federal government has
been stirred into action, then that's significant. Considering the sales
numbers of hybrids are still pretty low, it probably means that almost
every hybrid owner is grumbling.

BillK


From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Fri Jun 11 22:14:25 2004
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:14:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
References: <40CA05DD.7090009@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001901c45001$9ddea4e0$0600000a@BRYAN>

USA Today wrote:

> Poor fuel economy has been among hybrid owners' top gripes, according to
> consultant J.D. Power and Associates, as much as three times as high as
> for other small cars and even surpassing that of owners of gas-thirsty
> sport-utility vehicles.

Their gripes have been three times as high?

BM


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 11 22:16:28 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:16:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug
Message-ID: <300590-220046511221628218@M2W066.mail2web.com>

Mike,

Thank you for your kind note.  I hope you have seen ExI's Vice President
Greg Burch's recent post to the extropy-chat list (which should have been
forwarded to John Grigg to the wta-talk list), as I hope this clarifies
ExI's position (or lack thereof) in any of the current going on in WTA. 
Greg states that ExI does not have any relationship with the internal
affairs of WTA.  ExI has refrained to comment on or participate in any of
the current issues within WTA's framework.  It would be highly
inappropriate for ExI, or any organization, to interfere with the internal
business of another organization.

To respond to your concerns and best wishes, ExI is currently addressing
the past, recent and future issues that have and could occur in our
transhumanist community. 

We are in the process of scheduling a "TransCooperative Colloquium" virtual
meeting for more than a dozen transhumanist organizations.  It is currently
scheduled for June 15th.

The organizations that participate in the TransCoopertive Colloquium will
also chair and moderate the meetings. The chair will rotate for each
meeting, making sure that each organization has the opportunity to chair.
The chairing organization will not, at the same meeting, moderate the
meeting; as the moderator will be from a different organization.  For
example, if Foresight Institute chairs the meeting, WTA will moderate (and
visa versa); or if The Singularity chairs the meeting, Betterhumans will
moderate (visa versa). 

No one organization will "run" the colloquium, as it will be a cooperative
and collaborative effort.

The letter inviting organizations will be delivered early next week.

I think the TransCooperative Colloquium will offer a wonderful opportunity
of transhumanist organizations to meet and greet, show and tell, discuss
and debate, calendar events, and clear the air.

Thank you Mike for your email and I send my best to everyone,

Warmly,

Natasha Vita-More
President, Extropy Institute
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture

http://www.extropy.org
http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.natasha.cc




Original Message:
-----------------
From: MIKE TREDER iph1954 at msn.com
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:44:45 -0400
To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug


As an original and current WTA Director, and as a member of the Executive 
Advisory Team for the Extropy Institute, I?ve been dismayed and
disheartened 
by the recent unpleasantness between people within the two organizations.
It 
is unnecessary, unseemly, and counterproductive. In a silly fight like
this, 
there are no winners, only losers.

It seems patently obvious to me that we have so much to gain by working 
together and so much to lose by defeating each other ? why can?t we keep
our 
eyes on the prize? The tendency of some to be offensive and provocative,
and 
the tendency of others to be defensive and destructive, can only lead to 
ruin for us all.

I can easily find fault on both sides, although I prefer to focus on our 
common and complementary strengths instead of dwelling on what divides us. 
I?ve urged James Hughes and Nick Bostrom to exercise leadership by being 
inclusive and conciliatory; I?ve counseled Harvey Newstrom and Bruce Klein 
to show restraint and to seek compromises that satisfy everyone?s primary 
needs. But my efforts to be a calming influence seem to have had little 
effect.

Still, we must try. Let?s remember that none of us are transhumans yet; we 
are only imperfect humans dreaming of and working toward a better future. 
Our leaders, representatives, and fellow members are subject to flaws and 
failings, as are each of us. But there are no monsters running loose, no
one 
is trying to become a dictator, and those who issue criticism are not crazy 
or evil. We?re just folks (at least until the Singularity).

I appeal to everyone ? WTA members, Extropians, transhumanists of all 
stripes ? to refocus on our highest priorities. Let?s begin by making 
positive statements about what we must stand for; remember why we came 
together in the first place; stand in a virtual circle, hold cyber hands, 
sing a couple of inspiring songs, have an Internet group hug, and then get 
back to work.

See you in the future!

Mike Treder
Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - 
http://CRNano.org
Director, World Transhumanist Association - http://transhumanism.org
Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website - http://incipientposthuman.com
Executive Advisory Team, Extropy Institute - http://extropy.org
KurzweilAI "Big Thinker" - http://kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people 
always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can
become 
great." - Mark Twain


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Fri Jun 11 22:21:23 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:21:23 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
In-Reply-To: <40CA2C3C.9090605@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <40CA2C3C.9090605@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406120010240.11104@zeus>

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, BillK wrote:

>On Fri Jun 11 13:38:42 MDT 2004 Mike Lorrey wrote:
>> The problem with hybrid cars isn't the technology, it's the user. If
>> you are a lead foot (or a heavy braker) with a old style car, your
>> poor fuel economy is not going to magically improve with a hybrid car
>> if you don't learn to drive more normally.
>
>
>This is very true. In Europe and UK they have annual competitive car
>economy runs where the drivers achieve unbelievable mileage figures,
>just by using careful driving techniques.

As Mike implies, there's a simple driving technique which is very
effective in getting a good fuel economy, especially in an urban
evironment which is usually the worst for a car: brake as less as
possible.
Every time you brake you'll need to accelerate again, thus wasting fuel.
Now, sometimes you really have to brake (say, to stop at a red light), but
often you could just keep a larger distance from the car in front of you,
so that you will not need to brake if they slow down and accelerate again.
Even that red light is not a sure sign of stopping: brake early, and slow
down to say 15 mph instead of stopping. Most of the time the light will be
green when you arrive there, and you'll save the 0-15mph fuel.

This way, you also break the disruptive "traffic waves" that cause lots
of queues - a wave of cars slowing down, each a bit more than the
preceding one, until a standing wave of stopped cars forms. Break it by
braking early and refusing to stop.

Another one, not applicable to the automatic gearbox of US cars: when
going uphill, push heavily on the pedal but keep the highest possible
gear. This way you keep the engine in the max efficency range, which is at
fairly low rpm and high load.

Alfio


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 11 22:29:20 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:29:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug
Message-ID: <80250-220046511222920919@M2W089.mail2web.com>

From: MIKE TREDER 


>As an original and current WTA Director, and as a member of the Executive 
>Advisory Team for the Extropy Institute, I?ve been dismayed and
>disheartened by the recent unpleasantness between people within the two
>organizations. It is unnecessary, unseemly, and counterproductive. In a
>silly fight like this, there are no winners, only losers.

Mike, I will respond momentarily about your generous post and kind words as
president of ExI.  As a transhumanist and friend, I wanted to quickly
recognize you and let you know that I agree with you in total.  I don't
have my glasses on, so I hope this is legible.

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Fri Jun 11 23:04:31 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:04:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <B266E24C-BBFB-11D8-BE8B-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Friday, June 11, 2004, at 04:44 pm, MIKE TREDER wrote:

> As an original and current WTA Director, and as a member of the 
> Executive Advisory Team for the Extropy Institute, I?ve been dismayed 
> and disheartened by the recent unpleasantness between people within 
> the two organizations. It is unnecessary, unseemly, and 
> counterproductive. In a silly fight like this, there are no winners, 
> only losers.

> I can easily find fault on both sides, although I prefer to focus on 
> our common and complementary strengths instead of dwelling on what 
> divides us. I?ve urged James Hughes and Nick Bostrom to exercise 
> leadership by being inclusive and conciliatory; I?ve counseled Harvey 
> Newstrom and Bruce Klein to show restraint and to seek compromises 
> that satisfy everyone?s primary needs.

What unpleasantness are you talking about?  And what Extropy Institute 
people are you referring to?  Both sides you mention above (James and 
Nick versus Harvey and Bruce) are internal to the WTA Board.  I don't 
see how Extropy Institute is involved in any of the WTA Board's 
internal problems.  Is there some additional controversy with WTA that 
I missed that extends outside the WTA Boardroom?

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jun 12 01:29:53 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:29:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug: TransCooperative Colloquium
In-Reply-To: <300590-220046511221628218@M2W066.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040611182808.02e855e0@mail.earthlink.net>

Forgive me, I mean July 15th.

>We are in the process of scheduling a "TransCooperative Colloquium" virtual
>meeting for more than a dozen transhumanist organizations.  It is currently
>scheduled for June 15th. (error) July 15th.


Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040611/98a4bbde/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 12 02:34:43 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:34:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
In-Reply-To: <40CA2C3C.9090605@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <009101c45025$d233aaf0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

BillK:
 
> This is very true. In Europe and UK they have annual competitive car
> economy runs where the drivers achieve unbelievable mileage figures,
> just by using careful driving techniques. BillK

True.  If one is ever in an emergency sitch where one
has enough fuel to go 20 km and one knows the next 
fuel station is 40 km away, i'll offer an old motorcyclists
trick to get you to the station without walking:
Accelerate to speed steadily, not too hard, put her in 
neutral, switch off the motor and coast to a stop.  
Start the motor and repeat.  It takes a looong time 
to get there that way, but it beats pushing the car.  
One can double the fuel economy on a typical car.

Motorcyclists, you can easily prove this by riding along
at highway speeds, reach down and shut off the fuel.
Note how long you can go on the gas in the carburetors.
Now stop, shut off the fuel, and do the above trick,
see how far you can go.  Betcha it will be over twice
as far.

The effect on a motorcycle is even more than twice
the fuel economy because bikes use a larger percentage
of their gas pushing air out of the way.  Recall that
the energy use increases as the square of the velocity.

Next time you run short and need to limp into the station 
on fumes, recall this post.

spike


  



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Jun 12 03:24:30 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:24:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEMKEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

For discussion, quoting below from myself and George Dvorsky. Read the
articles.

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000143.php
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Transitory_Human/column.aspx?ar
ticleID=2004-06-10-1
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000092.php

Government mandated limits to life span: it's an ugly idea, frequently
explored in Science Fiction. Is it likely to happen in the real world,
however? Worse things have been done to people in the name of law and
government in the past, even in the recent past. If you live in a developed
country, the chances are that government employees already have a great deal
of control over your life span: your opinions on the matter are usually
irrelevant.

...

Of late, I have started to explore the idea that present day opposition to
serious anti-aging research (as led by Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama and
others) will lead to legislation blocking or limiting our access to healthy
life extension technologies.

Politicians - even in comparatively free countries like the US - already
exert a great deal of control over access to medicine, what you can and
can't do with your body, and what medical research is permitted.
Unfortunately, this power is already being abused - as power always is - in
many areas, including stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. It is a
small leap from the present day functions of the FDA to a body that sets
maximum life spans by enforcing restrictions on new anti-aging medical
technologies.

George Dvorsky has written an excellent article on this topic that is
currently posted at Betterhumans. I quote a fair amount in this post, but
there is a good deal more where that came from - so read the whole thing.

...

I consider myself open to ideas and alternative perspectives, but as I
consider the arguments of the bio-Luddites and look deeper into their
meaning, I have come to realize that the death-promoting propaganda campaign
is more than just a battle for hearts and minds. I get the impression
that?should radical life extension technologies become readily
available?these detractors, some of whom have the ear of the President,
would go much further than fighting a war of words in their attempt to
ensure that we never gain mastery over our mortality.

...

At times the bio-Luddites sound parochial and authoritarian, and at their
worst they sound downright ideological and even totalitarian.

Indeed, as Kass has repeatedly stated, "the finitude of human life is a
blessing for every individual, whether he knows it or not." And
frighteningly, when asked by Brian Alexander, the author of Rapture: How
Biotechnology Became the New Religion, if the government has a right to tell
its citizens that they have to die, Fukuyama answered, "Yes, absolutely."

...

And as for the bio-Luddite deathists, they're offering Americans the worst
and most useless kind of ethics. It is an ethics without foundation in
reality and devoid of pragmatic guidance and practical solutions. It simply
doesn't do for the coming realities of 21st century life.

...

I couldn't agree more, and it's a great shame that the field once known as
medical ethics has degenerated into a coven of high profile bioethicists set
on finding the best way to prevent new medicines from saving lives.

Squashing the opposition to serious anti-aging medical research will require
supporters of healthy life extension to start our side of the coming battle
early. We can't afford to wait for entrenched pro-death bioethicists to gain
even greater influence over our overbearing, winner-takes-all governments.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Jun 12 07:17:33 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:17:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEMKEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEMKEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <92D9968C-BC40-11D8-85E5-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

With national health care just around the corner, one has to wonder how 
far the hazy line between "therapy" and "enhancement" will be pushed.  
When the government is the single payer cum single insurer the push 
will be one to not "waste" those tax dollars and give everyone "his or 
her fair share".   Dollars to donuts all forms of "enhancement" will be 
unsupported.   And when the tax bite increases and the number of 
private citizens going to out-of-the-norm specialists decreases the 
price of these "enhancements" will go higher and higher due to lack of 
any economy of scale or research dollars or payments for expensive 
operations using advanced techniques that would push the state of the 
art.   And if we don't get regime change in November the situations is 
as bad or worse.

Sigh.

- samantha



From pgptag at gmail.com  Sat Jun 12 09:12:30 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:12:30 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52040612021277123ed2@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Mike for this call to reason. I agree with what you said, and
wish to make some additional considerations.
We have several transhumanist groups, each with its own specific
flavour. The main differences are political (the socialist vs.
libertarian struggle). One flavour dominates in some groups, the other
dominates in some other gropus.
Time of the broken disk (I must have said this hundred of times): SO WHAT?
As Fabio (Estropico) was among the first to make explicit a couple of
years ago, the Central Transhumanist Meme (CTM) in itself is
compatible with both the socialist and libertarian worldviews. Why
don't we just leave it at that and focus more on the CTM itself?
Face it, the transhumanist movement will always be split in separate
groups, and none of the separate groups is likely to achieve a
critical mass on its own. If we want to achieve a critical mass, we
must find some way to collaborate on the important issues.
Instead of fighting OVER politics in transhumanist fora, we should
fight FOR transhumanism in political fora. If you are a socialist,
argue for transhumanism in your camp. If you are a libertarian, argue
for transhumanism in your camp. And let our transhumanist lists become
meme factories to facilitate this work.
I don't want transhumanism to become one of those all encompassing
ideologies that dictate all sorts of fine grained behaviours to their
subscribers. Ideologies too ambitious become a cage for ideas, let's
leave that to Opus Dei and the Raelians. I don't want transhumanism to
tell me how many sugar cubes I should put in my morning coffee, what
my religious ideas should be, what sexual preferences I should have,
or what party I should vote for.
We share a beautiful and urgent vision (R.Cooper on the wta-talk
list). Let's focus on converting this vision to reality. So I support
Mike's call for a group hug, and will do my best to facilitate it.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:44:45 -0400, MIKE TREDER <iph1954 at msn.com> wrote:
> I appeal to everyone ? WTA members, Extropians, transhumanists of all
> stripes ? to refocus on our highest priorities. Let's begin by making
> positive statements about what we must stand for; remember why we came
> together in the first place; stand in a virtual circle, hold cyber hands,
> sing a couple of inspiring songs, have an Internet group hug, and then get
> back to work.
> 
> See you in the future!
> 
> Mike Treder
> Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sat Jun 12 09:26:44 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:26:44 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
In-Reply-To: <0b6d01c44f05$22821e00$47c01b97@administxl09yj>
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>	<04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>	<40C71A1F.3040700@ramonsky.com><470a3c5204060908195f3b17c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<40C853FF.4080801@ramonsky.com>
	<0b6d01c44f05$22821e00$47c01b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <470a3c5204061202263163a750@mail.gmail.com>

There is some element of truth in what Serafino says if we interpret
"believe in" as "being cempletely certain of".
Latins see more shades of grey in the world and have problems in
collapsing their worldview to black and white. This is a strength,
since it permits making better decision, and a weakness, since the
risk is making a decision too late or not making any decision at all.
In military conflicts, where the important thing is making reasonably
good decisions fast, the anglos have outclassed us since centuries.
But I think in a more and more complex world the cowboy attitude
"shoot, then think" will demonstrate its limitations and will have to
be replaced by a more sophisticated worldview. Computer systems to aid
decision making by computing the likely outcomes of a large number of
options will be an enabling technology for including more shades of
grey in one's worldview.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:07:33 +0200, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> The impression is that (us) latins
> tend to say or do things (silly or
> reasonable, it does not matter)
> without believing in these things.
> Or is this a wrong impression?
> I'm inclined to think that "anglos"
> do believe in what they say, or
> in what they are doing (silly or
> reasonable, it does not matter).
> s.


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jun 12 14:00:15 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:00:15 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug
References: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <009701c45085$96c8c8f0$852c2dcb@homepc>

"MIKE TREDER " wrote:

As an original and current WTA Director, and as a member of the Executive
Advisory Team for the Extropy Institute, I've been dismayed and disheartened
by the recent unpleasantness between people within the two organizations. It
is unnecessary, unseemly, and counterproductive. In a silly fight like this,
there are no winners, only losers.

It seems patently obvious to me that we have so much to gain by working
together and so much to lose by defeating each other - why can't we keep our
eyes on the prize? The tendency of some to be offensive and provocative, and
the tendency of others to be defensive and destructive, can only lead to
ruin for us all.

I can easily find fault on both sides, although I prefer to focus on our
common and complementary strengths instead of dwelling on what divides us.
I've urged James Hughes and Nick Bostrom to exercise leadership by being
inclusive and conciliatory; I've counseled Harvey Newstrom and Bruce Klein
to show restraint and to seek compromises that satisfy everyone's primary
needs. But my efforts to be a calming influence seem to have had little
effect.

Still, we must try. Let's remember that none of us are transhumans yet; we
are only imperfect humans dreaming of and working toward a better future.
Our leaders, representatives, and fellow members are subject to flaws and
failings, as are each of us. But there are no monsters running loose, no one
is trying to become a dictator, and those who issue criticism are not crazy
or evil. We're just folks (at least until the Singularity).

I appeal to everyone - WTA members, Extropians, transhumanists of all
stripes - to refocus on our highest priorities. Let's begin by making
positive statements about what we must stand for; remember why we came
together in the first place; stand in a virtual circle, hold cyber hands,
sing a couple of inspiring songs, have an Internet group hug, and then get
back to work.

------

I suspect your sole question in that post ("why can't we (sic) keep our
eyes on the prize") may have been rhetorical. Yet if your dismay and
disheartenment is genuine perhaps it was not.

If so, I suggest you examine your premises.

First, I suggest you consider in what sense there is a "we".

Perhaps consider the tragedy of the commons. If virtual communities
are easy to join and organisations are easy, relatively to attain positions
of ostensible authority in then they are also easily corrupted and hijacked
by people with egos (I don't say that pejoratively - we (I mean living
people) all have egos) and low personal investment.  Perhaps when the
cost of of entry are so low it is easy for the brands to be debased.
Perhaps you have some illusions about the elite nature of the folk that
frequent the same places you do. Perhaps.

Second, I suggest you consider in what sense there is "a prize". And how
even if "we" could be operationalised, "we" in your terms would go after
that prize.   Can you get consensus in your view from the folks you see
as the "we" on even the "highest priorities"?R (R = Rhetorical). Note
priorities are plural not singular - like "the prize".

I don't have time to engage in this discussion too deeply, in fact, I'm
probably done with it now. You can take or leave my comments as
you see fit.

Group Hug? - Isn't that what litters of baby rabbits would do in the
face of fierce adult rabbit-politics and a universe that wasn't explicitly
configured for their comfort?R

If so, perhaps its the ones that don't need the group hug as much that
are the fiercer rabbits, and don't really give a damn for rabbit politics
they just grow to see it as funny, and perhaps even to wonder if maybe
they are slightly foxy, like the politicing older-rabbits seem to be with
each other, because after all the stakes are very high when one is a
rabbit.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch










From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sat Jun 12 15:58:03 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:58:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Neapolitan
In-Reply-To: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B40439EB55@hickory.cc.trincoll.edu>
Message-ID: <497E1396-BC89-11D8-A336-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Saturday, June 12, 2004, at 07:40 am, Hughes, James J. wrote:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExI-Community/polls
> 51% of the ExI respondents were "libertarian" or "anarchist,"

Only if you combine libertarian, anarchist and self-governance 
categories all together into this one number.  The actual numbers are 
distributed thusly:

	21% US-style left-wing
	37% Libertarian
	07% Upwinger / Future
	06% US-Style right-wing
	16% Anarchist or self-governance
	13% other or none

> In our December 2003 poll of our membership:
> http://transhumanism.org/resources/WTASurvey03Report.pdf
> 35% are left-wing or liberal

Only if you combine the 4% US-style liberals with the 27% libertarian 
socialists, democrat socialists, social democrats, and radicals.

	13% Libertarian Socialist
	04% Democrat Socialist
	04% Social democrat
	06% Radical

	04% US-style liberal

I had no idea that "Libertarian Socialist" and "Democrat Socialist" and 
"Radical" WTA members outnumbered the US-style liberal members so much!

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Sat Jun 12 16:24:10 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:24:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
In-Reply-To: <497E1396-BC89-11D8-A336-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <497E1396-BC89-11D8-A336-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <40CB2E2A.20505@cfl.rr.com>

I just joined the list last night.  I've followed the extropian movement 
for some years in a disinterested kind of way but recently became much 
more active in seeking information and contacts with people in the 
"transhumanist" groups.  I am also interested in any other groups/lists 
that people might suggest as being good and active sources of 
information and/or contacts.  I live in Central Florida and am also 
interested in any TH or extro groups local to that area.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 12 16:25:47 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:25:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics
	andlegislation
In-Reply-To: <92D9968C-BC40-11D8-85E5-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <00b601c45099$eb528a50$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> Samantha Atkins
> 
> With national health care just around the corner...

Dont worry Samantha, it isn't.  It looked like it was
around the corner ten years ago, but no one is pushing
for that now.  Either the singularity or our natural
demise is much more eminent.

> When the government is the single payer...

Don't worry, that won't happen either.  If you are
referring to the US government, it cannot afford
to take on everyone's medical bills.
 
> Sigh.
> 
> - samantha

There are some advantages to having the Fed up to
its elected eyeballs in debt: it is less able to
take on and screw up new areas of our lives.  

spike






From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Sat Jun 12 16:27:19 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:27:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug
References: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
	<009701c45085$96c8c8f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV41yFjEmHkYv0002ffbb@hotmail.com>

From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 7:00 AM


> I suspect your sole question in that post ("why can't we (sic) keep our
> eyes on the prize") may have been rhetorical. Yet if your dismay and
> disheartenment is genuine perhaps it was not.
>
> If so, I suggest you examine your premises.
>
> First, I suggest you consider in what sense there is a "we".
>
> Perhaps consider the tragedy of the commons. If virtual communities
> are easy to join and organisations are easy, relatively to attain
positions
> of ostensible authority in then they are also easily corrupted and
hijacked
> by people with egos (I don't say that pejoratively - we (I mean living
> people) all have egos) and low personal investment.  Perhaps when the
> cost of of entry are so low it is easy for the brands to be debased.
> Perhaps you have some illusions about the elite nature of the folk that
> frequent the same places you do. Perhaps.
>
> Second, I suggest you consider in what sense there is "a prize". And how
> even if "we" could be operationalised, "we" in your terms would go after
> that prize.   Can you get consensus in your view from the folks you see
> as the "we" on even the "highest priorities"?R (R = Rhetorical). Note
> priorities are plural not singular - like "the prize".
>
> I don't have time to engage in this discussion too deeply, in fact, I'm
> probably done with it now. You can take or leave my comments as
> you see fit.
>
> Group Hug? - Isn't that what litters of baby rabbits would do in the
> face of fierce adult rabbit-politics and a universe that wasn't explicitly
> configured for their comfort?R
>
> If so, perhaps its the ones that don't need the group hug as much that
> are the fiercer rabbits, and don't really give a damn for rabbit politics
> they just grow to see it as funny, and perhaps even to wonder if maybe
> they are slightly foxy, like the politicing older-rabbits seem to be with
> each other, because after all the stakes are very high when one is a
> rabbit.

This is not my fight at all.  Although I am an intermittent lurker/poster to
this list, I am not and have never been a member of ExI or WTA or any other
TH organization.  I am however fascinated by the accelerating advance of
technology and the probability that in the fairly near future humans will be
able, with the application of copious amounts of advanced technology, to
ameliorate the last few inconveniences we have yet to conquer (specifically
including sickness, aging and death).  That's why I poke my nose in here
from time to time.

OK, it's not my fight, so why am I butting in?  You all know as well as I do
that, with the possible exception of Wired magazine, the mainstream press
(and therefore the mainstream of public opinion) views TH movements,
organizations and enthusiasts unfavorably (you know, cults, kooks, spoiled
"rich" kids with nothing better to do, etc.)

So my two cents: The airing of your "dirty laundry" on such publicly
accessible lists as ExI chat; the public finger pointing, accusations and
infighting of TH leaders and such as has taken place on this list over the
past week or so, only lends fuel to the fire and amunition to those who see
TH organizations as sophomoric clubs of clueless (fill in your own
derogatory epithet).

My recommendation: There are enough adversaries to the shared goals of TH
organizations that these organizations have good reason for unity and
cooperation (if not social identity), rather than among-group competition
and public venting of within-group conflicts.  It all seems very much like
Apache and Commanche warring against each other while Europe is landing.

Zero


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sat Jun 12 17:25:07 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:25:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] When did WTA turn socialist???
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040612021277123ed2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <72E664B3-BC95-11D8-A336-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Saturday, June 12, 2004, at 05:12 am, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:44:45 -0400, MIKE TREDER <iph1954 at msn.com> 
> wrote:
>> I appeal to everyone ? WTA members, Extropians, transhumanists of all
>> stripes ? to refocus on our highest priorities. Let's begin by making


> We have several transhumanist groups, each with its own specific
> flavour. The main differences are political (the socialist vs.
> libertarian struggle).

The main differences between transhumanist groups is whether they are 
socialist vs. libertarian?  That is the primary struggle between groups 
like ExI and WTA?  When did this occur???  What the hell are you 
talking about???

> As Fabio (Estropico) was among the first to make explicit a couple of
> years ago, the Central Transhumanist Meme (CTM) in itself is
> compatible with both the socialist and libertarian worldviews.

Do the WTA founders really see all of transhumanism boiling down to 
socialists vs. llbertarians?  That is bizarre!  Although this explains 
James' Politics of Transhumanism which tries to position ExI into the 
libertarian camp and WTA into the socialist camp.  It also explains 
Nick's original WTA FAQ which stated that WTA was formed by people who 
wanted a global transhumanist group with different political leanings.  
(It even explains the political survey of the members, showing lots of 
socialists.  It also explains James' recent donation in the name of WTA 
dedicated to a famous socialist.)

I guess I was just oblivious and blind to the obvious clues!  Was this 
the original purpose of the WTA all along?  To promote a world 
socialist order of transhumanism?  I can see hints of this looking back 
at the original founding documents, but it certainly wasn't clear to me 
at the time!  I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

> Face it, the transhumanist movement will always be split in separate
> groups, and none of the separate groups is likely to achieve a
> critical mass on its own. If we want to achieve a critical mass, we
> must find some way to collaborate on the important issues.
> Instead of fighting OVER politics in transhumanist fora, we should
> fight FOR transhumanism in political fora. If you are a socialist,
> argue for transhumanism in your camp. If you are a libertarian, argue
> for transhumanism in your camp. And let our transhumanist lists become
> meme factories to facilitate this work.

You really think that promoting libertarianism and/or socialism is the 
key to success for the transhumanist movement?

> So I support
> Mike's call for a group hug, and will do my best to facilitate it.

I'm not sure Mike would appreciate his efforts at peace being converted 
into a political agenda.  In fact, I am not sure that most WTA members 
would appreciate WTA being used to promote a socialist world order.  
(Although a large percentage of WTA members are socialists of some sort 
or another, now that I look at the recent member survey again.)

I guess I never made the connection.  I had no idea that we were 
supposed to be socialists versus libertarians.  Has this always been 
the case as far as the WTA leadership is concerned?  Or is this a new 
change for the organization?  No wonder I didn't fit in with all the 
secretive machinations of the rulers over the members.

Sheesh!  Surely transhumanism should be something different than this.  
I don't think socialism versus libertarianism has every been a core 
part of transhumanism for decades.  This seems to be a socialist 
take-over of transhumanism from the inside, using secret agendas and 
revisionist history.  I don't think most transhumanists want to be 
world socialists.  I think these political aspirations are being tacked 
onto the movement later by people with some pretty aggressive political 
agendas.  The original transhumanists that were active decades before 
WTA would not recognize any of the above political ranting as being 
related to transhumanism in any way.  And frankly, neither do I.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jun 12 19:43:11 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:43:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV41yFjEmHkYv0002ffbb@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
	<009701c45085$96c8c8f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>

At 09:27 AM 6/12/04 -0700, Zero  wrote:

>So my two cents: The airing of your "dirty laundry" on such publicly
>accessible lists as ExI chat; the public finger pointing, accusations and
>infighting of TH leaders and such as has taken place on this list over the
>past week or so, only lends fuel to the fire and amunition to those who see
>TH organizations as sophomoric clubs of clueless (fill in your own
>derogatory epithet).

I am responding to Zero's wise word and making a comment to anyone 
involving ExI in WTA's internal problems.

Please make sure that you are aware that this fight is between WTA and its 
board and "its leaders" not leaders of transhumanism.  It should remain on 
the WTA list unless and until it involves ExI, which it did when WTA's 
Executive Director (through a messenger) a rather nasty message placing 
blame on ExI which, in fact, which was totally mistaken and should be 
addressed professionally.  I do not want to have to make a public, press 
statement about this, but if I am pushed far enough I will have to speak 
with ExI' s Board about making it publically known that ExI is not and 
never has been involved with the internal structure and current problems of 
WTA.

Since that post and Greg Burch's response to WTA's Executive Director's 
message, which was posted earlier this week and which I think everyone 
should read in deference to Greg and ExI, ExI has not heard one single word 
of apology from WTA and its leaders.

This type of attitude - blaming others for one's own problems - reflects 
very poorly on any organization, not to mention alienating other 
transhumanist organizations who are watching and listening to WTA's 
accusations.

With this said, I will state openly that ExI will continue to work to have 
a cooperative relationship with WTA and hope that Mike's message to "their 
leaders" is listened to.

Regardless, I continue to support Mike's "group hug."

Natasha Vita-More
President, Extropy Institute


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040612/755d6a1a/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun 12 18:05:48 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:05:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hungover
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
	<009701c45085$96c8c8f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040612130009.01c6c578@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 12:43 PM 6/12/2004 -0700, Natasha wrote:

>I do not want to have to make a public, press statement about this, but if 
>I am pushed far enough I will have to speak with ExI' s Board about making 
>it publically known that ExI is not and never has been involved with the 
>internal structure and current problems of WTA.

I'm not an extropian, so I don't have a say, but as an interested observer 
I'd recommend leaving this alone. Let it go out, probably not even any need 
to piss on it. Do we really benefit from having the People's Front of Judea 
brawling in public with the Judean People's Front? (When there were a few 
racists mouthing off on the exi list I felt differently; that was toxic and 
had to be dealt with.)

Damien Broderick




From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Jun 12 19:03:09 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:03:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040612021277123ed2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNIENAEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


--> Giu1i0 Pri5c0

> Time of the broken disk (I must have said this hundred of times): SO WHAT?
> As Fabio (Estropico) was among the first to make explicit a couple of
> years ago, the Central Transhumanist Meme (CTM) in itself is
> compatible with both the socialist and libertarian worldviews. Why
> don't we just leave it at that and focus more on the CTM itself?

The libertarian viewpoint is that transhumanist progress thrives on freedom.
Freedom tends to be minimalized in socialist states - everything from
personal choice through to research choice through to commercialization is
harder or subject to whims of groups with a strong vested interest in
preserving the status quo.

The pragmatic libertarian viewpoint would be that we should co-opt/work with
the system (if it speeds things up, which is not usually the case) in order
to attain the goals of a) new frontiers, and b) radical life extension.
These allow time and space for libertarian societies to form as a practical
matter of course, but we're a bit stuck (and all too soon dead) without
them.

--> Harvey Newstrom

> > We have several transhumanist groups, each with its own specific
> > flavour. The main differences are political (the socialist vs.
> > libertarian struggle).
>
> The main differences between transhumanist groups is whether they are
> socialist vs. libertarian?  That is the primary struggle between groups
> like ExI and WTA?  When did this occur???  What the hell are you
> talking about???

This is a common perception, and it's one that I subscribe to. The current
leadership of the WTA is pro-socialist and virulently anti-libertarian. That
is the organizational bias despite the public stance of non-alignment.

My reading of the Extropy Principles (
http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm ) is that they require a libertarian
system of governance: right there under "open society" is a long description
of the desirable traits of a minarchist or otherwise distributed governance
system. So from this, and many other statements and actions, I conclude that
the current leadership of ExI is biased towards libertarianism despite the
public stance of non-alignment.

This is all fine and well. There's nothing wrong with people being people
and being aligned. Of course, I'd prefer a world in which it was ok and
accepted to post some sort of standard organizational/leadership bias
statement on your website - it would save a whole bunch of time.

Looking at the claim that basic conflict between transhumanist groups
relates to socialist versus libertarian modes of thought, I'd probably
agree. Transhumanism has strong roots in personal freedom - the freedom to
change as you will, to be different, to find your own unique way through the
future, enabled by technology as a generator of ever greater numbers of
choices. Socialism in practice is a form of governance very hostile to this
vision of the future - if you're not with the (central) plan, you're out,
where "out" is usually something fairly unpleasant.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme




From pgptag at gmail.com  Sat Jun 12 19:04:56 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:04:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] When did WTA turn socialist???
In-Reply-To: <72E664B3-BC95-11D8-A336-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <72E664B3-BC95-11D8-A336-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52040612120446e09195@mail.gmail.com>

Harvey, next time please count up to ten and take the time to read a
message before replying to it in such a misguided and aggressive
fashion.
I am referring to the main topic where there is heated discussion and
disagreement on all list, including those run by WTA and ExI. I never
said, or implied, that the WTA is a socialist organization.
Or if I did say or imply it, could you please try to calm down and
tell me just where I said or imply it?


From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Sat Jun 12 19:19:52 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:19:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Group Hug
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040612201823.023aee40@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>


>Message: 16
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:12:30 +0200
>From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Group Hug
>To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List
>         <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>
>Cc: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>Message-ID: <470a3c52040612021277123ed2 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

*Considering myself hugged and hugging back*

The Transhumanist world is as yet too small for such painful schisms.



James...



From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Sat Jun 12 19:22:50 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:22:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040612202140.02450008@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>


>Message: 20
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:24:10 -0400
>From: Gregory Propf <gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <40CB2E2A.20505 at cfl.rr.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>I just joined the list last night.  I've followed the extropian movement
>for some years in a disinterested kind of way but recently became much
>more active in seeking information and contacts with people in the
>"transhumanist" groups.  I am also interested in any other groups/lists
>that people might suggest as being good and active sources of
>information and/or contacts.  I live in Central Florida and am also
>interested in any TH or extro groups local to that area.

Welcome, Mr. Propf!




James...



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sat Jun 12 19:50:19 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:50:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Suggestion to +H groups: Diversify.
In-Reply-To: <200406121800.i5CI0Hn07789@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406121800.i5CI0Hn07789@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40CB5E7B.9090102@CRNano.org>

Two years ago, Mike Treder and I realized that there was a need for an 
organization like CRN.  So we created one.

We're often asked whether we're competing with Foresight, or were 
frustrated with Foresight, etc.  No!  It has nothing to do with 
Foresight.  The tasks to be accomplished are simply far too big for any 
single organization.  (Or any two; if someone else wants to start a 
nano-preparation organization, PLEASE do!)

We are very different from Foresight.  We don't have members.  We don't 
hold conferences.  We focus on somewhat different things.  We have 
different styles of publishing.  Is this because we think we're better? 
  No!  It's because diversity is good, and styles are different, and we 
do what we're best at.

We don't even work with Foresight very much.  We work with people who 
are also involved in Foresight.  (Drexler's on our Board of Advisors.) 
But the two organizations don't try to do joint projects, or coordinate 
activities.  This is not due to any failure.  It's just that there's so 
much to do that we can be more efficient by picking our separate 
favorite things to work on than by spending time dividing up the space.

And so we never fight.  We don't owe each other anything.  We give each 
other free publicity when we feel like it.  We don't compete for members 
or funding.  If we did something that Foresight actually disliked or 
disapproved of, I assume they'd tell us so; and vice versa; and we might 
agree or not; and either way would be fine.

There's a paradox in economics: if you have one beach and two ice cream 
vendors, with each person walking to the nearest one, the sytem is most 
efficient if the vendors stand at the 1/4 and 3/4 points.  But they'll 
tend to edge closer to each other, jockying for market share, until they 
stand side by side in the middle and everyone has to walk farther to get 
ice cream.

When we started CRN, we did not have a strategy of being different from 
Foresight.  We simply invented ourselves from scratch, and the 
possibilities were so wide that we ended up quite different.  But I 
think it's worked out very well.

So when I see organizations in a space as unexplored as transhumanism 
jockying for control of a single FAQ or a joint policy or a political 
stance, I have to wonder whether they're falling into the pattern of the 
ice cream vendors.  Perhaps less collaboration and more diversity would 
help break some of the logjams.  In organization-space, territory is not 
a zero-sum game.  And sometimes it's best for organizations basically to 
ignore each other--even while cooperation can happen at the level of 
people or projects within those organizations.

I realize that this appears to be the opposite of Mike Treder's "group 
hug" advice.  I don't see any irony or contradiction in that.  It may be 
an example of the diversity/freedom I'm advocating: Mike has close ties 
with the WTA, and I have none at all, and neither of us consulted the 
other before writing our advice.  Just use what works.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From scerir at libero.it  Sat Jun 12 21:06:57 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:06:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Latin temperaments
References: <1086760141_325088@mail.cableone.net>	<04Jun9.092723-0400_edt.439945-4729+56279@ams.ftl.affinity.com>	<40C71A1F.3040700@ramonsky.com><470a3c5204060908195f3b17c0@mail.gmail.com><40C853FF.4080801@ramonsky.com><0b6d01c44f05$22821e00$47c01b97@administxl09yj>
	<470a3c5204061202263163a750@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c450c1$32e20540$87bf1b97@administxl09yj>

Giu1i0:
[...] if we interpret "believe in"
as "being cempletely certain of".
Latins see more shades of grey
in the world and have problems in
collapsing their worldview
to black and white.


Giuseppe Prezzolini (1882-1982!)
http://www.lineadinavigazione.it/prezzolini.htm
co-editor of the influential, but short-lived
Florentine magazine "Leonardo", 1903-07, attempted
to modernize Italian culture, introduced significant
French, British, and American ideas, and attacked
traditionalist writers and positivist philosophers.
"Leonardo", at that time, was a sort of "Edge.org",
and Prezzolini and Papini (the other editor) published
papers by mathematicians, artists, philosophers,
writers, etc. (Prezzolini is also known in US
because he was teaching Italian literature,
at the Columbia University, in the '30s-'50s).

Prezzolini, in his late '90s, pointed out to me,
(we were talking in Lugano, a long afternoon), an old
paper http://www.erasmo.it/liberale/testi/0361.htm
he wrote in the '20s, against the starting fascism
(note he was the ma?tre a pens?e and also a friend
of Benito Mussolini).

In that paper he was speaking of a possible
"Congregazione degli 'Apoti'", that is to say
an "Assembly of 'Apoti'". 'Apoti', from the Greek,
actually means "those who do not drink it" easily!

Just a minor "food for thought" memo for a starting
group of latin transhumanists!

s.











From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 12 21:56:10 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEMKEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <20040612215610.28673.qmail@web50707.mail.yahoo.com>

I couldn't agree more and that is why I'm going to
start writing to some of the congress people to try to
abolish the council on bioethics as you have alluded
to in previous conversation.  I don't relish living my
life in a Logan's Run fascist scenario and I don't
think any of us her do as well.  Perhaps getting
people on our side by lobbying more is one solution
certainly bringing it up in everyday conversation
couldn't hurt.
--- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> For discussion, quoting below from myself and George
> Dvorsky. Read the
> articles.
> 
> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000143.php
>
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Transitory_Human/column.aspx?ar
> ticleID=2004-06-10-1
> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000092.php
> 
> Government mandated limits to life span: it's an
> ugly idea, frequently
> explored in Science Fiction. Is it likely to happen
> in the real world,
> however? Worse things have been done to people in
> the name of law and
> government in the past, even in the recent past. If
> you live in a developed
> country, the chances are that government employees
> already have a great deal
> of control over your life span: your opinions on the
> matter are usually
> irrelevant.
> 
> ...
> 
> Of late, I have started to explore the idea that
> present day opposition to
> serious anti-aging research (as led by Leon Kass,
> Francis Fukuyama and
> others) will lead to legislation blocking or
> limiting our access to healthy
> life extension technologies.
> 
> Politicians - even in comparatively free countries
> like the US - already
> exert a great deal of control over access to
> medicine, what you can and
> can't do with your body, and what medical research
> is permitted.
> Unfortunately, this power is already being abused -
> as power always is - in
> many areas, including stem cell research and
> therapeutic cloning. It is a
> small leap from the present day functions of the FDA
> to a body that sets
> maximum life spans by enforcing restrictions on new
> anti-aging medical
> technologies.
> 
> George Dvorsky has written an excellent article on
> this topic that is
> currently posted at Betterhumans. I quote a fair
> amount in this post, but
> there is a good deal more where that came from - so
> read the whole thing.
> 
> ...
> 
> I consider myself open to ideas and alternative
> perspectives, but as I
> consider the arguments of the bio-Luddites and look
> deeper into their
> meaning, I have come to realize that the
> death-promoting propaganda campaign
> is more than just a battle for hearts and minds. I
> get the impression
> that?should radical life extension technologies
> become readily
> available?these detractors, some of whom have the
> ear of the President,
> would go much further than fighting a war of words
> in their attempt to
> ensure that we never gain mastery over our
> mortality.
> 
> ...
> 
> At times the bio-Luddites sound parochial and
> authoritarian, and at their
> worst they sound downright ideological and even
> totalitarian.
> 
> Indeed, as Kass has repeatedly stated, "the finitude
> of human life is a
> blessing for every individual, whether he knows it
> or not." And
> frighteningly, when asked by Brian Alexander, the
> author of Rapture: How
> Biotechnology Became the New Religion, if the
> government has a right to tell
> its citizens that they have to die, Fukuyama
> answered, "Yes, absolutely."
> 
> ...
> 
> And as for the bio-Luddite deathists, they're
> offering Americans the worst
> and most useless kind of ethics. It is an ethics
> without foundation in
> reality and devoid of pragmatic guidance and
> practical solutions. It simply
> doesn't do for the coming realities of 21st century
> life.
> 
> ...
> 
> I couldn't agree more, and it's a great shame that
> the field once known as
> medical ethics has degenerated into a coven of high
> profile bioethicists set
> on finding the best way to prevent new medicines
> from saving lives.
> 
> Squashing the opposition to serious anti-aging
> medical research will require
> supporters of healthy life extension to start our
> side of the coming battle
> early. We can't afford to wait for entrenched
> pro-death bioethicists to gain
> even greater influence over our overbearing,
> winner-takes-all governments.
> 
> Reason
> Founder, Longevity Meme
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Devon Fowler

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 13 01:43:41 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:43:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hungover
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040612130009.01c6c578@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>
	<BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
	<009701c45085$96c8c8f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040612183717.02dbfd80@mail.earthlink.net>

At 01:05 PM 6/12/04 -0500, Damien wrote:

>I'm not an extropian, so I don't have a say, but as an interested observer 
>I'd recommend leaving this alone. Let it go out, probably not even any 
>need to piss on it. Do we really benefit from having the People's Front of 
>Judea brawling in public with the Judean People's Front? (When there were 
>a few racists mouthing off on the exi list I felt differently; that was 
>toxic and had to be dealt with.)

Hey, I'm not an "extropian" either :-)  I'm a transhumanist, always have been.

Listen, you missed the point. It is the business of WTA, so let's leave it 
with WTA.  The only people drawing ExI into this are those, like you, who 
keep pinning one against the other.  Let's have some respect for WTA and 
leave their issues to their Board and those of us who are members of WTA.

I'd rather not see it on this list, but I'm not a moderator so I have no say.

If someone from the press is on this list (which I KNOW they are), and they 
write anything about this and involve ExI in any way that is not true, I 
will have to make a public statement.  It is my responsibility to do that 
in deference to ExI's members.  I did NOT mention the press to start with, 
someone else did and I responded to that.

Thanks,
Natasha



>Damien Broderick
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040612/47fd2718/attachment.html>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sun Jun 13 01:28:05 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:28:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
Message-ID: <1087090085_29294@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040612/bbdad70f/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jun 13 02:14:26 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:14:26 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics
	andlegislation
References: <20040612215610.28673.qmail@web50707.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009601c450ec$26ceaf80$852c2dcb@homepc>

"devon fowler" wrote:

... I'm going to start writing to some of the congress people
to try to abolish the council on bioethics as you have alluded
to in previous conversation.
------

If you have never written a congressman I reckon that would be
a good experience for you. You would be learning about practical
politics by doing and about how to exert political influence above
and beyond your single vote (especially if you understood that was 
what you were doing). That would be a life lesson you could build
on. 

Note though. It is probably not the "[C/c]ongress people's Council on
Bioethics" that you are concerned with. Nor is it the first structure
ostensibly about ethics or even bioethics set up by politicians to consider
bioethics or ethics from one particular point of view.

If you want to know whose council on bioethics is the one you are 
concerned about perhaps consider its formal name. In 2004, in 
developed western countries, a council comprised of homo-sapiens is
not "owned" like you or I might own say a menagerie of companion
animals. Or not *very* like ;-). But it IS *owned* in the political sense
by the person whose authority is in the name.   

You might see it written in capitalised form something like 
"Knucklehead's Council for Bioethics" or some such. 

Here's a further political tip. "Knucklehead's Council for Bioethics"
is unlikely to be called "Knucklehead's Council for Bioethics" for long
if Knucklehead is not a name but a role. 

It is extremely unlikely that Knucklehead number 44 will chose to 
use the title "Knucklehead's Council for Bioethics" when the 44th
person in the role replaces the 43rd because the 44th person will
want to re-brand. And if the 44th person is not smart enough to
know they should rebrand they probably will not be politcally smart
enough to be the 44th person in the Knucklehead role. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch 



From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 13 04:04:28 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics
	andlegislation
In-Reply-To: <009601c450ec$26ceaf80$852c2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20040613040428.18630.qmail@web50701.mail.yahoo.com>

Interesting take on politics I'm not completely sure
what you exactly mean by "Knucklehead's Council for
Bioethics," and I don't exactly know how to influence
beyond my one vote unless I have some respectable
position in politics which I don't.  

I'm sorry I didn't quite get the rest of your message
with reference to the idea of 'knuckleheads' could you
rephrase?
Devon
--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> "devon fowler" wrote:
> 
> .... I'm going to start writing to some of the
> congress people
> to try to abolish the council on bioethics as you
> have alluded
> to in previous conversation.
> ------
> 
> If you have never written a congressman I reckon
> that would be
> a good experience for you. You would be learning
> about practical
> politics by doing and about how to exert political
> influence above
> and beyond your single vote (especially if you
> understood that was 
> what you were doing). That would be a life lesson
> you could build
> on. 
> 
> Note though. It is probably not the "[C/c]ongress
> people's Council on
> Bioethics" that you are concerned with. Nor is it
> the first structure
> ostensibly about ethics or even bioethics set up by
> politicians to consider
> bioethics or ethics from one particular point of
> view.
> 
> If you want to know whose council on bioethics is
> the one you are 
> concerned about perhaps consider its formal name. In
> 2004, in 
> developed western countries, a council comprised of
> homo-sapiens is
> not "owned" like you or I might own say a menagerie
> of companion
> animals. Or not *very* like ;-). But it IS *owned*
> in the political sense
> by the person whose authority is in the name.   
> 
> You might see it written in capitalised form
> something like 
> "Knucklehead's Council for Bioethics" or some such. 
> 
> Here's a further political tip. "Knucklehead's
> Council for Bioethics"
> is unlikely to be called "Knucklehead's Council for
> Bioethics" for long
> if Knucklehead is not a name but a role. 
> 
> It is extremely unlikely that Knucklehead number 44
> will chose to 
> use the title "Knucklehead's Council for Bioethics"
> when the 44th
> person in the role replaces the 43rd because the
> 44th person will
> want to re-brand. And if the 44th person is not
> smart enough to
> know they should rebrand they probably will not be
> politcally smart
> enough to be the 44th person in the Knucklehead
> role. 
> 
> Regards,
> Brett Paatsch 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 13 04:09:23 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040613040923.28978.qmail@web50708.mail.yahoo.com>

I agree with you completely Michael let's not let
infighting ruin the dreams of transhumanist alike.  We
have far loftier and nobler goals than to squabble
over petty politics, my understanding is things are
reconciling and although I have my personal opinions I
will refrain from airing them in keeping with progress
not regress.  
--- MIKE TREDER <iph1954 at msn.com> wrote:
> As an original and current WTA Director, and as a
> member of the Executive 
> Advisory Team for the Extropy Institute, I?ve been
> dismayed and disheartened 
> by the recent unpleasantness between people within
> the two organizations. It 
> is unnecessary, unseemly, and counterproductive. In
> a silly fight like this, 
> there are no winners, only losers.
> 
> It seems patently obvious to me that we have so much
> to gain by working 
> together and so much to lose by defeating each other
> ? why can?t we keep our 
> eyes on the prize? The tendency of some to be
> offensive and provocative, and 
> the tendency of others to be defensive and
> destructive, can only lead to 
> ruin for us all.
> 
> I can easily find fault on both sides, although I
> prefer to focus on our 
> common and complementary strengths instead of
> dwelling on what divides us. 
> I?ve urged James Hughes and Nick Bostrom to exercise
> leadership by being 
> inclusive and conciliatory; I?ve counseled Harvey
> Newstrom and Bruce Klein 
> to show restraint and to seek compromises that
> satisfy everyone?s primary 
> needs. But my efforts to be a calming influence seem
> to have had little 
> effect.
> 
> Still, we must try. Let?s remember that none of us
> are transhumans yet; we 
> are only imperfect humans dreaming of and working
> toward a better future. 
> Our leaders, representatives, and fellow members are
> subject to flaws and 
> failings, as are each of us. But there are no
> monsters running loose, no one 
> is trying to become a dictator, and those who issue
> criticism are not crazy 
> or evil. We?re just folks (at least until the
> Singularity).
> 
> I appeal to everyone ? WTA members, Extropians,
> transhumanists of all 
> stripes ? to refocus on our highest priorities.
> Let?s begin by making 
> positive statements about what we must stand for;
> remember why we came 
> together in the first place; stand in a virtual
> circle, hold cyber hands, 
> sing a couple of inspiring songs, have an Internet
> group hug, and then get 
> back to work.
> 
> See you in the future!
> 
> Mike Treder
> Executive Director, Center for Responsible
> Nanotechnology - 
> http://CRNano.org
> Director, World Transhumanist Association -
> http://transhumanism.org
> Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website -
> http://incipientposthuman.com
> Executive Advisory Team, Extropy Institute -
> http://extropy.org
> KurzweilAI "Big Thinker" -
> http://kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html
> 
> "Keep away from people who try to belittle your
> ambitions. Small people 
> always do that, but the really great make you feel
> that you, too, can become 
> great." - Mark Twain
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Devon Fowler


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jun 13 05:18:12 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:18:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] I warned you, you fools!
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040607231008.01ba03b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <004e01c45105$d34223f0$b6c61b97@administxl09yj>

Damien Broderick:
> It can lead to this kind of disaster: 
> http://www.noosfere.com/Showcase/IMAGES/futfic_33.jpg

completely different, but with some music ...
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/sorcerer/html/jw_wells.html



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 13 05:48:54 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:48:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hungover
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040612183717.02dbfd80@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>
	<BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
	<009701c45085$96c8c8f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040612183717.02dbfd80@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040613004043.01c96478@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:43 PM 6/12/2004 -0700, Natasha quoted me:

>>I'm not an extropian, so I don't have a say, but as an interested 
>>observer I'd recommend leaving this alone.
>
>Hey, I'm not an "extropian" either :-)

Eh? It says here: "President, Extropy Institute."

I know you don't like the clumsy term `extropianism', because it seems to 
imply cultishness or clannishness or something, but I haven't seen any 
suggestion that all the people on the list who call themselves extropians 
(like Spike, say) are mistaken in doing so. What gives with that?

>Listen, you missed the point. It is the business of WTA, so let's leave it 
>with WTA.

But that's what I just suggested: to leave it alone.

I find the next bit *extremely* puzzling:

>The only people drawing ExI into this are those, like you, who keep 
>pinning one against the other.

Huh? My suggestion was that people *avoid* pitting one against the other, 
even if goaded. Let the flames die down, right?

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun 13 06:06:09 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:06:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
In-Reply-To: <40CB2E2A.20505@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00ea01c4510c$86275ac0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

Central Florida?  Where in Central Florida?  Orlando?

Welcome aboard Gregory.

spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Gregory Propf
> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 9:24 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
> 
> 
> I just joined the list last night...I live in Central Florida and am
also 
> interested in any TH or extro groups local to that area.




From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 13 08:11:29 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:11:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNIENAEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <470a3c52040612021277123ed2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040613003601.02db8210@mail.earthlink.net>

At 12:03 PM 6/12/04 -0700, Reason wrote:

>This is a common perception, and it's one that I subscribe to. The current
>leadership of the WTA is pro-socialist and virulently anti-libertarian. That
>is the organizational bias despite the public stance of non-alignment.
>My reading of the Extropy Principles (
>http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm ) is that they require a libertarian
>system of governance: right there under "open society" is a long description
>of the desirable traits of a minarchist or otherwise distributed governance
>system. So from this, and many other statements and actions, I conclude that
>the current leadership of ExI is biased towards libertarianism despite the
>public stance of non-alignment.

Reason, you are incorrect.  The philosophy of extropy and its principles do 
not rely on any one political system to function. That would be very narrow 
in scope and contrary to futurism.  In order to understand this, one might 
have to be knowledgeable in history and theories of social change, but I 
don't think so.  What we need to do is to think outside the political box. 
That box is too small and lacks enough holes to allow a sufficient flow of 
oxygen (maybe that is why brains are faltering when transhumanists base 
everything on politics! :-))

Now, here is the key:  an open society is quite democratic.  Do you know 
what open society means in principle?  "Definitions of open society on the 
Web:  a society that allows its members considerable freedom (as in a 
democracy). "  This principle does not mean, "an open society where no 
rules apply."   For goodness sakes!  We need rules to coexist in the world.

It's late and I'm tired, but I thought I'd send these few, short quotes for 
the benefit of those in doubt:

The Economist
"Toward a Global Open Society," 1998

"Our global society contains many different customs, traditions, and 
religions; where can it find the shared values that would hold it together? 
I should like to put forward the idea of what I call the open society as a 
universal principle that recognizes the diversity inherent in our global 
society, yet provides a conceptual basis for establishing the institutions 
we need. I realize that gaining acceptance for a universal principle is a 
tall order, but I cannot see how we can do without it."

"From Popper, Karl R., The Open Society and its Enemies, Rev. Ed., 
Princeton U. Press, 1950, p.181. Quoting Pericles' famous funeral oration 
as reported by Thucydides:

"Our political system does not compete with institutions which are 
elsewhere in force. We do not copy our neighbors, but try to be an example. 
Our administration favors the many instead of the few: this is why it is 
called a democracy. The laws afford equal justice to all alike in their 
private disputes, but we do not ignore the claims of excellence. When a 
citizen distinguishes himself, then he will be called to serve the state, 
in preference to others, not as a matter of privilege, but as a reward of 
merit; and poverty is no bar.

... The freedom we enjoy extends also to ordinary life; we are not 
suspicious of one another, and we do not nag our neighbor if he chooses to 
go his own way. ... But this freedom does not make us lawless. We are 
taught to respect the magistrates and the laws, and never to forget that we 
must protect the injured. And we are also taught to observe those unwritten 
laws whose sanction lies only in the universal feeling of what is right...."


"Open Society News: Democracy in Southeast Asia
A Hard Road Ahead"

Fall-Winter 2002/3

"Southeast Asia is a region where some states have developed rapidly and 
raised living standards by producing goods and resources for world markets 
and working with multinational corporations. It is also a region where the 
forces of globalization have decimated the environment, fueled human rights 
abuses, and helped stifle the development of open society by enriching and 
entrenching corrupt regimes.

"The Fall-Winter 2002/3 issue of Open Society News highlights OSI's efforts 
to promote democracy and open society and to eliminate the worst effects of 
globalization in Southeast Asia. While the individual articles highlight 
problems, they also demonstrate how aspects of globalization, such as the 
increasing use of international law and greater cooperation and 
communication among civil society organizations throughout the world, can 
be forces for the growth of open society. "

"The Open Society- Media, Democracy and Multiculturalism"
Ecologia incepe aici
2004

"AEGEE Novi Sad invites the representatives of your organization to attend 
the Academic Training Course "The Open Society- Media, Democracy and 
Multiculturalism", Youth for South-East Europe project, which will take 
place in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, between 7-14 December 2002.

"The Training course aims at helping young activists of nongovernmental 
organizations from transition countries in the SEE region gain a deeper 
insight and understanding of the complex matters which influence their 
activities and daily life and to offer the participants a much needed 
possibility to improve the knowledge, skills and contacts relevant to their 
youth work. This would be achieved through the series of team-building 
activities: plenary sessions, case study sessions and tutorials. The 
participants will be students and young professionals who hold key 
positions in South-East European non-governmental organizations."

The Advertiser-Tribune 2004

"Records kept by government should be accessible to the public except in 
limited and specified instances. Making records secret chips away at the 
freedoms and protections that we enjoy in a open society."

My best to all -

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040613/05ad6880/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 13 08:29:51 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:29:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hungover
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040613004043.01c96478@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040612183717.02dbfd80@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>
	<BAY5-F4Iras2lKn53y30003e74c@hotmail.com>
	<009701c45085$96c8c8f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040612122728.02e57a10@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040612183717.02dbfd80@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040613011526.02db9620@mail.earthlink.net>

At 12:48 AM 6/13/04 -0500, Damien wrote:

>At 06:43 PM 6/12/2004 -0700, Natasha quoted me:
>
>>>I'm not an extropian, so I don't have a say, but as an interested 
>>>observer I'd recommend leaving this alone.
>>
>>Hey, I'm not an "extropian" either :-)
>
>Eh? It says here: "President, Extropy Institute."

Yes I am :-)  I don't use the term extropian.

>I know you don't like the clumsy term `extropianism', because it seems to 
>imply cultishness or clannishness or something, but I haven't seen any 
>suggestion that all the people on the list who call themselves extropians 
>(like Spike, say) are mistaken in doing so. What gives with that?

You are right.  Oh my, listen people can call themselves whatever makes 
them feel good.  I was a transhumanist long before I knew of Extropy 
Institute, and when I found out about ExI, I thought it was the best 
organization around to get transhumanism off the ground.  (Remember 
Extropy, the Journal of Transhumanist Thought" way back in the early 1990s 
-)  It caught my eye and I became a member of ExI.  My philosophical view 
is that of the transhumanist philosophy of Extropy.

>>Listen, you missed the point. It is the business of WTA, so let's leave 
>>it with WTA.
>
>But that's what I just suggested: to leave it alone.

Okay, sorry.  It was the drama of your writing :-)

>>The only people drawing ExI into this are those, like you, who keep 
>>pinning one against the other.
>
>Huh? My suggestion was that people *avoid* pitting one against the other, 
>even if goaded. Let the flames die down, right?

I'm sorry, let me explain.

You wrote:  'I'm not an extropian, so I don't have a say, but as an 
interested observer I'd recommend leaving this alone. Let it go out, 
probably not even any need to piss on it. Do we really benefit from having 
the People's Front of Judea brawling in public with the Judean People's Front?"

By this, the inference is that ExI is one of these parties and WTA is 
another of the parties, above.   ExI is NOT one of the players in the 
current situation with WTA.   The players/parties are WTA's Board.  I hope 
this explains.

I wrote a couple of short posts this past week stating that ExI is not 
involved with WTA's business (nor should it be) and I stated that it would 
be in all our best interest if we did not refer to the current problems 
there or on the WTA-chat list. When any of us, including me, bring ExI into 
WTA's problems it goes off course.  So, by this very post, I am 
contributing to the perpetuation of this nonsense. Damn.

warmly,
Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040613/cc625697/attachment.html>

From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 13 06:39:51 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
In-Reply-To: <92D9968C-BC40-11D8-85E5-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040613063951.53678.qmail@web50708.mail.yahoo.com>

Samantha I agree completely with your statements. 
Enhancements helping the well are important in their
own right and we have to stop government interventions
from preventing the enhancments that the so called
'well' want.  It is my belief that everyone is not as
well as they could be so in a sense we are all
somewhat in need of therapy!  Regime change is so
important...how is this going to happen though?...
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> With national health care just around the corner,
> one has to wonder how 
> far the hazy line between "therapy" and
> "enhancement" will be pushed.  
> When the government is the single payer cum single
> insurer the push 
> will be one to not "waste" those tax dollars and
> give everyone "his or 
> her fair share".   Dollars to donuts all forms of
> "enhancement" will be 
> unsupported.   And when the tax bite increases and
> the number of 
> private citizens going to out-of-the-norm
> specialists decreases the 
> price of these "enhancements" will go higher and
> higher due to lack of 
> any economy of scale or research dollars or payments
> for expensive 
> operations using advanced techniques that would push
> the state of the 
> art.   And if we don't get regime change in November
> the situations is 
> as bad or worse.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> - samantha
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sun Jun 13 06:34:42 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:34:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hug & Society for Venturism
Message-ID: <1087108482_146799@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040612/41a93c00/attachment.ksh>

From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sun Jun 13 08:00:10 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:00:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040613003601.02db8210@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAENMEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


---> Natasha Vita-More [mailto:natasha at natasha.cc]

>>At 12:03 PM 6/12/04 -0700, Reason wrote:
>>
>>My reading of the Extropy Principles (
>>http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm ) is that they require a
>>libertarian system of governance: right there under "open society"
>>is a long description of the desirable traits of a minarchist or
>>otherwise distributed governance system. So from this, and many
>>other statements and actions, I conclude that the current
>>leadership of ExI is biased towards libertarianism despite the
>>public stance of non-alignment.
>
>Reason, you are incorrect.  The philosophy of extropy and its
>principles do not rely on any one political system to function.
>That would be very narrow in scope and contrary to futurism.  In
>order to understand this, one might have to be knowledgeable in history
>and theories of social change, but I don't think so.  What we need to
>do is to think outside the political box. That box is too small and
>lacks enough holes to allow a sufficient flow of oxygen (maybe that is
>why brains are faltering when transhumanists base everything on
>politics! :-))
>
>Now, here is the key:  an open society is quite democratic.  Do you
>know what open society means in principle?  "Definitions of open
>society on the Web:  a society that allows its members considerable
>freedom (as in a democracy). " This principle does not mean, "an open
>society where no rules apply."   For goodness sakes!  We need rules to
>coexist in the world.

The perception that a libertarian society is a society without rules (I
assume you mean rules in the sense of laws) is a disturbingly common one.
It's wrong. A society without laws is an anarchy. Libertarianism is not
anarchism: it encompasses differing forms of governance (including the
inappropriately named anarcho-capitalism) that are all characterised by a
strong rule of law. The principle difference between these societies and any
present day state are the ways in which this law is arrived at, changed, and
enforced.

In general, libertarianism tends to decentralization of decision making and
dispute resolution mechanisms, and thus greater personal freedom through
true pluralism. Coercion through force for any reason other than
self-defense is frowned upon. Freedom of choice, contract, and association
is prized. Most present day systems of government tend towards
centralization and thus suppression of individual choice. Coercion through
force is everywhere, and freedom of choice, contract and association thus
suffers accordingly.

Now you can argue that the lines in the principles that say:

"Opposing authoritarian social control and unnecessary hierarchy and
favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power and responsibility.
Preferring bargaining over battling, exchange over extortion, and
communication over compulsion."

and the lengthy expansion of these lines in section 5 do not refer to
libertarian ideals if you like, but I'm really not convinced. So we should
probably leave it there.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme




From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 13 15:38:32 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:38:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAENMEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040613003601.02db8210@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040613082359.02dbad20@mail.earthlink.net>

At 01:00 AM 6/13/04 -0700, Reason wrote:

>Now you can argue that the lines in the principles that say:
>
>"Opposing authoritarian social control and unnecessary hierarchy and
>favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power and responsibility.
>Preferring bargaining over battling, exchange over extortion, and
>communication over compulsion."
>
>and the lengthy expansion of these lines in section 5 do not refer to
>libertarian ideals if you like, but I'm really not convinced. So we should
>probably leave it there.

If you are of the people, by the people, for the people, it works for you.

This might be of importance to all who are interested, the upcoming RU 
Sirius magazine article deals with the Extropy principles.  I'm not sure 
when it comes out though.

N


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040613/48f7c61c/attachment.html>

From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sun Jun 13 15:17:10 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:17:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Hungover
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040613004043.01c96478@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BDC881BA-BD4C-11D8-9D18-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 01:48 am, Damien Broderick wrote:

> I find the next bit *extremely* puzzling:
>
>> The only people drawing ExI into this are those, like you, who keep 
>> pinning one against the other.
>
> Huh? My suggestion was that people *avoid* pitting one against the 
> other, even if goaded. Let the flames die down, right?
>

I think Natasha's point is that there is no battle between ExI and WTA. 
  The recent problem with WTA Board's meltdown was an internal WTA 
problem.  Some people are trying to blame WTA problems on ExI, and 
other people (like you, no offense) are buying into the spin that maybe 
there is a current argument going on between ExI and WTA.  There isn't. 
  Some of the WTA Board refuses to work with duly elected WTA Board 
members like myself, Jose and Bruce, and consider us to be "Extropian 
plants" or moles into "their" organization.  They blame all our 
complaints about ethical problems on the WTA Board to be "ExI attacks" 
on "their" organization.  This is what Natasha is trying to defuse.  I 
know of no resent battles between the two organizations.  The big 
fireworks have all been internal to WTA itself.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Sun Jun 13 17:03:09 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:03:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
In-Reply-To: <1087090085_29294@mail.cableone.net>
References: <1087090085_29294@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <40CC88CD.2050806@cfl.rr.com>

starman2100 at cableone.net wrote:

>Hello Gregory,
>
>Welcome to the list!  You will be regularly finding nuggets of knowledge and 
>wisdom here & get to meet some interesting characters. lol  I recommend you also 
>join Cryonet (the cryonics list).  Rudi Hoffman is a regular contributor to it 
>and a fellow Floridian who is a very dedicated cryonicist and a gregarious 
>gentleman as well. 
>
>www.cryonet.org <http://www.cryonet.org>
>

I'll try to get on this today.  Didn't realize those guys were here in FL.

>
>I would encourage you to seriously consider getting a cryonics policy regardless 
>of your age.  Disease and/or accident can strike unexpectedly and suddenly make 
>you uninsurable.  Cryonics is the ultimate safety net (hopefully never needed 
>but...) should the unthinkable happen.
>
>www.alcor.org <http://www.alcor.org>
>

Yeah, I keep thinking about this.  Somehow, I just keep putting it off.  
Partly due to apprehension.  I don't know what I'm afraid of exactly.  
At 35 I could get cheap insurance.  And as they say "cryonics is the 
second worst thing that can happen to you" :)  Perhaps the idea of 
having to be "outed" at some point by my relatives.  I'm single so I 
don't have to have the "honey I'm going to be frozen" talk with wifey 
and I would never marry anyone who wasn't a THer herself anyway but I 
wonder how my uncles and parents might react.  They already think I'm 
pretty weird though, maybe this would just be filed as another "Greg 
thing". Hehehe :)







From brian at posthuman.com  Sun Jun 13 17:29:19 2004
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:29:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
In-Reply-To: <40CC88CD.2050806@cfl.rr.com>
References: <1087090085_29294@mail.cableone.net> <40CC88CD.2050806@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <40CC8EEF.50705@posthuman.com>

Sometimes it helps to imagine yourself having a nice large surprise 
heart attack at oh around age 45. Or better yet that you get diagnosed 
with terminal cancer, and oops insurance is out of the question now. In 
those last few conscious moments are you going to feel ok that you 
aren't signed up for cryonics, or instead be kicking yourself because 
you let some vague social worries seal your fate?

P.S. I also found that irrationally but powerfully it did help to 
actually see some other people in person who are already signed up. So 
if there are people within driving distance who get together 
occasionally, then go visit them. Or perhaps you would enjoy this link:

"Facing" Cryonics
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=61&t=3311
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Sun Jun 13 18:59:36 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
In-Reply-To: <00ea01c4510c$86275ac0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <00ea01c4510c$86275ac0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40CCA418.3060105@cfl.rr.com>

Spike wrote:

>Central Florida?  Where in Central Florida?  Orlando?
>
>Welcome aboard Gregory.
>
Yeah.  Mousetown.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun 13 19:45:31 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:45:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <40CCA418.3060105@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <010901c4517e$fcd71620$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> >Central Florida?  Where in Central Florida?  Orlando?
> >
> Yeah.  Mousetown.

Harvey Newstrom is one of lads from central Florida.
I grew up in Titusville, about an hour to your right.  
Both geographically and politically.  {8^D

Regarding your family outing you because of being a
cryonicist, do get over that.  You might be surprised
by having several of them come to the same conclusion
you did: a long shot is better than no shot at all.

Gregory, a movie came out shortly after you were born
called the Poseidon Adventure.  I saw it when I was 11.
It is one of my all-time faves, inspiring as all hell.  
I haven't seen it since 1972, but as I recall the story 
went like this:

- New Years Eve aboard huge ocean liner, parties bigtime

- Tsunami capsizes ship, many proles perish

- Survivors in ballroom debate what to do

- Fiery young priest urges they climb to bottom of ship

- Ernie Borgnine objects: Bottom of the ship?  What the hell 
good will that do?  If you make it there alive, you still 
have an inch thick steel plate over your head!

- Fiery young priest: Ja, well, thats one inch less than
two inches.

- Survivors realize they can sit tight and perish when
the ship eventually sinks, or they can take the long shot
and start climbing up to the bottom of the ship.

If you do not already know what happened after that,
get thee to the video store and view that movie.  Go on,
do it today, do it now.  Additional incentive: there is
even a naked lady involved.  Hey, it was the 70s.  Back
then, sex was safe and violence was dangerous.

Cryonics is like the Poseidon Adventure.  Start climbing.

spike



From max at maxmore.com  Sun Jun 13 20:09:30 2004
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:09:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Group Hug
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAENMEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040613003601.02db8210@mail.earthlink.net>
	<FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAENMEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040613145309.03812980@mail.earthlink.net>

The next issue of NeoFiles will publish an interview with me. This includes 
my most recent and extensive clarification of the relationship between the 
Principles of Extropy and compatible political views. As soon as it's 
published, I'll provide a pointer here.

In the meantime, there's a pretty good explanation in ExI's FAQ. I 
recommend consulting official sources like this before anyone makes claims 
based on their idiosyncratic perceptions. Here's the section:

http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm#5.1



5.1 Do transhumanists in general, and friends of Extropy Institute in 
particular, share economic and political views?

Do extropian transhumanists have political or economic views in 
common?  Individuals will choose whether or not they feel comfortable 
describing themselves as extropian transhumanists depending on whether they 
share the values and attitudes expressed by The Principles of Extropy. 
Those principles do not proclaim any specific, detailed political or 
economic doctrine. The two principles most relevant here are "Open Society" 
and "Self-Direction". For the full version of each see The Principles of 
Extropy 3.1. In brief, these state:

OPEN SOCIETY: Supporting social orders that foster freedom of speech, 
freedom of action, and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social 
control and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power. 
Preferring bargaining over battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness 
to improvement rather than a static utopia.

SELF-DIRECTION: Seeking independent thinking, individual freedom, personal 
responsibility, self-direction, self-esteem, and respect for others.

Clearly some political views will be incompatible with extropian thinking. 
That is one way in which the philosophy of extropy may differ from other 
forms of transhumanism. For instance, technocratic transhumanists may favor 
setting up an elite group to determine which genetic modifications are 
allowed or which are compulsory for the general population. Socialist 
transhumanists would want to centralize control over all economic activity 
in order to shape the future. It's worth noting that socialist 
transhumanists sometimes characterize themselves as "democratic 
transhumanists" but use the term "democracy" to refer to the socialist goal 
of using government power to compel everyone to fit into their notion of 
"equality". Democracy, in the more generally accepted sense, is one 
important way of implementing the principle of Open Society.

Extropian transhumanists generally favor market mechanisms over centralized 
government control, seeing this as the way to protect self-direction and 
open society. But the boundaries between market and government, especially 
when it comes to determining the legal rules according to which the market 
functions, are not always clear. Some extropian transhumanists, for 
example, favor the idea of private communities in which something that 
looks much like a government exists (but with universal consent of initial 
entrants). In addition, the distinction between government regulation 
(interference) and the clarification of the property rights underlying 
markets may not always be sharp.

While all extropian transhumanists generally prefer voluntary market 
approaches to economic issues, we may differ among ourselves about the 
extent of the proper role of government. Some may favor government subsidy 
of basic scientific research, or certain regulations they believe necessary 
to maintaining a maximally open society, or the provision of services they 
think will be poorly provided without state intervention. Others may favor 
a minimal government that does little or nothing other than maintain the 
legal order of the marketplace. And some would like to experiment with 
entirely novel social orders using "polycentric law", which turns 
law-making itself into a market function.

The fit between the philosophy of extropy and political views therefore is 
loose, but not infinitely so. Given commitments to Open Society and 
Self-Direction, there cannot be Stalinist or socialist or fascist or 
theocratic extropian transhumanists. Any other political positions that, 
upon reflection, fit with the goals of fostering open social orders, 
advancing technological progress, and personal responsibility is compatible 
with the philosophy of extropy. Which social orders and economic rules best 
further shared extropic values is a matter for ongoing consideration.

In the end, a crucial point is that extropian transhumanists are 
individualists, and so see political and economic institutions as means to 
the progress of (trans)humanity. Dogmatic adherence to any specific 
political doctrine in the face of developing thought is therefore 
inappropriate. It is equally inappropriate for non-extropian transhumanists 
to attempt to pigeonhole extropian transhumanists as all being cut from the 
same political cloth


Onward!

Max

_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
_______________________________________________________




From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sun Jun 13 20:55:09 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:55:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <010901c4517e$fcd71620$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <F4CF5FFF-BD7B-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 03:45 pm, Spike wrote:

>>> Central Florida?  Where in Central Florida?  Orlando?
>>>
>> Yeah.  Mousetown.
>
> Harvey Newstrom is one of lads from central Florida.

Yep.  Born and raised in Melbourne.  Unfortunately, I am currently 
working for SAIC as a Principal Security Architect on the National 
Archives and Records Administration in Washington, DC.  I only get back 
home about once a month.

> Regarding your family outing you because of being a
> cryonicist, do get over that.  You might be surprised
> by having several of them come to the same conclusion
> you did: a long shot is better than no shot at all.

Forget it.  Families will think you're weird no matter what you do.  
You have to do what you believe and not worry about what other people 
think.  Your family will get over it, or possibly not.  But you have a 
simple choice:  live your life the way you want to or the way others 
want you to.  It's not an easy decision, but I think it is obvious.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jun 13 21:26:13 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:26:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
References: <F4CF5FFF-BD7B-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <002901c4518d$0e505200$86893cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, June 13, 2004 4:55 PM Harvey Newstrom mail at harveynewstrom.com
wrote:
> Forget it.  Families will think you're weird
> no matter what you do.

True.  I usually don't bring up the life extension thing to most people
these days.  If they ask me, I'll tell them, but I don't broadcast like
I used to.  (This brings up another point.  I recall several years
ago -- mid-1990s -- being at a cryonics meeting and half of the crowd -- 
it was a group of about 8 people -- were obese and eating junk food.
Cryonics is a long shot and probably worth taking, but why not also take
the even less chancey strategy of taking care of your overall health as
well?  The two should not be seen as mutually exclusive...)

> You have to do what you believe and not
> worry about what other people think.  Your
> family will get over it, or possibly not.  But
> you have a simple choice:  live your life
> the way you want to or the way others
> want you to.  It's not an easy decision,
> but I think it is obvious.

Words of wisdoms.

Verily,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun 13 21:57:27 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:57:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics
	andlegislation
In-Reply-To: <00b601c45099$eb528a50$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <00b601c45099$eb528a50$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <A8E64840-BD84-11D8-85E5-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 12, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Spike wrote:
>
> There are some advantages to having the Fed up to
> its elected eyeballs in debt: it is less able to
> take on and screw up new areas of our lives.
>
>

Huh?  *We* are up to our eyeballs in debt.   Many hundred of billions 
of our wealth are extracted every single year just to pay the interest 
on this debt.    We are less able to take on and succeed at many things 
we fervently wish to do.

- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun 13 22:02:35 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:02:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] New to the list
In-Reply-To: <40CC88CD.2050806@cfl.rr.com>
References: <1087090085_29294@mail.cableone.net> <40CC88CD.2050806@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <607DA902-BD85-11D8-85E5-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 13, 2004, at 10:03 AM, Gregory Propf wrote:
> Yeah, I keep thinking about this.  Somehow, I just keep putting it 
> off.  Partly due to apprehension.  I don't know what I'm afraid of 
> exactly.  At 35 I could get cheap insurance.  And as they say 
> "cryonics is the second worst thing that can happen to you" :)  
> Perhaps the idea of having to be "outed" at some point by my 
> relatives.  I'm single so I don't have to have the "honey I'm going to 
> be frozen" talk with wifey and I would never marry anyone who wasn't a 
> THer herself anyway but I wonder how my uncles and parents might 
> react.  They already think I'm pretty weird though, maybe this would 
> just be filed as another "Greg thing". Hehehe :)
>

Isn't it amusing (well, not really) that we (somewhat) evolved primates 
care more for what other primates may think of us than we care for what 
we ourselves reason is the right thing to do?   Don't let social 
[dis]approval rob you.

-s



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Mon Jun 14 01:52:33 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:52:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <010901c4517e$fcd71620$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <010901c4517e$fcd71620$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40CD04E1.3040108@cfl.rr.com>

Spike wrote:

>
>Harvey Newstrom is one of lads from central Florida.
>I grew up in Titusville, about an hour to your right.  
>Both geographically and politically.  {8^D
>
>Regarding your family outing you because of being a
>cryonicist, do get over that.  You might be surprised
>by having several of them come to the same conclusion
>you did: a long shot is better than no shot at all.
>
Oh I know.  Mostly I just make excuses.  One concern though is 
insurance.  What are some of the policies people have had experience 
with?  Good companies perhaps friendly to the cryonics movement?  I 
really don't trust corporate bureacrats any more than the governmental 
sort and I don't want to get the "Ted Williams" treatment with people 
arguing over where the money is.  Also, how is the medical establishment 
(another bunch I don't trust) made aware of one's preference?  Is there 
a cryo tag you can wear like those allergy med-alert things?



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Mon Jun 14 02:04:59 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:04:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <F4CF5FFF-BD7B-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <F4CF5FFF-BD7B-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <40CD07CB.1070908@cfl.rr.com>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>
> On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 03:45 pm, Spike wrote:


>
> Yep.  Born and raised in Melbourne.  Unfortunately, I am currently 
> working for SAIC as a Principal Security Architect on the National 
> Archives and Records Administration in Washington, DC.  I only get 
> back home about once a month.

Nice to meet you Harvey.  Been reading on imminst about the whole foobar 
at WTA.  Pity about all that but I must admit that it's too much to 
follow at the moment.  Bruce K. seems like a super nice guy.  Just the 
way he writes appeals to me.  Anyway, I post there as Kerr_Avon.  What 
is Principal Security Architect?  I take it you are in infosec.  I'm a 
programmer for your competitor Grumman myself.  I hate my job >:(

>
> Forget it.  Families will think you're weird no matter what you do.  
> You have to do what you believe and not worry about what other people 
> think.  Your family will get over it, or possibly not.  But you have a 
> simple choice:  live your life the way you want to or the way others 
> want you to.  It's not an easy decision, but I think it is obvious.

I have little to lose with cryonics itself actually.  It's that my 
family is a smart but conventional bunch.  They will quickly draw 
implications.  He wants to be frozen --> probably doesn't believe in the 
big Republican National Convention* in the sky --> probably doesn't 
believe in the nasty Hebrew sky-god anymore --> probably a fuckin Commie 
--> Needs to be killed ;-)

Ok, the last bit was exaggeration but you get the idea.

* Sorry, but that convention (the real one not the supernatural one) IS 
coming up guys and it seems politics is tolerated here to some extent.

- Greg



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Mon Jun 14 02:21:07 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:21:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <002901c4518d$0e505200$86893cd1@neptune>
References: <F4CF5FFF-BD7B-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<002901c4518d$0e505200$86893cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <40CD0B93.4030209@cfl.rr.com>

Technotranscendence wrote:

>True.  I usually don't bring up the life extension thing to most people
>these days.  If they ask me, I'll tell them, but I don't broadcast like
>I used to.  (This brings up another point.  I recall several years
>ago -- mid-1990s -- being at a cryonics meeting and half of the crowd -- 
>it was a group of about 8 people -- were obese and eating junk food.
>Cryonics is a long shot and probably worth taking, but why not also take
>the even less chancey strategy of taking care of your overall health as
>well?  The two should not be seen as mutually exclusive...)
>
>  
>
Bet they were a bunch of computer nerds.  The same memetic attractors 
bring people to transhumanist/extropian views seem to bring them into 
the IT field.  Unfortunately, the IT industry is one of the least 
healthy on the planet right now.  Workaholism, candy and soda as the 
majority of the diet, etc...  Where I work I went through the hallway in 
my mind one day and categorized the people there.  I could only think of 
1 or 2 who were in the "healthy" weight range out of like 25 people.  I 
used to be one of them too.  I never actually ate much sugar but I had a 
thing for cheese and starchy stuff and of course just ate whatever I 
wanted to in giant quantities.  I'm now doing calorie restriction, 
working out and I post on the CR list too.  Lost the weight and now 
people are hassling me over that though.  "You're too thin", "you look 
bony", "you're wasting away", etc... Yeah, but I bet I could bench press 
most of them.

Your handle reminds me of my current favorite poem "Technoliberation" by 
Greg Egan (a great writer of hard sci-fi packed with transhumanist 
ideas).  I won't post it here but look it up on google sometime.



From brian at posthuman.com  Mon Jun 14 02:34:28 2004
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:34:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <40CD04E1.3040108@cfl.rr.com>
References: <010901c4517e$fcd71620$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<40CD04E1.3040108@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <40CD0EB4.4010007@posthuman.com>

Gregory there's a really super insurance guy down there in FL named Rudi 
Hoffman. He's a whiz with cryonics stuff - and he's glad to answer 
whatever questions you can think up. I highly recommend him, and I know 
many more people here and elsewhere do as well.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Mon Jun 14 03:00:18 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:00:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <40CD07CB.1070908@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <F7D24D4D-BDAE-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 10:04 pm, Gregory Propf wrote:

> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 03:45 pm, Spike wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yep.  Born and raised in Melbourne.  Unfortunately, I am currently 
>> working for SAIC as a Principal Security Architect on the National 
>> Archives and Records Administration in Washington, DC.  I only get 
>> back home about once a month.
>
> Nice to meet you Harvey.  Been reading on imminst about the whole 
> foobar at WTA.  Pity about all that but I must admit that it's too 
> much to follow at the moment.

Don't worry.  I'm not following WTA anymore either.

>   Bruce K. seems like a super nice guy.  Just the way he writes 
> appeals to me.  Anyway, I post there as Kerr_Avon.  What is Principal 
> Security Architect?  I take it you are in infosec.  I'm a programmer 
> for your competitor Grumman myself.  I hate my job >:(

Yep.  I design the enterprise architecture that enforces security 
across an entire enterprise's information technology infrastructure.  
For the first time in a long time, I don't hate my job right now.  I've 
given up the hectic world of contracting to take a "permanent" job for 
a government agency in Washington, DC.  I am hoping to relax and have a 
stable life for a while.

> I have little to lose with cryonics itself actually.  It's that my 
> family is a smart but conventional bunch.

If my family can get used to me, anybody can get used to anything.  But 
sometimes it's a long, slow process.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Mon Jun 14 03:16:43 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:16:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <40CD0B93.4030209@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42BAF5FC-BDB1-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 10:21 pm, Gregory Propf wrote:
>  I never actually ate much sugar but I had a thing for cheese and 
> starchy stuff and of course just ate whatever I wanted to in giant 
> quantities.  I'm now doing calorie restriction, working out and I post 
> on the CR list too.  Lost the weight and now people are hassling me 
> over that though.  "You're too thin", "you look bony", "you're wasting 
> away", etc... Yeah, but I bet I could bench press most of them.

Same as me.  I now am much healthier, lower cholesterol, more energy, 
never sick.  But my relatives nag me that I'm too thin.  My brothers 
are overweight, have cholesterol problems, and are starting to have 
other health problems.  Besides the weight, I have the same reaction to 
being so pale.  Sun damaged skin ages faster.  I avoid sun damage and 
stay really pale.  I am often mistaken for being much younger than I 
am, yet people think I look funny because I am so pale.

I should go skinhead or dye my hair black for a "goth" skeletal look.  
But I digress....

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 14 03:37:42 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:37:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death
	bioethicsandlegislation
In-Reply-To: <A8E64840-BD84-11D8-85E5-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <000001c451c0$f2eb63e0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Samantha Atkins
... 
> Spike wrote:
> >
> > There are some advantages to having the Fed up to
> > its elected eyeballs in debt: it is less able to
> > take on and screw up new areas of our lives.
> 
> Huh?  *We* are up to our eyeballs in debt.   Many hundred of billions 
> of our wealth are extracted every single year just to pay the 
> interest on this debt...

Ja.  The winning strategy is to save and invest in
government debt.  Then we become those to whom that 
interest is owed.

> We are less able to take on and succeed at 
> many things we fervently wish to do. - samantha

I fully agree, and support lower taxation.

My notion is that we must not look to government to
help us in any of our transhumanist goals.  Life
extentionists are inherently at cross purposes with
government in this: the government profits most if
we work hard all our lives, paying taxes in perfect 
health, then the day after we retire, suddenly fall 
dead of a massive heart attack.

Second notion, anything government can do, private
industry can do better.  Faster and cheaper too.  We 
must not have misguided medical ethicists making rules
for us.  Transhumanist goals can best be accomplished
by minimizing at every opportunity government 
participation.

spike 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 14 03:53:12 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:53:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <42BAF5FC-BDB1-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <000001c451c3$1dd46d70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Harvey Newstrom
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 10:21 pm, Gregory Propf wrote:
> >  ..."You're too thin", "you look bony", "you're wasting 
> > away", etc... Yeah, but I bet I could bench press most of them.
> 
> Same as me.  I now am much healthier, lower cholesterol, more energy, 
> never sick.  But my relatives nag me that I'm too thin...
> Harvey Newstrom


I've been getting that since... well, since always.  I've
always been a bony ass.  My relatives all think I must be
unhealthy, but after all the lip flapping comes to an end,
not one of them will take me on in any footrace or any 
actual contest of strength/weight ratio, such as pull-ups,
push ups, rope climbing, even those 20 yrs my junior, the 
cowardly flabmeisters.  

Actually the popular press has come to my rescue to some
extent: there has been a loooot of ink spilled about how
CR is good for one's health.  When they read that news in 
the mainstream press, they realize that of all the family
members, it is bony old Greg (spike = Greg) who is still
climbing, hiking, running, non-diabetic, non-getting-sick, 
still doing just as much of all the stuff at 43 that I 
enjoyed at 17, with the cheerful addition of sex.

spike  



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Mon Jun 14 04:25:28 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:25:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <42BAF5FC-BDB1-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <42BAF5FC-BDB1-11D8-BAE7-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <40CD28B8.206@cfl.rr.com>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>
>
>
> Same as me.  I now am much healthier, lower cholesterol, more energy, 
> never sick.  But my relatives nag me that I'm too thin.  My brothers 
> are overweight, have cholesterol problems, and are starting to have 
> other health problems.  Besides the weight, I have the same reaction 
> to being so pale.  Sun damaged skin ages faster.  I avoid sun damage 
> and stay really pale.  I am often mistaken for being much younger than 
> I am, yet people think I look funny because I am so pale.

I've always been ghostly too and even though I live in FL I look more 
like I'm from Iceland for all the tan I ever get.

> I should go skinhead or dye my hair black for a "goth" skeletal look.  
> But I digress....

Heheh.  And get those small black "goggle" sunglasses.  Total cyberpunk.



From evmick at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 14 04:30:59 2004
From: evmick at earthlink.net (Everitt Mickey)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:30:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack)
Message-ID: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>

Hi folks...looks like i been gone for about two years?

Sorry bout that..but "things" happen.

I hauled about a hundred windmill tower sections last year....nine 
months away from the house non-stop.  Needless to say my AOL account 
choked.  I also got unsubscribed it appears...from  Extropians.

Things have happened.

I've changed companies....now I (mostly) specialize in construction 
equipment (dozers, trackhoes, etc) and pre-fabricated concrete 
buildings....( communications shelters for fiber-optic and 
Cell-phone....and Out-Houses for Rest Areas and Parks)

I've bought my own trailer....my rig is now an 8-axel (30 wheels) 
capable of hauling fifty tons...though I hardly ever do...mostly 90 
thousand lbs and less.

I'm wireless now.  Wi-fi as well as Sprint PCS....so I can count on 
"getting my mail" pretty regular.

I'm no longer AOL....Earthlink now..

I'm "open-source"....well partly....Mozilla and Thunderbird and thinking 
about Linux (Windows XP still)

Lots has happened...

EvMick


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Mon Jun 14 04:44:56 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:44:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack)
References: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <40CD2D48.BD52DB0F@mindspring.com>

Welcome back "EvMick."

I remember the windmills gig and wondered if you got blown away.

Terry

*****
Everitt Mickey wrote:
> 
> Hi folks...looks like i been gone for about two years?
> 
> Sorry bout that..but "things" happen.
> 
> I hauled about a hundred windmill tower sections last year....nine
> months away from the house non-stop.  Needless to say my AOL account
> choked.  I also got unsubscribed it appears...from  Extropians.
> 
> Things have happened.
> 
> I've changed companies....now I (mostly) specialize in construction
> equipment (dozers, trackhoes, etc) and pre-fabricated concrete
> buildings....( communications shelters for fiber-optic and
> Cell-phone....and Out-Houses for Rest Areas and Parks)
> 
> I've bought my own trailer....my rig is now an 8-axel (30 wheels)
> capable of hauling fifty tons...though I hardly ever do...mostly 90
> thousand lbs and less.
> 
> I'm wireless now.  Wi-fi as well as Sprint PCS....so I can count on
> "getting my mail" pretty regular.
> 
> I'm no longer AOL....Earthlink now..
> 
> I'm "open-source"....well partly....Mozilla and Thunderbird and thinking
> about Linux (Windows XP still)
> 
> Lots has happened...
> 
> EvMick


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 14 05:40:35 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics
	andlegislation
In-Reply-To: <20040613040428.18630.qmail@web50701.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040614054035.31328.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>

--- devon fowler <dfowler282004 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Interesting take on politics I'm not completely sure
> what you exactly mean by "Knucklehead's Council for
> Bioethics,"

He means it's the President's Council.  Ergo, it
derives its authority from (and can best be influenced
by) the President, not Congress.

> and I don't exactly know how to
> influence
> beyond my one vote unless I have some respectable
> position in politics which I don't.  

In theory, writing to your congressperson gives a bit
of extra attention towards your point of view,
especially if you send a handwritten postal note
(precisely because it takes more effort than printed
postal mail, email, or anything sent over the phone
wires - the effort discourages spammers and gives you
credibility).  In practice, I haven't found that it
helps much.

Now, there are ways into the system.  Certain events
that are open to anyone, but again it takes effort to
go there and put on a good performance.  Most
congresspeople, I hear, have occasions when they do
speak directly to their constitutents - for inquiries
about this, a simple email may suffice, since you're
not trying to influence them until you're at the
event.  Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and find the
right links (probably under "Quick Links", in their
current layout) to get information about your local
Senators and Representatives.  (Warning: although you
will likely get contact informatoin, not all of them
make use of a Web presence; the less high-tech the
area they're representing, the worse the odds.)

Overall, these ways take effort.  Consider that there
are many people who make careers out of doing this for
others.  You may have some technical advantages over
them (specifically, by being on this list, you may
have seen posts about ways to get information and do
intellectual tasks faster, which definitely comes into
play here); they have the advantage of experience, and
possibly of being able to put more time per time (say,
40 hours a week) into this particular effort.  It's up
to you to make it balance out, or even unbalance in
your favor, should you wish to pursue this path.


From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Mon Jun 14 05:57:25 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:57:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack)
In-Reply-To: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>
References: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <40CD3E45.4010802@cfl.rr.com>

Everitt Mickey wrote:

>
>
> I'm "open-source"....well partly....Mozilla and Thunderbird and 
> thinking about Linux (Windows XP still)
>
> Lots has happened...
>
> EvMick 

Welcome back.  I just joined a few days ago myself but feel free to ask 
me any Linux questions.  I've used it for 10 years.



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Mon Jun 14 05:59:55 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:59:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack)
In-Reply-To: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>
References: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <40CD3EDB.4000905@cfl.rr.com>

Everitt Mickey wrote:

> Hi folks...looks like i been gone for about two years?
>
> Sorry bout that..but "things" happen.
>
> I hauled about a hundred windmill tower sections last year....nine 
> months away from the house non-stop.  Needless to say my AOL account 
> choked.  I also got unsubscribed it appears...from  Extropians.


Forgot to mention - must suck to be away from home but hey, windmills, 
cool.  Go alternative energy!



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 14 06:12:16 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:12:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack)
In-Reply-To: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <000001c451d6$8afd6510$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> Everitt Mickey
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack)
> 
> 
> Hi folks...looks like i been gone for about two years?
> 
> Sorry bout that..but "things" happen... EvMick


EvMick!  Welcome back pal, we missed ya.  {8-]  spike



From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 14 07:41:08 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:41:08 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars and Titan
Message-ID: <p05100300bcf306274999@[150.146.134.133]>



More about the atmospheres of Mars and Titan.. for curiousity's sake,
I calculated the escape velocities and molecular velocities in order
to see how well the two bodies kept their atmosphere. The depth of
the atmospheric pressure at each body is due to factors I don't
know very much about, so I won't talk about that, but perhaps the
following equations and numbers are interesting to you.

The key to know if a body can keep its atmosphere is a rule-of-thumb:
v_escape ~>= 10 * v_molecular velocity.
If it is true, then it can keep it, if it is not true, then it cannot.

v_escape = SQRT ( (2 * G * M_planet) / R_planet)

v_molecular_velocity = SQRT ( (3 * k_b * T_planet) / m_molecular_velocity)

G = gravitational constant
k_b = Boltzmann's constant

The v_escape is the the velocity of escape of any body from the
surface (=R_planet) of the planet. The mass of the body on the
surface doesn't matter (cancels out).

The v_molecular_velocity is the kinetic energy of the molecule,
which is strongly dependent on the temperature of the environment.
Titan is *much colder* than Mars.



Titan
------

Atmosphere
~82% N2
6% CH4
6% Ar
Then molecular weight =
(.82)(28.02) = (0.06)(16.042)+(0.06)(39.95)
= 26.336 amu = 4.375x10^(-26) kg

T ~70K
M_planet = 1.34x10^(23) kg
R_planet = 2.575x10^6 m

v_escape = 2.635x10^3 m/sec
v_molecular_velocity = 257.38 m/sec

2,635 m/sec >= 2,574 m/sec
Yes, can just barely hang onto its atmosphere


Mars
----

Atmosphere
95% CO2
2.7% N2
1.6% Ar
0.006% H2O
Then molecular weight =
(.95)(44.0)+(0.027)(28.03)+(0.026)(39.95)+(0.00006)(18.016)
= 43.20 amu = 7.18x10^(-26) kg

T ~300 K (>200km)
M_planet = 6.42x10^(23) kg
R_planet = 2.396x10^6 m

v_escape = 5.022x10^3 m/sec
v_molecular_velocity = 418.84 m/sec

5,022 >= 4188 m/sec
Yes, no problem to keep this atmosphere


--------------

So then compare parameters.

Mars atmosphere is ~1.5 x more massive by molecular weight than the
Titan atmosphere
Mars is ~5 x more massive than Titan
Mars is ~30% larger than Titan

The escape velocity of any object from Mars is ~2x higher
than for Titan (5 km/sec vs. 2.6 km/sec).

The molecular velocity of the Martian atmosphere is higher
than the molecular velocity of Titan's atmosphere
(419 m/sec vs. 257 m/sec).

* Would Titan be able to keep a Martian atmosphere? Yes.

* Would Mars be able to keep a Titan atmosphere? No.
(because then the molecular velocity would be higher: 533 m/sec
and the atmosphere would escape)

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end."
--Calvin


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 14 07:28:22 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEMKEKAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <20040614072822.28115.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com>

     Well spoken Reason. I would go even farther. The
political irony of it all is the moral hypocrisy
evident in the current neo-con cabal intrenched in the
leadership of the Republican party. Their jingoism and
ruthless partisanship make for a lot of bizarre
contradictions. It's wrong to end life by abortion but
but it ok to end it with bombs and bullets? It's ok to
execute criminals but not ok to use stem cells to
rejuvenate oneself? It's ok to lie boldfaced to the
country and violate international law but wrong to get
a blow job in the oval office? I could go on and on
but I won't. They are willing to destroy the oldest
continuous civilation on earth and try to rebuild it
as long as they get awarded the no bid contract to do
both. In short... they suck... it's like they are the
metaphysical servants of death and chaos. And yet...
they claim to be god-fearing xtians when in reality
they worship a god of fear. That Jesus fellow they
love to name drop only ever spoke of love. 



--- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> For discussion, quoting below from myself and George
> Dvorsky. Read the
> articles.
> 
> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000143.php
>
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Transitory_Human/column.aspx?ar
> ticleID=2004-06-10-1
> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000092.php
> 
> Government mandated limits to life span: it's an
> ugly idea, frequently
> explored in Science Fiction. Is it likely to happen
> in the real world,
> however? Worse things have been done to people in
> the name of law and
> government in the past, even in the recent past. If
> you live in a developed
> country, the chances are that government employees
> already have a great deal
> of control over your life span: your opinions on the
> matter are usually
> irrelevant.
> 
> ...
> 
> Of late, I have started to explore the idea that
> present day opposition to
> serious anti-aging research (as led by Leon Kass,
> Francis Fukuyama and
> others) will lead to legislation blocking or
> limiting our access to healthy
> life extension technologies.
> 
> Politicians - even in comparatively free countries
> like the US - already
> exert a great deal of control over access to
> medicine, what you can and
> can't do with your body, and what medical research
> is permitted.
> Unfortunately, this power is already being abused -
> as power always is - in
> many areas, including stem cell research and
> therapeutic cloning. It is a
> small leap from the present day functions of the FDA
> to a body that sets
> maximum life spans by enforcing restrictions on new
> anti-aging medical
> technologies.
> 
> George Dvorsky has written an excellent article on
> this topic that is
> currently posted at Betterhumans. I quote a fair
> amount in this post, but
> there is a good deal more where that came from - so
> read the whole thing.
> 
> ...
> 
> I consider myself open to ideas and alternative
> perspectives, but as I
> consider the arguments of the bio-Luddites and look
> deeper into their
> meaning, I have come to realize that the
> death-promoting propaganda campaign
> is more than just a battle for hearts and minds. I
> get the impression
> that?should radical life extension technologies
> become readily
> available?these detractors, some of whom have the
> ear of the President,
> would go much further than fighting a war of words
> in their attempt to
> ensure that we never gain mastery over our
> mortality.
> 
> ...
> 
> At times the bio-Luddites sound parochial and
> authoritarian, and at their
> worst they sound downright ideological and even
> totalitarian.
> 
> Indeed, as Kass has repeatedly stated, "the finitude
> of human life is a
> blessing for every individual, whether he knows it
> or not." And
> frighteningly, when asked by Brian Alexander, the
> author of Rapture: How
> Biotechnology Became the New Religion, if the
> government has a right to tell
> its citizens that they have to die, Fukuyama
> answered, "Yes, absolutely."
> 
> ...
> 
> And as for the bio-Luddite deathists, they're
> offering Americans the worst
> and most useless kind of ethics. It is an ethics
> without foundation in
> reality and devoid of pragmatic guidance and
> practical solutions. It simply
> doesn't do for the coming realities of 21st century
> life.
> 
> ...
> 
> I couldn't agree more, and it's a great shame that
> the field once known as
> medical ethics has degenerated into a coven of high
> profile bioethicists set
> on finding the best way to prevent new medicines
> from saving lives.
> 
> Squashing the opposition to serious anti-aging
> medical research will require
> supporters of healthy life extension to start our
> side of the coming battle
> early. We can't afford to wait for entrenched
> pro-death bioethicists to gain
> even greater influence over our overbearing,
> winner-takes-all governments.
> 
> Reason
> Founder, Longevity Meme
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 


From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 14 08:51:10 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:51:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethicsandlegislation
Message-ID: <p05100301bcf316b73405@[150.146.134.133]>

Spike:
>My notion is that we must not look to government to help us in any
>of our transhumanist goals.  Life extentionists are inherently at
>cross purposes with government in this.

I appreciate your perspective, and I know it's important for you. It
doesn't work for me, though. I'm on outside, dealing with the
fallout of the present US administration in my every day life, so my
perspective is alot different. I have to pay attention to how
governments influence me. Not only is no one is 'protecting' me, the
ground level from where I begin is as 'foreigner'

[meaning things already work against me or, on the other side, I
could say that I have a fresh perspective]

The big picture of my own transhumanist goals is to help build the
underlying foundation for people (of different cultures) to
appreciate and take joy in their lives, to know themselves well, and
explore the universe in which their lives are embedded. I can try to
ignore governments beyond their imposition of their immigration laws
on me, but I cannot ignore the influence of governments on the
attitudes of people around me (friends, acquaintances, coworkers).
If I can build a local environment of *people* that supports many of
things I like, then maybe it will spill over into larger and larger
arenas (= more people). Therefore, my focus in the transhumanist
realm is on local people.

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end."
--Calvin


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 14 14:40:52 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:40:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] June 2004 SpaceDev Newsletter
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040614073506.031cb9a0@mail.earthlink.net>

This has already been mentioned on this list, but I thought it might have 
something worth reading.
This press release from John Spencer (on ExI's advisory team).  John is a 
space architect and long-time space enthusiast.  His organization is Space 
Tourism, Inc.  You can read more about John 
here:  http://www.theargonauts.com/columns/brookmantia/070100_spencer.shtml


On June 21st SpaceDev's Hybrid Rocket Motor Technology Will Help Create the 
World's First Private Sector Astronaut!

>On June 21st SpaceShipOne?s fourth powered flight is scheduled to write a 
>new page in the history books.  Years of planning, hard work and hope will 
>be riding with the Scaled Composite test pilot as he attempts to fly 
>higher and faster than any privately funded aviation program has ever flown.
>
>  NASA, the Air Force and other organizations recognize that space begins 
> at 50 miles, and award astronaut status to those achieving the 50 mile 
> altitude.  If the June 21st flight meets the expected altitude of 100km 
> (62.5 miles), the flight will create the world?s first private sector 
> astronaut.
>
>In 1999 Jim Benson and the SpaceDev propulsion team began working with 
>Burt Rutan and his team of engineers at Scaled Composites to create safe, 
>inexpensive, private sector human space flight.  Only a year after 
>contracting with Scaled, SpaceDev successfully tested the world?s largest 
>nitrous oxide-based hybrid rocket motor.  The motor burns rubber (HTPB) 
>and laughing gas (N2O).
>
>  The SpaceShipOne rocket motor is a cooperative design executed by the 
> highly skilled engineers at SpaceDev and Scaled Composites.  SpaceDev 
> supplied the rocket science and most key components. Scaled Composites 
> designed the main concept, two large composite structures: the oxidizer 
> tank and composite Case-Throat-Nozzle (CTN).  This close team effort 
> since 1999 has been a key to the successful development of the unique, 
> record-setting hybrid motor for the historic, manned SpaceShipOne.
>
>  As they have on all previous powered flights, the SpaceDev propulsion 
> team will be on-site on June 21st at the Mojave, CA airport with the 
> Scaled team to provide critical ground, flight, and post-flight support 
> services.  Jim Benson, SpaceDev founding chairman and chief executive 
> officer who will attend the historic flight commented ?This is a 
> tremendously exciting time for everyone who has dreamed and worked to 
> bring low-cost human space flight closer to reality.  We are honored to 
> be part of the team that will achieve this goal.?
>
>NASA Centennial Challenges
>
>Jim Benson has been invited to make a presentation about the SpaceDev 
>Streaker?, a hybrid-based small launch vehicle, at the June 15 ? 16 NASA 
>Centennial Challenges Workshop in Washington, DC.  The panel is titled 
>?Launch Vehicles for Spacecraft Prize Competitions.? The SpaceDev 
>Streaker? is being developed under contract with the Air Force Research 
>Laboratory.  The SpaceDev Streaker? is designed to put up to 1,000 pounds 
>into low earth orbit, at an estimated price of $5 million.  The SpaceDev 
>Streaker? will use a variation of the SpaceShipOne motor as the upper 
>stage, and for the orbit insertion stage, SpaceDev will use a variation of 
>the ?space tug? motor SpaceDev is developing for the Air Force Research 
>Laboratory under a different contract.
>
>About SpaceDev
>
>SpaceDev (OTCBB: SPDV) creates and sells affordable and innovative space 
>products and solutions to government and commercial enterprises.  Upon 
>founding SpaceDev in 1996, Jim Benson started the trend of successful 
>computer entrepreneurs moving into the space development arena.  For more 
>information, visit 
><http://echo.bluehornet.com/ct/ct.php?t=591020&c=329360500&m=m&type=1>www.spacedev.com.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040614/7d7bcde0/attachment.html>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Jun 14 12:52:26 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:52:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack)
In-Reply-To: <000001c451d6$8afd6510$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000001c451d6$8afd6510$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <04Jun14.085226-0400_edt.331662-12317+16097@ams.ftl.affinity.com>

Spike writes: 

>> Everitt Mickey
>> Subject: [extropy-chat] Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack) 
>> 
>> Hi folks...looks like i been gone for about two years? 
>> 
>> Sorry bout that..but "things" happen... EvMick
> 
> EvMick!  Welcome back pal, we missed ya.  {8-]  spike

Definitely!  Welcome Back! 

Where are you now?  What things?  Inquiring Jupiter Brains want to know!  (I 
miss the good ole days....) 

 --
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Jun 14 13:02:29 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:02:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <000001c451c3$1dd46d70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000001c451c3$1dd46d70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <04Jun14.090229-0400_edt.438416-26818+12941@ams.ftl.affinity.com>

Spike writes: 

> I've been getting that since... well, since always.  I've
> always been a bony ass.

We should start the "Bony-assed Extropian Club"! 

> it is bony old Greg (spike = Greg)

Greg?  Who the hell is Greg, and what have you done with Spike??? 

> who is still
> climbing, hiking, running, non-diabetic, non-getting-sick, 
> still doing just as much of all the stuff at 43 that I 
> enjoyed at 17, with the cheerful addition of sex.

Hmmm....  I never thought of adding sex to all those other activities.  No 
wonder they were so boring! 

 --
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> 




From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Jun 14 12:16:28 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:16:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Opera browser, Danny's system glitches
Message-ID: <40CD971C.B5D1FE3C@sasktel.net>

Had a friend , Danny who had a major glitch which locked him out of his
IE browser for an "illegal function" and seemed to even shut down his
access to his file manager.
He had an old email program that worked but barley.
I downloaded the only browser that makes the "under 10 megs" limit for
our
sasktel email boxes ... Opera without java and emailed it to him.
Even his disk utilities refused yesterday so I went back to the old DOS
prompt  in "safe mode" and did a precautionary scan and defrag  the old
fashioned way.

Then I tried using the opera browser myself and found it seems to work
really neat
so now have all 3 running on mine now.  I have always had both netscape
and IE running.
I have always liked the file cache from Netscape as a way to capture the
odd
slippery file that does not want to save except by scraping it out of
the cache.
I have an old P1 100 MHZ win95 system and at times have locked up the
IExplorer
with too large mail  archives and found that IE can get in  when
Netscape freezes.
We are on an old copper line phone system so speed is horrible so I find
the old stuff matches the
Telco's slow connection anyway.

So diversity is sometimes a real lifesaver.

Do you think my friend might also have a lurking virus as the root cause
of his windows
system problems?

Morris Johnson



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Jun 14 13:29:41 2004
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:29:41 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Heavy Metal (he's baaaaaaaaaaack)
In-Reply-To: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>
References: <40CD2A03.3090004@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0406140926520.-92393@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>


Welcome back, EvMick, I wondered where you'd got to! :)

The Extropian mailing list underwent some major changes, as AOL (and
some others) began blocking/bouncing the Extropy list mail in an
effort to eliminate spam. I had to change ISPs also, on that account
mostly. Sure do like this new one, though, it was a good change for
me. :)

Regards,
MB


On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Everitt Mickey wrote:

> Hi folks...looks like i been gone for about two years?
>
> Sorry bout that..but "things" happen.
>
> I hauled about a hundred windmill tower sections last year....nine
> months away from the house non-stop.  Needless to say my AOL account
> choked.  I also got unsubscribed it appears...from  Extropians.



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Jun 14 14:33:23 2004
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:33:23 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Opera browser, Danny's system glitches
In-Reply-To: <40CD971C.B5D1FE3C@sasktel.net>
References: <40CD971C.B5D1FE3C@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0406141028070.-214505@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>


Here is a virus removal tool that I've used:
http://vil.nai.com/vil/stinger/

I love Opera, it is my browser of choice. :) I also have Mozilla and
Netscape 4.x and IE, all of which are better at some things than
others.

For email I'm using PC-Pine. It takes some getting used to, but it
works for me. :)

I am running Windoze 98 SE on a Pentium 200MHz machine. We don't have
broadband available here for reasonable costs. I can hear the noise on
my phone line with my *ears* so I'm sure the computer has a time of
it.

Good luck to Danny.

Regards,
MB


On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:

> Had a friend , Danny who had a major glitch which locked him out of his
> IE browser for an "illegal function" and seemed to even shut down his
> access to his file manager.
> He had an old email program that worked but barley.
> I downloaded the only browser that makes the "under 10 megs" limit for
> our
> sasktel email boxes ... Opera without java and emailed it to him.
> Even his disk utilities refused yesterday so I went back to the old DOS
> prompt  in "safe mode" and did a precautionary scan and defrag  the old
> fashioned way.
>
> Then I tried using the opera browser myself and found it seems to work
> really neat
> so now have all 3 running on mine now.  I have always had both netscape
> and IE running.
> I have always liked the file cache from Netscape as a way to capture the
> odd
> slippery file that does not want to save except by scraping it out of
> the cache.
> I have an old P1 100 MHZ win95 system and at times have locked up the
> IExplorer
> with too large mail  archives and found that IE can get in  when
> Netscape freezes.
> We are on an old copper line phone system so speed is horrible so I find
> the old stuff matches the
> Telco's slow connection anyway.
>
> So diversity is sometimes a real lifesaver.
>
> Do you think my friend might also have a lurking virus as the root cause
> of his windows
> system problems?
>
> Morris Johnson


From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 14 15:36:13 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:36:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
Message-ID: <p05100300bcf374ba7c91@[150.146.134.133]>

Wow! it seems that most of my life I'm living and have lived in
the world's expensive cities  :-(

--------------------

World's most and least expensive cities (looking at a 144 cities across the
world)

Source: Mercer Human Resource Consulting, 2004 Cost-of-Living Survey
2004

Rank	City
1	Tokyo, Japan
2	London, UK
3	Moscow, Russia
4	Osaka, Japan
5	Hong Kong
6	Geneva, Switzerland
7	Seoul, South Korea
8	Copenhagen, Denmark
9	Z?rich, Switzerland
10	St. Petersburg, Russia
11	Beijing, China
12	New York City, USA
13	Milan, Italy
14	Dublin, Ireland
15	Oslo, Norway
16	Shanghai, China
17	Paris, France
18	Istanbul, Turkey
19	Vienna, Austria
20	Sydney, Australia
21	Rome, Italy
22	Stockholm, Sweden
23	Helsinki, Finland
24	Abidjan, Ivory Coast
25	Douala, Cameroon
26	Amsterdam, Netherlands
27	Los Angeles, USA
28	Berlin, Germany
29	Hanoi, Vietnam
30	Shenzhen, China
31	Taipei, Taiwan
32	Guangzhou, China
33	Tel Aviv, Israel
34	Budapest, Hungary
35	Chicago, USA
36	Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
37	Beirut, Lebanon
38	San Francisco, USA
39	Luxembourg
40	D?sseldorf, Germany
41	Glasgow, UK
42	Frankfurt, Germany
43	Munich, Germany
44	Bratislava, Slovak Republic
45	Jakarta, Indonesia
46	Singapore
47	Dakar, Senegal
48	Riga, Latvia
49	Prague, Czech Republic
50	Athens, Greece
51	Birmingham, UK
52	White Plains, USA
53	Brussels, Belgium
54	Kiev, Ukraine
55	Miami, USA
56	Barcelona, Spain
57	Honolulu, USA
58	Hamburg, Germany
59	Zagreb, Croatia
60	Algiers, Algeria
61	Madrid, Spain
62	Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
63	Amman, Jordan
64	Kuwait City, Kuwait
65	San Juan, Puerto Rico
66	Casablanca, Morocco
67	Melbourne, Australia
68	Washington, USA
69	Lyon, France
70	Boston, USA
71	Lisbon, Portugal
72	Morristown, USA
73	Houston, USA
74	Almaty, Kazakhstan
75	Tallinn, Estonia
76	Warsaw, Poland
77	Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
78	Manama, Bahrain
79	Sofia, Bulgaria
80	Auckland, New Zealand
81	Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
82	Ljubljana, Slovenia
83	Dubai, United Arab Emirates
84	Mexico City, Mexico
85	Atlanta, USA
86	Wellington, New Zealand
87	Brisbane, Australia
88	Adelaide, Australia
89	Toronto, Canada
90	Seattle, USA
91	Vilnius, Lithuania
92	St. Louis, USA
93	Leipzig, Germany
94	Perth, Australia
95	Limassol, Cyprus
96	Vancouver, Canada
97	Accra, Ghana
98	Cleveland, USA
99	Cairo, Egypt
100	Denver, USA
101	Detroit, USA
102	Monterrey, Mexico
103	Kingston, Jamaica
104	Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
105	Portland, USA
106	Panama City
107	Winston Salem, USA
108	Guatemala City, Guatemala
109	Mumbai, India
110	Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei
111	Lagos, Nigeria
112	Pittsburgh, USA
113	Montreal, Canada
114	Calgary, Canada
115	Tianjin, China
116	New Delhi, India
117	Dacca (Dhaka), Bangladesh
118	Lima, Peru
119	Bangkok, Thailand
120	Tunis, Tunisia
121	Nairobi, Kenya
122	Tehran, Iran
123	Santiago, Chile
124	Ottawa, Canada
125	Lusaka, Zambia
126	Johannesburg, South Africa
127	Colombo, Sri Lanka
128	S?o Paulo, Brazil
129	Bucharest, Romania
130	San Jos?, Costa Rica
131	Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
132	Karachi, Pakistan
133	Chennai (Madras), India
134	Caracas, Venezuela
135	Blantyre, Malawi
136	Quito, Ecuador
137	Bangalore, India
138	Manila, Philippines
139	Bogot?, Colombia
140	Harare, Zimbabwe
141	Buenos Aires, Argentina
142	Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
143	Montevideo, Uruguay
144	Asunci?n, Paraguay
-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end."
--Calvin


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Mon Jun 14 16:38:19 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:38:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E7EA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

I've used this technique years ago in a Nissan Pulsar NX 
to get over 90MPG. You just have to be really, really,
really patient. Letting the car coast to a complete stop
takes a long time.

If you're driving a stick, around 15mpg you can put it
in 3rd or 4th and slowly release the clutch to smoothly 
start the engine again without destroying your starter or 
flywheel.

It's fun to try as an expirement, but be prepared for
some dirty looks from folks who expect you to maintain 
the speed limit +- 5 MPH.

Acy

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Spike
Sent: Friday, 11 June, 2004 21:35
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world
driving


BillK:
 
> This is very true. In Europe and UK they have annual competitive car
> economy runs where the drivers achieve unbelievable mileage figures,
> just by using careful driving techniques. BillK

True.  If one is ever in an emergency sitch where one
has enough fuel to go 20 km and one knows the next 
fuel station is 40 km away, i'll offer an old motorcyclists
trick to get you to the station without walking:
Accelerate to speed steadily, not too hard, put her in 
neutral, switch off the motor and coast to a stop.  
Start the motor and repeat.  It takes a looong time 
to get there that way, but it beats pushing the car.  
One can double the fuel economy on a typical car.

Motorcyclists, you can easily prove this by riding along
at highway speeds, reach down and shut off the fuel.
Note how long you can go on the gas in the carburetors.
Now stop, shut off the fuel, and do the above trick,
see how far you can go.  Betcha it will be over twice
as far.

The effect on a motorcycle is even more than twice
the fuel economy because bikes use a larger percentage
of their gas pushing air out of the way.  Recall that
the energy use increases as the square of the velocity.

Next time you run short and need to limp into the station 
on fumes, recall this post.

spike


  

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


From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Mon Jun 14 17:36:06 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:36:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E7EA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E7EA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <40CDE206.1060701@cfl.rr.com>


>The effect on a motorcycle is even more than twice
>the fuel economy because bikes use a larger percentage
>of their gas pushing air out of the way.  Recall that
>the energy use increases as the square of the velocity.
>  
>
I think you might get much the same effect by going really slow and 
keeping the engine in the highest gear you can without causing it to 
stall.  So the engine is just barely turning over and you aren't 
fighting the air as much.  This is basically why the simplest recipe for 
a high mileage car is just a well streamlined car with a really low 
power motor.



From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Mon Jun 14 19:34:51 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:34:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040614203301.02343e20@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>

I hear ya.  Dublin may not _be_ the most expensive city in the world, but 
it sure feels like it.


James....
*Who'll likely not have to shell out for the priviledge of living here much 
longer*


>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:36:13 +0100
>From: Amara Graps <amara at amara.com>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
>To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>Message-ID: <p05100300bcf374ba7c91@[150.146.134.133]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
>
>
>Wow! it seems that most of my life I'm living and have lived in
>the world's expensive cities  :-(
>
>
>--------------------
>
>
>World's most and least expensive cities (looking at a 144 cities across the
>world)
>
>
>Source: Mercer Human Resource Consulting, 2004 Cost-of-Living Survey
>2004
>
>
>Rank    City
>1       Tokyo, Japan
>2       London, UK
>3       Moscow, Russia
>4       Osaka, Japan
>5       Hong Kong
>6       Geneva, Switzerland
>7       Seoul, South Korea
>8       Copenhagen, Denmark
>9       Z?rich, Switzerland
>10      St. Petersburg, Russia
>11      Beijing, China
>12      New York City, USA
>13      Milan, Italy
>14      Dublin, Ireland




From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Mon Jun 14 19:44:35 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:44:35 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bcf374ba7c91@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p05100300bcf374ba7c91@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406142142020.7021@zeus>



On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Amara Graps wrote:

>Source: Mercer Human Resource Consulting, 2004 Cost-of-Living Survey
>2004
>
>Rank	City
>1	Tokyo, Japan
>2	London, UK
>3	Moscow, Russia
>[...]
>11	Beijing, China
>12	New York City, USA
>13	Milan, Italy
>[...]
>21	Rome, Italy

They look at capitals and big cities, but you can find small cities waaay
up there. Put Florence, Italy somewhere between Rome and Milan, and
Venice, Italy near the top :-(( And I'm very surprised about the rating
Moscow abd Beijing get.

Alfio


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Mon Jun 14 20:01:08 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:01:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
Message-ID: <1087243268.29498@whirlwind.he.net>

> 11	Beijing, China
> 12	New York City, USA



It's when I saw this that I started to wonder what their criteria was. 
There are some other big question marks, but I cannot fathom how Beijing
could be more expensive than NYC.  I travel to both those cities, and
the cost of food, housing, transportation, etc often varies between
those two by integer factors, with Beijing being dirt cheap for roughly
equivalent goods as far as my experience goes.  I'm at a loss to figure
out where all this "expense" is that makes Beijing more expensive than NYC.

Any clue why this is?  Is it being normalized for per capita income of
the local population?


j. andrew rogers



From mike99 at lascruces.com  Mon Jun 14 23:10:15 2004
From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:10:15 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Greg Egan's poem "Technoliberation"
Message-ID: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKOEKPDPAA.mike99@lascruces.com>

Technoliberation

by nat (public)

It is not true that the map of freedom will be complete
with the erasure of the last invidious border
when it remains for us to chart the attractors of thunder
and delineate the arrhythmias of drought
to reveal the molecular dialects of forest and savanna
as rich as a thousand human tongues
and to comprehend the deepest history of our passions
ancient beyond mythology's reach

So I declare that no corporation holds a monopoly on numbers
no patent can encompass zero and one
no nation has sovereignty over adenine and guanine
no empire rules the quantum waves

And there must be room for all at the celebration of understanding
for there is a truth which cannot be bought or sold
imposed by force, resisted
or escaped.


[Greg Egan as Muteba Kazadi]
https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=28479

Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mike99 at lascruces.com
mlatorra at nmsu.edu

"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
towards slavery."
-- Jacob Bronowski

Member:
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Technical Communication: www.stc.org




From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Tue Jun 15 00:53:37 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:53:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics = poseidon adventure
In-Reply-To: <40CD0EB4.4010007@posthuman.com>
References: <010901c4517e$fcd71620$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<40CD04E1.3040108@cfl.rr.com> <40CD0EB4.4010007@posthuman.com>
Message-ID: <40CE4891.2060506@cfl.rr.com>

Brian Atkins wrote:

> Gregory there's a really super insurance guy down there in FL named 
> Rudi Hoffman. He's a whiz with cryonics stuff - and he's glad to 
> answer whatever questions you can think up. I highly recommend him, 
> and I know many more people here and elsewhere do as well.

Can you send me his contact info (offlist if you want).



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Jun 15 01:21:07 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:21:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cybertracker
Message-ID: <40CE4F03.C5DB08B0@mindspring.com>

[Maybe this made the lists recently, seems familiar, yet new to me -twc]


< http://www.cybertracker.co.za/ >

The most efficient way to gather large quantities of data for field
observations, even by non-literate users, at a level of detail not possible
before. 
 

The CyberTracker field computer is designed to be quick and easy to use in the
field, even by non-literate users. Scientists and conservationists benefit from
the icon interface enabling significantly faster data collection than text
interfaces or written methods. A user-friendly interface developed for PalmOS
handheld computers allows field workers to record hundreds of detailed 
observations per day. The handheld computer can also be linked to a GPS.

The CyberTracker software allows users with no programming skills to: 

Design and edit a database 
Customise screen sequences using the Screen Writer feature 
Gather data with the CyberTracker field computer 
View data with the CyberTracker Geographic Information System 
Export data for advanced analysis, e.g. to Excel, ArcView or Distance



-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Jun 15 01:41:08 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:41:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] _In Praise of Slowness_ by Carl Honore
Message-ID: <40CE53B4.ECB913BE@mindspring.com>

I read a review in The Economist this week, 'Life at a different pace.'
< http://www.economist.co.uk/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2745438 >

This seems fortean to me.

Terry


A couple of curiosities cited include Society for the Deceleration of Time
and a Slow Sex movement.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/20040515/BKSLOW15/TPEntertainment/ >
< http://framework.v2.nl/archive/archive/node/actor/default.xslt/nodenr-129096 >


< http://www.startribune.com/stories/384/4714025.html >
A few years back, Canadian journalist Carl Honore decided to put the brakes on
his life after hearing about an absurd concept: The one-minute bedtime story.
Honor? was bothered by the idea of a 60-second "Little Red Riding Hood," but
he was bothered more by how much it initially appealed to him. However
hyperactive modern life is, he realized, fast-forwarding through quality time
is even worse. There is, he notes, "a gnawing disconnect between what we want
from life and what we can realistically have, which feeds the sense that there
is never enough time."


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun 15 02:16:17 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:16:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] good journalistic treatment of Alzheimer's and pharma
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040614211521.01cb11c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

 From the UK Observer, reprinted:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/14/1087065082699.html



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun 15 02:30:27 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:30:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics & Rudi Hoffman
In-Reply-To: <40CE4891.2060506@cfl.rr.com>
References: <010901c4517e$fcd71620$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<40CD04E1.3040108@cfl.rr.com> <40CD0EB4.4010007@posthuman.com>
	<40CE4891.2060506@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040614212847.01caf290@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>
>>Gregory there's a really super insurance guy down there in FL named Rudi 
>>Hoffman. He's a whiz with cryonics stuff
>
>Can you send me his contact info (offlist if you want).

Go to google and key in

"Rudi Hoffman" cryonics

Top response:

www.rudihoffman.com/

There are plenty of other cites as well. 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun 15 03:20:26 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:20:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atlantis found again again
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040614221950.01ba3e30@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3766863.stm 



From sjvans at ameritech.net  Tue Jun 15 04:06:07 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:06:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonics & Rudi Hoffman
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040614212847.01caf290@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <010901c4517e$fcd71620$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<40CD04E1.3040108@cfl.rr.com> <40CD0EB4.4010007@posthuman.com>
	<40CE4891.2060506@cfl.rr.com>
	<6.1.1.1.0.20040614212847.01caf290@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1087272366.1022.28.camel@Renfield>


Also here:

http://alcor.org/SuspFunding/insuragents.html


On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 21:30, Damien Broderick wrote:
> >
> >>Gregory there's a really super insurance guy down there in FL named Rudi 
> >>Hoffman. He's a whiz with cryonics stuff
> >
> >Can you send me his contact info (offlist if you want).
> 
> Go to google and key in
> 
> "Rudi Hoffman" cryonics
> 
> Top response:
> 
> www.rudihoffman.com/
> 
> There are plenty of other cites as well. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Tue Jun 15 06:03:01 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:03:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Greg Egan's poem "Technoliberation"
In-Reply-To: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKOEKPDPAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
References: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKOEKPDPAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
Message-ID: <40CE9115.7060807@cfl.rr.com>

mike99 wrote:

>Technoliberation
>
>by nat (public)
>
>It is not true that the map of freedom will be complete
>with the erasure of the last invidious border
>when it remains for us to chart the attractors of thunder
>and delineate the arrhythmias of drought
>to reveal the molecular dialects of forest and savanna
>as rich as a thousand human tongues
>and to comprehend the deepest history of our passions
>ancient beyond mythology's reach
>
>So I declare that no corporation holds a monopoly on numbers
>no patent can encompass zero and one
>no nation has sovereignty over adenine and guanine
>no empire rules the quantum waves
>
>And there must be room for all at the celebration of understanding
>for there is a truth which cannot be bought or sold
>imposed by force, resisted
>or escaped.
>
>
>[Greg Egan as Muteba Kazadi]
>https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=28479
>
>  
>
Thanks!  Now I need find out about this Muteba Kazadi person.  The stuff 
on the web about him is all in Italian it seems./
/



From amara at amara.com  Tue Jun 15 08:51:14 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:51:14 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
Message-ID: <p05100302bcf467ea8fc9@[150.146.134.133]>

J. Andrew Rogers:
>  11	Beijing, China
>  12	New York City, USA

>It's when I saw this that I started to wonder what their criteria was.
[...]
>Any clue why this is?  Is it being normalized for per capita income of
>the local population?

It seems not. Here is from their web site:

http://www.mercerhr.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml?idContent=1096865

"The survey, which covers 144 cities, measures the comparative cost
of more than 200 items in each location. These include housing,
food, clothing, and household goods, together with transportation
and entertainment.  The data is used to assist multinational
companies and governments in determining compensation allowances for
their expatriate workers."

Maybe they didn't create a good sample of items in Beijing? Why don't
you write them and describe what you know?

Here's an anecdote: my professor from San Jose State University in
the Silicon Valley spent six months last year on a sabbatical in
Rome. He thought that the rental costs for flats was not too bad...
So why is that? (Silicon Valley is expensive too!)

21	Rome, Italy
[...]
38	San Francisco, USA

If the prices were normalized for per capita income of the local
population, then perhaps Rome would be higher. (It is mostly the
rent that is killing me, other prices are generally ok)

I know about the phenomena of the smaller cities too, Alfio. The
people in Heidelberg (population 150,000) claimed that their city
was the next most expensive place to live in Germany after Munich,
and Heidelberg was not listed (but, being relatively close to
Frankfurt, I grouped it with that). My experience with Florence and
Venice is that Venice should be at the top for Italian cities, and
then Florence tied with Milan. Another anecdote: A man who manages
the CNR network at my location lives in Milan and commutes, and he
says that my town of Frascati (population 15,000) is more expensive
for flat rentals than Milan! :-(


Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It's not the pace of life I mind. It's the sudden stop at the end."
--Calvin


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 15 10:55:41 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:55:41 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumantech RSS feed
Message-ID: <20040615105541.GV12847@leitl.org>


Yahoogroups has been offering RSS feeds of mailing lists.
The RSS feed for transhumantech is 

	http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/rss

This should make the drinking from the firehose easier.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040615/967799e0/attachment.bin>

From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Jun 15 13:39:53 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:39:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
In-Reply-To: <200406141432.i5EEWjn31092@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406141432.i5EEWjn31092@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40CEFC29.4000306@CRNano.org>

The Avantguardian wrote:
 > ".... the current neo-con cabal .... it's like they are the
 > metaphysical servants of death and chaos. And yet...
 > they claim to be god-fearing xtians when in reality
 > they worship a god of fear. That Jesus fellow they
 > love to name drop only ever spoke of love."

Note that they are currently engaged in global struggle with nihilists.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a 
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also 
into you. -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not 
come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against 
his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law 
against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own 
household. -- Jesus Christ, quoted in Matthew 10:34-42

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Jun 15 14:06:24 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:06:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
Message-ID: <40CF0260.7090404@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Mon Jun 14 01:28:22 MDT 2004 The Avantguardian wrote:
> That Jesus fellow they love to name drop only ever spoke of love.

Tut, tut. You don't have to repeat their propaganda. ;)

The Gospels originated as lots of stories about Jesus and sayings
attributed to him. Centuries after his death, after substantial editing
by the Greco-Roman xians, they agreed on only four gospels and said all
the others were 'unapproved'.

Trying to find out what the original stories actually were, occupies 
many scholars. One school thinks that Jesus and his followers were 
violent revolutionaries against the Roman occupation (much like 
al-Qaeda). As were the majority of Jews at that time, of course. Before 
the 70AD rebellion destroyed the temple, wiped out most of the fighters 
and dispersed the population.

You can trace the hints still remaining in the gospels. They admit that
at least some disciples were officially zealots (guerrilla fighters).
The disciples were armed. Jesus told them to buy swords. They invaded
and took over the outer temple court, (despite the temple guards) when
Jesus used a whip on the traders there. He was killed by the Romans for
being a rebel leader. (Not unusual - the Romans killed thousands of
so-called rebels). And so on.

The 'love' sayings mostly come from Cynic philosophy and are suited to
non-jewish xians of the post-70AD period who were trying to show the
Romans that they were harmless.

And, of course, all the 'love' sayings haven't stopped Christianity
being one of the most warlike religions around.

BillK





From alex at ramonsky.com  Tue Jun 15 14:33:12 2004
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:33:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Invitation
Message-ID: <40CF08A8.6040709@ramonsky.com>

  BCC/Neuroscience Alliance/Entelechy Institute
Invites you to:
*************
IA Day
*************

Location: Wolverton, Bucks, UK
Attendance Fee: $0:00 (?0:00) (please pay before arrival)

Schedule:
12 noon - 5pm

    * Meet at: The Albert Function Suite, The New Victoria hotel, 46
      Church Street, Wolverton, Bucks, Tel: (01908) 315447
    * Free beer/wine/beverages
    * IA lecture by Alex Ramonsky,
    * Demos of biofeedback & light/sound machines.
    * Transhumanist & Extropian news exchange & updates
    * Intro to the Entelechy Institute's new project -'Babylon 5.5'.
    * BCC's International Backup Exchange (bring your backups...it's
      nice to know if your house burns down you have a backup on the
      other side of the world).

5pm-at least midnight:

    * Alex's book launching party (at Alex's home; 5 minutes away)
    * Meal provided
    * More free drinks
    * Demos of TMS/NMS tech
    * Light/sound sessions
    * Free copy of book for all those who helped (if not available on
      the day, this will be posted to you)
    * The annual Russell Carter shooting competition with prizes
    * Music & videos

Accommodation choices:
1. Alex's house : free, but there may be a crowd and it may be just 
carpet space. How long you stay is up to you, so if you fancy a cheap 
holiday in London, here you go.
2. Local hotel:  The Crauford Arms or (nobbier) The Swan Revived Hotel, 
Newport Pagnell. Make your own booking arrangements.
Fee and bookings:
There is no fee, but it's important we know whether or not you are 
coming so as to estimate catering needs. It is also important to respond 
so that your name is left on the venue door and you can get in; this is 
a private booking. If you do not respond, we shall assume you're not coming!


So, RSVP to:
alex at ramonsky.com
Or by mail to:
The Entelechy Institute
Seventh Star Studios
27 Old Gloucester Street
London WC1N 3XX
Or
Tel: (UK) 07092 016095
Or: 07759 693908

Feel free to bring a partner or friend. We are not yet sure if under-16s 
are admissible but if you have a problem with this we can find out for you.
Any other inquiries please use the above contacts.
**************

The Entelechy Institute June 2004
This email is subject to IPMA law (Intellectual Property My Ass). You 
may therefore copy it and distribute it as you please. We know you have 
good taste enough not to spam people.

*****************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040615/bba0a0ff/attachment.html>

From sentdev at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 15 14:16:23 2004
From: sentdev at hotmail.com (George Dvorsky)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:16:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] TTA Social this Sat. Jun 19
Message-ID: <BAY2-F47W4uFWjkOTGk0004c524@hotmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

The Toronto Transhumanist Association is having a social gathering at the 
Green Room this coming Saturday June 19. We'd love for you to join us. We're 
hoping to get a table on the patio, so go there first to look for us.

Members and non-members welcome! If you don't know what we look like, we're 
the ones with a copy of Ray Kurzweil's 'The Age of Spiritual Machines on the 
table' (shiny, silver book)

Please let me know if you'd like to attend. Or, just show up. You can e-mail 
me at george at betterhumans.com

Event: Toronto Transhumanist Association social
Date: Saturday June 19, 2004
Time: 8:30 PM
Location: The Green Room (patio)
296 Brunswick
Toronto, ON M5S2M7
Phone: (416) 929-3253
http://www.toronto.com/profile/149645/


George Dvorsky
President, Toronto Transhumanist Association
Deputy Editor, Betterhumans
george at betterhumans.com
http://www.sentientdevelopments.com

_________________________________________________________________
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months 
FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Jun 15 14:25:40 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
In-Reply-To: <p05100302bcf467ea8fc9@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406150715130.8246-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Amara Graps wrote:

[snip]
> Another anecdote: A man who manages
> the CNR network at my location lives in Milan and commutes, and he
> says that my town of Frascati (population 15,000) is more expensive
> for flat rentals than Milan! :-(

Amara, this doesn't make sense.  I've been to Italy [Rome, Florence,
Genova, Venice] (in the mid'70s and mid'80s) and to Heidelburg (in the
mid '90s).  None of those locations are exactly screaming out for lack
of surrounding land on which to build apartments.  (I'd guess that
for Genova and Venice, maybe Heidelburg one might argue for geographic
barriers -- but given modern transportation systems these and the
fondness for trains in Europe this should be a significant problem.)

There is not exactly a lack of laborers for construction given immigration
from Africa (or is there???).

So something strange is going on (bureaucracy? politics? culture?) if
there is a lack of affordable housing.  Or is wood based housing in
the U.S. really *that* much cheaper than brick or concrete based
housing in Europe?

Robert




From alex at ramonsky.com  Tue Jun 15 15:36:57 2004
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:36:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Invitation
Message-ID: <40CF1799.9090406@ramonsky.com>


...and of course we forgot the date, didn't we?  --July 31st, 2004  :  )

BCC/Neuroscience Alliance/Entelechy Institute
Invites you to:
*************
IA Day
*************

Location: Wolverton, Bucks, UK
Attendance Fee: $0:00 (?0:00) (please pay before arrival)
Date: 31st July 2004

Schedule:
12 noon - 5pm

    * Meet at: The Albert Function Suite, The New Victoria hotel, 46
      Church Street, Wolverton, Bucks, Tel: (01908) 315447
    * Free beer/wine/beverages
    * IA lecture by Alex Ramonsky,
    * Demos of biofeedback & light/sound machines.
    * Transhumanist & Extropian news exchange & updates
    * Intro to the Entelechy Institute's new project -'Babylon 5.5'.
    * BCC's International Backup Exchange (bring your backups...it's
      nice to know if your house burns down you have a backup on the
      other side of the world).

5pm-at least midnight:

    * Alex's book launching party (at Alex's home; 5 minutes away)
    * Meal provided
    * More free drinks
    * Demos of TMS/NMS tech
    * Light/sound sessions
    * Free copy of book for all those who helped (if not available on
      the day, this will be posted to you)
    * The annual Russell Carter shooting competition with prizes
    * Music & videos

Accommodation choices:
1. Alex's house : free, but there may be a crowd and it may be just 
carpet space. How long you stay is up to you, so if you fancy a cheap 
holiday in London, here you go.
2. Local hotel:  The Crauford Arms, Wolverton or (nobbier) The Swan 
Revived Hotel, Newport Pagnell. Make your own booking arrangements.
Fee and bookings:
There is no fee, but it's important we know whether or not you are 
coming so as to estimate catering needs. It is also important to respond 
so that your name is left on the venue door and you can get in; this is 
a private booking. If you do not respond, we shall assume you're not coming!


So, RSVP to:
alex at ramonsky.com
Or by mail to:
The Entelechy Institute
Seventh Star Studios
27 Old Gloucester Street
London WC1N 3XX
Or
Tel: (UK) 07092 016095
Or: 07759 693908

Feel free to bring a partner or friend. We are not yet sure if under-16s 
are admissible but if you have a problem with this we can find out for you.
Any other inquiries please use the above contacts.
**************

The Entelechy Institute June 2004
This email is subject to IPMA law (Intellectual Property My Ass). You 
may therefore copy it and distribute it as you please. We know you have 
good taste enough not to spam people.

*****************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040615/7f29f6f2/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Jun 15 16:05:39 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:05:39 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Resignation from moderator role
Message-ID: <00ee01c452f2$9a4939f0$852c2dcb@homepc>

Dear Natasha and extropes,

I'd like to be removed from the moderator list on the ExI site and for it to be known that I am no longer a moderator. 

I'm not feeling moderate much these days and neither read nor post the list as often as I used to. It often seems the best of the best of us (people) comes out only in adversity, while the worst of the worst gets off too lightly when dealt with only moderately. 

I still enjoy reading some posts to the list from time to time but I don't read enough to be comfortable being a moderator.  

Regards,
Brett Paatsch

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040616/6464e858/attachment.html>

From ml at gondwanaland.com  Tue Jun 15 15:45:20 2004
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:45:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
In-Reply-To: <p05100302bcf467ea8fc9@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p05100302bcf467ea8fc9@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20040615154520.GA8438@or.pair.com>

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:51:14AM +0100, Amara Graps wrote:
> Maybe they didn't create a good sample of items in Beijing? Why don't
> you write them and describe what you know?

My understanding is that "cost of expat life" surveys are really
"cost of executive life" surveys and are thus pricing high end
accommodation, dining, and entertainment equivalent to what an exec
would expect in the US.  In some countries high security costs for
execs have to be taken into account as well, one explanation I've
heard for why Russian cities always rank high.

-- 
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://gondwanaland.com/ml/


From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Tue Jun 15 17:11:34 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:11:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
In-Reply-To: <p05100302bcf467ea8fc9@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p05100302bcf467ea8fc9@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <40CF2DC6.4090700@cfl.rr.com>

Amara Graps wrote:

> J. Andrew Rogers:
>
>>  11    Beijing, China
>>  12    New York City, USA
>
>
>> It's when I saw this that I started to wonder what their criteria was.
>
> [...]
>
>> Any clue why this is?  Is it being normalized for per capita income of
>> the local population? 
>

In as much as cost of living is basically housing cost, I'm guessing 
this is something like what is going on.  An "average" dwelling in a 
typical third world city might be very cheap indeed.  But its lack of 
reliable and adequate heat, A/C, hot water, noise control, fire safety, 
physical security, etc... mean that it doesn't even get counted when 
these surveys are taken.  A relatively very small number of dwellings in 
such places are up to western standards for all those things and these 
places are correspondingly fantastically expensive.  The distribution 
would have a low median and average and be strongly "right skew".  New 
York, London or similar place by contrast would have almost all 
dwellings at a high quality level and a high cost as well.  The cost of 
a "western comfort level" in New York or London might be less though 
than in a third world capital.



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 15 17:59:10 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
In-Reply-To: <40CEFC29.4000306@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040615175910.31735.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> The Avantguardian wrote:
>  > ".... the current neo-con cabal .... it's like
> they are the
>  > metaphysical servants of death and chaos. And
> yet...
>  > they claim to be god-fearing xtians when in
> reality
>  > they worship a god of fear. That Jesus fellow
> they
>  > love to name drop only ever spoke of love."
> 
> Note that they are currently engaged in global
> struggle with nihilists.
> 
> He who fights with monsters might take care lest he
> thereby become a 
> monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the
> abyss gazes also 
> into you. -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

You know, I sometimes wonder why people still cling to
labels that have long since been stretched so far that
they're practically meaningless.  Banning stem cell
research, for instance, is called "conservative", but
clamping down on research - even that which could
merely identify a threat - wasn't as widely used in
the past, so isn't promoting that change a "liberal"
move?  Likewise, a lover and a warmonger could both
claim to be the truest follower of Christ and honestly
(by their own understandings) call the other a heathen
against whom the world must be protected according to
Christ's teachings.

When a way has made enough compromises that it loses
all clear meaning of what is and is not the way, then
that way is lost.  It becomes a skin for politicians
to wear when useful, and discard when not.  But no way
is perfectly true and correct when first laid out, no
matter how much it may seem so to its initial
creators.  A way which could adjust and admit its
previous errors, such that that which was once thought
to be the way is now admitted not to be (and why, so
as to be sure the correction itself was not a mistake,
and to aid seeking the mistake out if it appears
elsewhere), would seem to be able to overcome this
weakness.  One wonders why such has not already
evolved.  Are the benefits of chameleonic
philosophical skins really that much more than the
benefits of a proper way of being?


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Tue Jun 15 18:06:52 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:06:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
Message-ID: <1087322812.4155@whirlwind.he.net>

Mike Linksvayer wrote: 
> My understanding is that "cost of expat life" surveys are really
> "cost of executive life" surveys and are thus pricing high end
> accommodation, dining, and entertainment equivalent to what an exec
> would expect in the US.  In some countries high security costs for
> execs have to be taken into account as well, one explanation I've
> heard for why Russian cities always rank high.


Yeah, that may make more sense.  I believe the apartment rental rate
they used for Beijing was $3700/month, which is substantially more than
the daily rate computed over a month at one of the very nice hotels
downtown.  There are apartment towers that cost that much in Beijing
(I've looked when I was there), but they are pretty posh and exclusive
-- usually marketed to foreign executives.  Arguably not a "typical"
living accommodation for the average person by western standards.

A pity that the tap water isn't potable in a city so theoretically
expensive.

j. andrew rogers




From scerir at libero.it  Tue Jun 15 18:31:21 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:31:21 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] World's most and least expensive cities
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406150715130.8246-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <1da401c45306$f5b64990$7ec01b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Robert J. Bradbury" 

> None of those locations are exactly screaming out for lack
> of surrounding land on which to build apartments.  

> There is not exactly a lack of laborers for construction 
> given immigration from Africa (or is there???).
 
> So something strange is going on (bureaucracy? politics? culture?) 
> if there is a lack of affordable housing.

Politics. Or law (if law is something different from politics,
which I doubt, I mean I doubt that law is something different
from politics here).

There are enough apartments in Italy. And there are enough
empty apartments in Italy. But the owners prefer not to
rent their apartments. There are many reasons for that.
The main reason is that (sometimes, or very often) you cannot 
get back your apartment at the end of location time. Where
is the judge? Who is the judge? What is the law? Years
and years to get the apartment back. So, when the owners 
actually rent, they also ask so much (and some "black" money
too, cash). 

Construction? New buildings? Right. But where is the land?
Is there enough land for new buildings? Yes there is,
but the urban plan usually says this land is not for construction,
but for agricolture. But you can change the urban plan,
is not it? It depends. It depends. The first question
politicians ask is this. "Whose is the land?". Because
you know, land for construction has huge values! And
politicians are *very* interested in those values ..... 

s.   





From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Jun 15 18:38:51 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:38:51 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
In-Reply-To: <20040615175910.31735.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040615175910.31735.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <04Jun15.143852-0400_edt.564939-26270+26777@ams.ftl.affinity.com>

Adrian Tymes writes:
> Banning stem cell
> research, for instance, is called "conservative", but
> clamping down on research - even that which could
> merely identify a threat - wasn't as widely used in
> the past, so isn't promoting that change a "liberal"
> move?

No.  Conservatives don't want change or new things.  Clamping down on 
research or the discover of new things is conservative.  Preventing 
information that might support the need for change is conservative.  All of 
these seem consistent to me.  You have to look at the motives.  These "new" 
actions are not mean to change anything, but to enforce the status quo.  
Just because they are using more force and trying harder than ever not to 
change does not count as a liberal initiative for change. 

 --
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> 




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 15 19:50:11 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and
	legislation
In-Reply-To: <04Jun15.143852-0400_edt.564939-26270+26777@ams.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <20040615195011.56071.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes writes:
> > Banning stem cell
> > research, for instance, is called "conservative",
> but
> > clamping down on research - even that which could
> > merely identify a threat - wasn't as widely used
> in
> > the past, so isn't promoting that change a
> "liberal"
> > move?
> 
> No.  Conservatives don't want change or new things. 
> Clamping down on 
> research or the discover of new things is
> conservative.  Preventing 
> information that might support the need for change
> is conservative.  All of 
> these seem consistent to me.  You have to look at
> the motives.  These "new" 
> actions are not mean to change anything, but to
> enforce the status quo.  
> Just because they are using more force and trying
> harder than ever not to 
> change does not count as a liberal initiative for
> change. 

That's what it seems to me, too, but I've seen people
use arguments like this to claim they're liberals
because they want to change the vector of progress,
and make sure everything's "safe" (as in the
Precautionary Principle) before it's allowed, unlike
in the past.

Just providing an example of the kinds of warping
these labels are subject to.  (I think we can agree
that to call this "liberal" is contrary to the
original meaning.)


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 15 20:45:23 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:45:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Resignation from moderator role
Message-ID: <158510-220046215204523425@M2W038.mail2web.com>

Thanks Brett!

You have done an excellent job!  Let us know when you would like to
moderatoe again and we will put you back on the team.

my best to you,

Natasha


From: Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:05:39 +1000
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] Resignation from moderator role


Dear Natasha and extropes,

I'd like to be removed from the moderator list on the ExI site and for it
to be known that I am no longer a moderator. 

I'm not feeling moderate much these days and neither read nor post the list
as often as I used to. It often seems the best of the best of us (people)
comes out only in adversity, while the worst of the worst gets off too
lightly when dealt with only moderately. 

I still enjoy reading some posts to the list from time to time but I don't
read enough to be comfortable being a moderator.  

Regards,
Brett Paatsch



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 15 21:52:53 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:52:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] TTA Social this Sat. Jun 19
Message-ID: <200560-22004621521525328@M2W063.mail2web.com>

George Dvorsky worte:

>The Toronto Transhumanist Association is having a social gathering at the 
>Green Room this coming Saturday June 19. We'd love for you to join us.
>We're hoping to get a table on the patio, so go there first to look for us.

Since I cannot look for you in the Green Room, I looked for you at your
home page and was dazzled.  I like the way that you cross rigid boundaries
for a more balanced stance.

Natasha



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 16 06:24:09 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:24:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death
	bioethicsandlegislation
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bcf316b73405@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <003201c4536a$8bd7f000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Amara Graps
> 
> 
> Spike:
> >My notion is that we must not look to government to help us in any
> >of our transhumanist goals.  Life extentionists are inherently at
> >cross purposes with government in this.
> 
> I appreciate your perspective, and I know it's important for you. It
> doesn't work for me, though...

Amara, you have a most gentle and kind way of expressing
yourself, most worthy of emulation.  {8-]


> I'm on outside, dealing with the
> fallout of the present US administration in my every day life...
...
>Therefore, my focus in the transhumanist
> realm is on local people.
> 
> Amara

Ja, I agree with all of this.  My notion is much more narrowly
focused however: governments will be no help at all in the pursuit 
of life extension.  Good chance they will be rather a hindrance,
for governments pay out pensions to the elderly, and may perceive 
life extension as a threat to stability.  This is only the third 
biggest problem, however.  

The second biggest problem is that industry, with its collective
money and science behind it, is not particularly interested in
life extension.  Industry is very interested in *youth* extension,
giving us viagra and baldness treatments, along with a seemly
halfhearted scattering of cures for some diseases.  But overall, 
I see practically nothing from industry for true life extension.

But the biggest problem is that very few people are interested
in life extension.  As with industry, plenty of people will go
for youth extension.  Every day we see people vainly tossing 
their coins into the fountain of youth, seemingly none of it
aimed at living longer.  I suppose living better now is a form
of life extension.  But I want more.

spike






From amara at amara.com  Wed Jun 16 10:24:29 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:24:29 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: World's most and least expensive cities
Message-ID: <p05100305bcf58ff79f6f@[150.146.134.133]>

Robert Bradbury:
>Amara:
>>  Another anecdote: A man who manages
>>  the CNR network at my location lives in Milan and commutes, and he
>>  says that my town of Frascati (population 15,000) is more expensive
>>  for flat rentals than Milan! :-(

>Amara, this doesn't make sense.  I've been to Italy [Rome, Florence,
>Genova, Venice] (in the mid'70s and mid'80s) and to Heidelburg (in the
>mid '90s).  None of those locations are exactly screaming out for lack
>of surrounding land on which to build apartments.  (I'd guess that
>for Genova and Venice, maybe Heidelburg one might argue for geographic
>barriers -- but given modern transportation systems these and the
>fondness for trains in Europe this should be a significant problem.)

Hmm. Heidelberg. Look at a map of the city. On one side is a small
mountain. On the other side is the Neckar river. And on the other side
is that large land area where no streets are marked. That part is the
American military base. In addition to the physical barriers, you'll
find building laws that are similar to Boulder, Colorado, which
places strong limits all new buildings, in order to preserve the
natural beauty of the city.

During my first two years working (as PhD student) in Heidelberg,
I did live a distance away in a small village, where flats were
cheaper and more available, but the tradeoff was a three-hour daily
commute by trains and buses, and a flat that grew fungus on the walls
up to the height of my waist.

>There is not exactly a lack of laborers for construction given immigration
>from Africa (or is there???).

Immigration ??!! Italy and Germany doesn't want immigrants of any
kind (including older, female, educated astrophysicists who carry US
and Latvian passports :-( ). Both countries have passed a spate of
new laws in the last two years that strongly limits immigrants. For
example, in Germany, if you've been recently educated at a German
university (in other words, the government paid for your education),
but you're not a German citizen, you're placed in an immigrant
category that is no different from a person who is educated
elsewhere.

Even the ten 'new EU' members are limited- Yes, they can move
more-or-less freely (the Schengen Agreement doesn't apply to the ten
new countries, but the border guards wave you through without
inspection once they see the country of your passport). But the
existing phobic-EU member countries passed new laws last winter that
limit the number of new EU citizens to actually work (the laws
of Italy are those I know best, since I'm trying to use only
my Latvian passport now).

But those new laws don't stop many people (including moi *) from
trying, nor does anyone in Italy know what to do, now that the
permesso di soggiorno (permit-of-stay) system has collapsed. There
are hundreds of thousands of people walking around with expired
permessos. (Maybe someone should tell the EU that Italy's borders
are porous?)  So the immigrants _are_ here, mostly illegally. Are
they working? I don't know. I am (two fulltime jobs).

>So something strange is going on (bureaucracy? politics? culture?) if
>there is a lack of affordable housing.  Or is wood based housing in
>the U.S. really *that* much cheaper than brick or concrete based
>housing in Europe?

My experience in my part of Italy about why the lack of housing is
1) a huge number (65% say) of Italians live in their own owned flats
2) political, and 3) the standards of remaining available flats are
poor.

Regarding 1): Flats are many Italians' life investment because they
don't trust -- for good reason -- banks and other financial
mechanisms.

Regarding 2):  Some years ago Italy had laws that favored the renter
so much that renters could continue to live in someone's flat under
absurd conditions. The biggest result was that flat owners couldn't
get renters, who didn't pay their rent, to leave. It took years in
many cases for flat owners to get their flats back. Now they don't
want to rent them any more. I see these empty flats around my town
(Frascati). To try to rent them, you must take it upon yourself to
find the owner and ask if they are willing to rent, which might be
difficult if you don't know the neighbors in that neighborhood who
could tell you who is the owner. If you're a new resident or a
foreigner: 1) you wouldn't know about these empty flats, 2) you
might have language communication difficulties, 3) you are 'foreign'
to the neighborhood, and sometimes/often not welcome (Italians face
this too).

Another political facet is the tax laws for property owners. The
taxes are so high for property owners, that many Italians find
creative ways to compromise, or else work around the laws. The
result is an extremely high rent cost for flats, or else a rent
contract that is illegal. In my six months of searching, I didn't find
a flat owner willing to give me a legal contract. One could say,
'OK, that is Italy, accept it, all Italians do', but for immigrants
this is a major problem. You cannot own a car, get a bank account, a
credit card, telephone, other utilities unless you have an Italian
Identity card, and you cannot get an Identity card unless you have a
residenza certificate. You cannot get a residenza certificate unless
you have a legal rent contract (and a permesso di soggiorno). On the
day, last summer, that I showed my papers to the polizia to get my
residenza certificate, I was lucky to have an Italian friend with me
who could convince them that my unregistered rent contract was not a
problem, and they looked the other way.

Regarding 3: the standards of the remaining available flats are
poor: you might expect this of a location that has been occupied for
two thousand years. Roman columns appear suddenly in flats (they are
prized, in fact), and other building structures are unsound. Finding
a flat with good wiring for electricity and phone and a good system
for heating is a big accomplishment.

A rather long answer to your queries, Robert, but I hope that this
describes better the living situations I experienced.


Amara



==================================================================

(*) sent to two newspapers last week: Corriere della Sera and
La Repubblica, and no reply. I don't think "Letters to the
Editor" exists in Italy. :-(  )



Caro Sig. Berlusconi,

ho ricevuto una sua lettera che afferma che tre anni fa lei mi
scrisse per chiedere il mio voto. In verita', tre anni fa risiedevo
in Germania, dove lavoravo come astrofisica all'Istituto Max Planck
di Heidelberg. Nella sua lettera, lei elenca i risultati raggiunti
dal suo governo per motivarmi a votare per Forza Italia. Voterei
volentieri, se potessi, ma sono una cittadina statunitense che passa
larga parte del suo tempo lottando contro le restrizioni imposte
dalla nuova legge Bossi-Fini sull'immigrazione. Il mio permesso di
soggiorno deve essere rinnovato ogni anno dalle Questura di Roma, la
quale impiega almeno undici mesi per evadere la pratica, durante i
quali non posso espletare il mio lavoro al CNR, lavoro che
richiederebbe mie continue missioni all'estero, impossibili senza
permesso.

Che buffo paradosso, quindi, ricevere nella mia casella delle
lettere una missiva da un primo ministro che chiede il voto ad una
persona che non puo' votare; un primo ministro le cui leggi
impediscono a quella stessa persona di svolgere, in questo paese, il
proprio lavoro scientifico.


Cordialmente,

Amara Graps, PhD

-- 

***********************************************************************
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, CNR - ARTOV,
Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA
************************************************************************


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jun 16 08:52:43 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death
	bioethicsandlegislation
In-Reply-To: <003201c4536a$8bd7f000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406160144130.31808-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Spike wrote:

> Ja, I agree with all of this.  My notion is much more narrowly
> focused however: governments will be no help at all in the pursuit
> of life extension.  Good chance they will be rather a hindrance,
[snip]

Not completely true spike.  The Chinese are throwing money at
stem cell research as a result of their fear of an aging population
and not enough children to care for their aged parents.

> for governments pay out pensions to the elderly, and may perceive
> life extension as a threat to stability.

I believe that the Japanese have slowly begun to raise the age
of retirement to deal with this problem (though this should be
verified).  The U.S. of course has yet to deal with it.

> The second biggest problem is that industry, with its collective
> money and science behind it, is not particularly interested in
> life extension. [snip]

See: http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Aging/AntiAgingCompanies.html
We are at least an order of magnitude ahead of where we were a
decade ago.

> But the biggest problem is that very few people are interested
> in life extension. [snip]

But time is on our side -- as the numbers of aged people grow
the politicians will have to deal with the needs of that voting
block.

Robert




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Jun 16 10:19:30 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:19:30 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of
	pro-deathbioethicsandlegislation
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406160144130.31808-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <013001c4538b$694f9800$852c2dcb@homepc>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I believe that the Japanese have slowly begun to raise the age
> of retirement to deal with this problem (though this should be
> verified).  The U.S. of course has yet to deal with it.

Why don't you verify *before* you assert what you "be-lie-ve"
yet again Robert?  

Brett Paatsch




 




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jun 16 17:26:16 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of
	pro-deathbioethicsandlegislation
In-Reply-To: <013001c4538b$694f9800$852c2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406161018290.11231-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Brett,

Re:

> Why don't you verify *before* you assert what you "be-lie-ve"
> yet again Robert?

I have quickly reread, the IMF report on Japan (which was a source I
cited in my Genome Sequencing Priorities paper...):

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/03/muhleise.htm

I will stick by my "belief" that the Japanese are adjusting things.
See the paragraph that begins with: "The government has taken some
steps to prepare for the demographic change."  However the paper
is 3 years old and I do not understand the structure of the Japanese
economic & political systems to know for certain whether previously
proposed/enacted changes may still be valid.

There are situations where it might take days of reading, phone calls,
trips to the library, etc. to really "verify" something.  In such
situations it seems best (to me) to make qualified assertions.

I wish that I could make guaranteed to be accurate statements all
of the time but I suspect that is a pipe dream.

Robert



From max at maxmore.com  Wed Jun 16 22:15:25 2004
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:15:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death
	bioethicsandlegislation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406160144130.31808-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
References: <003201c4536a$8bd7f000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406160144130.31808-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040616171041.03afa848@mail.earthlink.net>

At 03:52 AM 6/16/2004, Robert wrote:


>I believe that the Japanese have slowly begun to raise the age
>of retirement to deal with this problem (though this should be
>verified).  The U.S. of course has yet to deal with it.

Not entirely true, Robert. The "US government" has mostly got in the way 
through skewing financial incentives (though individual financial 
innumeracy is also a major problem). My review of a relevant piece:


Redefining Retirement in the 21st Century
Knowledge at Wharton, June 2 2004
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=printArticle&ID=996
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/996.cfm

Researching and administering pension plans has increased in complexity and 
uncertainty. Shifting workforce demographics, and changes in employee 
expectations about retirement and the range of retirement options offered 
are the main drivers behind the challenges of retirement policy. This 
article reports on a recent Wharton conference titled ?Reinventing the 
Retirement Paradigm,? where academics, government officials, and industry 
leaders debated the fate of the baby boomers and the prospects for younger 
workers. Setting aside several retirement policy issues, this article 
surveys the conference participants? views on pension planning in relation 
to employment trends among both younger and older workers. Among the topics 
covered are retirement options such as ?phased retirement?, possible 
impending labor shortages, the economic impact of retiring baby boomers, 
and how retirement incentives might be adjusted. <BR><BR>

A major concern of the conference was the aging population and its effects 
on the availability of labor. The percentage of the population over 65 will 
expand greatly by 2035, while the main working age segment of 20-54 
year-olds, after brief gain, will drop sharply. Pension coverage as a whole 
has changed little over the last four decades, but defined benefit plans 
have lost ground to defined contribution plans. The latter typically create 
incentives for early retirement?an effect that is now the opposite of what 
is needed. One speaker examined the idea of ?phased retirement,? in which 
older workers continue with their employers on a part-time basis, but noted 
difficulties in freeing up some early retirement benefits. <BR><BR>

The long-term bias against employing older people may finally be weakening, 
as companies face the facts of changing workforce demographics. In a 
related change, some companies have abandoned prohibitions against rehiring 
retirees. However, many workers who claim they want to continue working 
after retirement age do not actually do so. Workers are more likely to 
retire if they have defined benefit pension plans. Other significant 
factors include health insurance and being self-employed. Researchers have 
found that workers either do not understand their finances or fail to 
incorporate them into retirement planning until they reach retirement age. 
Despite the demographic pressures, employers are resistant to changing 
their incentive plans.



_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
________________________________________________________________
Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com
--- Thought leadership in the innovation economy
m.more at manyworlds.com
_______________________________________________________ 




From max at maxmore.com  Wed Jun 16 22:28:54 2004
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:28:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of
	pro-deathbioethicsandlegislation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406161018290.11231-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
References: <013001c4538b$694f9800$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406161018290.11231-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040616171802.03afa070@mail.earthlink.net>

A couple of other references on retirement and its economic effects. (Don't 
get too excited about the title of the first one!)

Max


Forever Young
More people will grow old this century than ever before. That will change 
the nature of retirement, says Frances Cairncross
The Economist
http://www.manyworlds.com/index.asp?from=CO&coid=CO3310413393552


It's Time to Retire Retirement
Harvard Business Review by Bob Morison; Ken Dychtwald; Tamara Erickson
http://www.manyworlds.com/index.asp?from=CO&coid=CO3310413393552




_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
________________________________________________________________
Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com
--- Thought leadership in the innovation economy
m.more at manyworlds.com
_______________________________________________________ 




From boriskg at verat.net  Wed Jun 16 22:59:20 2004
From: boriskg at verat.net (boriskg at verat.net)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:59:20 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Stupid
Message-ID: <1066.217.26.66.185.1087426760.squirrel@webmail.verat.net>

This is the most stupid list on which I have ever been!


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Jun 16 23:13:52 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:13:52 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Stupid
References: <1066.217.26.66.185.1087426760.squirrel@webmail.verat.net>
Message-ID: <001901c453f7$9722e310$852c2dcb@homepc>

> This is the most stupid list on which I have ever been!

Then please put the second most stupid list in your view after
this line
-------



From riel at surriel.com  Wed Jun 16 23:27:57 2004
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520406090838609fa7a8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609074843.037ec930@mail.earthlink.net>
	<470a3c520406090838609fa7a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0406161926190.6409@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> I am with Natasha here, and I am not too worried of having separate
> versions of a document called "Transhumanist FAQ". It is normal that a
> common source spans out different offsprings (think of Linux
> distributions).

I would be extremely worried if transhumanists were
against diversity, steering the movement down into
stagnation before there even are any real transhumans!

Diversity includes different transhumanists having
different points of view, which should be encouraged,
IMHO.

Of course, you don't need to agree with me ;)

Rik
-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jun 17 10:14:33 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 03:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Technology and police states...
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406170253520.1193-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Well, as some of you may know Bill Joy is back at it again
arguing that technology(knowledge) should only be available
to science guilds and that science development [what about
software development???] should be required to carry insurance
against catastrophes.

See:
http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/15/0149240
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/06/1655234

Now of course we have the police state developing methods that
would allow them to electroshock (taser) entire crowds (and
vehicles):

Sweeping stun guns to target crowds
http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99996014

Of course one has to wonder if they can stop this...

Build it Big (re: a 224 ton truck designed by Francis Bartley)
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24521

And returning to the police state run amok...

Twisted Tale of Art, Death, DNA by Mark Baard
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,63637,00.html
or
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63637,00.html

The story of the sealed search warrant obtained by the FBI and
the arrest of Steve Kurtz for manipulating bacteria at home
for the purpose of creating art.

An offshore enclave is starting to look more and more appealing
at this point...

Robert




From megaquark at hotmail.com  Thu Jun 17 15:47:57 2004
From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:47:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Stupid
References: <1066.217.26.66.185.1087426760.squirrel@webmail.verat.net>
Message-ID: <BAY9-DAV7rGlSL3TB3900006c02@hotmail.com>

It's good to know that the list isn't "smart". That would be a bit
disturbing. :-)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <boriskg at verat.net>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:59 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Stupid


> This is the most stupid list on which I have ever been!
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From amara at amara.com  Thu Jun 17 17:14:23 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:14:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] ScienceMatters@Berkeley launches
Message-ID: <p05100300bcf781899497@[150.146.134.133]>

This note was posted at BoingBoing by David Pescovitz

<beginning quote>

ScienceMatters at Berkeley launches
Based on the model of Lab Notes, my online research digest from UC
Berkeley Engineering, we've now launched a new publication to focus on
the sciences at the university. In ScienceMatters at Berkeley, I'll
report on mind-bending research in physics, chemistry, biology, and
mathematics.

In the premier issue:
* Crystallizing Nanoscience
* Hunting the Achilles' Heel of Hepatitis
* The Mysterious Matter of Dark Matter

If hope you enjoy it! If you do, please feel free to subscribe to the
email or RSS

<end quote>

http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume1/issue1/index.php

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
      "Trust in the Universe, but tie up your camels first."
                (adaptation of a Sufi proverb)



From jonkc at att.net  Thu Jun 17 16:15:57 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:15:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleporting an atom
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406170253520.1193-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <029c01c45486$66a9c750$8aff4d0c@hal2001>

They've teleported a photon of light before but in today's Nature there is a
report on teleporting an atom for the first time, this is an article in the
New York Times about it.

John K Clark    jonkc at att.net
==========================

Scientists Teleport Not Kirk, but an Atom

By KENNETH CHANG

Published: June 17, 2004


And the beryllium atom said to the Starship Enterprise, beam me up!

Two teams of scientists report today that for the first time they have
teleported individual atoms, taking characteristics of one atom and
imprinting them on a second.

In physics, teleportation means creating a replica of an object, or at least
some aspect of it, at some distance from the original. The act of
teleporting always destroys the original - not entirely unlike the
transporters of the "Star Trek" television shows and movies - so it is
impossible produce multiple copies.

The prospect of using teleportation to move large objects or people remains
far beyond the current realm of possibility. But it could prove an important
component of so-called quantum computers. Scientists hope that one day such
computers will tap quantum mechanics to solve complex problems quickly by
calculating many different possible answers at once; computers today must
calculate each possibility separately.

The two teams, one at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in
Boulder, Colo., and one at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, worked
independently, but the experiments were similar, using a process proposed by
Dr. Charles H. Bennett, a scientist at I.B.M., and others in 1993.

"This will be an important part of attempts to build quantum computers,"
said Dr. H. Jeff Kimble, a professor of physics at the California Institute
of Technology. He co-wrote a commentary accompanying the two research papers
on the experiments, which appear today in the journal Nature.

"This is a complicated thing that begins to work," Dr. Kimble said. "We've
reached this point on our journey and it's really quite significant."

Several scientific groups, including one led by Dr. Kimble, previously
teleported photons, and scientists at the University of Aarhus in Denmark
reported in 2001 that they had teleported the magnetic field produced by
clouds of atoms.

In the new experiments, both teams of scientists worked with triplets of
charged atoms trapped in magnetic fields. The Colorado team used beryllium;
the Innsbruck researchers used calcium.

The feat of teleportation is transferring information from atom A to atom C
without the two meeting. The third atom, B, is an intermediary.

The three atoms can be thought of as boxes that can contain a 1 or a zero, a
bit of information like that used by a conventional computer chip. The
promise of quantum computers is that both a zero and a 1 can exist at once,
just like the perplexing premise described by the Austrian physicist Erwin
Schr?dinger in which a cat in a box can be simultaneously alive and dead
until someone looks inside.

First, atoms B and C were brought together, making them "entangled" and
creating an invisible link between the two atoms no matter how far apart
they were. Atom C was moved away. Next, A and B were similarly entangled.

Then the scientists measured the energy states of A and B, essentially
opening the boxes to see whether each contained a 1 or a zero. Because B had
been entangled with C, opening A and B created an instant change in atom C,
what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," and this, in
essence, set a combination lock on atom C, with the data in A and B serving
as the combination.

For the final step, the combination was sent and a pulse of laser light was
applied to atom C, almost magically turning it into a replica of the
original A. Atom A was teleported to atom C.

"It's a way of transferring the information," Dr. Rainer Blatt, leader of
the Innsbruck team, said.

A quantum computer could use teleportation to move the results of
calculations from one part of the computer to another. "Teleportation in
principle could be done pretty quick," said Dr. David J. Wineland, head of
the Colorado team, noting that directly moving atoms containing intermediate
results would almost certainly be too slow.

In the current experiments, the teleportation distances were a fraction of a
millimeter, but in principle, the atoms could be teleported over much longer
distances. The teleportation was also not perfect, succeeding about
three-quarters of the time.

"We're not doing very well yet," Dr. Wineland said. "All of these operations
have to be improved."

Teleporting a much larger object, like a person, appears unlikely, if not
entirely impossible, because too much information would have to be captured
and transmitted.

"It's certainly not useful for any beaming in the 'Star Trek' sense," Dr.
Blatt of the University of Innsbruck said. "Consider even some molecules or
something small like a virus. I cannot imagine it. As far as I can see, it's
not going to happen."



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: spacer.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040617/d6cd0833/attachment.gif>

From amara at amara.com  Thu Jun 17 17:25:37 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:25:37 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death
	bioethicsandlegislation
Message-ID: <p05100301bcf784453a6f@[150.146.134.133]>

Spike:
>Ja, I agree with all of this.  My notion is much more narrowly
>focused however: governments will be no help at all in the pursuit
>of life extension.

The smarter governments will want their slaves to work longer, so that
their pensions won't kick in until much later.

('Smart' and 'Government'  ?  Nah... can't be true )

>The second biggest problem is that industry, with its collective
>money and science behind it, is not particularly interested in
>life extension.  Industry is very interested in *youth* extension,
>giving us viagra and baldness treatments, along with a seemly
>halfhearted scattering of cures for some diseases.  But overall,
>I see practically nothing from industry for true life extension.

I think that a smart industrialist could see the potential for
bootstrapping off of the beauty industry.

>But the biggest problem is that very few people are interested
>in life extension.

Because they don't trust that they can live *better* if they live
*longer*. Who wants to live longer if they are bedridden, attached
to tubes?

In my view, that is the angle on which to pay attention, that
is, Living *Well*, *Longer* .

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work.  I want to
achieve it through not dying."  -- Woody Allen


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Jun 17 16:25:05 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:25:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Stupid
In-Reply-To: <BAY9-DAV7rGlSL3TB3900006c02@hotmail.com>
References: <1066.217.26.66.185.1087426760.squirrel@webmail.verat.net>
	<BAY9-DAV7rGlSL3TB3900006c02@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <40D1C5E1.4080804@cox.net>

Kevin Freels wrote:

>It's good to know that the list isn't "smart". That would be a bit
>disturbing. :-)
> 
>From: <boriskg at verat.net>
>  
>
>>This is the most stupid list on which I have ever been!
>>    
>>
Indeed. That would be emergent behavior, leading inevitably to a 
hard-takeoff singularity. And judging by some of the recent acrimony, I 
doubt the result would be "friendly."  :-)


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Thu Jun 17 17:32:49 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:32:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Amara Graps wrote:
> Spike:
>> But the biggest problem is that very few people are interested
>> in life extension.
> 
> Because they don't trust that they can live *better* if they live
> *longer*. Who wants to live longer if they are bedridden, attached
> to tubes?
> 
> In my view, that is the angle on which to pay attention, that
> is, Living *Well*, *Longer* .
> 
> Amara

Perhaps what is needed is a rebranding. Something like
"Youth Extension" or "Youth Maintenance" instead of "Life
Extension". Because people don't want to live longer, they
want to be young longer.

I unfortunately can't thing of another word meaning
"physical youth" that doesn't also imply adolescent
behavior.

Acy


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jun 17 19:04:17 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:04:17 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <20040617190416.GB12847@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:32:49AM -0700, Acy James Stapp wrote:

> Perhaps what is needed is a rebranding. Something like
> "Youth Extension" or "Youth Maintenance" instead of "Life
> Extension". Because people don't want to live longer, they
> want to be young longer.

If people *really* wanted to live longer in good health, they'd 
take the (minor) hassle of CR. It's the only thing that's known to
work, and giving you instant benefits.
 
> I unfortunately can't thing of another word meaning
> "physical youth" that doesn't also imply adolescent
> behavior.

Hey, nothing wrong with that. I've seen way too many geriatrically gifted
twinks. Revel in your immaturity! 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040617/35c33dbf/attachment.bin>

From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jun 17 19:14:18 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:14:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Stupid (and polyhedra)
References: <1066.217.26.66.185.1087426760.squirrel@webmail.verat.net>
Message-ID: <002601c4549f$4a2a5cc0$f1bb1b97@administxl09yj>

[boris kg]
This is the most stupid list 
on which I have ever been!


"Stupid" from "stupere", which means 
to be amazed, confounded. So you are 
probably right.
s.


William C. Waterhouse in his "The Discovery 
of the Regular Solids", in "Archive for History 
of Exact Science", v.9, 1972-1973, pp. 212-221 writes:
"The history of the regular solids thus rests almost 
entirely on a scholium to Euclid which reads as follows: 
<<In this book, the 13th, are constructed the 5 figures 
called Platonic, which however do not belong to Plato. 
Three of these 5 figures, the cube, pyramid, and dodecahedron, 
belong to the Pythagoreans; while the octahedron and icosahedron
belong to Theaetetus>>". (I'm indebted to Paul Bien for
that).

But the "platonic solids" are neither Platonic nor Pythagorean.
They were known to the inhabitants of North East Scotland in the
late ***neolithic*** period. This is astonishingly little known.
The Ashmolean Museum has the 5 figures on display! You can see 
the amazing picture in this beautiful paper by M.Atiyah and 
P.Sutcliffe (I'm indebted to John McKay for that).
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0303071 (--> the pdf)






From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jun 17 22:22:55 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Interstellar Dust (was: polyhedra)
In-Reply-To: <002601c4549f$4a2a5cc0$f1bb1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406171517120.19273-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, scerir wrote:

> But the "platonic solids" are neither Platonic nor Pythagorean.
> They were known to the inhabitants of North East Scotland in the
> late ***neolithic*** period. This is astonishingly little known.
> The Ashmolean Museum has the 5 figures on display! You can see
> the amazing picture in this beautiful paper by M.Atiyah and
> P.Sutcliffe (I'm indebted to John McKay for that).
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0303071 (--> the pdf)

Quite interesting (if only for the pictures)...

But the most interesting thing that caught my eye answers a question
that I think may have come up on the list before though I'm not
sure whether or not we answered it (perhaps I might have missed it).

"... Other Fullerenes are also common, particularly C_70, C_76 and C_84,
and have been found to exist in interstellar dust as well as in geological
formations on Earth. ..."

So yes folks there are Fullerenes in space (too bad the references aren't
cited).  Next question is are there Fullerenes with caged atoms or molecules
inside???  Now those would be really interesting.

Robert




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jun 18 00:18:33 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:18:33 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <002101c454c9$cab66fd0$852c2dcb@homepc>

Acy James Stapp wrote:

> Amara Graps wrote:
> > Spike:
> >> But the biggest problem is that very few
> >> people are interested
> >> in life extension.
> > 
> > Because they don't trust that they can live
> > *better* if they live *longer*. Who wants
> > to live longer if they are bedridden, attached
> > to tubes?
> > 
> > In my view, that is the angle on which to pay
> > attention, that is, Living *Well*, *Longer* .
> > 
> > Amara
> 
> Perhaps what is needed is a rebranding. Something
> like "Youth Extension" or "Youth Maintenance" instead
> of "Life Extension". Because people don't want to live
> longer, they want to be young longer.
> 
> I unfortunately can't thing of another word meaning
> "physical youth" that doesn't also imply adolescent
> behavior.
> 
> Acy

Words and memes can be so Vital to Vitality.

Brett Paatsch



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Fri Jun 18 01:29:35 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:29:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Interstellar Dust
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406171517120.19273-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406171517120.19273-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40D2457F.103@cfl.rr.com>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>  
>
>
>So yes folks there are Fullerenes in space (too bad the references aren't
>cited).  Next question is are there Fullerenes with caged atoms or molecules
>inside???  Now those would be really interesting.
>
>Robert
>  
>

A really big and rare one (C1000 or so) as a possible solution to the 
abiogenesis problem?  Well, I doubt it since it's hard to image such 
diamandoid structures evolving into anything "alive" but it's fun to 
think about.



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Fri Jun 18 02:01:44 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:01:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <20040617190416.GB12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNMECOELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:32:49AM -0700, Acy James Stapp wrote:

> Perhaps what is needed is a rebranding. Something like
> "Youth Extension" or "Youth Maintenance" instead of "Life
> Extension". Because people don't want to live longer, they
> want to be young longer.

I rebranded it as "healthy life extension" for my part. I don't think that's
catching on in the right quarters, though. Or any quarters, for that matter.
Oh well.

Kronos went with "optimal health" I think. "Rejuvenation" is also a term not
yet brand-associated into a bad meaning like "anti-aging." A few companies
are going with that, and "Rejuvenation Research" is the new Aubrey de
Grey-led relaunch of the Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine.

But I agree with the need for rebranding. See:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000058.php
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000064.php

Any new term must do better to overcome the common initial bad impressions
than "life extension" does.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jun 18 02:23:39 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:23:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNMECOELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNMECOELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <40D2522B.5000302@pobox.com>

Reason wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:32:49AM -0700, Acy James Stapp wrote:
> 
>>Perhaps what is needed is a rebranding. Something like
>>"Youth Extension" or "Youth Maintenance" instead of "Life
>>Extension". Because people don't want to live longer, they
>>want to be young longer.
> 
> I rebranded it as "healthy life extension" for my part. I don't think that's
> catching on in the right quarters, though. Or any quarters, for that matter.
> Oh well.

"Healthspan extension" is the best I've heard so far - the more so as it 
addresses an existing crisis in the medical system.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun 18 03:30:39 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:30:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01E9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <000001c454e4$a086ec10$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> 
> I unfortunately can't thing of another word meaning
> "physical youth" that doesn't also imply adolescent
> behavior. Acy


But adolescent behavior is what makes adolescence
worthwhile.  {8^D  Such as what I plan to embark
upon tomorrow at 0400: a 3 megameter trip on an 
aging motorcycle with mechanical issues.  If all 
goes well, I shall be back Monday.  If not, not.

{8-]  

Onward Rocinante!

spike





From amara at amara.com  Fri Jun 18 09:18:50 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:18:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Interstellar Dust
Message-ID: <p05100303bcf85efa5722@[150.146.134.133]>

Robert Bradbury:

>But the most interesting thing that caught my eye answers a question
>that I think may have come up on the list before though I'm not sure
>whether or not we answered it (perhaps I might have missed it).

>"... Other Fullerenes are also common, particularly C_70, C_76 and
>C_84, and have been found to exist in interstellar dust as well as in
>geological formations on Earth. ..."

>So yes folks there are Fullerenes in space (too bad the references aren't
>cited).

Didn't we talk about this ?  I sent some paper references on
this topic to the list last March. A. Rotundi et al.'s paper
should have appeared in _Fullerenes, Nanotubes and Carbon
Nanostructures_ but I don't know if that is the paper of which
you and others were thinking.

Here is my message again:

http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-March/004832.html



>Next question is are there Fullerenes with caged atoms or molecules
>inside???  Now those would be really interesting.

The structures look complicated.. From the text, the authors write:

"A transmission electron microscope study of individual soot grains
forming fluffy carbon particles produced using the arc-discharge
technique revealed close-packed arrangements of single -wall ring
structures with average diameters of 0.7, 1.1, 3.0, 5.5 and 8.2
nanometers."


"Soot Grains. Field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM)
analyses showed a considerable degree of fusion of individual soot
grains arranged in chain-like aggregates."
[...]
"The soot grains have a typical internal texture of densely packed,
single -wall rings [Figure 2]. In addition to these grains, the ACAR
and ACH2(0.8) samples also contain rare, irregularly-shaped aggregates
of similar rings."

"Single -wall spheres. There is generally no ordering of rings in soot
grains that are thus crystallographically amorphous. Tilting
experiments during TEM imaging confirmed that the rings are hollow
spheres. The ring diameters from 0.7 nm to ~10 nm define the
populations I to IV in Table 2. The one-standard deviations [Table 2]
are similar to the error of measurement (see above) but each
population is accepted as a statistically-relevant distribution of
sphere diameters. We cannot exclude the possibility that each measured
diameter corresponds to a unique hollow carbon sphere. These
individual diameters then defining a continuous range of different
single -wall, hollow spheres. We do not think it was the case although
noting that a similar situation was found [20] for the range of single
-shell carbon nanotube diameters between ~0.7 nm and 1.6 nm that
included two significant peaks at 0.8 nm and 1.05 nm."
[...]
"The overwhelming majority of single -wall structures are spheres but
there are rare ellipsoidal shapes with their longest semi-major axis
parallel to the ultra-thin section [Figure 3]. The ellipsoidal single
-wall rings occur as isolated structures or in small clusters that are
randomly distributed within the amorphous soot grains. Single -wall
spheres can also be organized into rare "bunch-of-grape" domains both
within soot grains and as isolated structures among the other carbon
forms in the samples. Some "bunch-of-grape" 'domains are
cross-sections of small stacks of hollow, parallel-stacked,
ellipsoidal rings. "

"Carbon onions. Other soot grains contain spherical structures ~10 nm
to ~25 nm in diameter that have either a central single -wall sphere,
or a cluster of spheres. Concentric circular fringes without the
proto-fringe structure surround these spheres and clusters. These
unique structures are only a very small fraction of features found in
soot grains. The spacing of these particular fringes corresponds to
those of proto-fringes and single -wall spheres diameters [Table 2].
The origin of the resultant carbon onion domains is uncertain. They
could be a primary feature when condensed single-wall spheres acted as
nucleation centers for condensation of amorphous carbon. Lattice
fringe formation [Table 2] could be an experimental artifact caused by
exposure to the incident electron beam reminiscent of the formation of
nested-fullerenes [21]."


So, I don't know. Alessandra told me that these fullerene structures
are unstable, in any case.

Amara





-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, INAF - ARTOV,
Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA
tel: +39-06-4993-4375       |fax:  +39-06-4993-4383
Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it  | http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps
************************************************************************
I'M SIGNIFICANT!...screamed the dust speck. -- Calvin


From amara at amara.com  Fri Jun 18 15:28:04 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:28:04 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cassini latest pictures
Message-ID: <p05100301bcf8b96f3769@[150.146.134.133]>

I hope that you saw the high resolution views of Phoebe earlier in the
week. Spectacular. Today the ISS (imaging subsystem) shows a beautiful
view of Saturn's cloud structure and part of the rings.

The following link is a good one to keep handy for checking every day
for a good view of the new images of Saturn and the Saturn system
from Cassini.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/Cassini

Amara


-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"There's only one thing more beautiful than a beautiful dream, and
that's a beautiful reality."        --Ashleigh Brilliant


From max at maxmore.com  Fri Jun 18 14:48:01 2004
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:48:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040618094503.03930260@mail.earthlink.net>



Bush Heading for Trouble on Stem Cells?
A new survey shows that almost 75 percent of Americans support Nancy 
Reagan's call for lifting restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem 
cell research. Is the Bush policy in jeopardy?
<http://www.uptilt.com/c.html?rtr=on&s=5fo,71ug,4rw,k8t9,jz0k,ses,lz26>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/blog.asp?blogID=1453&trk=nl




_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
_______________________________________________________  




From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun 18 15:28:46 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:28:46 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hybrid cars not fuel economic in real world driving
In-Reply-To: <40CA05DD.7090009@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <40CA05DD.7090009@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20040618152845.GB12847@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:19:57PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Looks like the technology is still too new and needs a bit of work to
> optimize it.  Till then a normal small gas engine looks like a more
> efficient system.

The hybrid "technology" consists of an ICU driving a generator driving an
electric motor. E.g. Toyota Prius does seem to use a few features beyond of
that (somebody kindly shoot the webmokey responsible for below flash)

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2004/prius/key_features/hybrid_syn_drive.html

but this adds weight and complexity. Significant savings only kick in with a
total redesign as GM is attempting. Lower design complexity and switch to
largely solid-state design plus advanced composites allow to bring the weight
down radically, while retaining good acceleration and energy regeneration
features as well as structural safety on impact.

Economical realities enforces design continuity, preventing such shortcuts.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040618/a8cd0215/attachment.bin>

From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 19 01:38:55 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the (scary) future of pro-death
	bioethicsandlegislation
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bcf784453a6f@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20040619013855.86629.qmail@web50705.mail.yahoo.com>

That is my view too, that also seems to be the crux of the whole problem who wouldn't want to live well longer?  or really well longer for that matter?  I'm a big advocate of biotech inhancement for quality of life and experiencing more nuanced and pleasant to really wonderful emotions that humans can't experience pre-bioenhanced

Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:Spike:
>Ja, I agree with all of this. My notion is much more narrowly
>focused however: governments will be no help at all in the pursuit
>of life extension.

The smarter governments will want their slaves to work longer, so that
their pensions won't kick in until much later.

('Smart' and 'Government' ? Nah... can't be true )

>The second biggest problem is that industry, with its collective
>money and science behind it, is not particularly interested in
>life extension. Industry is very interested in *youth* extension,
>giving us viagra and baldness treatments, along with a seemly
>halfhearted scattering of cures for some diseases. But overall,
>I see practically nothing from industry for true life extension.

I think that a smart industrialist could see the potential for
bootstrapping off of the beauty industry.

>But the biggest problem is that very few people are interested
>in life extension.

Because they don't trust that they can live *better* if they live
*longer*. Who wants to live longer if they are bedridden, attached
to tubes?

In my view, that is the angle on which to pay attention, that
is, Living *Well*, *Longer* .

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to
achieve it through not dying." -- Woody Allen
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



Devon Fowler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040618/7e8d5ade/attachment.html>

From mike99 at lascruces.com  Sat Jun 19 01:49:39 2004
From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:49:39 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] Cassini latest pictures
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bcf8b96f3769@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKIEOBDPAA.mike99@lascruces.com>

The images of Phoebe were quite lunar, or maybe asteroidal.

Will Cassini get any closer to mysterious Titan? I'm sure we're all
wondering what's going on beneath those clouds. Except for Europa, Titan has
got to be the most tantalizing natural satellite in the solar system.

Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mike99 at lascruces.com
mlatorra at nmsu.edu

"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
towards slavery."
-- Jacob Bronowski

Member:
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Technical Communication: www.stc.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org
> [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:28 AM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; wta-talk at transhumanism.org
> Subject: [wta-talk] Cassini latest pictures
>
>
> I hope that you saw the high resolution views of Phoebe earlier in the
> week. Spectacular. Today the ISS (imaging subsystem) shows a beautiful
> view of Saturn's cloud structure and part of the rings.
>
> The following link is a good one to keep handy for checking every day
> for a good view of the new images of Saturn and the Saturn system
> from Cassini.
>
> http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/Cassini
>
> Amara
>
>
> --
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
> Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
> Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
> ***********************************************************************
> "There's only one thing more beautiful than a beautiful dream, and
> that's a beautiful reality."        --Ashleigh Brilliant
> _______________________________________________
> wta-talk mailing list
> wta-talk at transhumanism.org
> http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk
>




From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sat Jun 19 12:22:33 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:22:33 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] Cassini latest pictures
In-Reply-To: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKIEOBDPAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
References: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKIEOBDPAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406191420110.26410@zeus>


Cassini will get much closer to Titan than now. Actually, part of Cassini
(the probe Huygens) will be launched inside Titan's atmosphere and will
send measurements and images via radio link to the main probe. Hopefully,
it will be able to land on the surface (or splash, if there are methane
lakes like someone is speculating), and survive a little.

Alfio

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, mike99 wrote:

>The images of Phoebe were quite lunar, or maybe asteroidal.
>
>Will Cassini get any closer to mysterious Titan? I'm sure we're all
>wondering what's going on beneath those clouds. Except for Europa, Titan has
>got to be the most tantalizing natural satellite in the solar system.
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael LaTorra
>
>mike99 at lascruces.com
>mlatorra at nmsu.edu
>
>"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
>towards slavery."
>-- Jacob Bronowski
>
>Member:
>Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
>World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
>Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
>Society for Technical Communication: www.stc.org


From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 19 14:10:16 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 07:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20040618094503.03930260@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20040619141016.76764.qmail@web50709.mail.yahoo.com>

Thanks for the article!  I hope this little
conservative half wit loses to the progress of real
science.  It's funny that it takes the former first
lady of a conservative to get the ignorant American
public to wake up to embryonic stem cell research.

-- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Bush Heading for Trouble on Stem Cells?
> A new survey shows that almost 75 percent of
> Americans support Nancy 
> Reagan's call for lifting restrictions on federal
> funding of embryonic stem 
> cell research. Is the Bush policy in jeopardy?
>
<http://www.uptilt.com/c.html?rtr=on&s=5fo,71ug,4rw,k8t9,jz0k,ses,lz26>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/blog.asp?blogID=1453&trk=nl
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
_______________________________________________________
> Max More, Ph.D.
> max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
> http://www.maxmore.com
> Strategic Philosopher
> Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
>
_______________________________________________________
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jun 19 17:25:37 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:25:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support
	stem cell research
In-Reply-To: <20040619141016.76764.qmail@web50709.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.1.1.1.2.20040618094503.03930260@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040619102501.02e126b0@mail.earthlink.net>

At 07:10 AM 6/19/04 -0700, devon fowler wrote:
>Thanks for the article!  I hope this little
>conservative half wit loses to the progress of real
>science.  It's funny that it takes the former first
>lady of a conservative to get the ignorant American
>public to wake up to embryonic stem cell research.

Devon, have you noticed any follow-ups on this article?  I hope it gets 
picked up by other magazines.

Natasha


>-- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bush Heading for Trouble on Stem Cells?
> > A new survey shows that almost 75 percent of
> > Americans support Nancy
> > Reagan's call for lifting restrictions on federal
> > funding of embryonic stem
> > cell research. Is the Bush policy in jeopardy?
> >
><http://www.uptilt.com/c.html?rtr=on&s=5fo,71ug,4rw,k8t9,jz0k,ses,lz26>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/blog.asp?blogID=1453&trk=nl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________________
> > Max More, Ph.D.
> > max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
> > http://www.maxmore.com
> > Strategic Philosopher
> > Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
> >
>_______________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
>
>
>=====
>Devon Fowler
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040619/9641382c/attachment.html>

From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Sat Jun 19 18:34:36 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:34:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <20040619141016.76764.qmail@web50709.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040619141016.76764.qmail@web50709.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40D4873C.2090205@cfl.rr.com>

devon fowler wrote:

>Thanks for the article!  I hope this little
>conservative half wit loses to the progress of real
>science.  It's funny that it takes the former first
>lady of a conservative to get the ignorant American
>public to wake up to embryonic stem cell research.
>  
>
It makes me angry that the only way to advance science in this country 
is to wed it to the schmaltz and emotionalism surrounding the death of a 
president.  We can't seem to do anything in this country unless we get 
people worked into some sort of emotional frenzy.  This doesn't bode 
well for the future to say the least.



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 19 18:59:01 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <40D4873C.2090205@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040619185901.58573.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Gregory Propf <gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> It makes me angry that the only way to advance
> science in this country 
> is to wed it to the schmaltz and emotionalism
> surrounding the death of a 
> president.  We can't seem to do anything in this
> country unless we get 
> people worked into some sort of emotional frenzy. 
> This doesn't bode 
> well for the future to say the least.

It's not the only way, by any means.  I recall the
stem cell ban getting attacked as it was anyway.  This
just happens to be a tool that's come along - so why
not take advantage of it?


From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Sat Jun 19 19:46:49 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:46:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <20040619185901.58573.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040619185901.58573.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40D49829.1070408@cfl.rr.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Gregory Propf <gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>It makes me angry that the only way to advance
>>science in this country 
>>is to wed it to the schmaltz and emotionalism
>>surrounding the death of a 
>>president.  We can't seem to do anything in this
>>country unless we get 
>>people worked into some sort of emotional frenzy. 
>>This doesn't bode 
>>well for the future to say the least.
>>    
>>
>
>It's not the only way, by any means.  I recall the
>stem cell ban getting attacked as it was anyway.  This
>just happens to be a tool that's come along - so why
>not take advantage of it?
>

I know.  Just ranting a bit.  We will probably need *more* of this in 
fact.  My own mom has MS and maybe some footage of her staggering around 
because her motor centers are damaged might wake the silly religious 
fuckers up.  Hopefully the business community, who own most of these 
political whores anyway, will quietly start pointing out how other 
countries that don't have so many Southern Baptists* will be, you know, 
getting all the money from commercializing this stuff.  Then the Shrubs 
of the world will start to find reasons to remove the ban.  The damage 
is done though, the time is lost.  People like my mom will suffer on.

* Apologies if anyone here is SB and reasonable-minded.



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 19 20:23:03 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <40D49829.1070408@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040619202303.67768.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Gregory Propf <gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> * Apologies if anyone here is SB and
> reasonable-minded.

There are quite a few, in any large religion, who
insist that the "reasonable-minded", as we define it,
can not be true members of said religion.  Sadly, in
most large religions, those people tend to dominate
the public perception of what the religion is - and
worse, drive some of said religion's members towards
thoughtless extremism - mainly because they're so loud
about it.

If only it were possible to hack the religious memes
into a system where those willing to consider and
adapt new truths as they become available, rather than
those who cling to past teachings as if they can never
be disproven even when some of them are, would
naturally rise to power.


From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 19 21:19:00 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040619102501.02e126b0@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20040619211900.21741.qmail@web50706.mail.yahoo.com>

I'll keep my eyes open thanks Natasha

-- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> At 07:10 AM 6/19/04 -0700, devon fowler wrote:
> >Thanks for the article!  I hope this little
> >conservative half wit loses to the progress of real
> >science.  It's funny that it takes the former first
> >lady of a conservative to get the ignorant American
> >public to wake up to embryonic stem cell research.
> 
> Devon, have you noticed any follow-ups on this
> article?  I hope it gets 
> picked up by other magazines.
> 
> Natasha
> 
> 
> >-- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Bush Heading for Trouble on Stem Cells?
> > > A new survey shows that almost 75 percent of
> > > Americans support Nancy
> > > Reagan's call for lifting restrictions on
> federal
> > > funding of embryonic stem
> > > cell research. Is the Bush policy in jeopardy?
> > >
>
><http://www.uptilt.com/c.html?rtr=on&s=5fo,71ug,4rw,k8t9,jz0k,ses,lz26>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/blog.asp?blogID=1453&trk=nl
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>_______________________________________________________
> > > Max More, Ph.D.
> > > max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
> > > http://www.maxmore.com
> > > Strategic Philosopher
> > > Chairman, Extropy Institute.
> http://www.extropy.org
> > >
>
>_______________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > >
>
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > >
> >
> >
> >=====
> >Devon Fowler
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> Natasha Vita-More
> http://www.natasha.cc
> ----------
> President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
> Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 
> http://www.transhumanist.biz
> http://www.transhuman.org
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sat Jun 19 23:28:19 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:28:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <40D4873C.2090205@cfl.rr.com>
References: <20040619141016.76764.qmail@web50709.mail.yahoo.com>
	<40D4873C.2090205@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <59132C30-C248-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>


> It makes me angry that the only way to advance science in this country 
> is to wed it to the schmaltz and emotionalism surrounding the death of 
> a president.


The only way to advance science in any country is to do it yourself.  
It is a political issue in the US primarily because of the quantity of 
money actually spent on research; most countries have a negligible 
budget for this type of thing and therefore it isn't nearly as much of 
a political football.  The only thing that arguably makes the US unique 
is the sheer quantity of private research funding there is.

It isn't like the government is banning research, they simply aren't 
allowing federal money to be spent on it.  There is a hell of a lot of 
private research money, most of which is far better spent anyway.

More poignantly, stem cell research isn't the only valuable area of 
research that the government has largely chosen not to fund over the 
decades, whether by written or unwritten policy.  People just make a 
lot of noise when it is *their* pet research project that gets gored by 
the usual political process.  I have limited sympathy for people who 
want the government to fund research and then get upset when the 
politicians decide it won't spend money on the research they want.  
That was part of the deal, and always has been.

j. andrew rogers



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sun Jun 20 00:02:28 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:02:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem
	cellresearch
In-Reply-To: <59132C30-C248-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>



--> J. Andrew Rogers

> It isn't like the government is banning research, they simply aren't
> allowing federal money to be spent on it.  There is a hell of a lot of
> private research money, most of which is far better spent anyway.

It is annoying that people make this argument while ignoring the effects of
government policy - existing and threatened - on private funding. In case
you hadn't noticed, the threat of a complete ban on therapeutic cloning and
stem cell research has been hovvering close over the industry in the US for
the past two years. The same or worse goes for Europe. Substantial private
funding just doesn't happen under those circumstances - the risk is too
great.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 20 02:21:43 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem
	cellresearch
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <20040620022143.2580.qmail@web50707.mail.yahoo.com>

It would certainly be better if we had a government
that cared about such research and I guess plenty of
effort has gone to waste trying to pursuade
politicians to care about such research, I assume you
all have thought about trying to change governemnt
policy to no avail?  --

- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> --> J. Andrew Rogers
> 
> > It isn't like the government is banning research,
> they simply aren't
> > allowing federal money to be spent on it.  There
> is a hell of a lot of
> > private research money, most of which is far
> better spent anyway.
> 
> It is annoying that people make this argument while
> ignoring the effects of
> government policy - existing and threatened - on
> private funding. In case
> you hadn't noticed, the threat of a complete ban on
> therapeutic cloning and
> stem cell research has been hovvering close over the
> industry in the US for
> the past two years. The same or worse goes for
> Europe. Substantial private
> funding just doesn't happen under those
> circumstances - the risk is too
> great.
> 
> Reason
> Founder, Longevity Meme
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jun 20 04:03:48 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:03:48 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support
	stemcellresearch
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <01a401c4567b$96dae2f0$852c2dcb@homepc>

"Reason" writes:

> --> J. Andrew Rogers
> 
> > It isn't like the government is banning research, they simply
> > aren't allowing federal money to be spent on it.  There is a 
> > hell of a lot of private research money, most of which is far
> > better spent anyway.
> 
> It is annoying that people make this argument while ignoring
> the effects of  government policy - existing and threatened 
> - on private funding. In case you hadn't noticed, the threat of
> a complete ban on therapeutic cloning and stem cell research
> has been hovvering close over the industry in the US for
> the past two years. The same or worse goes for Europe.
> Substantial private funding just doesn't happen under those
> circumstances - the risk is too great.

Good thread. Important topic. But I think the surface is still only
getting scratched here.  I'd like to see both  J. Andrew Rogers
and Reason develop their respective cases if they can.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sun Jun 20 05:52:48 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:52:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: ScienceMatters@Berkeley launches
Message-ID: <40D52630.A11B8901@mindspring.com>

--- In forteana at yahoogroups.com, "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at m...> fwded:
> In ScienceMatters at Berkeley, I'll
> report on mind-bending research in physics, chemistry, biology, and
> mathematics.

In a similar vein, Science Week (http://www.scienceweek.com) has
recently become a free-access site.

Rob


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun Jun 20 07:12:53 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:12:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support
	stemcellresearch
In-Reply-To: <01a401c4567b$96dae2f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
	<01a401c4567b$96dae2f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <3F210C80-C289-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>

On Jun 19, 2004, at 9:03 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Good thread. Important topic. But I think the surface is still only
> getting scratched here.  I'd like to see both  J. Andrew Rogers
> and Reason develop their respective cases if they can.


My point was essentially that this hand-wringing is a classic 
historical myopia.  When granting the government abilities, powers, and 
resources, you should never ask what your friends and comrades would do 
with such things but what your enemies would.  Because eventually, your 
enemies will be in a position to utilize such things as *they* see fit. 
  Bad people frequently misuse powers granted by the foolish people to 
long gone benevolent people.

Is it a pity that Federal funds aren't being spent on stem cell 
research?  Yes, but you should have known this could happen when you 
foolishly allocated the funds of private citizens to the research whims 
of the government.  Everyone made a deal with the devil and they 
eventually got burnt.  Color me shocked.

The wide-eyed naivete of all these babes in the government research 
woods is just a tad irritating when you consider that this has been 
going on for decades.

To put it another way, if everyone thinks the people can be better 
trusted to decide what should and shouldn't be researched, then why the 
hell did they vote to take money away from the folks who fund private 
research and give it to the government for them to decide on such 
things?  People need to take responsibility for their decisions and 
have some kind of coherent sense of the consequences of those 
decisions.  The way to fix this isn't to demand that the government 
fund stem cell research, but to get the government out of research of 
this type altogether.  Otherwise, you are just deferring the same 
problem to another day, perhaps on an issue far more important than 
stem cells.



Fortunately for all of us, private research is typically funded for 
some combination of greed, philanthropy, and good old curiosity.  
Importantly, it is NOT funded to pander to a constituency or to keep 
their buddies paid because the only constituency to answer to are the 
guys who provided the money in the first place and the only reason they 
are doing it is to see results.

There isn't much in the way of oppressive regulation of most research, 
nor is there likely to be much of that despite the doomsday scenarios 
to the contrary.  Withdrawing the Federal government from an area of 
research is largely an empty gesture to make a constituency happy, and 
does not substantively stop research.  The fact that vast quantities of 
private money have been offered up to fill any nominal gaps caused by 
the withdrawal of Federal funds lends credence to this.  If there was 
so much private money willing to pick up the slack, why was the 
government funding it in the first place?

The withdrawal of Federal funding was a perfect political calculus.  
They throw a bone to an interest group, but don't actively prevent the 
majority from doing as they wish.  The politicians get a win, and the 
general population doesn't actually lose much in the bargain, so it is 
soon forgotten.

All the political rhetoric in the world cannot stop a cold pragmatic 
economic calculus.  If most people want something, they'll get it.  And 
the politicians will make damn sure they can get in on a taste of that 
action.  What they don't do is outright ban something that is popular 
with the public because there is no gain to be realized from it -- you 
generally don't get to be a politician without being a venal weasel.  
That same greedy self-interest is why even if politicians in one 
country actually ban something outright, you can always find another 
country where the politicians will see that as an opportunity to 
increase their own prestige and power.

No, the only mistake here was thinking that it was a good idea to let 
politicians decide what kind of research gets funded in the first 
place.  That was just idiotic.  For similar reasons, having any kind of 
global organization, like the UN, regulate this kind of thing is 
profoundly stupid as it eliminates the escape hatch of a competitive 
market in case the politicians in one sovereign entity all get together 
and decide to be imbeciles, which happens more often than it should.

j. andrew rogers



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun Jun 20 07:27:44 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:27:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem
	cellresearch
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <5256218E-C28B-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 19, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Reason wrote:
> Substantial private
> funding just doesn't happen under those circumstances - the risk is too
> great.


What is this hypothetical risk?  This is not a realistic analysis.

The only risk is perhaps the loss of some capital expenditure.  That's 
it.  If some day the government decided to ban research outright, all 
you've lost as a private funder is a little bit of upfront capital that 
wasn't amortized.

And it isn't like losing that bit of money is a big deal to private 
funding, since they were often never expecting to see a dime of return 
on the money they spent in the first place.

So where is the risk?  The biggest risk these folks face is that the 
blue sky research they are funding won't pan out.

Sounds like disasturbation to me.  Doom and gloom scenarios are 
exciting to talk about, but is generally based on dubious assumptions 
upon even a cursory inspection.

j. andrew rogers



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sun Jun 20 07:35:55 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:35:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support
	stemcellresearch
In-Reply-To: <01a401c4567b$96dae2f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEEHELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Paatsch [mailto:bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au]
>
> > It is annoying that people make this argument while ignoring
> > the effects of  government policy - existing and threatened
> > - on private funding. In case you hadn't noticed, the threat of
> > a complete ban on therapeutic cloning and stem cell research
> > has been hovvering close over the industry in the US for
> > the past two years. The same or worse goes for Europe.
> > Substantial private funding just doesn't happen under those
> > circumstances - the risk is too great.
>
> Good thread. Important topic. But I think the surface is still only
> getting scratched here.  I'd like to see both  J. Andrew Rogers
> and Reason develop their respective cases if they can.

Thought experiment: you are a US biotech/pharma VC sitting on top of capital
itching to be invested. Knowing this

http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/oppose_global_therapeutic_cloning_ban.
cfm

and this

http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/oppose_the_therapeutic_cloning_ban.cfm

are you going to invest in any new medical venture that utilizes therapeutic
cloning (i.e. pretty much anything good involving stem cells)? Of course
not. No one invests in business plans that are in imminent danger of
criminalization. This has been the case for several years now in the US; ACT
lost a round because of it, and it hasn't been getting any better since
then.

What really irks me about this all is that free market conservatives who
also happen to be against embryonic stem cell research are using an
extremely dishonest argument resulting from this set of circumstances.
Ignoring the effects of pending and threatened legislation on the market for
private funding, they claim that embryonic stem cell research a) would be
funded by the free market if people really thought it was worthwhile, and b)
can be banned without any loss since it's obviously going nowhere. See here:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000127.php

This sort of thing makes me grind my teeth. The fact that any research has
happened at all in the past few years is a tribute to how much people want
it to happen.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme




From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sun Jun 20 07:56:21 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:56:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support
	stemcellresearch
In-Reply-To: <5256218E-C28B-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNGEEIELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


--> J. Andrew Rogers

> > Substantial private
> > funding just doesn't happen under those circumstances - the risk is too
> > great.
>
>
> What is this hypothetical risk?  This is not a realistic analysis.
>
> The only risk is perhaps the loss of some capital expenditure.  That's
> it.  If some day the government decided to ban research outright, all
> you've lost as a private funder is a little bit of upfront capital that
> wasn't amortized.
>
> And it isn't like losing that bit of money is a big deal to private
> funding, since they were often never expecting to see a dime of return
> on the money they spent in the first place.

The vast majority of private medical research funding is for-profit. If they
think there's a good chance of losing the money, they'll invest it something
else.

Some 1996/1997 figures: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf00301/expendit.htm

$20 billion medical R&D in the top 500 corporations versus $11-12 billion or
so for the NIH that year.

http://www.infoplease.com/year/1997.html

US GDP (1998 dollars):   $8,110.90 billion
Federal spending:   $1635.33 billion (for suitable definitions of "Federal"
and "spending")

Total philanthropic spending was on the order of $160 billion (2% of GDP) in
1997, of which about $1 billion went to medical research if the
proportionality stays the same.

All these figures are, of course, subject to a a great deal of inaccuracy.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun Jun 20 08:03:31 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:03:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support
	stemcellresearch
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEEHELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEEHELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <51DAA1CA-C290-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 20, 2004, at 12:35 AM, Reason wrote:
> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000127.php
>
> This sort of thing makes me grind my teeth. The fact that any research 
> has
> happened at all in the past few years is a tribute to how much people 
> want
> it to happen.


That's what every activist says about their cause.  "It is a miracle 
Disaster X hasn't happened, and it is only because people really care, 
but next year Disaster X is almost inevitable."  So on and so forth for 
a couple decades rain or shine whether anyone actually listens to them 
or not.  One has to be able to assign realistic probabilities to all 
the random "what-ifs" that pop into your head or all you'll do is burn 
all your energy generating heat rather than light.

I haven't seen much evidence that stem cell research has been slowed 
much at all.  There are activist factions on both sides that act like 
the world is coming to an end (which seems odd considering that they 
are predicting opposite outcomes), but back in the real world progress 
is managing to trudge along in a sane fashion like it always has.

It is far too easy to get caught up in the exciting rhetoric and lose 
sight of the dirty and bland reality.

j. andrew rogers



From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun 20 13:31:48 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:31:48 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cassini latest pictures
Message-ID: <p05100301bcfb4183edb2@[150.146.134.133]>

>The images of Phoebe were quite lunar, or maybe asteroidal.

If they are correct that it is a captured object from the Kuiper
Belt region, then that shiny stuff that looks like ice makes
sense.

>Will Cassini get any closer to mysterious Titan?

I posted this last October. I thought it might be useful to post
again. (these are 'highlights' that I pulled out of the schedule)

Amara




Cassini-Huygens Mission Events Timeline, 2004-2005
===================================================

June 11, 2004: Flyby of Phoebe at about 2,100 kilometers.

July 1, 2004: Saturn orbit insertion. Main engine burn begins at
spacecraft-event time of 01:02 Universal Time (6:02 p.m. June 30
Pacific Daylight Time). Burn lasts about 97 minutes ending near
closest approach to Saturn. Then the antenna points earthward for a
quick call home to confirm the burn and new trajectory. Then the
spacecraft turns for scientific observations for about 74 minutes.
Then it points the antenna earthward again to transmit data from
those observations.  One-way light time is about 90 minutes.

October 26, 2004: Flyby of Titan at about 1,200 kilometers.
Observations may include radar and infrared imaging of surface
details, plus information about winds.

December 13, 2004: Flyby of Titan at about 2,350 kilometers.
Observations may include additional surface imaging and wind
information.

December 15, 2004:  Flyby of Dione at about 84,000 kilometers.

December 24, 2004:  Release of Huygens probe.

January 1, 2005:  Orbiter flyby of Iapetus at about 64,000 kilometers.

January 14, 2005:  Descent of Huygens probe onto Titan, lasting
about two and one-half hours.  A signal received about two hours
later should confirm that data has been collected. Orbiter flyby of
Titan at about 60,000 kilometers.

February 15, 2005:  Flyby of Titan at about 950 kilometers.

February 17, 2005:  Flyby of Enceladus at about 2,900 kilometers.

March 9, 2005:  Flyby of Enceladus at about 750 kilometers.

March 31, April 16, August 22, September 7, October 28 and December
26, 2005:  Flybys of Titan at about 950 to 11,000 kilometers.

July 14, 2005:  Flyby of Enceladus at about 1,000 kilometers.

August 2, 2005:  Flyby of Mimas at about 50,000 kilometers.

September 24, 2005:  Flyby of Tethys at about 28,000 kilometers.

September 26, 2005:  Flyby of Hyperion at about 1,100 kilometers.

October 11, 2005:  Flyby of Dione at about 1,600 kilometers.

November 26, 2005: Flyby of Rhea at about 1,300 kilometers.

September 10, 2007: Flyby of Iapetus at 1,700 kilometers.

December 3, 2007:  Flyby of Epimetheus at 6,400 kilometers.

-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"There's only one thing more beautiful than a beautiful dream, and
that's a beautiful reality."        --Ashleigh Brilliant


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Jun 20 12:19:04 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 05:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cassini latest pictures
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bcfb4183edb2@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406200511230.9519-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Amara Graps wrote:

> I posted this last October. I thought it might be useful to post
> again. (these are 'highlights' that I pulled out of the schedule)
[snip]

Boy, given Amara's Cassini schedule -- if Cassini were a human being
the descriptive term "flirt" would seem to be at the more complementary
end of terms that could be used to decribe her.   (Assuming of
course that spacecraft have a female gender quality.  If they
have a male gender quality "gigolo" is the only thing that
comes to mind.)

R.




From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun 20 14:45:07 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:45:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Soltices, Midsummer's Day and Ja'ni
Message-ID: <p05100300bcfb5072fa33@[150.146.134.133]>

Oops! My summer solstice crept up on me this year...

In 2004, For Northerners on Planet Earth:
          summer begins June 20, 8:57 P.M. EDT (June 21, 00:57 UT*)
          For Southerners on Planet Earth:
          winter begins June 20, 8:57 P.M. EDT (June 21, 00:57 UT*)

Those of you in the Northern Hemisphere, I hope you're enjoying the
long days and short nights. Those of you in the Southern Hemisphere,
the days will soon be getting longer.

Happy Solstice, folks!

and for Northerners: Happy Midsummer's Day and
                      Happy Ja'ni  (*)  !!


http://www.infoplease.com/spot/solstice.html

Solstice, from the Latin for sun stands still, in astronomy, either of
the two points on the ecliptic that lie midway between the equinoxes
(separated from them by an angular distance of 90?).

At the solstices the sun's apparent position on the celestial sphere
reaches its greatest distance above or below the celestial equator,
about 23 1/2? of arc. At the time of summer solstice, about June 22,
the sun is directly overhead at noon at the Tropic of Cancer.

In the Northern Hemisphere the longest day and shortest night of the
year occur on this date, marking the beginning of summer. At winter
solstice, about December 22, the sun is overhead at noon at the Tropic
of Capricorn; this marks the beginning of winter in the Northern
Hemisphere. For several days before and after each solstice the sun
appears to stand still in the sky, i.e., its noontime elevation does
not seem to change from day to day.


(*) Ja'ni:
http://www.latviansonline.com/features/article.php?id=348_0_11_0_C
-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"Living on earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip
around the sun."   --Ashleigh Brilliant


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Jun 20 12:45:25 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 05:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem
	cellresearch
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406200530410.9519-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Reason wrote:

> It is annoying that people make this argument while ignoring the effects of
> government policy - existing and threatened - on private funding. In case
> you hadn't noticed, the threat of a complete ban on therapeutic cloning and
> stem cell research has been hovvering close over the industry in the US for
> the past two years. The same or worse goes for Europe.  [snip]

But you are thinking that medical research revolves around the U.S. or Europe.
Countries like Japan, Korea and China don't have some of the historic moral
(actually religious) problems that might exist in the U.S. or Europe.  And
I know that China has been throwing money at the construction of stem cell
research facilities.

You have to make an argument that pouring money on the problem would produce
results faster.  Over the years I've learned that with Science things happen
in two stages "research" and "development".  When things are in the "research"
stage they are very difficult to accelerate -- it is questionable how much
one can accelerate the search for the right combination of growth factors,
substrates, supporting cells, etc. that allow the support and differentiation
of stem cells.  A lot of the process requires the integration of many small
discoveries and observations into a picture of what is really going on.
You can't easily "brute force" that problem.  On the other hand once you
understand those processes the 'D' part (which is mostly engineering)
can use increased financial support to try different approaches to solve
problems.

Up until ~2001 we only had the tip of the iceberg with regard to what
the components were.  Now we are in the middle of looking at an extremely
large jigsaw puzzle (and only so many hands can work with a piece at the
same time).  Once the pieces begin to be assembled into much larger
blocks -- then will be the time to be pushing for more funding.

Robert




From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jun 20 13:56:10 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 09:56:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's
	supportstemcellresearch
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org><01a401c4567b$96dae2f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<3F210C80-C289-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <004e01c456ce$582fdd00$f0893cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, June 20, 2004 3:12 AM J. Andrew Rogers
andrew at ceruleansystems.com
> My point was essentially that this hand-wringing
> is a classic historical myopia.  When granting
> the government abilities, powers, and resources,
> you should never ask what your friends and
> comrades would do with such things but what
> your enemies would.  Because eventually, your
> enemies will be in a position to utilize such
> things as *they* see fit.   Bad people frequently
> misuse powers granted by the foolish people to
> long gone benevolent people.

Well put!

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Jun 20 13:58:12 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:58:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
Message-ID: <20040620135812.GX12847@leitl.org>


If anyone is interested, I have several Gmail invitations to give away.
Ask me (privately) and ye shall receive.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040620/83364d07/attachment.bin>

From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Sun Jun 20 15:00:59 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:00:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's
	support	stemcellresearch
In-Reply-To: <3F210C80-C289-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
	<01a401c4567b$96dae2f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<3F210C80-C289-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <40D5A6AB.1050401@cfl.rr.com>

J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

>
> My point was essentially that this hand-wringing is a classic 
> historical myopia.  When granting the government abilities, powers, 
> and resources, you should never ask what your friends and comrades 
> would do with such things but what your enemies would.  Because 
> eventually, your enemies will be in a position to utilize such things 
> as *they* see fit.  Bad people frequently misuse powers granted by the 
> foolish people to long gone benevolent people. 

These are nice smug libertarian type positions.  Even assuming they are 
correct we must take into account the following

1) There is zero likelihood of getting the government out of the 
research business anytime before the singularity.

2) The threat of a hovering legislative ban combined with the lack of 
government monies will effectively stifle research in what is probably 
the single most promising field in medicine right now.  This is disastrous.

>
> No, the only mistake here was thinking that it was a good idea to let 
> politicians decide what kind of research gets funded in the first 
> place.  That was just idiotic.  For similar reasons, having any kind 
> of global organization, like the UN, regulate this kind of thing is 
> profoundly stupid as it eliminates the escape hatch of a competitive 
> market in case the politicians in one sovereign entity all get 
> together and decide to be imbeciles, which happens more often than it 
> should. 

And of course the same religious conservatives who lobbied for the stem 
cell funding ban will be pushing for this.  The hypocrisy of condemning 
the UN as the biblical "beast" when it doesn't do what they want, like 
invading Iraq on Shrub's schedule, while using it to push for a global 
stem cell ban won't even occur to them.



From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jun 20 15:52:35 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:52:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. Americans support stem cell
	research
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org><01a401c4567b$96dae2f0$852c2dcb@homepc><3F210C80-C289-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
	<40D5A6AB.1050401@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00b901c456de$9be326a0$f0893cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, June 20, 2004 11:00 AM Gregory Propf gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com
wrote:
> These are nice smug libertarian type positions.
>  Even assuming they are correct we must take
> into account the following
>
> 1) There is zero likelihood of getting the
> government out of the research business
> anytime before the singularity.

Ah, but there is a chance to lower the amount of government involvement
and increase the amount of private funding.  It also depends on when a
singularity happens.  (There's a case to be made the government
involvement has actually held it back.)

> 2) The threat of a hovering legislative ban
> combined with the lack of government
> monies will effectively stifle research in
> what is probably the single most promising
> field in medicine right now.  This is disastrous.

If there's a government ban, I'm sure the government monies will be
taken away too.  So, what's your point?

My fear, too, is that government involvement will be used to politically
manipulate the research and also to focus more on military applications.

>> No, the only mistake here was thinking
>> that it was a good idea to let politicians
>> decide what kind of research gets
>> funded in the first place.  That was just
>> idiotic.  For similar reasons, having any
>> kind of global organization, like the UN,
>> regulate this kind of thing is profoundly
>> stupid as it eliminates the escape hatch
>> of a competitive market in case the
>> politicians in one sovereign entity all get
>> together and decide to be imbeciles,
>> which happens more often than it should.
>
> And of course the same religious
> conservatives who lobbied for the stem
> cell funding ban will be pushing for this.

Not just them, but also non-religious technophobes.

> The hypocrisy of condemning the UN as
> the biblical "beast" when it doesn't do
> what they want, like invading Iraq on
> Shrub's schedule, while using it to push
> for a global stem cell ban won't even
> occur to them.

I believe things are more complicated than that.  A lot of these people
don't disagree with the fundamental point of using government to further
their agenda, including international governmental bodies like the UN.
But the important point to them is the agenda -- not the means of
implementing it.  If they can get what they want through the UN,
they'll -- or some of them -- will be all for it.  If they can't,
they'll be as quick to condemn the UN.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 20 16:15:33 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 09:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040620135812.GX12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040620161533.23230.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm not
using, anybody want some?"

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> 
> If anyone is interested, I have several Gmail invitations to give
> away.
> Ask me (privately) and ye shall receive.
> 
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 20 16:31:39 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 09:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Most Stupid
In-Reply-To: <40D1C5E1.4080804@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040620163139.24404.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Kevin Freels wrote:
> 
> >It's good to know that the list isn't "smart". That would be a bit
> >disturbing. :-)
> > 
> >From: <boriskg at verat.net>
> >  
> >
> >>This is the most stupid list on which I have ever been!
> >>    
> >>
> Indeed. That would be emergent behavior, leading inevitably to a 
> hard-takeoff singularity. And judging by some of the recent acrimony,
> I doubt the result would be "friendly."  :-)

I'm wondering where when and how Boris gave the list an intelligence
test?

"Stupid is as stupid does..." 

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Jun 20 16:40:05 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:40:05 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040620161533.23230.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040620135812.GX12847@leitl.org>
	<20040620161533.23230.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040620164005.GB12847@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:15:33AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm not
> using, anybody want some?"

Sorry, all my spare germs are now accounted for :)

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040620/d9195887/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 20 16:51:28 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 09:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] When did WTA turn socialist???
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040612120446e09195@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040620165128.86429.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Harvey, next time please count up to ten and take the time to read a
> message before replying to it in such a misguided and aggressive
> fashion.
> I am referring to the main topic where there is heated discussion and
> disagreement on all list, including those run by WTA and ExI. I never
> said, or implied, that the WTA is a socialist organization.
> Or if I did say or imply it, could you please try to calm down and
> tell me just where I said or imply it?

It has been the overtly stated goal for a number of years of James
Hughes, the Changesurfing "sexy democratic transhumanist", that the WTA
be a socialist counterpoint to the ExI, which, while not overtly
libertarian, has tended to be membership-dominated by libertarians and
libertarian-leaning individuals since its inception.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Sun Jun 20 16:53:01 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:53:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. Americans support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <00b901c456de$9be326a0$f0893cd1@neptune>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEEFELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
	<01a401c4567b$96dae2f0$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<3F210C80-C289-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
	<40D5A6AB.1050401@cfl.rr.com>
	<00b901c456de$9be326a0$f0893cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <40D5C0ED.1030905@cfl.rr.com>

Technotranscendence wrote:

>If there's a government ban, I'm sure the government monies will be
>taken away too.  So, what's your point?
>

The funding ban is a good indicator of the administration's "mood" 
towards the research.  We should work for a removal of the ban if only 
for that reason.  It certainly makes any kind of legislative ban less 
likely and would give a boost to private funding as well.  A long 
position in the stem cell companies on the day of the ban's removal 
would be a very good thing to have IMHO.


>>
>>And of course the same religious
>>conservatives who lobbied for the stem
>>cell funding ban will be pushing for this.
>>    
>>
>
>Not just them, but also non-religious technophobes.
>
Well, I forgot to mention them but yes.  Especially in Europe you see 
this.  Very few fundamentalists there but lots of eco-fundies and 
luddites.  This is going to be the "coalition against progress" for the 
early 21st century.  Religious types and "deep ecology" people united to 
keep us all dying young and having such a miserable time of it while 
we're here that we'll want to be dead anyway.  Nice acronym  - CAP.  I 
can hear the rap lyrics now...


>>The hypocrisy of condemning the UN as
>>the biblical "beast" when it doesn't do
>>what they want, like invading Iraq on
>>Shrub's schedule, while using it to push
>>for a global stem cell ban won't even
>>occur to them.
>>    
>>
>
>I believe things are more complicated than that.  A lot of these people
>don't disagree with the fundamental point of using government to further
>their agenda, including international governmental bodies like the UN
>

>But the important point to them is the agenda -- not the means of
>implementing it.  If they can get what they want through the UN,
>they'll -- or some of them -- will be all for it.  If they can't,
>they'll be as quick to condemn the UN.
>

Go visit Freerepublic.com (I can't believe I'm actually recommending 
someone visit this site :)  You will not believe the stuff the nutbar 
right puts out there about the evil "bluehelmets".



From bjk at imminst.org  Sun Jun 20 17:56:02 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:56:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Chat: Anti-Aging 
Message-ID: <40D5CFB2.3080406@imminst.org>

CHAT:  Dr. James R. Hughes - Anti-aging Therapy 
ImmInst Full Member, former member of the elite U.S. Navy Seals and 
co-founder of Hilton Head Longevity Center, James join ImmInst to discuss 
advancements being made in life extension and anti-aging therapy.

Chat Time: Sun June 20 @ 8 PM Eastern 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=3689


MEMBER ARTICLE:  Paradigm Shifting - Life After 40?  
ImmInst  Member, Harold Brenner(prometheus) says, "So now we 
finally have empirical evidence. Life does not begin at 40. The brain 
begins to malfunction at 40 - due to ineffective DNA repair. This is scary." 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=69&t=3808



From alex at ramonsky.com  Sun Jun 20 18:55:04 2004
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:55:04 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Soltices, Midsummer's Day and Ja'ni
References: <p05100300bcfb5072fa33@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <40D5DD88.20206@ramonsky.com>

A question which seems to be difficult to resolve...
If Midsummer Solstice is the start of summer, why is it called Midsummer 
Solstice?
The ancient celts (who were very fond of their solstices) began their 
summer at the cross quarter day between spring equinox and summer 
solstice, ie, 'Mayday' or Bealtaine, around 4th May. Midsummer was, 
well, mid-summer, and summer ended in early August at Lughnasadh, in 
between summer solstice and autumn equinox. This makes sense to me. In 
the middle of summer, you get the most light...
Lots of people in the older generations still follow this pattern and 
treat June 20/21st as midsummer, likewise December 21/22 as Midwinter.
Where did the idea come from that midsummer solstice was the start of 
summer? Is it? Have we official confirmation of this?
In the UK it's very difficult to tell, because the weather is only 
slightly less nasty during june & july.
Best,
AR
***************

Amara Graps wrote:

> Oops! My summer solstice crept up on me this year...
>
> In 2004, For Northerners on Planet Earth:
>          summer begins June 20, 8:57 P.M. EDT (June 21, 00:57 UT*)
>          For Southerners on Planet Earth:
>          winter begins June 20, 8:57 P.M. EDT (June 21, 00:57 UT*)
>
> Those of you in the Northern Hemisphere, I hope you're enjoying the
> long days and short nights. Those of you in the Southern Hemisphere,
> the days will soon be getting longer.
>
> Happy Solstice, folks!
>
> and for Northerners: Happy Midsummer's Day and
>                      Happy Ja'ni  (*)  !!
>
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/spot/solstice.html
>
> Solstice, from the Latin for sun stands still, in astronomy, either of
> the two points on the ecliptic that lie midway between the equinoxes
> (separated from them by an angular distance of 90?).
>
> At the solstices the sun's apparent position on the celestial sphere
> reaches its greatest distance above or below the celestial equator,
> about 23 1/2? of arc. At the time of summer solstice, about June 22,
> the sun is directly overhead at noon at the Tropic of Cancer.
>
> In the Northern Hemisphere the longest day and shortest night of the
> year occur on this date, marking the beginning of summer. At winter
> solstice, about December 22, the sun is overhead at noon at the Tropic
> of Capricorn; this marks the beginning of winter in the Northern
> Hemisphere. For several days before and after each solstice the sun
> appears to stand still in the sky, i.e., its noontime elevation does
> not seem to change from day to day.
>
>
> (*) Ja'ni:
> http://www.latviansonline.com/features/article.php?id=348_0_11_0_C






From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sun Jun 20 19:01:45 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:01:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
Message-ID: <40D5DF19.5030504@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Sun Jun 20 10:15:33 MDT 2004 Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm not
> using, anybody want some?"

The main advantage of gmail (or any webmail) for me is that it means
that whatever the operating system or pc I am running, I can still get
my email. It would also be an advantage for people who travel a lot. The
problem with other webmail systems up to now is that they don't give you
enough disk space, so your webmail storage rapidly fills up.
Gmail's 1 gig should solve that problem.

If you are worried about privacy, then just don't use your gmail address
for your top secret world domination plans. If it was really important
it would be encrypted anyway.

The good news is that google are issuing a lot more gmail invitations
now, - as witnessed by the drop in Ebay prices for them. ;)

BillK


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sun Jun 20 19:26:02 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:26:02 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Soltices, Midsummer's Day and Ja'ni
Message-ID: <40D5E4CA.7060400@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Sun Jun 20 12:55:04 MDT 2004 Alex Ramonsky wrote:
> Where did the idea come from that midsummer solstice was the start of
> summer? Is it? Have we official confirmation of this?
> In the UK it's very difficult to tell, because the weather is only
> slightly less nasty during june & july.

It is because of the time delay while the sun heats up the land and sea.

London average max temperatures:
Ja Fe Mr Ap My Jn Jl Ag Sp Oc Nv Dc
06 07 10 13 17 20 22 21 19 14 10 07

The other thing to bear in mind is that for such a small country the UK
weather is very variable. Scotland is surprisingly colder than London.

Oban average max temperatures:
Ja Fe Mr Ap My Jn Jl Ag Sp Oc Nv Dc
06 07 09 11 14 16 17 17 15 12 09 07

And it is even colder if you go a little further north into the Scottish
Highlands.

As the saying goes, if you have bad weather in England, just go 20 miles
down the road.

BillK


From GRUBER at biop.ox.ac.uk  Sun Jun 20 20:11:33 2004
From: GRUBER at biop.ox.ac.uk (Jan Gruber)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:11:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 9, Issue 26
In-Reply-To: <200406181800.i5II0Hn02386@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.VMS.3.91-2
	(vms).1040620210527.51550C-100000@nutmeg.biop.ox.ac.uk>


>> I unfortunately can't thing of another word meaning
>> "physical youth" that doesn't also imply adolescent
>> behavior. Acy
>
>
>But adolescent behavior is what makes adolescence
>worthwhile.  {8^D  Such as what I plan to embark
>upon tomorrow at 0400: a 3 megameter trip on an
>aging motorcycle with mechanical issues.  If all
>goes well, I shall be back Monday.  If not, not.
>
>{8-]
>
>Onward Rocinante!
>
>spike

spike,

I recently sold my bike - partly out of the desier to make it to my 400+
birthday - sometimes I am sorry I did though.

Good luck with the 3e6 m - hope you are wearing your safety gear ...

Jan


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 20 21:43:41 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <40D5DF19.5030504@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20040620214341.56177.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

Yeah, Yahoo just upped their limit from  a paltry 4 megs to 100 megs
the other day. Nearly danced a jig when I saw that.

--- BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun Jun 20 10:15:33 MDT 2004 Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm not
> > using, anybody want some?"
> 
> The main advantage of gmail (or any webmail) for me is that it means
> that whatever the operating system or pc I am running, I can still
> get
> my email. It would also be an advantage for people who travel a lot.
> The
> problem with other webmail systems up to now is that they don't give
> you
> enough disk space, so your webmail storage rapidly fills up.
> Gmail's 1 gig should solve that problem.
> 
> If you are worried about privacy, then just don't use your gmail
> address
> for your top secret world domination plans. If it was really
> important
> it would be encrypted anyway.
> 
> The good news is that google are issuing a lot more gmail invitations
> now, - as witnessed by the drop in Ebay prices for them. ;)
> 
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From megaquark at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 20 22:13:48 2004
From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:13:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
References: <20040620135812.GX12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <BAY9-DAV22F8BA94Ieo000126a1@hotmail.com>

I would like one if you have any left.:-)

Kevin Freels

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eugen Leitl" <eugen at leitl.org>
To: <transhumantech at yahoogroups.com>; <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>; "ExI
chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 8:58 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations


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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun 20 22:49:04 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040620214341.56177.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040620224904.59929.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah, Yahoo just upped their limit from  a paltry 4
> megs to 100 megs
> the other day. Nearly danced a jig when I saw that.

You mean 2 gigs.  (Or is the limit different for
@yahoo.com versus @pacbell.net?)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun 20 23:04:17 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem
	cellresearch
In-Reply-To: <5256218E-C28B-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <20040620230417.89324.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Reason wrote:
> > Substantial private
> > funding just doesn't happen under those
> circumstances - the risk is too
> > great.
> 
> What is this hypothetical risk?  This is not a
> realistic analysis.
> 
> The only risk is perhaps the loss of some capital
> expenditure.  That's 
> it.  If some day the government decided to ban
> research outright, all 
> you've lost as a private funder is a little bit of
> upfront capital that 
> wasn't amortized.
> 
> And it isn't like losing that bit of money is a big
> deal to private 
> funding, since they were often never expecting to
> see a dime of return 
> on the money they spent in the first place.

Actually, the risk and the significance are bigger
than you give them credit for.  The significance: it's
all about money, so losing quite a bit of money hurts
a lot whether or not one was expecting it.  The risk:
there's all the usual variables of whether or not any
business will succeed, but in this case, there's the
risk of imminent legislative ban in addition to all
the other risks (which are present no matter where the
money is spent), which increases the risk enough that
many investors would rather play elsewhere.  (More and
less risk are both "some" risk, but the amount of risk
definitely matters to investors!)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun 20 23:11:43 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <59132C30-C248-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <20040620231143.71290.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
wrote:
> > It makes me angry that the only way to advance
> science in this country 
> > is to wed it to the schmaltz and emotionalism
> surrounding the death of 
> > a president.
> 
> The only way to advance science in any country is to
> do it yourself.  

Sure thing!  No problem.  But, how do I pay the bills
while I'm devoting my working hours to advancing
science?

(This is not a hypothetical question, BTW.  I'm
investigating something that's been distracting me
from real work, using my own savings until I'm
satisfied with the results.  But my savings will only
last so long.  Since I don't have a Ph.D. in the
field, and the issue is rather far from firmly
resolved and known science - even if it is a logical
extension of what's been demonstrated and measured -
getting funding for the work itself from any of the
usual sources seems so unlikely it might not be worth
the time to try...)


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sun Jun 20 23:25:29 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:25:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Cassini latest pictures
Message-ID: <40D61CE9.931501DF@mindspring.com>

--- In forteana at yahoogroups.com, "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at m...> fwded:
> December 24, 2004:  Release of Huygens probe.

My minor claim to fame is that I tested the prototype of the Thermal
Properties package (THP) of the Surface Science Package of the Huygens
probe back in 1991.

From
<
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31193&fbodylongid=740
 >

"The thermal properties sensor assembly makes measurements of the
Titan ocean and lower atmospheric temperature and thermal
conductivity. It is housed in the SSP Top Hat. Conventional sensors
for this purpose are platinum wires 5 cm long and 10 and 25 microns in
diameter. The thermal conductivity measuring technique is to pass a
current through the wire to heat it and the surrounding medium. A
series of resistance measurements are taken at approx. 0.1 s intervals
to measure the rate of heating of the element and detect the onset of
convection."

This is what it looks like now:

http://pssri.open.ac.uk/images/thp.jpg

but the original wasn't nearly so pretty (certainly not after I'd
finished with the soldering iron).

Rob


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Mon Jun 21 01:08:27 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:08:27 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <40D5DF19.5030504@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <40D5DF19.5030504@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <40D6350B.9080009@paradise.net.nz>

BillK wrote:
> The main advantage of gmail (or any webmail) for me is that it means
> that whatever the operating system or pc I am running, I can still get
> my email.

IMO what makes gmail a killer app is the powerful search facilities. I don't 
plan to use my (hypothetical) account for email. I think the possibilities 
for knowledge management are much more interesting.

Today, a powerful use of blogging is to record your knowledge bit-by-bit so 
that over time your blog records become like a second memory (or third?). 
(Strictly this is klogging or knowledge logging). I very much like the idea 
of being able to search over everything I have ever known or thought about a 
particular topic.

1GB is plenty for a long running blog + email, and will undoubtedly be 
expanded  as required.

Paul Bridger


From riel at surriel.com  Mon Jun 21 02:24:27 2004
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <179710-22004632183138606@M2W034.mail2web.com>
References: <179710-22004632183138606@M2W034.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0406202223160.29081@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:

> "The pilot of the craft, still to be announced, will become the first
> person to earn astronaut wings in a non-government sponsored vehicle, and
> the first private civilian to fly a spaceship out of the atmosphere."

As a reminder, SpaceShipOne is supposed to take off tomorrow
morning at 6:30 PDT, or 13:30 UTC.  The mission's FAQ is here:

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/june21faq.htm

Rik
-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Jun 21 04:35:33 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:35:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <200406201800.i5KI0Jn21667@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406201800.i5KI0Jn21667@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40D66595.3050105@CRNano.org>

Why is no one talking about the effects of U.S. policy on the supply of 
researchers?

I'm a biology student, deciding what career to go into.  (Or a lab 
director looking to expand into a new field.)  Should I go into one 
that's stable, or one that the US might well ban right after I graduate 
(create the program)?  That's a no-brainer...

Robert Bradbury wrote that the research side of R&D can't be accelerated 
by throwing money at it.  But I ask: can research be slowed by 
discouraging researchers from specializing in it?  And how much effect 
will the reduction in researchers have on subsequent development?

Reason and j. andrew rogers are hammer-and-tongs about public vs. 
private investment.  But money isn't the only thing that makes research 
happen.

ObNanotech: Research careers in molecular manufacturing are also being 
energetically discouraged in the U.S.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun 21 06:18:53 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:18:53 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040620164005.GB12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040620135812.GX12847@leitl.org>
	<20040620161533.23230.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040620164005.GB12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <470a3c5204062023185870a40f@mail.gmail.com>

I have a few more. Kevin did you get yours?
What I like with Gmail is that for some reasons I go through my email
sessions much faster since I use Gmail. For those who are on many
mailing lists is a real time saver.
G.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:40:05 +0200, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:15:33AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm not
> > using, anybody want some?"
> 
> Sorry, all my spare germs are now accounted for :)


From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 21 07:53:55 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:53:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Solstices, Midsummer's Day and Ja'ni
Message-ID: <p05100302bcfc4222e089@[150.146.134.133]>


Dear Alex,

The below text should help explain about the length of days not
coinciding like you think that they should.

Solstice has a precise astronomical definition, so there's not very
much that a person can do about that.

The 'midsummer' part comes from extra observational and cultural
factors, which are more interesting to me. It would be neat to
compile a book of stories of 'midsummer' celebrations all over
the world. I've participated in one in Sweden, and my father
tells me of the Ja'ni celebrations he experienced as a boy
in Latvia.

Buono luned?,
Amara


http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.3.FAQ

Subject: C.10 Why isn't the earliest Sunrise (and latest Sunset) on the
          longest day of the year?
Author: Steve Willner <willner at cfa183.harvard.edu>

This phenomenon is called the "equation of time."  This is just a
fancy name for the fact that the Sun's speed along the Earth's equator
is not constant.  In other words, if you were to measure the Sun's
position at exactly noon every day, you would see not only the
familiar north-south change that goes with the seasons but also an
east-west change in the Sun's position.  A graphical representation of
both positional changes is the analemma, that funny figure 8 that most
globes stick in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

The short explanation of the equation of time is that it has two
causes.  The slightly larger effect comes from the obliquity of the
ecliptic---the Earth's equator is tilted with respect to the orbital
plane.  Constant speed along the ecliptic---which is how the "mean
sun" moves---translates to varying speed in right ascension (along the
equator).  This gives the overall figure 8 shape of the analemma.
Almost as large is the fact that the Earth's orbit is not circular,
and the Sun's angular speed along the ecliptic is therefore not
constant.  This gives the inequality between the two lobes of the
figure 8.

Some additional discussion, with illustrations, is provided by Nick
Strobel at
<URL:http://www.astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/nakedeyb.htm#A2.4>, though
you may want to start with the section on time at
<URL:http://www.astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/nakedeyb.htm#2>.
Mattthias Reinsch provides an analytic expression for determining the
number of days between the winter solstice and the day of the latest
sunrise for Northern Hemisphere observers,
<URL:http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0201074>.

The Earth's analemma will change with time as the Earth's orbital
parameters change.  This is described by Bernard Oliver (1972 July,
_Sky and Telescope_, pp. 20--22)

An article by David Harvey (1982 March, _Sky and Telescope_,
pp. 237--239) shows the analemmas of all nine planets.  A simulation
of the Martian analemma is at
<URL:http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030626.html>, and illustrations
of other planetary analemmas is at <URL:http://www.analemma.com/>.

Amara

-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"Living on earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip
around the sun."   --Ashleigh Brilliant


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Mon Jun 21 07:07:51 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:07:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <20040620231143.71290.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040620231143.71290.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B5615806-C351-11D8-92CC-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 20, 2004, at 4:11 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
> wrote:
>> The only way to advance science in any country is to
>> do it yourself.
>
> Sure thing!  No problem.  But, how do I pay the bills
> while I'm devoting my working hours to advancing
> science?


*shrug*

I can't answer that question for you, but I've managed just fine and 
would have managed even better if I made smarter choices and had been 
more disciplined in the past.

That last part about "smarter choices" is the important part.  Figure 
out where you want to go and be brutally realistic about the most 
efficient path to getting there.  And then go do it.  Just realize that 
you may not like answer because the best path is rarely the easiest, 
most comfortable, or fun.

It only seems hard because virtually all people are some combination of 
lazy, undisciplined, and/or have different goals in practice than they 
claim in theory.  That is the real stumbling block.  If you get past 
these things, it should be a breeze.


j. andrew rogers



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 21 07:08:30 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:08:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <000001c454e4$a086ec10$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <000001c4575e$8f255f70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> ...a 3 megameter trip on an aging motorcycle with mechanical issues...

> 
> Onward Rocinante!
> 
> spike

Made it.  {8-]  spike



From alex at ramonsky.com  Mon Jun 21 07:40:44 2004
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:40:44 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Invitation-revised schedule
Message-ID: <40D690FC.4080503@ramonsky.com>



BCC/Neuroscience Alliance/Entelechy Institute
Invites you to:
*************
IA Day
*************

Location: Wolverton, Bucks, UK
Attendance Fee: $0:00 (?0:00) (please pay before arrival)
Date: 31st July 2004

Schedule:
12 noon - 1.30pm

    * Meet at: The Albert Function Suite, The New Victoria hotel, 46
      Church Street, Wolverton, Bucks, Tel: (01908) 315447
    * Free beer/wine/beverages

1.30pm- 5pm

    * Lecture by Aubrey de Grey (biogerontologist and provocateur) --
      "Really curing aging: a foreseeable prospect and a reason for IA".
    * IA lecture by Alex Ramonsky,
    * Demos of biofeedback & light/sound machines.
    * Transhumanist & Extropian news exchange & updates
    * Intro to the Entelechy Institute's new project -'Babylon 5.5'.
    * BCC's International Backup Exchange (bring your backups...it's
      nice to know if your house burns down you have a backup on the
      other side of the world).

5pm-at least midnight:

    * Alex's book launching party (at Alex's home; 5 minutes away)
    * Meal provided
    * More free drinks
    * Demos of TMS/NMS tech
    * Light/sound sessions
    * Free copy of book for all those who helped (if not available on
      the day, this will be posted to you)
    * The annual Russell Carter shooting competition with prizes
    * Music & videos

Accommodation choices:
1. Alex's house : free, but there may be a crowd and it may be just 
carpet space. How long you stay is up to you, so if you fancy a cheap 
holiday in London, here you go.
2. Local hotel:  The Crauford Arms, Wolverton or (nobbier) The Swan 
Revived Hotel, Newport Pagnell. Make your own booking arrangements.
Fee and bookings:
There is no fee, but it's important we know whether or not you are 
coming so as to estimate catering needs. It is also important to respond 
so that your name is left on the venue door and you can get in; this is 
a private booking. If you do not respond, we shall assume you're not coming!


So, RSVP to:
alex at ramonsky.com
Or by mail to:
The Entelechy Institute
Seventh Star Studios
27 Old Gloucester Street
London WC1N 3XX
Or
Tel: (UK) 07092 016095
Or: 07759 693908

Feel free to bring a partner or friend. We are not yet sure if under-16s 
are admissible but if you have a problem with this we can find out for you.
Any other inquiries please use the above contacts.
**************

The Entelechy Institute June 2004
This email is subject to IPMA law (Intellectual Property My Ass). You 
may therefore copy it and distribute it as you please. We know you have 
good taste enough not to spam people.

*****************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040621/933db066/attachment.html>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Jun 21 14:20:56 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <000001c4575e$8f255f70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210720120.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Spike wrote:

> > ...a 3 megameter trip on an aging motorcycle with mechanical issues...
> >
> > Onward Rocinante!

Ok, excuse my lack of knowledge -- who/what is Rocinante?

R.




From jpnitya at sapo.pt  Mon Jun 21 15:24:01 2004
From: jpnitya at sapo.pt (jpnitya at sapo.pt)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:24:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Adding a chromosome
Message-ID: <1087831441.7i1ksl3f8fwg@mail.sapo.pt>

Potentially useful development:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996018






O SAPO j? est? livre de v?rus com a Panda Software, fique voc? tamb?m!
Clique em: http://antivirus.sapo.pt


From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 21 15:29:59 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:29:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210720120.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <001001c457a4$9d5d3180$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Robert J. Bradbury

> > > Onward Rocinante!
> 
> Ok, excuse my lack of knowledge -- who/what is Rocinante?
> 
> R.

Don Quixote's stallion.  s







From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Jun 21 14:41:19 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0406202223160.29081@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210735200.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Rik van Riel wrote:

> As a reminder, SpaceShipOne is supposed to take off tomorrow
> morning at 6:30 PDT, or 13:30 UTC.  The mission's FAQ is here:

Ok, the news reports seem to have documented that it took
off with Mike Melvill as the pilot of SpaceShipOne but there
isn't any news as yet as to whether or not the ship has
returned successfully.

The reports do not seem to be reporting the expected times
well.  If takeoff was at 6:30 PDT and landing was expected
at 10:30 to 11:30 PDT this would make it a 4-5 hour flight.
In contrast I think the rocket engine was only supposed to
burn for 3 minutes.

Is the flight *really* 4-5 hours with perhaps less than ten
minutes "in" space?

Robert




From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Jun 21 16:00:43 2004
From: pharos at gmail.com (Bill K)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:00:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <001001c457a4$9d5d3180$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <001001c457a4$9d5d3180$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <ee50357e040621090059ec8485@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:29:59 -0700, Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Robert J. Bradbury
> >
> > Ok, excuse my lack of knowledge -- who/what is Rocinante?
> >
> > R.
> 
> Don Quixote's stallion.  s
> 
Also, perhaps more familiar to US readers:

Rocinante is the truck author John Steinbeck drove across the United
States in 1960. He recounts the journey in Travels with Charley, a
bestseller that initially sold more volumes than any of Steinbeck's
other books and won the 1963 Paperback-of-the-Year Award.

In February of 1990, the Plates family generously offered to donate
Rocinante to the National Steinbeck Center. The truck was shipped to
Salinas and has been in storage. Rocinante was lovingly restored to
its original glory by Gene Cochetti and on April 1, 1998, Rocinante
was moved into its new home in the Main Exhibit Gallery of the Center.

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun 21 16:11:15 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:11:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210735200.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0406202223160.29081@imladris.surriel.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210735200.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040621111107.01cacec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>



Private Space Flight Is Successful

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 21, 2004

Filed at 11:30 a.m. ET

MOJAVE, Calif. (AP) -- A rocket plane soared out of Earth's atmosphere 
Monday in history's first privately financed manned spaceflight, then 
glided back to an unpowered landing.

SpaceShipOne pilot Mike Melvill was aiming to fly 62 miles above the 
Earth's surface. The exact altitude was to be confirmed by radar later.

For a few minutes after the ship started its descent, it was unclear 
whether Melvill had reached his goal. But the mission announcer finally 
said the flight had been successful.

``Beautiful sight, Mike,'' mission control said to Melvill as the gliding 
spaceship slowly circled toward its landing at Mojave Airport, accompanied 
by three chase planes.

The ship touched down to applause and cheers at 8:15, about 90 minutes 
after it was carried aloft slung under the belly of the jet-powered White 
Knight.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Jun 21 15:24:42 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210735200.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210806400.3301-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Ok, the news seems to have fixed the timeline.

Takeoff was at ~6:45 PT and landing was at ~8:15 PT.
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5261571/

Bottom line: *it worked*  Private funding for space exploration
is feasible.

Mind you it requires some pretty large wallets (>$20 M) but
that is well within the range of quite a few individuals and
the costs will be lower in the future given that at least one
design is now done.

I would urge every extropian to go out on the town tonight to
stop at a bar and raise a toast to what humanity is capable of.
The news is so often focused on the negative -- let us celebrate
the positive!

Robert




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun 21 16:44:11 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:44:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210806400.3301-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210735200.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210806400.3301-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040621113851.01c38ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:24 AM 6/21/2004 -0700, Robert wrote:

>Bottom line: *it worked*  Private funding for space exploration
>is feasible.

< cough >

Not to be a spoilsport or anything (this is a very delightful and exciting 
event!), but I'm not sure how much can be explored at 62 miles above the 
Earth's surface. This trip covered, let's see, 1/3850th of the distance 
traveled 35 years ago by the govt guys who did at least manage to bring 
back some rocks.

Damien Broderick



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 21 17:06:59 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040620224904.59929.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040621170659.42247.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, Yahoo just upped their limit from  a paltry 4
> > megs to 100 megs
> > the other day. Nearly danced a jig when I saw that.
> 
> You mean 2 gigs.  (Or is the limit different for
> @yahoo.com versus @pacbell.net?)

Yeah, apparently. The status bar says I'm currently at 4% of 100.0 MB,
so I'm assuming that 100 megs is the limit for cheapskates like myself.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 21 18:16:18 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040621113851.01c38ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040621181618.82131.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:24 AM 6/21/2004 -0700, Robert wrote:
> 
> >Bottom line: *it worked*  Private funding for space exploration
> >is feasible.
> 
> < cough >
> 
> Not to be a spoilsport or anything (this is a very delightful and
> exciting 
> event!), but I'm not sure how much can be explored at 62 miles above
> the Earth's surface. This trip covered, let's see, 1/3850th of the
> distance 
> traveled 35 years ago by the govt guys who did at least manage to
> bring back some rocks.

Ah, Damien the Curmudgeon... It's a similar trip as Alan Shepherd did
40  years ago or so, but at a tiny fraction of the cost, manpower, and
within a much better risk envelope. Its a similar flight to that
performed by the X-15 as well over a number of flights, also at much
lower cost, less manpower, and with a much smaller mothership than a
B-52.

A proper challenge would be to say that we've got ten years to put
private citizens on the moon, now.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 21 18:43:53 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <40D66595.3050105@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040621184353.87635.qmail@web50706.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Robert Bradbury wrote that the research side of R&D
> can't be accelerated 
> by throwing money at it.  But I ask: can research be
> slowed by 
> discouraging researchers from specializing in it? 
> And how much effect 
> will the reduction in researchers have on subsequent
> development?

 I'm assuming you've already answered these questions:
-yes research can and is being slowed down
-and there is and will be a substantial effect on
develpment.  Correct me if my guesstimates are
wrong...
> 
> Reason and j. andrew rogers are hammer-and-tongs
> about public vs. 
> private investment.  But money isn't the only thing
> that makes research 
> happen.
> 
> ObNanotech: Research careers in molecular
> manufacturing are also being 
> energetically discouraged in the U.S.

Why is this happening?  I'd be curious to know is it
due to typical shock of the unknown?  Or just
government or private interests being nasty due to
power games or the like?
> 
> Chris
> 
> -- 
> Chris Phoenix                                 
> cphoenix at CRNano.org
> Director of Research
> Center for Responsible Nanotechnology         
> http://CRNano.org
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun 21 19:04:03 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:04:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040621113851.01c38ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210735200.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210806400.3301-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<6.1.1.1.0.20040621113851.01c38ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040621190403.GK12847@leitl.org>

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:44:11AM -0500, damien wrote:

> Not to be a spoilsport or anything (this is a very delightful and exciting 
> event!), but I'm not sure how much can be explored at 62 miles above the 
> Earth's surface. This trip covered, let's see, 1/3850th of the distance 
> traveled 35 years ago by the govt guys who did at least manage to bring 
> back some rocks.

It's less the distance, it's how close they came to being in LEO in terms of
horizontal velocity component (gravitational potential component Mojave
surface or 100 km doesn't really figure prominently).

It was a vertical launch, with helical descent. Repeating Gagarin (or even
Shepard) will take a very different design. I'm to lazy to look up whether
HTPB/N2O hybrids are at all suitable for the task.

Still, very impressive ROI for Allent's equivalent of cookie jar money. If
they're that efficient, a gigabuck could come a long way.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040621/51617298/attachment.bin>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 21 19:42:17 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:42:17 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support "Proactionary
	Principle"?
Message-ID: <24020-220046121194217296@M2W086.mail2web.com>

Greetings!

Extropy Institute is developing a list of scientists to publicly support
the Proactionary Principle.

Which scientists would you like to see supporting the Proactionary
Principle and whose names would you like to see on the masthead?

Thanks -

Natasha


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 21 20:10:06 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support "Proactionary
	Principle"?
In-Reply-To: <24020-220046121194217296@M2W086.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040621201006.15153.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Greetings!
> 
> Extropy Institute is developing a list of scientists to publicly
> support
> the Proactionary Principle.
> 
> Which scientists would you like to see supporting the Proactionary
> Principle and whose names would you like to see on the masthead?

Stephen Hawking
Michio Kaku (don't expect it though)
John Cramer
It's a challenge, but Noam Chomsky (is he still considered a linguistic
scientist, or just a political flake?)
Someone from Sun Microsystems (to counter Bill Joy)
Marvin Minsky

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From megaquark at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 21 20:21:57 2004
From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:21:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
References: <20040620135812.GX12847@leitl.org><20040620161533.23230.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com><20040620164005.GB12847@leitl.org>
	<470a3c5204062023185870a40f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY9-DAV6VPWnOIwQO300016786@hotmail.com>

Nope. I'd like one for, but I may have to resort to purchasing an invitation
on ebay.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations


> I have a few more. Kevin did you get yours?
> What I like with Gmail is that for some reasons I go through my email
> sessions much faster since I use Gmail. For those who are on many
> mailing lists is a real time saver.
> G.
>
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:40:05 +0200, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:15:33AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > > Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm not
> > > using, anybody want some?"
> >
> > Sorry, all my spare germs are now accounted for :)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From max at maxmore.com  Mon Jun 21 20:29:48 2004
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:29:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support
	"Proactionary Principle"?
In-Reply-To: <24020-220046121194217296@M2W086.mail2web.com>
References: <24020-220046121194217296@M2W086.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040621152826.03b96ec0@mail.earthlink.net>

One quick suggestion:

Bjorn Lomborg

Everyone -- please do make suggestions. This is a great opportunity to make 
a real difference in our ability to continue making progress.

Max


At 02:42 PM 6/21/2004, you wrote:
>Greetings!
>
>Extropy Institute is developing a list of scientists to publicly support
>the Proactionary Principle.
>
>Which scientists would you like to see supporting the Proactionary
>Principle and whose names would you like to see on the masthead?




_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
_______________________________________________________  




From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun 21 20:36:29 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:36:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <BAY9-DAV6VPWnOIwQO300016786@hotmail.com>
References: <470a3c5204062023185870a40f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY9-DAV6VPWnOIwQO300016786@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040621203629.GO12847@leitl.org>

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 03:21:57PM -0500, Kevin Freels wrote:

> Nope. I'd like one for, but I may have to resort to purchasing an invitation
> on ebay.

Make sure you don't use your hotmail address for that. I send you one, but

	http://slashdot.org/articles/04/06/21/1150236.shtml?tid=126&tid=217&tid=95

Say thanks to Microsoft for that.

  	
Hotmail Blocks Gmail Emails (and Invites)



Posted by Hemos on Monday June 21, @09:19AM
from the intereting-tests dept.
bonhomme_de_neige writes "Emails and invitations sent to Hotmail from Gmail
accounts do not bounce, but nor do they arrive in the recipient's Inbox -
they vanish mysteriously into the aether. Joel Johnson writes in his Gizmodo
weblog that invitations he sent to a Hotmail address bounced (this even
received coverage from ZDNet). Search Engine Roundtable writes that several
ISPs are blocking Gmail. It's already well-documented that Yahoo moves Gmail
invites into the Bulk Mail folder. I've personally confirmed the Hotmail and
Yahoo blocking." Please note: I've not been able to verify this one way or
another.

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 1:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
> 
> 
> > I have a few more. Kevin did you get yours?
> > What I like with Gmail is that for some reasons I go through my email
> > sessions much faster since I use Gmail. For those who are on many
> > mailing lists is a real time saver.
> > G.
> >
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:40:05 +0200, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:15:33AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm not
> > > > using, anybody want some?"
> > >
> > > Sorry, all my spare germs are now accounted for :)
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040621/0687cea6/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 21 20:37:47 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <BAY9-DAV6VPWnOIwQO300016786@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040621203747.44600.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>

Harry Hawk says on Orkut that his gmail account now gets 70 spam
messages a day, that his SPAM folder has over 12,000 messages in it.

I've got to wonder how this makes gmail so great. Yahoo's spam filter
is outstanding. I get 10-20 spams a day which go automatically into my
'bulk' folder. Maybe 1 a day gets through to my inbox. I don't have to
maintain a folder of thousands of spam messages, I delete them. Yahoo
knows they are spam and is still able to use them to improve its
filtration without putting administration on to me.

And, while another poster said they like gmail cause they can access it
anywhere on any OS, I've done the same with Yahoo mail all over the US
on many machines and OS's.

Yahoo is 100 mb of space for free, 2 Gigs for $19.95 a year. What are
the real advantages of gmail?

--- Kevin Freels <megaquark at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nope. I'd like one for, but I may have to resort to purchasing an
> invitation
> on ebay.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 1:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
> 
> 
> > I have a few more. Kevin did you get yours?
> > What I like with Gmail is that for some reasons I go through my
> email
> > sessions much faster since I use Gmail. For those who are on many
> > mailing lists is a real time saver.
> > G.
> >
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:40:05 +0200, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:15:33AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm
> not
> > > > using, anybody want some?"
> > >
> > > Sorry, all my spare germs are now accounted for :)
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From megaquark at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 21 20:51:43 2004
From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:51:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support
	"ProactionaryPrinciple"?
References: <20040621201006.15153.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY9-DAV23uWDZ9LtSL000169b7@hotmail.com>

How about Sydney Brenner?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: <natashavita at earthlink.net>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support
"ProactionaryPrinciple"?


> --- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Greetings!
> >
> > Extropy Institute is developing a list of scientists to publicly
> > support
> > the Proactionary Principle.
> >
> > Which scientists would you like to see supporting the Proactionary
> > Principle and whose names would you like to see on the masthead?
>
> Stephen Hawking
> Michio Kaku (don't expect it though)
> John Cramer
> It's a challenge, but Noam Chomsky (is he still considered a linguistic
> scientist, or just a political flake?)
> Someone from Sun Microsystems (to counter Bill Joy)
> Marvin Minsky
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
>                                          -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun 21 21:11:44 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:11:44 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040621203747.44600.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY9-DAV6VPWnOIwQO300016786@hotmail.com>
	<20040621203747.44600.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040621211144.GP12847@leitl.org>

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 01:37:47PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Harry Hawk says on Orkut that his gmail account now gets 70 spam
> messages a day, that his SPAM folder has over 12,000 messages in it.

Wow, this means he's been using Gmail for some 170 days, assuming he started
getting 70 messages right from the start (telepathic spammers?). 70 spams/day
strikes me as way too low, some of my ancient user accounts going back a
decade get some 200-300/day. I use them to train Spamassassin's Bayesian
filter.
 
> I've got to wonder how this makes gmail so great. Yahoo's spam filter

What, the spam filter? It's purported to work. No idea how useful it is. 

> is outstanding. I get 10-20 spams a day which go automatically into my
> 'bulk' folder. Maybe 1 a day gets through to my inbox. I don't have to

I don't know what the spam filter, or Harry Hawk's spam has to do with anything.

> maintain a folder of thousands of spam messages, I delete them. Yahoo
> knows they are spam and is still able to use them to improve its
> filtration without putting administration on to me.
> 
> And, while another poster said they like gmail cause they can access it
> anywhere on any OS, I've done the same with Yahoo mail all over the US
> on many machines and OS's.
> 
> Yahoo is 100 mb of space for free, 2 Gigs for $19.95 a year. What are
> the real advantages of gmail?

I use Gmail as a free searchable scratch account I can access with realtime keystrokes 
as a pure text MUA which has 1 GByte I don't have to administer. For
everything else I have my dedicated root server, 30 EUR/month, 250 GByte
traffic/month included, plus 5 EUR/month for a second IP.

However, it's my personal problem once the box dies, and I have to restore it
from my nighly backup (which reminds me, I don't yet have a nightly backup,
in fact I don't have a backup at all).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040621/9e871f5f/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 21 21:29:04 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040621211144.GP12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040621212904.77791.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 01:37:47PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>  
> > I've got to wonder how this makes gmail so great. Yahoo's spam
> > filter is outstanding. I get 10-20 spams a day which go
> > automatically into my
> > 'bulk' folder. Maybe 1 a day gets through to my inbox. 
 
> I don't know what the spam filter, or Harry Hawk's spam has to do
> with anything.

It's being sold as a feature of Gmail. Since my yahoo account is about
four years old, and it tends to be a given that older accounts get more
spam, it seems rather clear that gmail's spam filtration is less
capable than Yahoo's.

> > 
> > Yahoo is 100 mb of space for free, 2 Gigs for $19.95 a year. What
> are
> > the real advantages of gmail?
> 
> I use Gmail as a free searchable scratch account I can access with
> realtime keystrokes 
> as a pure text MUA which has 1 GByte I don't have to administer. For
> everything else I have my dedicated root server, 30 EUR/month, 250
> GByte traffic/month included, plus 5 EUR/month for a second IP.

Okay, I can search my yahoomail too, and I can allegedly, if I want,
access it via a text app like PINE (haven't felt the need up to now).
Is there a cost for the 1 GB gmail account? If not, is there planned to
be a cost after some introductory period?

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 21 22:48:25 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040621203629.GO12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040621224825.20773.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

> It's already
> well-documented that Yahoo moves Gmail
> invites into the Bulk Mail folder.

False, or at least not always true.  I received (and
declined) a Gmail invite yesterday; it landed in my
Inbox.  But this would not be the first instance of
legit mail getting flagged by the spam filters; these
false positives happen just often enough that I at
least check the subject lines of all email in the Bulk
folder before wiping them.

(Most of my legit email is through lists like this
which have tags in front of them.  Any other legit
email is from someone I know or has a descriptive
subject - i.e., messages from complete strangers
labelled just "Hello" get tossed as spam unread,
especially if they have attachments.  You wanna get my
attention when I don't know you, you gotta put a bit
of thought into it.  Even a couple 10 year old newbies
- or so they seemed from their spelling and word
choices - were able to defeat this filter, and they
did have information of interest to me - specifically,
comments and questions about my work.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 21 23:05:25 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support "Proactionary
	Principle"?
In-Reply-To: <24020-220046121194217296@M2W086.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040621230525.82558.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "natashavita at earthlink.net"
<natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Extropy Institute is developing a list of scientists
> to publicly support
> the Proactionary Principle.
> 
> Which scientists would you like to see supporting
> the Proactionary
> Principle and whose names would you like to see on
> the masthead?

It might be interesting to get both Richard Smalley
and Eric Drexler, just to prove that even their famous
debate leaves no question about the path to take.

Also, while he's not a scientist (or, at least, not
famous for being one), I wonder if it would be useful
to get Christopher Reeve to publically endorse this?


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 21 23:48:09 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040621170659.42247.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040621234809.23226.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Yeah, Yahoo just upped their limit from  a
> paltry 4
> > > megs to 100 megs
> > > the other day. Nearly danced a jig when I saw
> that.
> > 
> > You mean 2 gigs.  (Or is the limit different for
> > @yahoo.com versus @pacbell.net?)
> 
> Yeah, apparently. The status bar says I'm currently
> at 4% of 100.0 MB,
> so I'm assuming that 100 megs is the limit for
> cheapskates like myself.

I don't remember if I've ever paid for mine, and I've
had it for years.  But I may be an anomaly.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 21 23:52:21 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040621113851.01c38ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040621235221.22143.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:24 AM 6/21/2004 -0700, Robert wrote:
> >Bottom line: *it worked*  Private funding for space
> exploration
> >is feasible.
> 
> < cough >
> 
> Not to be a spoilsport or anything (this is a very
> delightful and exciting 
> event!), but I'm not sure how much can be explored
> at 62 miles above the 
> Earth's surface. This trip covered, let's see,
> 1/3850th of the distance 
> traveled 35 years ago by the govt guys who did at
> least manage to bring 
> back some rocks.

Yeah, but 10-20 years before that, where were we?
Stepping stones, not one giant leap - unless you want
to leap a few times and then never again.  Been
there, don't care to repeat it.


From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Tue Jun 22 00:22:34 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:52:34 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A3FCE@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

Not only did it work, but it appears to have only cost US$20 - did they
miss out an order of magnitude in the news stories? Wow!

One of my favourite things about this event is the look and shape of
SpaceShipOne and White Knight. Surely, with a decent promotional arm
they could have recouped the entire cost via merchandising; I would buy
a toy of those craft.

Damned exciting. This was a bit of a trophy effort, but hopefully it
heralds a move away from the big trophy efforts of the past (eg:
stupidly expensive Moon landings, very impressive though, I'm not
dissing it), and toward a real affordable space industry. 

I was thinking that someone could offer a longer range prize for the
first group to haul an asteroid back here, but I guess it isn't
necessary (ie: it's prize enough in itself).

Emlyn
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury at aeiveos.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 June 2004 12:55 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June
21
> 
> 
> Ok, the news seems to have fixed the timeline.
> 
> Takeoff was at ~6:45 PT and landing was at ~8:15 PT.
> See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5261571/
> 
> Bottom line: *it worked*  Private funding for space exploration
> is feasible.
> 
> Mind you it requires some pretty large wallets (>$20 M) but
> that is well within the range of quite a few individuals and
> the costs will be lower in the future given that at least one
> design is now done.
> 
> I would urge every extropian to go out on the town tonight to
> stop at a bar and raise a toast to what humanity is capable of.
> The news is so often focused on the negative -- let us celebrate
> the positive!
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Jun 22 00:48:01 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
In-Reply-To: <20040621212904.77791.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406211742040.21539-100000@hplx.net>

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Okay, I can search my yahoomail too, and I can allegedly, if I want,
> access it via a text app like PINE (haven't felt the need up to now).

Wow, you can access Yahoo mail with Pine?  Is that a feature of the free 
mail accounts, or do you have to pay for that kind of thing?



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 22 02:05:01 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:05:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
Message-ID: <BAY17-F38ZKxsu9cEpS00009a8e@hotmail.com>

I saw this article on fark and slashdot, but my invite came through ok. I 
guess it came through just in the nick of time.

Apparantly, Yahoo is blocking invites too. Rather lame of the two big free 
email servers. But I think the bad press they're getting is more than making 
up from any benefit gained from the blocked gmail accounts.

BAL

>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:36:29 +0200
>
>On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 03:21:57PM -0500, Kevin Freels wrote:
>
> > Nope. I'd like one for, but I may have to resort to purchasing an 
>invitation
> > on ebay.
>
>Make sure you don't use your hotmail address for that. I send you one, but
>
>	http://slashdot.org/articles/04/06/21/1150236.shtml?tid=126&tid=217&tid=95
>
>Say thanks to Microsoft for that.
>
>
>Hotmail Blocks Gmail Emails (and Invites)
>
>
>
>Posted by Hemos on Monday June 21, @09:19AM
>from the intereting-tests dept.
>bonhomme_de_neige writes "Emails and invitations sent to Hotmail from Gmail
>accounts do not bounce, but nor do they arrive in the recipient's Inbox -
>they vanish mysteriously into the aether. Joel Johnson writes in his 
>Gizmodo
>weblog that invitations he sent to a Hotmail address bounced (this even
>received coverage from ZDNet). Search Engine Roundtable writes that several
>ISPs are blocking Gmail. It's already well-documented that Yahoo moves 
>Gmail
>invites into the Bulk Mail folder. I've personally confirmed the Hotmail 
>and
>Yahoo blocking." Please note: I've not been able to verify this one way or
>another.
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com>
> > To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 1:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gmail invitations
> >
> >
> > > I have a few more. Kevin did you get yours?
> > > What I like with Gmail is that for some reasons I go through my email
> > > sessions much faster since I use Gmail. For those who are on many
> > > mailing lists is a real time saver.
> > > G.
> > >
> > > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:40:05 +0200, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> 
>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:15:33AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gawd, that's like saying "Hey, I've got some spare syphylis I'm 
>not
> > > > > using, anybody want some?"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, all my spare germs are now accounted for :)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>--
>Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
>______________________________________________________________
>ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
>8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
>http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
><< attach4 >>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jun 22 03:12:49 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:12:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Youth Extension
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e040621090059ec8485@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c45806$cd194550$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> > > Ok, excuse my lack of knowledge -- who/what is Rocinante?
> > >
> > > R.
> > 
> > Don Quixote's stallion.  s
> > 
> Also, perhaps more familiar to US readers:
> 
> Rocinante is the truck author John Steinbeck drove across the United
> States in 1960. He recounts the journey in Travels with Charley, a
> bestseller that initially sold more volumes than any of Steinbeck's
> other books and won the 1963 Paperback-of-the-Year Award.
> 
> In February of 1990, the Plates family generously offered to donate
> Rocinante to the National Steinbeck Center. The truck was shipped to
> Salinas and has been in storage. Rocinante was lovingly restored to
> its original glory by Gene Cochetti and on April 1, 1998, Rocinante
> was moved into its new home in the Main Exhibit Gallery of the Center.
> 
> BillK

BillK, perhaps we should mention that the National Steinbeck
Center is less than 2 hrs drive south of the San Jose Airport.  

After reading Travels With Charlie and all the other books by 
Steinbeck, I went down to the annual Steinbeck Festival in 
Salinas/Monterey, where they had on display Rocinante and 
some other wonderful Steinbeck memorabilia.  This past year
was a major hootenanny for it was Steinbeck's the 100th
anniversary of Steinbeck's birth.  Behold this beautiful
truck, which Steinbeck commanded while creating a wonderful
literary work of art:  

http://www.steinbeck.org/Rocinante2.html

I looked all over for a 1960 model GMC fleetsider that I 
could rebuild, paint green and make into a replica of 
Rocinante.  When I learned that the V-6 would go only
11 miles on a gallon of fuel, (about 18 liters per 100 km) 
my enthusiasm cooled considerably.  I decided to settle
for a poster of Rocinante, and for naming my trusty
mechanical steed after those two characters, Don Quixote's 
horse and John Steinbeck's truck.

I have often been compared to Don Quixote.  Literary
critics have observed: "Spike, Don Quixote was a tall 
skinny cat, and so are you."

Yes, of course, but also consider that Don Quixote had
his own unique view of the world.  He treated his 
dilapidated old horse as a champion steed.  Where the 
others saw only the rough serving wench Aldunza, Quixote
saw a beautiful princess, Dolcinea.  (Of course Dolcinea 
is the stunning beauty Sophia Loren, so Peter O'Toole's 
optimistic vision is actually the most accurate.)

Cryonics has been described as a Quixotic vision, a
fantasy of the eventual defeat of inevitable death and
decay.  If so, let us all be Quixotic in our every vision 
of the future.

spike





   




  



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Tue Jun 22 04:43:43 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:43:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210735200.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406210735200.2377-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40D7B8FF.5050601@cfl.rr.com>

Kudos to all at Scaled Composites for this!  I have to admit this was 
probably the only hopeful thing I've seen in the news in months.  One 
thing pissed me off though - I had actually planned to take the morning 
off, brew up some espresso and enjoy the media circus.  Except there was 
no media circus.  Almost nothing at all.  I tuned to Discovery Wings, 
surely they would be covering it!  Nope, just the usual WWII warplane 
documentary stuff.  Finally saw some cockpit footage this evening in the 
gym while working out.



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Jun 22 05:03:11 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:03:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (TLC-Brotherhood) Re: Rutan - Space Ship One
Message-ID: <40D7BD8F.B4CE79A3@mindspring.com>

[FAC - Forward Air Controller]


For you former Misty FACs.  I got this from Misty FAC Wells Jackson who is 
in Panama who got it from Misty FAC Don Sheppard, a TV analyst, who got it 
from Misty FAC Dick Rutan.  I think it has some interesting information in it.

Gene Rossel


Hi Mom,
This from Don Shepard who shared what Dick Rutan told him about the first 
successful space flight this morning....

>Subject: Rutan - space Ship One
>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:36:21 EDT
>
>
>Talked to Rutan this PM - he was really, really high over Sapceship  One.
>Says they made space by 419' or something like that. Said lots  went 
>wrong. One
>of the trim tabs that control flight post supersonic went dead  (C/B popped)
>and that required Melville's diagnosis and intervention to control  the 
>pitching
>and shut down the engine (don't know if he shut it down, or the  system did).
>Without him on board the vehicle would have been toast - another  plus for
>"manned" space flight. Also, the loud "POP" was a "cowling" they put on  as a
>result of the bigger booster recently added - don't know if heat or dynamic
>pressure caused. Says they have great cockpit video.
>
>Dick said Burt is not the least bit interested in providing a "public
>shuttle" to space, but predicts he will soon tire of this and be on the "next
>project." Great question for an interview - What next, Mr. Rutan?
>
>Said Buzz Aldrin walked on to the stage and shook Melville's hand and said,
>"Welcome to a very special fraternity." Melville was stoked.
>
>Dick wants to go to Mars - think about it - the first Misty on Mars -
>wonder
>if there is any Martian triple-A? - Shep


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jun 22 05:38:30 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:38:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Private spacecraft blast offs June 21
In-Reply-To: <40D7B8FF.5050601@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <004801c4581b$26a33d10$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Gregory Propf
> ... - I had actually planned to take 
> the morning off, brew up some espresso and enjoy the media circus.  
> Except there was no media circus...

Patience, my good man.  Recall that the media circus runs
on money.  When they go for the X-prize and the ringmasters
can report to the eager proletariat that 20 million bucks 
are at stake, then there will be plenty of news coverage.
I was thinking of taking off on a ride down there and 
watching in person if they go again in two weeks.

spike 










From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Jun 22 14:28:49 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:28:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support
	"Proactionary Principle"?
In-Reply-To: <20040621230525.82558.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <24020-220046121194217296@M2W086.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040622072633.02dd63f0@mail.earthlink.net>

Thank you all for the suggestions and team effort!


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040622/81db6af0/attachment.html>

From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 22 12:47:53 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support
	"ProactionaryPrinciple"?
In-Reply-To: <BAY9-DAV23uWDZ9LtSL000169b7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040622124753.18269.qmail@web50704.mail.yahoo.com>

Ray Kurzweil, Michael West, Michael Rose, Aubrey de
Grey these come to mind as their already prominent in
their respected fields.


--- Kevin Freels <megaquark at hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about Sydney Brenner?
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> To: <natashavita at earthlink.net>; "ExI chat list"
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists
> to Support
> "ProactionaryPrinciple"?
> 
> 
> > --- "natashavita at earthlink.net"
> <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Greetings!
> > >
> > > Extropy Institute is developing a list of
> scientists to publicly
> > > support
> > > the Proactionary Principle.
> > >
> > > Which scientists would you like to see
> supporting the Proactionary
> > > Principle and whose names would you like to see
> on the masthead?
> >
> > Stephen Hawking
> > Michio Kaku (don't expect it though)
> > John Cramer
> > It's a challenge, but Noam Chomsky (is he still
> considered a linguistic
> > scientist, or just a political flake?)
> > Someone from Sun Microsystems (to counter Bill
> Joy)
> > Marvin Minsky
> >
> > =====
> > Mike Lorrey
> > Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of
> human freedom.
> > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of
> slaves."
> >                                          -William
> Pitt (1759-1806)
> > Blog:
> http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other
> providers!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 22 12:50:03 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support "Proactionary
	Principle"?
In-Reply-To: <20040621230525.82558.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040622125003.25521.qmail@web50708.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- "natashavita at earthlink.net"
> <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Extropy Institute is developing a list of
> scientists
> > to publicly support
> > the Proactionary Principle.
> > 
> > Which scientists would you like to see supporting
> > the Proactionary
> > Principle and whose names would you like to see on
> > the masthead?
>  
> It might be interesting to get both Richard Smalley
> and Eric Drexler, just to prove that even their
> famous
> debate leaves no question about the path to take.
> 
> Also, while he's not a scientist (or, at least, not
> famous for being one), I wonder if it would be
> useful
> to get Christopher Reeve to publically endorse this?

This is a great idea why not get a public figure to
endorse as well since he's become prominent figure for
potential stem cell research advocacy.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From info at extropy.org  Tue Jun 22 14:35:40 2004
From: info at extropy.org (Extropy Institute)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:35:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Sponsors TransVision 2004
Message-ID: <1011298312459.1011086851128.2058.1.191029@scheduler>

ExI is a Sponsor of TransVision 2004

Greetings!

We encourage you to join us at the upcoming 
TransVision 2004 conference in Toronto, Canada, 
August 6-8.  
Toronto is a beautiful, illustrious city and a 
perfect location for the gathering.  At the 
conference you will meet 
with Keynotes Steve 
Mann and Stellarc.  But that is not all, as there will 
be plenty of presentations by dozens of speakers. 



I hope to see you at TransVision 2004!

Natasha Vita-More, President Extropy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Upcoming Conference
* TransVision '04
 "Art and Life in the Posthuman Era"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TransVision '04
 "Art and Life in the Posthuman Era"
August 6-8, 2004

TransVision 2004 keynotes include such heavy hitters 
of the art world as Steve Mann and Stelarc.  Other 
speakers include famed scientist Aubrey de Grey 
and "Reason" magazine's thought-provoking Ronald 
Bailey. 




Where & When
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada
August 6 - 8, 2004

Cloning, stem cell research, cybernetics and other 
novel reproductive and health technologies illustrate 
the rapid pace at which society and culture are 
changing. Our sense of who and what we are is 
rapidly expanding and diversifying, as are our means 
of expression and self-actualization. Consequently, 
an exciting and provocative new community of social 
activists, artists and cultural facilitators is emerging. 
As art and life continue to reflect and create each 
other, both are changing as we move into a 
posthuman form and into a posthuman era. 

TransVision 2004 seeks to capture and highlight 
these trends by bringing together a wide array of 
transhumanist thinkers, artists, scientists and 
ethicists. In a celebration and investigation of the 
new culture, TV04 will provide captivating and avant-
garde performance art and exhibitions, in concert 
with academic discussions, debates and 
presentations.

Cloning, stem cell research, cybernetics and other 
novel reproductive and health technologies illustrate 
the rapid pace at which society and culture are 
changing. Our sense of who and what we are is 
rapidly expanding and diversifying, as are our means 
of expression and self-actualization. Consequently, 
an exciting and provocative new community of social 
activists, artists and cultural facilitators is emerging. 
As art and life continue to reflect and create each 
other, both are changing as we move into a 
posthuman form and into a posthuman era. 

TransVision 2004 seeks to capture and highlight 
these trends by bringing together a wide array of 
transhumanist thinkers, artists, scientists and 
ethicists. In a celebration and investigation of the 
new culture, TV04 will provide captivating and avant-
garde performance art and exhibitions, in concert 
with academic discussions, debates and 
presentations.

Register for TransVision 2004 NOW! (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=liihb8n6.0.amw6b8n6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transhumanism.org%2Ftv%2F2004%2Fregistration.shtml%23mainConference)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Extropy Institute
10709 Pointe View Drive
Austin, Texas 78738
512 263-2749
info at extropy.org
http://www.extropy.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Extropy Institute is an international transhumanist 
networking organization which advocates the 
Proactionary Principle in addressing social 
issues.  Extropy Institute does not support any one 
political agenda.



Extropy Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

Forward email
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1011086851128&ea=extropy-chat at extropy.org&a=1011298312459


This email was sent to extropy-chat at extropy.org,
by info at extropy.org

Update Profile/Email Address
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1011086851128&ea=extropy-chat at extropy.org&t=1011298312459

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=un&m=1011086851128&ea=extropy-chat at extropy.org&t=1011298312459

Privacy Policy:
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp


Powered by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com

Extropy Institute | 10709 Pointe View Drive | Austin | TX | 78738
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040622/52e09b94/attachment.html>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Jun 22 14:52:59 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: update
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406220741590.30235-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Given the Gmail comments and discussion of SPAM filters, I
thought I'd run a check on my filters.

Looks like SPAM is targeted at my very old email address at
a rate of 1 every 5 minutes.  That includes a couple of
viruses a day on average.  Fortunately a combination of
SpamBouncer (rule based) and SpamProbe (Bayesian) and a
little custom filtering is catching all but about 1% of it.

But the spamers are doing their darndest to work around the
Bayesian filter either by adding random words, paragraphs
from actual text sources, or changing the spelling of things
like drug names.  It looks like they are also starting to
change their system names on a regular basis so the spam
can't be trapped on the basis of URLs they are sending.
Some have resorted to eliminating URLs entirely.

So we are making it harder but its a tough uphill climb.

I would hate to even speculate on how much computing power and
electricity are being devoted to filtering this crap at the
major email providers and/or ISPs.

Robert





From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Jun 22 19:05:39 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:05:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <200406221433.i5MEXVn02657@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406221433.i5MEXVn02657@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40D88303.9010905@CRNano.org>

devon fowler <dfowler282004 at yahoo.com> wrote:
  [in response to Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org>]
 >  I'm assuming you've already answered these questions:
 > -yes research can and is being slowed down
 > -and there is and will be a substantial effect on
 > develpment.  Correct me if my guesstimates are
 > wrong...

That would be my guess.  But there's a lot I don't know about how 
research happens, having never been a paid academic researcher. 
Information and insights will help.

Also, if my guess is right, how come I was the first person to point it 
out, after days of focusing on venture capital as the main issue?

 >> ObNanotech: Research careers in molecular
 >> manufacturing are also being
 >> energetically discouraged in the U.S.
 >
 > Why is this happening?  I'd be curious to know is it
 > due to typical shock of the unknown?  Or just
 > government or private interests being nasty due to
 > power games or the like?

I think there are several reasons.

1) It's hard to grasp molecular manufacturing.  Engineering from the 
molecules on up (as opposed to biology)... automated general purpose 
manufacturing, with its counterintuitive cost implications... 
ridiculous-sounding performance projections (shrinking computers and 
actuators by eight orders of magnitude)...

2) MM is engineering, not science, but it sounds like science so the 
scientists have been commenting on it.  And it's outside their field, so 
they don't understand it.  Combine this with reason 1, and a lot of 
scientists assume that it's pseudoscience--so they figure they have a 
right and an obligation to debunk it.

3) The gray goo issue has substantially warped discussion in several ways.

4) Various groups of people (both business and science) are afraid for 
various reasons that if MM is taken seriously, it'll threaten their funding.

I can say a lot more on each of these reasons.  There may be other 
reasons as well.  BTW, I wrote about scientific misunderstanding in our 
last monthly newsletter.
http://crnano.org/newsletter.htm#Bugbear
And I'll be writing about engineering vs. biology in the next one; sign 
up at http://crnano.org/contact.htm .

BTW, several people have suggested to me that U.S. mainstream denial is 
a deliberate disinformation campaign: that the U.S. has a molecular 
manufacturing program, and is trying to delay foreign programs.  I have 
no idea whether this is true, so I mention it only for completeness.

By contrast, I've heard that some people overseas think that molecular 
manufacturing is a CIA plot to encourage them to waste money chasing an 
impossibility.  I find this one ridiculous, and I mention it only to 
provide a comparison to the above deliberate-disinformation rumor.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 22 19:58:39 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query: Which Scientists to Support "Proactionary
	Principle"?
In-Reply-To: <24020-220046121194217296@M2W086.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040622195839.95147.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>

      Here is a list of biologists that study
phenomenon related to the aging process and have some
measure of "star power" who may very well support such
a thing:

Cynthia Kenyon
Elizabeth Blackburn
Seymour Benzer

And although he is no longer with us, I believe Roy
Walford would have lent his support. And although not
involved in ageing research, judging from his
writings, I think you might get Richard Dawkins to
support it. That's it off the top of my head. I would
say put me on it, but I don't have very much "star
power".


  

=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 22 20:03:03 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <40D88303.9010905@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040622200303.5177.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> devon fowler <dfowler282004 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   [in response to Chris Phoenix
> <cphoenix at CRNano.org>]
>  >  I'm assuming you've already answered these
> questions:
>  > -yes research can and is being slowed down
>  > -and there is and will be a substantial effect on
>  > develpment.  Correct me if my guesstimates are
>  > wrong...
> 
> That would be my guess.  But there's a lot I don't
> know about how 
> research happens, having never been a paid academic
> researcher. 
> Information and insights will help.

Consider: I, who would like to be a researcher, have a
number of different issues I would like to research.
Which ones can I get paid for?  Which ones have a
perceived real chance of landing me in jail just for
practicing it - accused of "crimes against humanity"
or similar charges, with due process suspended as
those who now hunt terrorists (and used to hunt
communists) move on to hunt "irresponsible renegade
scientists" (or whatever label they come up with)?
Both factors affect my choice of path - the latter
more substantially, but note it does not apply to
most fields of science.

> Also, if my guess is right, how come I was the first
> person to point it 
> out, after days of focusing on venture capital as
> the main issue?

Maybe because a lot of people are looking to private
funding as the best near-term solution, given the
current federal funding ban?

> 1) It's hard to grasp molecular manufacturing. 
> Engineering from the 
> molecules on up (as opposed to biology)... automated
> general purpose 
> manufacturing, with its counterintuitive cost
> implications... 
> ridiculous-sounding performance projections
> (shrinking computers and 
> actuators by eight orders of magnitude)...

Not to mention that the exact process by which one
would accomplish this has yet to be defined.  (Maybe
something like a stage which holds the being-assembled
part, seeded with the first atom, and a small robot
arm that slides around to various bins of elements,
grabs an atom that's zapped off with a laser or
electron beam, slides back to the stage, then lets go
once the stage has moved the assembly into proper
relative position; or maybe sheets of material,
extruded 1 atom thick, which an electron beam rams
into a substrate at select locations, cutting the
sheet where it hits, then dump/recycle the cut sheet
and extrude the next sheet.  Or maybe something else.)

> BTW, several people have suggested to me that U.S.
> mainstream denial is 
> a deliberate disinformation campaign: that the U.S.
> has a molecular 
> manufacturing program, and is trying to delay
> foreign programs.  I have 
> no idea whether this is true, so I mention it only
> for completeness.

The U.S. does, arguably, have a molecular
manufacturing program.  It's nowhere near actually
being able to manufacture things atom by atom yet,
but that's the direction things are trending towards.
And it's not helping foreign science and industry
nearly as vigorously as its own, but this is to be
expected: the U.S. government invests first and
foremost in the U.S., while the rest of the world
primarily matters insofar as it does or could affect
the U.S.  Nothing inherently conspiratorial about that
when one looks at the reasons behind it.  (Besides,
something as broad and diffuse as mainstream denial
is, frankly, beyond the resources of the U.S.
intelligance agencies.  Heck, just to meet a majority
of the movers and shakers and politely ask them to
follow along - without any resources used on coercion
of any sort - would strain their resources, if not
exceed them outright.)


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun 22 20:24:34 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:24:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] back in the day
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040622152247.01bc0ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

I found this nearly year-old piece:

<http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0331/baard.php>http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0331/baard.php

Inside the Movement for Posthuman Rights
Cyborg Liberation Front
by Erik Baard

Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeats's wish, expressed in his poem "Sailing to Byzantium," was a
governing principle for those attending the World Transhumanist
Association conference at Yale University in late June. International
academics and activists, they met to lay the groundwork for a society that
would admit as citizens and companions intelligent robots, cyborgs made
from a free mixing of human and machine parts, and fully organic,
genetically engineered people who aren't necessarily human at all. A good
many of these 160 thinkers aspire to immortality and omniscience through
uploading human consciousness into ever evolving machines.

The three-day gathering was hosted by an entity no less reputable than the
Yale Interdisciplinary Bioethics Project's Working Research Group on
Technology and Ethics; the World Transhumanist Association chairman and
co-founder is Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom. Dismiss it as a
Star Trek convention by another name, and you could miss out on the
culmination of the Western experiment in rights and reason.

The opening debate, "Should Humans Welcome or Resist Becoming Posthuman?,"
raised a question that seems impossibly far over the horizon in an era
when the idea of reproductive cloning remains controversial. Yet the
back-and-forth felt oddly perfunctory. Boston University bioethicist
George Annas denounced the urge to alter the species, but the response
from the audience revealed a community of people who feel the
inevitability of revolution in their bones.

"It's like arguing in favor of the plough. You know some people are going
to argue against it, but you also know it's going to exist," says James
Hughes, secretary of the Transhumanist Association and a sociologist
teaching at Trinity College in Connecticut. "We used to be a subculture
and now we're becoming a movement."

A movement taken seriously enough that it's already under attack. Hughes
cites the anti-technologist Unabomber as a member of the "bio-Luddite"
camp, though an extremist one. "I think that if, in the future, the
technology of human enhancement is forbidden by bio-Luddites through
government legislation, or if they terrorize people into having no access
to those technologies, that becomes a fundamental civil rights struggle.
Then there might come a time for the legitimate use of violence in
self-defense," he says. "But long before that there will be a black market
and underground network in place."

Should a fully realized form of artificial intelligence become in some
manner enslaved, Hughes adds, "that would call for liberation acts -- not
breaking into labs, but whatever we can do."

But beyond the violent zealots, who are these supposed bio-Luddites? From
the right, Leon Kass, chair of the President's Council on Bioethics, rails
against transhumanism in his book Life, Liberty, and the Defense of
Dignity, and Francis Fukuyama weighs in with his fearful exploration, Our
Posthuman Future. From the left, environmentalist Bill McKibben fires
Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, a book that reads like a
227-page-long helpless screech of brakes on a train steaming ahead at full
power.

They have a case for being somewhat apocalyptic about the convergence of
genetics, computer science, nanotechnology, and bioengineering. The
outcome is almost guaranteed to strain our ancient sensibilities and
definitions of personhood.

For now, though, the dialogue sounds like a space-age parlor game. Why
should the noodlings of a relative handful of futurists matter? The easy
answer, and that's not to say it isn't a true one: As with science
fiction, the scenarios we imagine reflect and reveal who we are as a
society today. For example, how can we continue to exploit animals when we
fear the same treatment from some imagined superior race in the future?

But the purpose of the Yale conference was direct, with no feinting at
other agendas. The crowd there wanted to shape what they see as a coming
reality. From the first walking stick to bionic eyes, neural chips, and
Stephen Hawking's synthesized voice, they would argue we've long been in
the process of becoming cyborgs. A "hybrot," a robot governed by neurons
from a rat brain, is now drawing pictures. Dolly the sheep broke the
barrier on cloning, and new transgenic organisms are routinely created.
The transhumanists gathered because supercomputers are besting human chess
masters, and they expect a new intelligence to pole-vault over humanityin
this century.

"All one has to do is read the science journals to know these issues are
on the table today," says Australian High Court Justice Michael Kirby, who
serves as a bioethics adviser to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
and has, along with other dignitaries, discussed the posthuman prospect
with French president Jacques Chirac. "One thing I can say with certainty
from my experience is that the wheels of law, of the legislative process,
grind very slowly within nations and slower still internationally. The
progress of science, on the other hand, is ever accelerating. If anything,
we've been surprised at how quickly technology has progressed. It's worth
taking on these issues intellectually now, rather than in crisis later."

[etc etc etc]



From benboc at lineone.net  Tue Jun 22 22:54:18 2004
From: benboc at lineone.net (Ben Cunningham)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:54:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 9, Issue 30
References: <200406221433.i5MEXQn02649@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <002b01c458ab$ef39a1c0$28062850@ibm300mx>

Re: Which Scientists to Support "Proactionary Principle"?

Mostly British, these:

Richard Dawkins! (Oxford, UK, last time i looked)
I think he might be receptive.

And i would have said Douglas Adams, but he's dead, alas. (ok, he wasn't a
scientist, but who cares?)

Also possibly Kevin Warwick (Reading, UK).

James Lovelock (the Gaia guy, but the greens hate him now, for his stance on
nuclear power)

Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal

Antonio Damasio

James Watson

Craig Ventner

Patrick Moore

Susan Greenfield


ben




From evmick at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 22 23:29:57 2004
From: evmick at earthlink.net (Everitt Mickey)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:29:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Damein Broderick
Message-ID: <40D8C0F5.80302@earthlink.net>

Damein....do you perhaps know of a *Wallace Thornhill?
*Australian physicist. His work on "The Electric Universe 
<http://gallery.bcentral.com/Gallery/ProductListing.aspx?GID=4907389&Dept=215904>"

I've seen him mentioned repeatedly on some websites I've been cruising 
and was wondering if you might
give me some insight.

Thanx.

EvMick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040622/25b2b6be/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun 22 23:48:51 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:48:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Damien Broderick
In-Reply-To: <40D8C0F5.80302@earthlink.net>
References: <40D8C0F5.80302@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040622184714.01bc1648@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:29 PM 6/22/2004 -0500, EvMick wrote:

>do you perhaps know of a Wallace Thornhill?
>Australian physicist. His work on 
>"<http://gallery.bcentral.com/Gallery/ProductListing.aspx?GID=4907389&Dept=215904>The 
>Electric Universe"

Nope, sorry. Looks to be in the same vein as the bogus-ish THE BIG BANG 
NEVER HAPPENED.

Damien Broderick




From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Wed Jun 23 02:47:35 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:47:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 9, Issue 30
In-Reply-To: <002b01c458ab$ef39a1c0$28062850@ibm300mx>
References: <200406221433.i5MEXQn02649@tick.javien.com>
	<002b01c458ab$ef39a1c0$28062850@ibm300mx>
Message-ID: <40D8EF47.6090907@cfl.rr.com>

Ben Cunningham wrote:

>
>Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal
>
>  
>
This is little off topic but Rees has said something to the effect that 
"I'd rather end up in an English churchyard than a California freezer" 
in reference to cryonics at least.  Not to imply that one must be a 
cryonicist to support the PP of course.  I have his book "Our Final 
Hour" which is a fairly gloomy look at some of the more threatening 
aspects of coming technologies (but also natural threats).  He discusses 
interstellar travel at one point as a task for "the posthuman future" 
but I'm not really sure how he would come down on the PP in general.  
Having written such a book though, I'm sure he *does* have an opinion.  
Wish I could find the damn book now...

and ya gotta love Dawkins.  He says all the stuff I'm usually afraid to :)



From bjk at imminst.org  Wed Jun 23 03:48:23 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:48:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 9, Issue 30
In-Reply-To: <40D8EF47.6090907@cfl.rr.com>
References: <200406221433.i5MEXQn02649@tick.javien.com>	<002b01c458ab$ef39a1c0$28062850@ibm300mx>
	<40D8EF47.6090907@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <40D8FD87.4000706@imminst.org>

Gregory Propf wrote:

> Ben Cunningham wrote:
>
>> Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal 
>
> This is little off topic but Rees has said something to the effect 
> that "I'd rather end up in an English churchyard than a California 
> freezer" in reference to cryonics at least.  


During a Dec. 2003 ImmInst interview, when asked about the possiblity of 
living forever, Martin Rees replied, "I'd be ambivalent about a lifespan 
of even a few centuries if I couldn't transcend present mental (and even 
physical) limitations. Regrets and frustrations would just pile up 
intolerably." 

Reese also said (I think in good fun), "PS I'd rather my body ended up 
in an English churchyard than in a Californian refrigerator."

http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=67&t=2699

Bruce J. Klein
Chair, ImmInst.org




From evmick at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 23 04:26:32 2004
From: evmick at earthlink.net (Everitt Mickey)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:26:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Damien Broderick
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040622184714.01bc1648@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <40D8C0F5.80302@earthlink.net>
	<6.1.1.1.0.20040622184714.01bc1648@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <40D90678.9060301@earthlink.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 06:29 PM 6/22/2004 -0500, EvMick wrote:
>
>> do you perhaps know of a Wallace Thornhill?
>> Australian physicist. His work on 
>> "<http://gallery.bcentral.com/Gallery/ProductListing.aspx?GID=4907389&Dept=215904>The 
>> Electric Universe"
>
>
> Nope, sorry. Looks to be in the same vein as the bogus-ish THE BIG 
> BANG NEVER HAPPENED.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
ok...thanx

Evmick


From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Wed Jun 23 04:51:22 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:51:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 9, Issue 30
In-Reply-To: <40D8FD87.4000706@imminst.org>
References: <200406221433.i5MEXQn02649@tick.javien.com>
	<002b01c458ab$ef39a1c0$28062850@ibm300mx>
	<40D8EF47.6090907@cfl.rr.com> <40D8FD87.4000706@imminst.org>
Message-ID: <40D90C4A.30307@cfl.rr.com>

Bruce J. Klein wrote:

> Gregory Propf wrote:
>
>
>
> During a Dec. 2003 ImmInst interview, when asked about the possiblity 
> of living forever, Martin Rees replied, "I'd be ambivalent about a 
> lifespan of even a few centuries if I couldn't transcend present 
> mental (and even physical) limitations. Regrets and frustrations would 
> just pile up intolerably."
> Reese also said (I think in good fun), "PS I'd rather my body ended up 
> in an English churchyard than in a Californian refrigerator."
>
> http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=67&t=2699
>
> Bruce J. Klein 

So it was you guys! Thanks Bruce, I couldn't remember where I'd read 
that quote. I post over at imminst as kerr_avon, BTW, though I don't 
post often.



From bjk at imminst.org  Wed Jun 23 05:35:46 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:35:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 9, Issue 30
In-Reply-To: <40D90C4A.30307@cfl.rr.com>
References: <200406221433.i5MEXQn02649@tick.javien.com>	<002b01c458ab$ef39a1c0$28062850@ibm300mx>	<40D8EF47.6090907@cfl.rr.com>
	<40D8FD87.4000706@imminst.org> <40D90C4A.30307@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <40D916B2.3050000@imminst.org>

Gregory Propf wrote:

> So it was you guys! Thanks Bruce, I couldn't remember where I'd read 
> that quote. I post over at imminst as kerr_avon, BTW, though I don't 
> post often.


Ah, good to see your digital signature, Gregory. 

You may wish to join us this weekend (Sat & Sun @ 8PM Eastern) for one 
or both of the scheduled chats with J.R.Hughes and Nikolas Lloyd.  Lloyd 
has allowed a reprint of his informative EvPsy view on "Why Men Won't 
Dance"
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=3801




From reason at longevitymeme.org  Wed Jun 23 06:48:31 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:48:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glenn Reynolds interviews Aubrey de Grey
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEGLELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

Some good quotes in here.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/062304D.html

Aubrey's work is getting more attention, and the few people who are writing
regularly on the topic are slowly but surely converting more journalist-type
folk to the cause. That can only be a good thing.

ExI, Imminst, the Methuselah Mouse Prize (to which you should all donate,
hint, hint), a number of other life extension groups, and Nick Bostrom's
Dragon-Tyrant get a mention too :)

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme

----------

A few years ago, promised cures for baldness, impotence, and old age shared
a common image as fraudulent and vaguely pathetic, the illusory straws
grasped at by the desperate and gullible. Now, with Rogaine and Viagra
offering relief to the hairless and the limp, it's even starting to look as
if treatments for aging may offer hope to the wrinkled. That has produced
both excitement and, from some, unhappiness.

I've written columns on the subject over the past couple of weeks (you can
read them here and here). Recently I interviewed (via email) the influential
Cambridge University biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey. De Grey is working on
what he calls Engineered Negligible Senescence, and has some very
interesting thoughts on what's to come in terms of aging. Or, perhaps I
should say, in terms of not aging.

I think that this subject is on the technological (and political) cusp, and
that we'll be hearing a lot more about it. Following is our Q&A, unedited
except for the removal of a couple of typos.

Q: What reasons are there to be optimistic about efforts to slow or stop
aging?

A: The main reason to be optimistic is in two parts: first, we can be pretty
sure we've identified all the things we need to fix in order to prevent --
and even reverse -- aging, and second, we have either actual therapies or
else at least feasible proposals for therapies to repair each of those
things (not completely, but thoroughly enough to keep us going until we can
fix them better). The confidence that we know everything we need to fix
comes most persuasively from the fact that we haven't identified anything
new for over 20 years.

Q: What do you think is a reasonable expectation of progress in this
department over the next 20-30 years?

A: I think we have a 50/50 chance of effectively completely curing aging by
then. I should explain that I mean something precise by the suspiciously
vague-sounding term "effectively completely". I define an effectively
complete cure for aging as the attainment of "escape velocity" in the
postponement of aging, which is the point when we're postponing aging for
middle-aged people faster than time is passing.

This is a slightly tricky concept, so I'll explain it in more detail. At the
moment, a 50-year-old has roughly a 10% greater chance of dying within the
next year than a 49-year-old, and a 51-year-old has a 10% greater chance
than a 50-year-old, and so on up to at least 85 to 90 (after which more
complicated things happen). But medical progress means that those actual
probabilities are coming down with time. So, since we're 50 only a year
after being 49, and so on, each of us has less than a 10% greater chance of
dying at 50 than at 49 -- it's 10% minus the amount that medical progress
has achieved for 50-year-olds in the year that we were 49. Thus, if we get
to the point where we're bringing down the risk of death at each age faster
than 10% per year, people will be enjoying a progressively diminishing risk
of death in the next year (or, equivalently, a progressively increasing
remaining life expectancy) as time passes. That's what I call "escape
velocity", and I think it's fair to call it the point where aging is
effectively cured.

Q: What sort of research do you think we should be doing that we're not
doing now?

.
.
.

etc



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun 23 09:11:33 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:11:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] [FoRK] "Free State" backlash: Libertarian Rhetoric
	is Counterproductive (Op-Ed) (fwd from jbone@place.org)
Message-ID: <20040623091133.GF12847@leitl.org>

----- Forwarded message from Contempt for Meatheads <jbone at place.org> -----

From: Contempt for Meatheads <jbone at place.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:49:11 -0500
To: FoRK <fork at xent.com>
Subject: [FoRK] "Free State" backlash: Libertarian Rhetoric is
	Counterproductive (Op-Ed) 
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)


I've been out on FSP ever since they "decided" (IMHO the voting was 
rigged) to go cold-state.  Yes, call me superficial, but warmth trumps 
ideology.  Why the hell else would I live in Hell, er, Texas?  Either 
way right-wing (rest of state plus most of the Capitol campus) or 
left-wing (Austin) nuts, there has to be some justifying upside in the 
middle.

Nonetheless, via k5:

	http://www.kuro5hin.org/print/2004/6/21/19280/4046

Libertarian Rhetoric is Counterproductive (Op-Ed)

By CaptainSuperBoy
Tue Jun 22nd, 2004 at 07:14:24 PM EST
	Freedom
	

There's a problem with typical libertarian rhetoric, and it's 
illustrated in this article in New Hampshire's Union Leader. When we 
speak like crazed Rand-worshippers, how do we expect people to react? 
Of course they're going to call us 'cultists.'

From the article: "if you care at all about New Hampshire, you should 
do everything in your power to cause the Free Staters and Towners to 
abort their mission. They're nothing but a selfish group of anarchist 
carpetbaggers whose sole purpose is to destroy a place and people they 
don't give two hoots about."

(I'm not a member of the FSP by the way, just taking an interest.)

	The Free State Project is an ambitious undertaking, whose ultimate 
goal is to move 20,000 libertarians to the state of New Hampshire, in 
order to form a libertarian state within the US. The Free Town Project, 
an offshoot, wants to take this further still by moving to a specific 
town and establishing a libertarian town government, free from 
mandatory recycling and beautification ordinances. Needless to say, 
many FSP members are distancing themselves from the FTP.

And what's got Gregg Ramsay, the author of the op-ed, so hot and 
bothered? Crazed Free Staters on the Internet posting garbage like 
this: "We don't want their honey, we do want them out of their hives. 
If they sting we swat, and if they don't wise up we torch the hive." 
And this: "[we should] ensure that the Town Police are never allowed to 
waste valuable Town resources (taken from the residents as taxes AT THE 
POINT OF A GUN)."

The back-story is that the Free Town Project has chosen to colonize 
Grafton due to its lax zoning laws. But whose fault are those laws? 
There's not much you can do if people choose to buy land and build 
houses in your town. Still, they're going to put up a fight. I've 
experienced small-government politics and I know how ugly these things 
can get. Idealism goes right out the window when people feel their 
homes or their way of life is threatened. Sure it's xenophobic, but I'm 
just trying to be realistic here. The Free Towners (and Free Staters by 
proxy) should try to make friends, not enemies. After all these are 
their future neighbors.

Granted it's not wise for Gregg Ramsay (professor at Pace University in 
NY, according to the article) to respond to anything posted on the 
Internet. People say a lot of stupid things on the net and it's best to 
ignore it. I have a feeling that he found the worst of the several 
thousand messages posted to the Free Town Project mailing list and 
wrote an article about it. No libertarians have yet moved to Grafton 
and tried to take over his precious town, but he is worried that they'd 
"legalize drugs, prostitution, incest and other crimes they refer to as 
'victimless.'"

I'm recommending that libertarians tone down their cult-like rhetoric, 
and in return non-libertarians should honestly consider whether the 
ideals of small government and personal responsibility are really that 
harmful.

To: Zealous Free Staters
Yeah, it's terrible that they're xenophobic and the landlords are 
refusing to rent to you. But you brought it upon yourselves for being 
SO confrontational. Did you have to call the townies socialists at the 
town meeting? Was that really necessary? Tone down the "omg government 
jackboots taking taxes at the point of a gun, I live my life for no 
other man, imperialist pig" talk. Even outside of the FSP, this kind of 
rhetoric does NOTHING for the libertarian cause. Lasting change doesn't 
happen overnight. You can't expect to achieve a free state tomorrow.

To: Gregg Ramsay
You're a big-government liberal, and we (libertarians) disagree with 
you. I understand that you think you're smarter than everyone else, and 
you want to ban things that you believe are harmful to society. Yes you 
do, it's your party platform. But saying things like "[their] sole 
purpose is to destroy a place and people they don't give two hoots 
about" isn't helping my estimate of your IQ. Obviously that's not the 
intent of the project. There may be a few bad apples, but hey: are the 
current Grafton residents ALL perfect? Don't think you're any better 
than the FSP members. And geez, toughen up a little. People say all 
kinds of things online. If you read something online that you dislike, 
it doesn't mean you have to write a whole indignant article about it.

Of course, maybe I should take my own advice on that one.

Kuro5hin previously covered the creation of the Free State Project and 
the selection of New Hampshire as the "free state."

Full discussion: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/21/19280/4046

_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040623/dc238741/attachment.bin>

From amara at amara.com  Wed Jun 23 13:37:53 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:37:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Paper (Nobel Prize): Solving the Mystery of the
	Missing Neutrinos
Message-ID: <p05100300bcff369e93aa@[150.146.134.133]>

This is a nice paper....

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0406040

Physics, abstract
physics/0406040

From: John Bahcall
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:19:24 GMT   (205kb)


Solving the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos
Authors: John Bahcall
Comments: Written for a general audience
Subj-class: Popular Physics
Journal-ref: Published http://www.nobel.se.physics/articles/bahcall/ 
on April 28, 2004

The three years 2001 to 2003 were the golden years of solar neutrino
research. In this period, scientists solved a mystery with which they
had been struggling for four decades. The solution turned out to be
important for both physics and for astronomy. In this article, I tell
the story of those fabulous three years.

Full-text: PDF only

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
   -- Jorge Luis Borges


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun 23 14:12:08 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:12:08 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] potentially interesting communities on Orkut
Message-ID: <20040623141208.GE12847@leitl.org>


I've been trolling Orkut for interesting communities. Here's a list of things
I've found so far. You can access it more easily via my profile.

 	Biology	6/23/2004	6:50 AM	810 
	Organic Chemistry	6/23/2004	6:49 AM	56 
	Munich	6/23/2004	6:43 AM	296 
	Biometrics	6/23/2004	6:43 AM	36 
	High Performance Computing	6/23/2004	6:41 AM	189 
	The Silmarillion	6/23/2004	6:32 AM	50 
	Physics	6/23/2004	6:30 AM	2113 
	Books	6/23/2004	6:29 AM	2465 
	Monty Python	6/23/2004	6:28 AM	5109 
	Evolutionary Psychology	6/23/2004	6:27 AM	456 
	Linux	6/23/2004	6:22 AM	10879 
	Mac Lovers	6/23/2004	6:15 AM	3427 
	3D Modelling & Animation	6/23/2004	6:11 AM	88 
	Apple	6/23/2004	5:54 AM	5909 
	Darwinism	6/23/2004	5:51 AM	107 
	Lord Of The Rings	6/23/2004	5:47 AM	3097 
	Home Shop Machining	6/23/2004	5:41 AM	31 
	Analog IC-Design	6/23/2004	5:35 AM	125 
	Robotics	6/23/2004	5:31 AM	353 
	Social Network Analysis	6/23/2004	5:26 AM	1378 
	Anarchism	6/23/2004	5:05 AM	613 
	Where is everybody?	6/23/2004	5:04 AM	61 
	Europe	6/23/2004	4:59 AM	1135 
	Open Source	6/23/2004	4:54 AM	5315 
	:: Donnie Darko ::	6/23/2004	4:49 AM	155 
	Carbon Nanotubes	6/23/2004	4:45 AM	34 
	Nethack	6/23/2004	4:28 AM	550 
	Anime	6/23/2004	4:26 AM	2789 
	World Domination	6/23/2004	4:26 AM	312 
	Immortality	6/23/2004	4:01 AM	52 
	Programming	6/23/2004	3:54 AM	4107 
	Unix haters club	6/23/2004	3:52 AM	72 
	The Brights	6/23/2004	3:38 AM	124 
	Steal This Social Network	6/23/2004	3:22 AM	1809 
	Wireless	6/23/2004	3:06 AM	969 
	perl	6/23/2004	3:01 AM	2857 
	Singularity Institute	6/23/2004	2:49 AM	26 
	Pirates	6/23/2004	2:43 AM	1302 
	Molecular Biology	6/23/2004	2:40 AM	484 
	C programmers	6/23/2004	2:24 AM	249 
	chaos	6/23/2004	1:51 AM	519 
	Speculative Computer Science	6/23/2004	1:47 AM	200 
	Networking	6/23/2004	1:36 AM	3488 
	Computer Vision	6/23/2004	1:34 AM	278 
	Fear and Loathing	6/23/2004	1:32 AM	302 
	EFnet IRC	6/23/2004	1:12 AM	695 
	Network Security	6/23/2004	1:12 AM	2936 
	Artificial Thinking	6/23/2004	1:11 AM	1546 
	Bjork	6/23/2004	1:07 AM	1994 
	Transhumanists	6/23/2004	12:36 AM	471 
	Peak Oil Crisis	6/23/2004	12:35 AM	40 
	Anti Spam	6/23/2004	12:13 AM	407 
	Emacs	6/23/2004	12:06 AM	1222 
	Mozilla Firefox	6/23/2004	12:03 AM	1909 
	RSS, Atom, RDF and FOAF	6/22/2004	11:55 PM	1151 
	INTJ	6/22/2004	11:14 PM	262 
	Debian	6/22/2004	11:09 PM	3735 
	Amelie	6/22/2004	10:47 PM	3217 
	Fark	6/22/2004	10:38 PM	563 
	Think Physics	6/22/2004	10:28 PM	109 
	Pattern Recognition Image Ana.	6/22/2004	10:18 PM	140 
	Weird experiments	6/22/2004	10:00 PM	545 
	San Francisco	6/22/2004	9:46 PM	2653 
	Quantum Physics	6/22/2004	9:30 PM	876 
	Cosmology	6/22/2004	9:30 PM	561 
	Cellular Automata	6/22/2004	9:15 PM	46 
	Biomathematics	6/22/2004	9:06 PM	72 
	Adam Rifkin RULES	6/22/2004	9:01 PM	130 
	Donnie Darko	6/22/2004	8:59 PM	1174 
	Hayao Miyazaki	6/22/2004	8:51 PM	105 
	Anti-excessive-unfair-jailing	6/22/2004	8:47 PM	167 
	Computational Fluid Dyn CFD	6/22/2004	8:40 PM	93 
	The Knights Who Say Ni	6/22/2004	8:39 PM	694 
	Cognitive Modeling	6/22/2004	8:31 PM	132 
	INTP	6/22/2004	8:19 PM	520 
	Soviet Culture	6/22/2004	8:09 PM	236 
	Materials Science	6/22/2004	7:32 PM	171 
	Polymer Physics	6/22/2004	7:21 PM	13 
	RIAA sucks	6/22/2004	7:09 PM	727 
	Neal Stephenson	6/22/2004	7:06 PM	925 
	Fairy Tales	6/22/2004	6:59 PM	204 
	Neuroscience	6/22/2004	6:40 PM	1469 
	software pirates	6/22/2004	6:28 PM	38 
	Ecology	6/22/2004	6:25 PM	143 
	Tolkien	6/22/2004	6:18 PM	2643 
	Black holes	6/22/2004	5:59 PM	143 
	Japanese Food/Sushi Lovers	6/22/2004	5:42 PM	3955 
	System Administrators	6/22/2004	5:35 PM	2584 
	Flight Simulation	6/22/2004	5:31 PM	165 
	Solar System	6/22/2004	5:04 PM	108 
	Movable Type	6/22/2004	4:40 PM	111 
	Computer Vision & Imaging	6/22/2004	4:29 PM	120 
	Astronomy	6/22/2004	4:18 PM	1891 
	Philosophy of Computation	6/22/2004	4:00 PM	104 
	Tinkering	6/22/2004	10:18 AM	441 
	The world 2 come	6/22/2004	10:02 AM	12 
	Modern Biotechnology	6/22/2004	9:38 AM	45 
	Organic electronics	6/22/2004	7:46 AM	17 
	Graph drawing	6/22/2004	7:29 AM	252 
	Grid Computing	6/22/2004	6:45 AM	148 
	Ecommerce	6/22/2004	6:05 AM	335 
	Digital Signal Processing	6/22/2004	5:50 AM	236 
	Feynman	6/22/2004	5:35 AM	701 
	Image Processing	6/22/2004	5:22 AM	99 
	DSP	6/22/2004	5:17 AM	47 
	Fractals	6/22/2004	4:59 AM	361 
	Astrophysics	6/22/2004	4:27 AM	255 
	Shrek	6/22/2004	3:20 AM	448 
	Vim	6/22/2004	3:02 AM	2400 
	Startups	6/22/2004	2:55 AM	362 
	Information Architects	6/22/2004	2:21 AM	805 
	MacDev	6/22/2004	1:44 AM	153 
	Foresight	6/22/2004	1:14 AM	202 
	Lisp	6/22/2004	12:42 AM	551 
	Solar Power	6/22/2004	12:36 AM	23 
	Small Business / Self-employed	6/22/2004	12:04 AM	787 
	Private Pilots	6/22/2004	12:03 AM	361 
	Renewable Energy	6/21/2004	11:48 PM	399 
	Crypto-Anarchism	6/21/2004	10:21 PM	106 
	Electronic Frontier Foundation	6/21/2004	9:53 PM	1801 
	Bioengineering	6/21/2004	7:56 PM	271 
	Electronics DIY	6/21/2004	7:34 PM	538 
	Biochemistry	6/21/2004	6:59 PM	97 
	Swarm Intelligence	6/21/2004	4:07 PM	9 
	Meta-Heuristics	6/21/2004	1:58 PM	31 
	FORTH	6/21/2004	1:53 PM	47 
	Clusters	6/21/2004	12:27 PM	46 
	Computational Chemistry	6/21/2004	9:06 AM	172 
	Borg	6/21/2004	9:03 AM	122 
	Filesharing p2p-style	6/21/2004	8:55 AM	351 
	Complex Networks	6/21/2004	8:51 AM	258 
	Nanotechnology	6/21/2004	8:35 AM	873 
	Everyday Nanotechnology	6/21/2004	8:35 AM	106 
	Systems Biology	6/21/2004	8:04 AM	58 
	Cocoa	6/21/2004	8:00 AM	489 
	Memebrane comology	6/21/2004	7:13 AM	67 
	Extropy	6/21/2004	7:12 AM	104 
	Biomechanics	6/21/2004	6:14 AM	46 
	Privacy	6/21/2004	6:07 AM	176 
	FPGA & ASIC & Digital Design	6/21/2004	5:15 AM	175 
	Ice Age	6/21/2004	3:49 AM	184 
	Biotechnology	6/21/2004	1:19 AM	148 
	Microbiology	6/21/2004	1:14 AM	86 
	Chemical Engineering	6/21/2004	12:22 AM	225 
	Visual Neuroscience	6/20/2004	11:24 PM	119 
	Bioinformatics	6/20/2004	11:05 PM	404 
	Cassini-Huygens Saturn Mission	6/20/2004	9:15 PM	100 
	Photovoltaic	6/20/2004	7:41 PM	86 
	FreenetProject	6/20/2004	6:20 PM	62 
	Open-Minded Professor	6/20/2004	6:04 PM	43 
	Evolutionary Approaches	6/20/2004	4:02 PM	355 
	Borges	6/20/2004	4:00 PM	184 
	Movabletype	6/20/2004	2:46 PM	1102 
	Python	6/20/2004	1:02 PM	1981 
	Social Software	6/20/2004	12:32 PM	1728 
	Antisocial Networks	6/20/2004	12:27 PM	1409 
	Protein Folding	6/20/2004	10:21 AM	80 
	Disruptive Technologies	6/20/2004	10:05 AM	465 
	grid	6/20/2004	9:43 AM	116 
	Microtechnology / MEMS / MST	6/20/2004	9:09 AM	83 
	Free Software	6/20/2004	7:42 AM	2501 
	screen	6/20/2004	7:22 AM	1600 
	Neurophysiology	6/20/2004	7:16 AM	103 
	Computational Biology	6/20/2004	7:15 AM	502 
	Pilots	6/20/2004	7:09 AM	62 
	Ring Fans	6/20/2004	5:39 AM	109 
	Totoro Lovers	6/20/2004	5:34 AM	373 
	System Dynamics	6/20/2004	4:08 AM	118 
	Richard Dawkins Fans	6/20/2004	3:37 AM	148 
	Economics and game-theory	6/20/2004	2:09 AM	208 
	Hydrogen	6/20/2004	12:55 AM	83 
	Emotional Intelligence	6/20/2004	12:54 AM	122 
	Reinforcement Learning	6/20/2004	12:26 AM	76 
	BEAM robotics	6/20/2004	12:08 AM	144 
	Aviation	6/19/2004	11:49 PM	467 
	Neuroimaging	6/19/2004	10:39 PM	93 
	Computer Science	6/19/2004	7:33 PM	3303 
	Global Domination	6/19/2004	6:25 PM	95 
	Biomedical Informatics	6/19/2004	5:22 PM	85 
	Chemistry	6/19/2004	3:18 PM	459 
	Geo	6/19/2004	2:33 PM	35 
	Tea	6/19/2004	12:50 PM	835 
	Distributed Computing	6/19/2004	12:45 PM	321 
	Cognitive Science	6/19/2004	12:40 PM	731 
	Studio Ghibli	6/19/2004	12:21 PM	1894 
	Server Administrators	6/19/2004	12:02 PM	209 
	Ghost In The Shell	6/19/2004	11:34 AM	609 
	Ready For Download	6/19/2004	11:09 AM	48 
	MURG	6/19/2004	11:04 AM	83 
	Distributed Computation	6/19/2004	10:36 AM	116 
	Molecular Manufacturing R&D	6/19/2004	10:08 AM	108 
	Molecular Biology of The Cell	6/19/2004	9:34 AM	138 
	String Theory	6/19/2004	6:22 AM	203 
	Aviation	6/19/2004	5:16 AM	75 
	Proteomics	6/19/2004	2:43 AM	64 
	Pervy Elf Fanciers	6/19/2004	2:04 AM	124 
	Collaborative Filtering	6/19/2004	1:07 AM	460 
	Military Technology	6/19/2004	12:12 AM	431 
	UNIX	6/18/2004	6:16 PM	1272 
	Evolutionary Computation	6/18/2004	5:39 PM	4 
	Neuromancer	6/18/2004	3:02 PM	60 
	Green Tea	6/18/2004	1:19 PM	431 
	BioChemistry	6/18/2004	12:59 PM	33 
	Sex, drugs & Unix	6/18/2004	12:12 PM	435 
	Biopharmaceuticals	6/18/2004	11:05 AM	3 
	Quantum Computing	6/18/2004	10:47 AM	262 
	WikiZen	6/18/2004	10:10 AM	410 
	Fullerene	6/18/2004	9:46 AM	2 
	Microarrays	6/18/2004	9:23 AM	18 
	MEMS & NEMS	6/18/2004	7:41 AM	3 
	Mutt	6/18/2004	7:05 AM	958 
	3d motion track applications	6/18/2004	6:45 AM	32 
	Medical Imaging & Processing	6/18/2004	4:05 AM	96 
	Regenerative medicine	6/18/2004	3:31 AM	21 
	Physical chemistry	6/17/2004	9:52 PM	40 
	Biological Networks	6/17/2004	6:49 PM	29 
	Jail	6/17/2004	6:01 PM	296 
	Bioinformatics	6/17/2004	11:45 AM	73 
	Electronic Commerce	6/17/2004	11:06 AM	22 
	Quantum information theory	6/17/2004	9:40 AM	55 
	Open Access Science/PLoS	6/17/2004	7:05 AM	96 
	Psytrance	6/17/2004	6:09 AM	443 
	Ambient Intelligence	6/17/2004	5:41 AM	10 
	Memetics	6/17/2004	4:10 AM	763 
	Semantic Social Network	6/17/2004	3:57 AM	380 
	Aerospace Fans	6/16/2004	11:13 PM	167 
	Meta Brain Growth, AI, Neuron	6/16/2004	10:28 PM	36 
	Exobiology	6/16/2004	7:46 PM	26 
	Future Scenarios	6/16/2004	3:17 PM	53 
	Neural Nets	6/16/2004	3:19 AM	301 
	Model M	6/16/2004	3:12 AM	91 
	Reputation	6/16/2004	1:50 AM	112 
	Trusted Computing	6/15/2004	11:39 PM	47 
	Fairy island	6/15/2004	9:35 PM	38 
	Ham Radio	6/15/2004	6:31 PM	396 
	Astrobiology	6/15/2004	12:18 PM	245 
	Evil Genius	6/15/2004	12:10 PM	365 
	Cluster and Parallel Computing	6/15/2004	10:29 AM	178 
	steganography	6/15/2004	2:05 AM	67 
	Vi	6/14/2004	10:20 PM	1977 
	You down with entropy???	6/14/2004	6:43 PM	260 
	Intellectual Property	6/14/2004	3:37 PM	495 
	Beowulf	6/14/2004	1:13 PM	40 
	Orkut Maximum Security Ward	6/14/2004	8:20 AM	55 
	System Dynamics	6/14/2004	4:36 AM	115 
	Evolutionary Computing	6/14/2004	4:16 AM	141 
	Electronics	6/14/2004	4:03 AM	208 
	Neural Networks	6/14/2004	3:55 AM	329 
	Brain-Computer Interfacing	6/14/2004	2:06 AM	148 
	Digital Philosophy	6/14/2004	1:34 AM	34 
	A.I. Programming	6/13/2004	9:51 PM	856 
	R Buckminster Fuller	6/13/2004	7:37 PM	167 
	Jorge Luis Borges	6/13/2004	5:20 PM	454 
	Intelligent Agents	6/13/2004	2:48 PM	283 
	procmail	6/13/2004	7:44 AM	306 
	Cooperation	6/13/2004	7:40 AM	43 
	Neuroscience careers	6/13/2004	5:21 AM	94 
	Earth	6/13/2004	1:47 AM	253 
	Optoelectronics	6/13/2004	12:44 AM	15 
	Legalize Drugs	6/12/2004	11:58 PM	470 
	Berkeley nanotechnology club	6/12/2004	11:49 PM	23 
	Supercentenarians	6/12/2004	10:59 PM	5 
	Smartcards	6/12/2004	9:30 PM	60 
	Problem Solving	6/12/2004	2:13 PM	75 
	OpenSSH	6/12/2004	10:56 AM	392 
	Cryonicists	6/12/2004	9:16 AM	62 
	Sousveillance	6/12/2004	5:22 AM	44 
	Complexity	6/12/2004	3:55 AM	907 
	ENTANGLEMENT	6/12/2004	2:08 AM	120 
	The Planetary Society	6/11/2004	8:24 PM	260 
	Visualization	6/11/2004	7:31 PM	414 
	Decentralization	6/11/2004	6:00 PM	1488 
	John von Neumann	6/11/2004	12:26 PM	90 
	Xilinx	6/11/2004	4:25 AM	34 
	Science as a way of life.	6/10/2004	11:18 PM	56 
	Operations Research	6/10/2004	5:13 PM	86 
	Cyberanthropology	6/10/2004	4:13 PM	18 
	Scheme	6/10/2004	7:24 AM	325 
	Universe	6/10/2004	2:27 AM	372 
	Computational biology	6/9/2004	10:25 PM	73 
	Electric cars	6/9/2004	8:59 PM	41 
	M?nchen	6/9/2004	6:21 PM	167 
	anarcho-capitalists	6/9/2004	3:32 PM	244 
	Spirited Away	6/9/2004	5:32 AM	425 
	Readers of the journal Nature	6/9/2004	12:15 AM	54 
	Artificial Life	6/8/2004	10:42 PM	895 
	Mad Science	6/8/2004	8:07 PM	186 
	Cryptography	6/8/2004	7:52 PM	1929 
	Synthetic Biology	6/8/2004	7:29 PM	13 
	Neural Networs Community	6/8/2004	4:15 PM	24 
	Supercomputing	6/8/2004	4:34 AM	74 
	Subgenius	6/8/2004	2:55 AM	493 
	Howl's Moving Castle	6/7/2004	11:27 PM	66 
	Self-Organized Networks	6/7/2004	10:15 PM	785 
	Superstrings	6/7/2004	9:48 PM	18 
	Zeitgeist	6/7/2004	1:07 PM	148 
	fnord	6/7/2004	11:46 AM	485 
	Temporal Mechanics	6/6/2004	1:50 PM	70 
	Machine Learning	6/6/2004	2:53 AM	470 
	Spiking Neural Networks	6/5/2004	12:20 PM	119 
	PLANETWORK	6/5/2004	11:57 AM	33 
	Self-Organization and Patterns	6/5/2004	8:55 AM	271 
	Swarm Intelligence	6/5/2004	4:27 AM	335 
	Computational Physics	6/5/2004	1:14 AM	113 
	Bioethics	6/4/2004	1:06 PM	123 
	Animation Art	6/4/2004	11:33 AM	159 
	Biotech	6/4/2004	8:52 AM	148 
	Digital Archives	6/4/2004	5:38 AM	68 
	Renewable Energy	6/3/2004	5:13 PM	10 
	Mesh / Wireless Networks	6/2/2004	11:53 PM	119 
	Artificial Intelligence	6/2/2004	9:55 PM	139 
	Biological Weapons	6/1/2004	11:01 PM	61 
	Addicted to Orkut Communities	6/1/2004	4:23 PM	101 
	Geodesic Domes	6/1/2004	10:00 AM	34 
	Anarchists	6/1/2004	7:18 AM	93 
	Cellular Automata	6/1/2004	3:51 AM	93 
	Oysters!	6/1/2004	2:49 AM	38 
	politech	5/31/2004	5:42 PM	181 
	Robotic algorithms	5/31/2004	6:20 AM	213 
	The Singularity	5/30/2004	10:21 PM	55 
	Physics and Computation	5/30/2004	5:28 PM	93 
	PGP	5/30/2004	8:17 AM	423 
	Twisted Python	5/30/2004	12:59 AM	81 
	Comet and Asteroid Impacts	5/29/2004	8:24 PM	43 
	Cypherpunks	5/29/2004	2:18 PM	447 
	Apple Developers	5/29/2004	12:33 AM	157 
	Gnupg	5/28/2004	10:58 AM	405 
	Digital Freedom	5/27/2004	10:59 PM	73 
	Singularitarians	5/27/2004	4:50 PM	174 
	Bioinspired Computing	5/27/2004	5:11 AM	93 
	Connected Universe	5/26/2004	10:45 PM	37 
	Uni Lovers United	5/26/2004	9:19 PM	156 
	Calorie Restriction	5/26/2004	5:20 PM	51 
	Hard Takeoff Singularity	5/26/2004	8:40 AM	58 
	M-Theory	5/25/2004	2:54 PM	120 
	Distributed Info Management	5/25/2004	11:06 AM	60 
	Complexity Theory	5/25/2004	4:20 AM	221 
	Russia / Former USSR	5/25/2004	2:27 AM	247 
	Semantic Web	5/25/2004	1:39 AM	910 
	The Russell Paradox Community	5/25/2004	1:10 AM	85 
	High Explosives	5/24/2004	6:45 PM	56 
	Edge of Chaos	5/24/2004	12:19 PM	392 
	Kurt Godel	5/24/2004	10:13 AM	95 
	VATSIM	5/24/2004	9:48 AM	13 
	Biophysics	5/24/2004	8:22 AM	103 
	Extropians	5/24/2004	7:36 AM	163 
	ImmInst.org	5/24/2004	7:34 AM	77 
	Nuclear Weapons	5/23/2004	1:28 PM	74 
	Anonymity	5/23/2004	12:28 PM	340 
	Secular Humanism	5/23/2004	9:59 AM	94 
	Unbound Singularity	5/23/2004	8:50 AM	13 
	Radio Controlled Flight	5/21/2004	11:27 PM	86 
	Chemical Genetics	5/21/2004	4:39 PM	8 
	Xcode	5/21/2004	6:15 AM	112 
	Wearable Computing	5/20/2004	7:06 PM	56 
	Sensornet and Sensor networks	5/20/2004	3:01 PM	16 
	Software Agents	5/19/2004	7:51 PM	73 
	DDoS and Worms	5/19/2004	3:03 PM	189 
	IETF	5/19/2004	6:01 AM	420 
	Materials Sciences	5/19/2004	4:48 AM	16 
	Evil Science	5/18/2004	10:42 PM	106 
	Thomas Bayes	5/18/2004	3:28 PM	55 
	Friends of Pigs and Dogs	5/17/2004	10:24 PM	16 
	Neuroengineering	5/17/2004	5:13 AM	80 
	Scipy	5/16/2004	5:30 PM	6 
	Digital Cash	5/14/2004	11:31 PM	77 
	Pseudonymous systems	5/14/2004	11:17 PM	12 
	Metrology Research	5/14/2004	3:34 PM	4 
	LA Futurists	5/14/2004	12:48 PM	40 
	Red Meat Cartoons	5/11/2004	2:28 PM	180 
	Helicopters	5/10/2004	6:52 PM	40 
	Future Salon	5/10/2004	10:05 AM	69 
	Asynchronous VLSI	5/9/2004	8:32 PM	28 
	LISP Machines	5/9/2004	1:45 PM	67 
	Bioscience Developments	5/8/2004	9:31 AM	5 
	Pretty, flighty, cool as hell	5/7/2004	5:13 PM	124 
	Pyrotechnics	5/6/2004	3:50 PM	29 
	Complex Adaptive Systems	5/5/2004	11:00 PM	422 
	Neurohacking	5/4/2004	5:02 PM	28 
	Radio Astronomy	5/3/2004	8:58 AM	73 
	Edge.org	4/30/2004	4:56 PM	4 
	Subversion	4/28/2004	9:35 AM	276 
	remops	4/28/2004	9:24 AM	42 
	Chebu-RA	4/28/2004	1:07 AM	70 
	Moon Society	4/25/2004	5:51 PM	85 
	Utilitarians	4/23/2004	6:23 PM	70 
	Space Frontier Foundation	4/21/2004	12:56 PM	14 
	Anatomy & Cell Biology	4/21/2004	4:46 AM	30 
	Loop Quantum Gravity	4/19/2004	1:16 PM	159 
	Long Now	4/18/2004	5:27 PM	44 
	Comparative Genomics	4/18/2004	7:50 AM	97 
	Remote Control Helicopters	4/17/2004	3:26 PM	38 
	Orkut Correctional Center	4/14/2004	7:18 PM	95 
	Claude Shannon	4/11/2004	5:51 PM	28 
	Human Simulation	4/11/2004	2:10 PM	16 
	MEMS	4/11/2004	2:30 AM	26 
	Lowercase semantic web	4/6/2004	11:29 AM	310 
	W.A.S.T.E.	4/6/2004	8:14 AM	60 
	Cheminformatics	4/5/2004	12:07 PM	6 
	The Bayesian Illuminati	4/3/2004	9:46 AM	53 
	Microelectronics	3/31/2004	8:18 PM	35 
	ntk	3/29/2004	2:08 PM	242 
	Emerging Technologies	3/26/2004	3:23 PM	73 
	Bionik	3/25/2004	12:04 AM	7 
	Asteroids	3/24/2004	4:45 PM	23 
	Symbolics	3/22/2004	3:47 PM	69 
	Young urban scientists	3/12/2004	3:12 AM	43 
	Tl?n Uqbar Orbis Tertius	3/8/2004	6:46 AM	47 
	Robotic Space Exploration	3/5/2004	8:51 AM	75 
	OpenBIOS	3/4/2004	8:39 PM	31 
	Pigdog	3/1/2004	9:37 PM	16 
	FoRK	3/1/2004	5:09 PM	35 
	Munich Entrepreneurs Network	2/28/2004	3:10 AM	33 
	BioCoRE	2/25/2004	5:25 AM	8 
	Openswan	 	 	14 
	Viridian	 	 	4 
	Global Risks	 	 	5 
	Silk

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040623/2b516a20/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jun 23 13:13:23 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations [was yada yada stem cell
	research]
In-Reply-To: <20040621184353.87635.qmail@web50706.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406230508590.23896-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, devon fowler wrote:

> --- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> > Robert Bradbury wrote that the research side of R&D
> > can't be accelerated by throwing money at it.

I don't recall whether or not I mentioned this before --
this opinion is based on the observation that the U.S.
threw a lot of money into AIDS "research" in the mid-'80s
to early '90s.  A lot of those funds were spent unproductively
because at the time we had insufficient knowledge of where we
should focus our attention.

> I'm assuming you've already answered these questions:
> -yes research can and is being slowed down

This is true -- *but* it should be taken into account that
this is a context-dependent state.  Whether it is a grant
review committee or a set of partners at a VC firm they
still have to buy into the idea.  In 2000 (at least the
VCs) would buy almost any idea -- now things are quite
different.

> -and there is and will be a substantial effect on
> develpment.

Yes, no buyin = no funding = no development.  *But*
at least my analysis of one of the nanotech development
paths indicates that it is currently prohibitively expensive.
My impression is that Chris believes you can cut some corners
significantly from that perspective.  If something is
perceived as prohibitively expensive you will get no buyin.
The other side of the coin is that you have to be extremely
convincing that the corner cutting will work.

> > ObNanotech: Research careers in molecular
> > manufacturing are also being
> > energetically discouraged in the U.S.

Not really true IMO -- you have a combination of the
disbelievers (Smalley, Whitesides et al) and the
current nonbelievers (i.e. nanotech will not provide a
decent short term ROI -- e.g. Modzelewski, Wolfe).
Of course the "nonbelievers" will change their tune as soon
as it looks like significant profits are feasible with near-term
nanotech.  [In business "near-term" is usually 3-4 years or less.]

> Why is this happening?  I'd be curious to know is it
> due to typical shock of the unknown?

This is part of it -- nanotech claims raise the incredulity
radar of both grant review committees as well as VC boards.

It isn't so much the "unknown" that is the problem but
the problem that nanotech so significantly disrupts
our current perspective that people don't know how
to navigate the development river and therefore tend
to stay away from it.  (For example -- ask a typical
VC if he would fund the development of an AI that could
do a better job picking successful startups than s/he could?)

> Or just government or private interests being nasty due to
> power games or the like?

There are always short-term interests involved -- that is the
way markets work (so you will get investment in a chemical
process that allows Nano-Tex to repel staining substances
from your clothes but will not get investment in molecular
manufacturing [which most probably takes much longer to develop]).

At one of the last nanotech business conferences I went to
I think it was suggested that there were something like 40
firms working on nanotubes.  It is *very* hard to believe
they will all be successful.  *But* nanotubes are something
that has been around for a decade or more and are things that
you can create today.  Its a touch/see/taste/feel mentality.

Now with regard to some of Devon's questions and some of
the points Chris made...

Devon -- find a legit. nanotech center that is actually
using materials by Drexler/Freitas/Merkle/Hall in a classroom
setting (Drexler actually taught a course at Stanford on
Nanotech but it was many years ago.)  You can follow the
"approved" nanotech path (which means kind of chewing
around the edges of real nanotech rather than going
for the "full monty") -- but if they are using the
"real" source materials at least you can be confident
that the background education should be complete.

Chris -- CRN should identify precisely *who* is getting
funding from NSF and/or international governments for
nanotech education and it should independently rate
the quality of education at various nanotech centers/hubs.
This may be scored on something like a 1-5 basis on topics
such as "technical" education, "ethical" education,
"cross-discipline" education, etc.  CRN would probably
be better than Foresight because it would be less likely
to have conflict-of-interest problems.  There can't be
more than 10 or so concentrated nanotech centers at
this point and putting the directors or Dept. heads
on notice that they were being "rated" might certainly
do more to make them think about whether or not students
find their offerings acceptable.

Remember this -- there are generations growing up out
there that grew up on Star Trek Voyager, then The Matrix,
then Andromeda.  To them there is no question about
the absolute feasiblity of nano-coolness.  The guys
are all drooling over 7 of 9 and Romi and the girls
all want the tech that can allow them to look like them
(or some other creation of their own design).  I recently
have gotten several communications (via Orkut) from
Iran (of all places) from an individual who wants
to more completely understand how the human mind works
and accelerate human evolution.

Devon should be seeking the school which best understands
"real" nanotech.  Chris -- one of the things CRN could do
to help is to provide ratings to guide people like Devon.

Side note to Devon -- the people at *most* universities
and involved in most of the academic grant review committees
have *not* read the fundamental literature (Nanosystems,
Nanomedicine VI/IIA and related works).  They should
be viewed as ignorant in most cases.  You should open
any conversations on the topic with something to the effect
of: "What have you read by Drexler/Freitas/Merkle or Hall?"
If the answer is "nothing" then you can assume they know
little about real nanotech.

[Chris -- if you really wanted to be provocative, you could at
a category along the lines of "Educational quality
for bio/nanotechnologies to significantly extend the
human lifespan (to thousands of years or more)" -- then call
up Kass and ask him to be on the rating committee....]

Robert




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 23 14:41:03 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: update
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406220741590.30235-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040623144103.16707.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> So we are making it harder but its a tough uphill climb.
> 
> I would hate to even speculate on how much computing power and
> electricity are being devoted to filtering this crap at the
> major email providers and/or ISPs.

So, are you going to argue for pre-emptive strikes??? ;)

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 23 14:50:25 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [FoRK] "Free State" backlash: Libertarian Rhetoric
	is Counterproductive (Op-Ed) (fwd from jbone@place.org)
In-Reply-To: <20040623091133.GF12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040623145025.18804.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

If you are following the news, I was in Grafton on Saturday at an
unofficial town meeting (attended mostly by the town's Democrat
minority), and was on NH Public Radio today, on Laura Kinnoy's show
"The Exchange". (you should be able to hear the audio track on their
website)

Kuro5hin's article is dead on, I've been telling the more outlandish
for months that they are not just talking to fellow libertarians, that
they talk to the entire world when they post on the internet, they need
to talk like they are talking to their mother.

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Contempt for Meatheads <jbone at place.org>
> -----
> 
> From: Contempt for Meatheads <jbone at place.org>
> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:49:11 -0500
> To: FoRK <fork at xent.com>
> Subject: [FoRK] "Free State" backlash: Libertarian Rhetoric is
> 	Counterproductive (Op-Ed) 
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
> 
> 
> I've been out on FSP ever since they "decided" (IMHO the voting was 
> rigged) to go cold-state.  Yes, call me superficial, but warmth
> trumps 
> ideology.  Why the hell else would I live in Hell, er, Texas?  Either
> 
> way right-wing (rest of state plus most of the Capitol campus) or 
> left-wing (Austin) nuts, there has to be some justifying upside in
> the 
> middle.
> 
> Nonetheless, via k5:
> 
> 	http://www.kuro5hin.org/print/2004/6/21/19280/4046
> 
> Libertarian Rhetoric is Counterproductive (Op-Ed)
> 
> By CaptainSuperBoy
> Tue Jun 22nd, 2004 at 07:14:24 PM EST
> 	Freedom
> 	
> 
> There's a problem with typical libertarian rhetoric, and it's 
> illustrated in this article in New Hampshire's Union Leader. When we 
> speak like crazed Rand-worshippers, how do we expect people to react?
> 
> Of course they're going to call us 'cultists.'
> 
> From the article: "if you care at all about New Hampshire, you should
> 
> do everything in your power to cause the Free Staters and Towners to 
> abort their mission. They're nothing but a selfish group of anarchist
> 
> carpetbaggers whose sole purpose is to destroy a place and people
> they 
> don't give two hoots about."
> 
> (I'm not a member of the FSP by the way, just taking an interest.)
> 
> 	The Free State Project is an ambitious undertaking, whose ultimate 
> goal is to move 20,000 libertarians to the state of New Hampshire, in
> 
> order to form a libertarian state within the US. The Free Town
> Project, 
> an offshoot, wants to take this further still by moving to a specific
> 
> town and establishing a libertarian town government, free from 
> mandatory recycling and beautification ordinances. Needless to say, 
> many FSP members are distancing themselves from the FTP.
> 
> And what's got Gregg Ramsay, the author of the op-ed, so hot and 
> bothered? Crazed Free Staters on the Internet posting garbage like 
> this: "We don't want their honey, we do want them out of their hives.
> 
> If they sting we swat, and if they don't wise up we torch the hive." 
> And this: "[we should] ensure that the Town Police are never allowed
> to 
> waste valuable Town resources (taken from the residents as taxes AT
> THE 
> POINT OF A GUN)."
> 
> The back-story is that the Free Town Project has chosen to colonize 
> Grafton due to its lax zoning laws. But whose fault are those laws? 
> There's not much you can do if people choose to buy land and build 
> houses in your town. Still, they're going to put up a fight. I've 
> experienced small-government politics and I know how ugly these
> things 
> can get. Idealism goes right out the window when people feel their 
> homes or their way of life is threatened. Sure it's xenophobic, but
> I'm 
> just trying to be realistic here. The Free Towners (and Free Staters
> by 
> proxy) should try to make friends, not enemies. After all these are 
> their future neighbors.
> 
> Granted it's not wise for Gregg Ramsay (professor at Pace University
> in 
> NY, according to the article) to respond to anything posted on the 
> Internet. People say a lot of stupid things on the net and it's best
> to 
> ignore it. I have a feeling that he found the worst of the several 
> thousand messages posted to the Free Town Project mailing list and 
> wrote an article about it. No libertarians have yet moved to Grafton 
> and tried to take over his precious town, but he is worried that
> they'd 
> "legalize drugs, prostitution, incest and other crimes they refer to
> as 
> 'victimless.'"
> 
> I'm recommending that libertarians tone down their cult-like
> rhetoric, 
> and in return non-libertarians should honestly consider whether the 
> ideals of small government and personal responsibility are really
> that 
> harmful.
> 
> To: Zealous Free Staters
> Yeah, it's terrible that they're xenophobic and the landlords are 
> refusing to rent to you. But you brought it upon yourselves for being
> 
> SO confrontational. Did you have to call the townies socialists at
> the 
> town meeting? Was that really necessary? Tone down the "omg
> government 
> jackboots taking taxes at the point of a gun, I live my life for no 
> other man, imperialist pig" talk. Even outside of the FSP, this kind
> of 
> rhetoric does NOTHING for the libertarian cause. Lasting change
> doesn't 
> happen overnight. You can't expect to achieve a free state tomorrow.
> 
> To: Gregg Ramsay
> You're a big-government liberal, and we (libertarians) disagree with 
> you. I understand that you think you're smarter than everyone else,
> and 
> you want to ban things that you believe are harmful to society. Yes
> you 
> do, it's your party platform. But saying things like "[their] sole 
> purpose is to destroy a place and people they don't give two hoots 
> about" isn't helping my estimate of your IQ. Obviously that's not the
> 
> intent of the project. There may be a few bad apples, but hey: are
> the 
> current Grafton residents ALL perfect? Don't think you're any better 
> than the FSP members. And geez, toughen up a little. People say all 
> kinds of things online. If you read something online that you
> dislike, 
> it doesn't mean you have to write a whole indignant article about it.
> 
> Of course, maybe I should take my own advice on that one.
> 
> Kuro5hin previously covered the creation of the Free State Project
> and 
> the selection of New Hampshire as the "free state."
> 
> Full discussion: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/21/19280/4046
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Jun 23 16:22:02 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:22:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Typology of Prejudices & Stereotypes
Message-ID: <40D9AE2A.7EA17D89@mindspring.com>

             TYPOLOGY OF PREJUDICES & STEREOTYPES

 Friends, Colleagues, Listmates!

            Do prejudices and stereotypes fall into a very small number 
of basic general types--basically, into views of "Those Others" as 
either lazy, stupid, ignorant, undisciplined, and "child-like," or else 
as over-civilized, diabolically clever, greedy, unprincipled, coldly 
rational, skeptical, and manipulative "city slickers"?

            It does seem to me that a fairly simple depiction of the 
"Other" as either a dumb, lazy, dirty, sensual, over-emotional primitive 
or else a calculating, ambitious, soulless pseudo-intellectual may 
subsume most racial, national, ethnic, religious, class, and cultural 
prejudices and stereotypes the world over. Ethnically, the stereotype of 
the "Other" as impulsive, ignorant, dim-witted, lazy, dirty, 
"child-like," "animalistic," superstitious, over-sexed, violently 
criminal, and drunken (or drug-addicted) has dominated White views of 
Blacks and Latinos, WASP views of Irish, Italian, Polish, and Slavic 
immigrants, English views of the Irish, German views of Poles and other 
Slavs, Polish views of Ukrainians, and colonialist views of "Third 
World" peoples.

Conversely, the caricature of the "Other" as over-intellectual, 
irreligious, manipulative, diabolically clever, money-oriented, and 
unscrupulous in business has long been the classic anti-Semitic 
stereotype of the Jew. However, a very similar image of the "Other" as 
clever and hard-working but over-civilized, arrogant, cold, soulless, 
selfish, and skeptical, as a "city slicker" exploiting and despising 
honest, pious, wholesome peasants, has typified Russian and other Slavic 
views of Germans, 19th Russian "Slavophile" views of western Europeans 
in general (in contrast to the soil-rooted, communal, mystically 
spiritual "Slav soul" and "broad Russian nature"), German nationalist 
views of the "shallow," "materialistic" French and English (in contrast 
to Teutonic idealism, piety, spirituality, and profundity), Slovak views 
of Czechs, Black African imagery of Asians, Malay and Indonesian views 
of the Chinese, and ante-bellum Southern views of the "Yankees." Among 
East European Jews themselves, Polish and Ukrainian Jews used to view 
"Litvaks" (Lithuanian Jews) as intelligent and well-educated, but dry, 
cold, arrogant,  pedantic, skeptical, and over-intellectual in their 
approach to religion--the Ukrainian Jews seeing themselves as more 
earthy and soulful by contrast.

In classic Freudian psychoanalytic terms, we might say, the ethnic or 
racial "Other" is pictured by the prejudiced as incarnating the vices of 
either the "Id" (as in White stereotypes of Blacks) or of the "Ego" and 
"Super-Ego" (as in the classic anti-Semitic stereotype of the Jew). By 
contrast, one's own ethnic, national, or racial group is idealized for 
being either intelligent, disciplined, sober, thrifty, and 
hard-working--or else for being earthy, soulful, rooted, and natural in 
contrast to those cold, effete, over-rational, deracinated, skeptical 
"Others."

       The same dichotomy, I feel, also underlies stereotypes of 
uncongenial religious, literary, musical and artistic schools and 
movements within one's own culture and society. Exponents of religious, 
artistic, or literary tendencies one dislikes may be denounced as 
barbaric, untrained, uneducated, undisciplined., "childish," "formless," 
and over-emotional--or else as dry, cold, desiccated, over-intellectual, 
over-civilized, "up-tight," "formalistic," and emotionally stunted or 
repressed. In other words, just as in ethnic stereotyping, one's 
religious, artistic, or literary opponents may be denounced for either 
their "Id" or their "Ego/Super-Ego" vices, for what ethnic bigots might 
call either "nigger" or "Jewish" traits! Thus, religious fundamentalism, 
rock music, and "Beat" poetry may be dismissed as in effect "Negro," and 
religious liberalism, classical music, and the poetry of T.S. Eliot as 
in effect "Jewish," by critics of unimpeachably tolerant ethnic views 
who never once mention such ethnic designations in print!

I first thought of this polarity in cultural controversy a few years ago 
upon re-reading British philosopher Michael Polanyi's  _Personal 
Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy_ (University of Chicago 
Press/Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958; Harper & Row, 1958; Harper 
Torchbooks, 1964). Because "the humanities, the arts, the various 
religions" as well as the sciences in contemporary society vast, complex 
"extensive and highly differentiated aggregates" of which "no one can 
fully understand and judge more than a tiny fraction," we are all 
dependent on "second-hand appreciations" outside our own unavoidably 
very narrow domains of first-hand personal expertise, forced to rely on 
"intellectual leaders" and "cultural authorities whom we trust (Polanyi, 
_Personal Knowledge_, 1964 Harper Torchbooks edn., pp. 220-221). By 
"following their chosen intellectual leaders," the "non-experts" in 
contemporary societies "even participate up to a point in the works of 
these leaders and beyond this in the whole range of culture accredited 
by them"  (_Personal Knowledge _, p. 221). However, Polanyi added, 
because of the "clash between different philosophies, religious or 
artistic movements," adherents of one "persuasion" may "refuse to 
recognize any intellectual merit in those of a rival persuasion, calling 
them cranks, frauds, or fools" (_Personal Knowledge _, p. 221). People 
will "differ accordingly also in their use of such professional 
descriptions as 'com[poser,' 'poet,' 'painter,' 'priest' and in that of 
accreditive terms like 'expert,' 'reputable,' or '[distinguished,' 
applied to persons claiming to be composers, poets, etc." (_Personal 
Knowledge _, p. 221).

Re-reading the above a few years ago, it immediately occurred to me in a 
flash that we "refuse to recognize any intellectual merit" in cultural 
authorities or leaders "of a rival persuasion" basically for either one 
or the other of two opposite reasons. We may call them "cranks, frauds, 
or fools" and refuse to accept them as reputable, distinguished 
composers, poets, painters, priests, or theologians because we see them 
as untrained, uneducated, undisciplined wild-men uttering unmodulated 
barbaric yawps, painting pictures a two-year old child or even a 
chimpanzee could paint, etc. On the other hand, we may call them 
"cranks, frauds, or fools" and deny them the status of reputable poets, 
painters, composers, or theologians because we see them as desiccated, 
bloodless, over-intellectualized ivory-tower types shut off from all 
life-giving human, emotional, or spiritual experience, from any 
first-hand experience of suffering, joy, terror, human connection, 
mysticism, or Divine inspiration.

            And just recently, it occurred to me that this polarity 
closely resembles the polarity of opposed types of ethnic or racial 
prejudice! Religious liberal/modernist (and highbrow traditional 
Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, or Orthodox) and 
literary/artistic Classicist attacks on fundamentalism, Pentecostalism,  
and Romanticism sometimes oddly parallel white racist stereotypes of 
Blacks and other "colored" peoples. Fundamentalist and literary/artistic 
Romanticist (or "counter-cultural") attacks on religious liberalism and 
literary/artistic Classicism sometimes echo anti-Semitic attacks on Jews 
and Russian "Slavophile" attacks on western Europeans. As with ethnic 
and racial stereotypes, it comes down to criticizing one's adversaries 
for what one sees as either their "Id" or their "Ego/Super-Ego" vices! 
In literary criticism, the ethnic/racial analogy has been explicitly 
invoked in the widespread dichotomy of writers as either earthy, 
emotionally unbuttoned, instinctually liberated, culturally populist 
"Redskins" (Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, the "Beats") or polite, 
genteel, repressed, fastidious "Palefaces" (Jane Austen, Henry James, 
Edith Wharton, T.S. Eliot).

                        Peace,
                        T. Peter tpeterpark at erols.com 
<mailto:tpeterpark at erols.com>
                        Garden City South, L.I., N.Y.        


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From sentdev at hotmail.com  Wed Jun 23 16:47:39 2004
From: sentdev at hotmail.com (George Dvorsky)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:47:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Coming to TV04
Message-ID: <BAY2-F2cfJiY9ZNMjiG0000994d@hotmail.com>

Greetings,

I just wanted to let everyone know that Max More will be joining us at 
TransVision 04 in Toronto. Max will be delivering a closing plenary address 
at 9:00AM on Sunday Aug. 8.

Max joins a number of other prominent speakers, including cyborg Steve Mann, 
Australian performance artist Stelarc, biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey, 
Reason Magazine's Ronald Bailey, ExI's Natasha Vita-More, economist Robin 
Hanson, and transhumanist thinkers Nick Bostrom, James Hughes, Ramez Naam 
and Anders Sandberg. There are many, many others. You can see the entire 
list of speakers here:
http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/presenters.shtml

We will be posting the schedule shortly.

Register today!
http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/registration.shtml

Best,
George

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Wed Jun 23 16:58:49 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:58:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Max More Coming to TV04
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-F2cfJiY9ZNMjiG0000994d@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNGEHCELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>



--> George Dvorsky

> I just wanted to let everyone know that Max More will be joining us at
> TransVision 04 in Toronto. Max will be delivering a closing
> plenary address
> at 9:00AM on Sunday Aug. 8.
>
> Max joins a number of other prominent speakers, including cyborg
> Steve Mann,
> Australian performance artist Stelarc, biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey,
> Reason Magazine's Ronald Bailey, ExI's Natasha Vita-More, economist Robin
> Hanson, and transhumanist thinkers Nick Bostrom, James Hughes, Ramez Naam
> and Anders Sandberg. There are many, many others. You can see the entire
> list of speakers here:

For those interested in serious anti-aging science, it's worth mentioning
that Joao Pedro de Magalhaes will be there too.

Ronald Bailey gave the transhumanist community good press after TV2003 at
Reason Online ( http://reason.com/rb/rb070203.shtml ). More of the same to
be expected this year, I hope.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Wed Jun 23 19:10:56 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:10:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations [was yada yada stem cell
	research]
In-Reply-To: <200406231622.i5NGMon07381@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406231622.i5NGMon07381@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40D9D5C0.205@CRNano.org>

Robert Bradbury wrote:
 > [on money not speeding up research]
> I don't recall whether or not I mentioned this before --
> this opinion is based on the observation that the U.S.
> threw a lot of money into AIDS "research" in the mid-'80s
> to early '90s.  A lot of those funds were spent unproductively
> because at the time we had insufficient knowledge of where we
> should focus our attention.

The AIDS problem is a lot more constrained than molecular manufacturing. 
   You might be right that we weren't ready to work on the engineering 
of molecular manufacturing.  We've had only a couple of chemical 
families proposed, only one of them (vacuum mechanosynthesis of 
diamondoid) producing high-performance products.  We still don't know if 
that's the most efficient one to develop.  But as far as we can tell, it 
would've worked.  Do you want to argue that we're better off having done 
nothing until more options appeared?

Adrian Tymes pointed out that the process by which one would accomplish 
molecular manufacturing isn't yet defined.  But does that mean we should 
do nothing?  Or that we should work on defining the process?  Is there 
really no model where a researcher could decide to build an MNT lab, 
starting with studying the options and building basic capabilities, and 
preparing for a research push when the path becomes clear?  To me it's 
obvious that this would be worth doing.  Perhaps there's no room for 
gambling when designing labs.  I guess they can only build competence in 
areas that will be sure to be funded every step of the way--and as you 
point out, most people making funding decisions are pretty clueless 
about MNT.

... news flash.  While writing this, I got to thinking about what a 
researcher would do if he wanted to build such a lab and get it funded. 
  You'd have to build a general competence, apply it to something 
near-term, and not admit what you're really interested in.  My first-try 
google search, for ["molecular engineering" site:edu], found a bunch of 
organizations that look very much like what I was picturing!  One of 
them is even researching nanotube mechanical properties (as one of many 
diverse projects).  I find it interesting that they're mostly going 
after medical applications.  (This creates practical problems: much of 
this effort is getting locked into biomolecules.)

So maybe I'm wrong about no one wanting to research molecular 
manufacturing.  Maybe we have a better base than I thought, and it's 
just more covert than I'd like to see.  The problem with being covert is 
that it doesn't let us discuss the implications of the technology.

> Yes, no buyin = no funding = no development.  *But*
> at least my analysis of one of the nanotech development
> paths indicates that it is currently prohibitively expensive.
> My impression is that Chris believes you can cut some corners
> significantly from that perspective.  

No... I believe you can start from a different perspective.  Protein 
engineering is hard, because protein folding is complex.  Using a 
different chemistry that maps fabrication to shape more simply would 
substantially cut the design cost.

> If something is
> perceived as prohibitively expensive you will get no buyin.
> The other side of the coin is that you have to be extremely
> convincing that the corner cutting will work.

I think most people are convinced that it's impossible or intractable. 
Not merely expensive.

 > [Chris Phoenix wrote:]
> > ObNanotech: Research careers in molecular
> > manufacturing are also being
> > energetically discouraged in the U.S.
> 
> Not really true IMO -- you have a combination of the
> disbelievers (Smalley, Whitesides et al) and the
> current nonbelievers (i.e. nanotech will not provide a
> decent short term ROI -- e.g. Modzelewski, Wolfe).
> Of course the "nonbelievers" will change their tune as soon
> as it looks like significant profits are feasible with near-term
> nanotech.  [In business "near-term" is usually 3-4 years or less.]

Based on Modzelewski's statements, I'd put him firmly in the disbeliever 
camp.

I've been told that students are told not even to read the literature in 
molecular manufacturing.  IIRC this was at Northwestern University.  I 
strongly suspect it happens elsewhere as well.

> Chris -- CRN should identify precisely *who* is getting
> funding from NSF and/or international governments for
> nanotech education and it should independently rate
> the quality of education at various nanotech centers/hubs.

This is a huge project.  But a very interesting idea.  Thanks.  (If you 
think it's not a huge project--feel free to find a way to help us.)

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jun 23 18:29:42 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: update
In-Reply-To: <20040623144103.16707.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406231104440.866-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> So, are you going to argue for pre-emptive strikes??? ;)

The problem Mike is not knowing exactly *who* to hit.
Most of the SPAM is coming from compromised proxy servers.

There may be some light at the end of the tunnel.

A lot of people are adjusting their systems so their
DNS entries include SPF records so that mail from their
domains cannot have forged sender addresses.  (For example
I routinely receive null mail messages which are SPAMers
either (a) checking to see if my email address is valid
(so they can sell/use my address for spamming); or (b)
checking to see if my email address is valid so they
can use it as a "From:/Reply-To:" address on SPAM --
since many if not most mail systems will not accept
messages lacking a valid return address.  The SPF
system defeats (b) because it says any mail that
"claims" it is from "xyzzy at aeiveos.com" actually
has to originate from a aeiveos.com IP address
in a DNS lookup.  Spammers can't get around that
unless they compromise the DNS lookup system and
I doubt that is going to happen.

In the last couple of days the 4 major ISPs have resolved
their differences and have agreed to adopt two distinct
(and complementary) systems for sender address and IP
address matching.  (So it seems probable that many of
the non-upgraded windows systems that run "naked" on the
net [i.e. no firewall] will have a difficult time being
used as proxies for SPAM delivery.)

For the less than completely moral (opportunistic???)
ISPs in Hungary, Russia, China, etc... it is relatively
easy to block all incoming traffic from IP addresses
in those countries.

Microsoft claims that its increasing it security efforts
(yet again) so that it will be releasing service packs
that are more secure even if they result in backward
incompatibilities (and thus more calls to their support
line -- increased costs... oh no...).  They also have
a plan in the works to make email delivery "cost"
(in CPU cycles) so it will be both slower and a little
bit more obvious when your computer has been compromised.

And of course Linux and Apple (which are more secure)
are making increasing numbers of converts...

So step by step, inch by inch the door is slamming closed.

Robert



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun 23 19:34:39 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations [was yada yada stem cell
	research]
In-Reply-To: <40D9D5C0.205@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040623193439.17823.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> So maybe I'm wrong about no one wanting to research
> molecular 
> manufacturing.  Maybe we have a better base than I
> thought, and it's 
> just more covert than I'd like to see.

There are those who want to discuss the technology
(but don't necessarily have a clue about its
realities), and then there are those who want to
practice and develop the technology (but suck at
beating their own drum).  There's a lot going on that
you don't see if you don't look for it.

> The problem
> with being covert is 
> that it doesn't let us discuss the implications of
> the technology.

Some people don't see this as a problem.  See what
happened to, e.g., genetically modified foods when
people discussed the implications before the
technology was well understood - and the aftereffects
even now that the technology is somewhat more
advanced.  (And specifically, the main thing keeping
it from advancing further much faster than it is.)

Just doing Devil's Advocate here.  I don't necessarily
endorse the above opinions, but I readily see where
they come from and why they persist.  The existence of
many neo-Luddites (who get scared enough by technology
they do not understand to call for legislative bans,
along with lesser measures) is, itself, a problem if
one would like to have a public discussion about new
technologies (which alerts the public, including the
n-Ls, to this new technology) before it is widely
understood (i.e., already developed, like how the
Internet and the Web were already developed before
most people became aware of them).

Then again, I do wonder what specific benefits are
sought from a public discussion of the massively
unknown.  (Beyond just alerting people that technology
X exists: in truth, while it's not yet developed, it
can be argued not to truly exist yet.)  Note that by
"public" here I mean beyond just select circles like
this list.


From sjvans at mailhost.mil.ameritech.net  Wed Jun 23 20:35:33 2004
From: sjvans at mailhost.mil.ameritech.net (sjvans at mailhost.mil.ameritech.net)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:35:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thomas Gold
Message-ID: <132230-22004632320353359@M2W048.mail2web.com>


http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/June04/Thomas_Gold_obit.hrs.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jun 23 20:07:07 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations [was yada yada stem cell
	research]
In-Reply-To: <40D9D5C0.205@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406231142040.866-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Chris Phoenix, commenting on my comments wrote:

> The AIDS problem is a lot more constrained than molecular manufacturing.

Oh??? Its bad enough that it has a robust system for stealing replication
resources but it is self-evolving on top of that.  I would hardly consider
that "constrained" when one is trying to figure out how to stop it...
(That is why some of the resources were misspent in the early days --
we did not fully understand *what* we were dealing with and what
the potential pitfalls were -- (we are up to something like 3 or 4
vaccine trial failures at this point).

> But as far as we can tell, it would've worked.
I would agree that we could probably have developed simple diamond
mechanosynthesis by now if a greater amount of attention had been
focused on it.  I am less confident with respect to the extremely
varied assembly chemistries that might be required for the parts
Eric, Ralph & Josh have designed where they make very creative use
of atoms other than carbon.

> Do you want to argue that we're better off having done
> nothing until more options appeared?

No.  But as Adrian points out we aren't exactly doing nothing.
There are lots of buckytube startups, a few nanochemistry startups,
Zyvex is taking a slow top-down approach to nanomanipulators,
we have the nano-ink-pen stuff from Northwestern, several groups
including IBM demonstrating self-assembly for increased data
storage and/or other aspects of nanoelectronics, a lot of interesting
work going on with quantum dots at both the corporate and Natl. Labs.
level, etc.

This suggests to me that our approach to nanotech is similar to
the way I used to eat Ice Cream Sandwiches.

When I was in Junior High School I always used to get an Ice
Cream Sandwich at the cafeteria for lunch.  I would of course
eat the healthier aspects of my lunch (typically a sandwich
made by my mother) while waiting for the Ice Cream Sandwich
to soften a little.  Then I would unwrap the Ice Cream Sandwich.
I would remove the top chocolate wafer and eat that.  Then I would
remove about 2/5 of one end of the bottom chocolate wafer and eat
that.  Then of course the 2/5 of the other end of the bottom chocolate
wafer.  What resulted was about 1/5 of a chocolate wafer (about
an inch or so) with about 5 inches of softened Ice Cream suspended
upon it.  Timing was important here because if the Ice Cream became
too soft this ended up being a very messy process.  I could then
consume in 3 bites first one end of the Ice Cream, then the other
end and finally the remaining ice cream and chocolate from the center
of the sandwich.

Mind you there were only a couple of individuals who remained
my friends through Junior High School who would sit with me at
lunch and could observe this process on a regular basis...

We shall henceforth call this the Bradbury Ice Cream Sandwich
analogy for Nanotech Development.  In its short form it can be
summed up as "we are nibbling around the edges".

I'm not saying that is good -- I'm just observing that is what
seems to be taking place.

Yes, I would agree that it would be nice to have multiple labs
focused on real MNT using perhaps each of the 4 or more processes
we could probably outline to get there (mechanosynthesis, a
combination of retrosynthesis and organic chemistry, lithography,
etc.).  But until we have have *real* proof of concept I do not
see the pressure (either from within the scientific community
(bottom up?) or from government (top down?)) to make it happen.

Could we not have previous examples of this in the history of technology
development? The one which comes to mind is the time from the development
of the theories that were the basis of atomic fission to the demonstration
of the atomic reactor in Chicago to the detonation of the first atomic
bomb in New Mexico.  But I suspect if we really go back and look at things
like the airplane or the automobile engine or even the steam engine they
were relatively long processes.

> I find it interesting that they're mostly going
> after medical applications.  (This creates practical problems: much of
> this effort is getting locked into biomolecules.)

Perhaps not so bad -- people get less excited about yet another new
flat screen technology based on buckytube electron emitters (I've
had a flat screen on my laptop for something like 7 years and it
works just fine...) compared with something like nanoshell [1]
technology that may be able to effectively eliminate tumors.

Now of course this stuff tends to be passive nanotech rather
than active nanotech as we might desire -- but again its a
process of figuring out the best way to eat the sandwich.

> The problem with being covert is
> that it doesn't let us discuss the implications of the technology.

Understood -- but this is your area of expertise/focus.

> No... I believe you can start from a different perspective.  Protein
> engineering is hard, because protein folding is complex.

Granted -- but three things are combining to mitigate this --
1) The known structures of more proteins is rapidly increasing (tens of
   thousands now) and you can work by varying known structures;
2) The domain (phase space) of protein folds seems to be closing (we
   have the structures of many [a thousand or so] folds and the
   rate of discovering new folds seems to be slowing significantly.
   I.e. there are only so many ways proteins can fold and we know
   most of them.
3) Both distributed computing strategies (Folding at Home) as well as
   computational approaches (Blue Gene/P) are going to make this
   much smaller problem.

So protein engineering is on a path towards being much more tractable.

> Using a different chemistry that maps fabrication to shape more simply would
> substantially cut the design cost.

Granted.  And I've been relatively surprised at the rate at which
people have been advancing self-assembly and related processes
towards this.

> I think most people are convinced that it's impossible or intractable.
> Not merely expensive.

Yes.  Both of these paradigm/mind-set needs to be broken.

> Based on Modzelewski's statements, I'd put him firmly in the disbeliever
> camp.

Recent comments (at least in some news items) suggest that Modzelewski may
be adjusting his position.  Though I haven't reviewed Modzelewski's
or Wolfe's CVs recently -- my impression is that Wolfe at least
has some experience with Biotech -- and if that is the case his
position is more strategic/contrived than serious (unless he
really doesn't get it).  Modzelewski I would expect to play to
the crowd of popular opinion that will support NBA -- and of
course that means people who haven't read any of the proper
literature.

> I've been told that students are told not even to read the literature in
> molecular manufacturing.  IIRC this was at Northwestern University.  I
> strongly suspect it happens elsewhere as well.

Interesting -- *if* so then you need to launch a strong campaign
against this -- I can't imagine a class on bioethics (or philosophy
or history of biology, etc) where one is told to *not* read reasonable
literature if only to find out why it may be wrong (e.g. Lamarckian
inheritance).  Sounds like it is more likely that the profs/admins
don't want to deal with sticky issues as to where the literature
is incorrect (which means they would actually have to *read* it).

Re: rating nanotech educational environments...

> This is a huge project.  But a very interesting idea.  Thanks.  (If you
> think it's not a huge project--feel free to find a way to help us.)

I don't think it is *that* huge -- you may be able to get a grant
from the NSF on the process of rating how the programs are doing.

Steps I might take are:
a) Use either the web and/or a call to the NSF to find out what Univs.
   are being funded (and/or any international centers mentioned in the
   news).
b) Determine who the directors are.
c) If its a Univ. order a course catalog from each school and review
   it for details about any nanotech programs (or perhaps do this online).
d) Give a call to the directors and query them about specific courses,
   course materials, etc.

Just (a & b) on the web would give people like Devon a significant
heads up -- once it is on the web the directors will know they
are in competition.  Carefully structure survey questions in (d)
so they start out moderately neutral (e.g. focus: nanoelectronics,
quantum dots, nanofluidics, etc.) and then slowly crank down the
screws.  You can eventually get to the point where you ask the
directors point blank things like "Have you or any of the professors
being funded by the NSF under your nanocenter grants using either
Nanosystems or Nanomedicine as part of their course materials?"

Then its a simple task to setup a matrix that people like Devon
can review.

If you review the course presentations you might keep your eyes
peeled for courses where it would be particularly appropriate
for the students to have copies of Nanosystems or Nanomedicine.
I could see an approach where we get a grant from one or more
Foresight SAs to purchase the textbooks and hand them out
to the students as they enter such classes.  Its kind of
hard for professors to ignore texts that everyone in the
class got for free...

It also tells me which classes I should audit, sitting in the
back of the room and speak up loudly when the Prof. messes up.
[I've been known to do that.... -- I must have a suppressed
desire to play the bad cop.]

Robert




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun 23 21:31:34 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:31:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406231142040.866-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <40D9D5C0.205@CRNano.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406231142040.866-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040623162831.01b6aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Interested players such as Chris and Robert might care to review this set 
of Wired projections from just on 9 years ago:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.08/reality_check.html

and see how they think things are crystallizing. (I'd guesstimate somewhere 
between the dates offered by Drexler and JoSH.)

Damien Broderick




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Jun 23 20:58:39 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations 
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040623162831.01b6aec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406231346320.4220-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Damien, interesting.  Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't have problems with most of the estimates made by Eric or Josh.
I would however point out that the technology for robust Cell Repair
is available now and one could easily make it more generally available
within 3-5 years (this is a result of combining some of the ideas that
Aubrey has promoted and some business efforts I have worked on but have
currently set aside.  Stated simply the technology is here but the
means and interest to develop it are not.)

The very surprising thing is both some of the optimistic and pessimistic
perspectives by Smalley.  It clearly demonstrates that he cannot easily
operate outside his area of expertise.  Making a nanocomputer prediction
of 2100 clearly demonstrates that he is completely unaware of the SIA
roadmap.  We will meet the NSF definition of "nanotech" for general
purpose microprocessors (< 100nm) within this decade.  On the other
hand a molecular assembler by 2000??? (Yes we had the ribosome and
could use it in the lab back in the '90s, perhaps the '80s but I
doubt that is what he was thinking of).  He also probably missed
on "Commercial Product" and "Nanotech Law" unless you really stretch
the definitions.

Robert


On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Damien Broderick wrote:

> Interested players such as Chris and Robert might care to review this set
> of Wired projections from just on 9 years ago:
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.08/reality_check.html
>
> and see how they think things are crystallizing. (I'd guesstimate somewhere
> between the dates offered by Drexler and JoSH.)
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 23 22:39:49 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Three-quarters of N. American's support stem cell
	research
In-Reply-To: <40D88303.9010905@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040623223949.25520.qmail@web50707.mail.yahoo.com>

-
> I think there are several reasons.
> 
> 1) It's hard to grasp molecular manufacturing. 
> Engineering from the 
> molecules on up (as opposed to biology)... automated
> general purpose 
> manufacturing, with its counterintuitive cost
> implications... 
> ridiculous-sounding performance projections
> (shrinking computers and 
> actuators by eight orders of magnitude)...
> 
> 2) MM is engineering, not science, but it sounds
> like science so the 
> scientists have been commenting on it.  And it's
> outside their field, so 
> they don't understand it.  Combine this with reason
> 1, and a lot of 
> scientists assume that it's pseudoscience--so they
> figure they have a 
> right and an obligation to debunk it.
> 
> 3) The gray goo issue has substantially warped
> discussion in several ways.
> 
> 4) Various groups of people (both business and
> science) are afraid for 
> various reasons that if MM is taken seriously, it'll
> threaten their funding.
> 
> I can say a lot more on each of these reasons. 
> There may be other 
> reasons as well.  BTW, I wrote about scientific
> misunderstanding in our 
> last monthly newsletter.
> http://crnano.org/newsletter.htm#Bugbear
> And I'll be writing about engineering vs. biology in
> the next one; sign 
> up at http://crnano.org/contact.htm .
> 
> BTW, several people have suggested to me that U.S.
> mainstream denial is 
> a deliberate disinformation campaign: that the U.S.
> has a molecular 
> manufacturing program, and is trying to delay
> foreign programs.  I have 
> no idea whether this is true, so I mention it only
> for completeness.
> 
> By contrast, I've heard that some people overseas
> think that molecular 
> manufacturing is a CIA plot to encourage them to
> waste money chasing an 
> impossibility.  I find this one ridiculous, and I
> mention it only to 
> provide a comparison to the above
> deliberate-disinformation rumor.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -- 
> Chris Phoenix                                 
> cphoenix at CRNano.org
> Director of Research
> Center for Responsible Nanotechnology         
> http://CRNano.org

Thanks for the information, disinformation does seem
to be a problem in this country and I assume other
countries as well.  I would hate there to be a
deliberate coverup for military gain.  The CIA coverup
idea is not beyond what some people would believe
happens who are overly suspicious of the government.

The other reasons stated seem to make sense that
people would fear MM because it's such an extreme form
of engineering.  The funding worries also are logical
sounding...I'll check out the newsletter, thanks
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun 24 08:47:19 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:47:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oz stem cells from embryo
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624034454.01b28768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/23/1087845007481.html?oneclick=true

Team breaks ground with stem cells

By Deborah Smith
June 24, 2004

Human stem cells have been obtained from an Australian embryo for the first 
time.

Scientists at a Sydney fertility clinic, Sydney IVF, used a surplus embryo 
donated by a couple who had undergone IVF treatment.

Human embryonic stem cells can turn into any type of tissue in the human 
body, and doctors hope they will eventually revolutionise treatments for 
diseases such as juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's.

But moral concerns have been raised because their extraction involves the 
destruction of days-old embryos.

Sydney IVF medical director Robert Jansen said yesterday the team's success 
in developing a human embryonic stem cell line, or colony, on its first 
attempt was world class, and reflected the use of a very high-quality embryo.

The clinic's research on human embryonic stem cells could not only help in 
development of new therapies for incurable diseases, but it could also lead 
to improved IVF rates through better understanding of embryo development, 
Professor Jansen said. "The potential of stem cell research is boundless," 
he said.

The embryonic stem cell research had cost the clinic $500,000 so far, 
without government grants. [etc]




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jun 24 10:55:18 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] End of sports as we know them?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406240345110.23257-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Interesting, it would appear that there has been some interesting
progress on the genetics of muscle development.

See:
A Very Muscular Baby Offers Hope Against Diseases
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/science/24muscle.html?pagewanted=print

In short apparently if you inactivate one or both of your copies
of the myostatin gene you end up with increased (stronger) muscles.

As some of you may be aware there is a currently a big hoopla about
athletes who may have taken some designer drugs to enhance their
performance.  But what about athletes who have a genetic mutation
which gives them a demonstrative natural advantage?  Will it be
interesting to watch a football game knowing that the team members
playing all lack myostatin gene activity?  And then of course
there is the "drug" testing question.  I can imagine treatments
that one could use to suppress myostatin activity that would be
*very* difficult to test for.  Can there be a concept of a
level playing field in sports in the future?

Robert




From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jun 24 12:56:13 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:56:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOUR: Tycho's nose
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406240345110.23257-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <004501c459ea$a1e4eb10$bbc71b97@administxl09yj>

It is said (never mind by whom) that when Tycho
Brahe was 20 years old he got into a duel with
some other noble soul, allegedly over a point
of mathematics.

It is suggested [*] that the argument was about
Fermat's Next-to-Last Theorem, to the effect that
2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2.

It is said that Brahe lost a chunk of his nose in
this match, and that he undertook to cover it up
with a metal prosthesis.

For a long time it was said (never mind by whom)
that the metal was gold, or silver, or an alloy
of the two. However, in 1901, some nosey persons
exhumed his body, and found green verdigris around
the nasal cavity of Brahe's skull, indicating the
presence of copper or brass.  This upset many supporters
of the aristocracy.  Surely a nobleman wouldn't have
merely a _brass_ nose.

In any case, it seems safe to say, if this Brahe story
isn't a fabrication, that his nose had a piece of metal
in it.

I expect, though, that the ex-official in the State
Department and his co-author (or perhaps Newt Gingrich,
when he's through writing about the U.S. Civil War,
will charge that in fact Brahe didn't lose part
of his nose at age 20 in a duel, but had it bitten off
later by Kepler when Brahe tried to resist giving Kepler
the data Kepler wanted to write his great musical composition,
the _Harmonice Mundi_ (English: _Harmonica Monday_).

[All the above: by Gordon Fisher]

[*] http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a980717a.html

Also of some interest: "Did Kepler kill Tycho?"
Two writers believe the mathematician, in his
desperate bid to deduce the true nature of
the planetary orbits, poisoned the astronomer
to gain access to his log books.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/
TPStory/LAC/20040529/KEPLER29/TPScience/




From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Jun 24 13:55:11 2004
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:55:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Myostatin effecting humans same as animals (AP News,
	via MSN, 5 year old boy)
In-Reply-To: <20040623223949.25520.qmail@web50707.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040623223949.25520.qmail@web50707.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1C09EF28-C5E6-11D8-AB22-000A9591E432@bonfireproductions.com>



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/

This is a link to an msn story taken from AP about a German boy who has  
developed twice the muscle mass for his age and half the body fat of  
his peers.

Apparently the first documented case of Myostatin having an equal  
effect on humans as it does on animals, I personally wonder what else  
it may effect developmentally given the important role fat plays in  
early brain and NS development.

Anyone with fresh dietary/capita data for Germany out there? Other  
causal information/features?

The child is being dubbed a "super-baby" and "muscle man" toddler by  
the press.


To better serve your meme-palette, here is a savory buffet of the  
article data:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&scoring=d&ie=ISO-8859 
-1&q=myostatin

My guess is this will be the parity of other neurological trends such  
as Multiple Sclerosis, Migraines and other issues that are our current  
evolutionary snapshots.


Bret Kulakovich



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jun 24 17:45:48 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Ok, I have to ask this question.  There is a big push
by the major computer manufacturers (e.g. Toshiba [1])
as well cell phone makers, MP3 player makers, etc. to
power devices with fuel cells.

The primary fuel cited for fuel cells is usually methanol.

Now one of the major reasons to have such power sources
is to use them on planes during long flights to Russia,
South Africa, Japan, Australia, etc.  To refuel the
fuel cells one presumably needs a container of methanol
(similar to what one used/uses to use to refill cigarette
lighters).  (Or one is going to a conference and one wants
to bring along a refueling source because they may not
be available at the conference site, etc.)

How in the blazes is aviation security going to deal with people
transporting what is effectively the raw materials for a bomb (or at least
an incendiary device)?  Yes we have "sniffers" but I can think of ways
around them.  One can easily disguise the fluid in one or more containers.
One could carry on a dozen or more laptops pre-fueled and then drain the
fuel out of them in a bathroom, etc.

And while I'm on the topic, lets consider Space Ship One.
While its current launch and return location doesn't present
much of a risk, consider it being launched someplace further
to the east (lets say in Maryland).  Wealthy passengers
buy a seat, wait until it finishes its trip to 100km, then
remove the pilot (no passenger-pilot barriers currently
in this plane), then pilot it down to 50,000 feet (probably
still above the capabilities of Air Force planes/missles),
then point it at the capitol building and let it free fall.
I am doubtful that we would have the capability to
intercept or divert it.  (The military must be going
bonkers over the potential problems with private access
to space...  Either that or their heads are in the sand
just like they were with the idea that planes could be
used as guided bombs.)

Robert




From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Jun 24 18:58:56 2004
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:58:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <8B1EE05C-C610-11D8-827C-000A9591E432@bonfireproductions.com>


The same way we deal with it now - human intelligence. We rely hugely 
upon people not being able to keep their gob shut over these things. to 
the creative, everything is a weapon. Everything, at some point, burns. 
People need to keep their eyes open, and talk to those in charge when 
they see something suspicious.

If you were about to go into the bathroom with a dozen laptops, I'd 
tackle you myself!

=)

Bret Kulakovich

On Jun 24, 2004, at 1:45 PM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> How in the blazes is aviation security going to deal with people
> transporting what is effectively the raw materials for a bomb (or at 
> least
> an incendiary device)?  Yes we have "sniffers" but I can think of ways
> around them.  One can easily disguise the fluid in one or more 
> containers.
> One could carry on a dozen or more laptops pre-fueled and then drain 
> the
> fuel out of them in a bathroom, etc.



From benboc at lineone.net  Thu Jun 24 19:14:53 2004
From: benboc at lineone.net (Ben Cunningham)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:14:53 +0100
Subject: Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
References: <200406241800.i5OI09n09500@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c45a1f$9d3ca5a0$11002850@ibm300mx>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I could see an approach where we get a grant from one or more
Foresight SAs to purchase the textbooks and hand them out
to the students as they enter such classes.  Its kind of
hard for professors to ignore texts that everyone in the
class got for free...

Hmm. Maybe this would be a little provocative?
I can imagine the reaction of some professors to this.

It sounds a bit like handing out a free copy of the book of mormon to
everybody going into a church. You'd have to pick your churches very
carefully to avoid pissing off a lot of priests.

ben




From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Jun 24 19:27:26 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:27:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <867504CF-C614-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 24, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> How in the blazes is aviation security going to deal with people
> transporting what is effectively the raw materials for a bomb (or at 
> least
> an incendiary device)?  Yes we have "sniffers" but I can think of ways
> around them.  One can easily disguise the fluid in one or more 
> containers.
> One could carry on a dozen or more laptops pre-fueled and then drain 
> the
> fuel out of them in a bathroom, etc.
>

a) I believe the one charge lifetime of the fuel cell batteries is 
longer than most plane flights;
b) the amount of methanol needed for a recharge is tiny;
c) methanol is not exactly difficult to acquire;
d) current cabin luggage limits would tend to preclude a "dozen or more 
laptops";
e) the amount of methanol per fuel cell is negligible;
f) I could carry "disguised containers of methanol" now.



> And while I'm on the topic, lets consider Space Ship One.
> While its current launch and return location doesn't present
> much of a risk, consider it being launched someplace further
> to the east (lets say in Maryland).  Wealthy passengers
> buy a seat, wait until it finishes its trip to 100km, then
> remove the pilot (no passenger-pilot barriers currently
> in this plane), then pilot it down to 50,000 feet (probably
> still above the capabilities of Air Force planes/missles),
> then point it at the capitol building and let it free fall.
> I am doubtful that we would have the capability to
> intercept or divert it.  (The military must be going
> bonkers over the potential problems with private access
> to space...  Either that or their heads are in the sand
> just like they were with the idea that planes could be
> used as guided bombs.)

Their head were certainly not in the sand as it was proposed as far 
back as the early sixties.

- s



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jun 24 19:28:49 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:28:49 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040624192849.GJ12847@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:45:48AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> How in the blazes is aviation security going to deal with people
> transporting what is effectively the raw materials for a bomb (or at least
> an incendiary device)?  Yes we have "sniffers" but I can think of ways

These are small cartridges, and usually it's diluted methanol. There's
greater danger in a bottle of vodka. Even several liters of pure methanol
burning should be containable.

> around them.  One can easily disguise the fluid in one or more containers.
> One could carry on a dozen or more laptops pre-fueled and then drain the
> fuel out of them in a bathroom, etc.

I could easily seal a bottle of methyl nitrate (disguised as fine liquor) so
that it had no swabable volatile fingerprint. How do you know my Samsonite
isn't made from a solid explosive? There are classes of weird explosives
about impossible to reliably screen for in a luggage environment.

What about bioweapons? These have no detectable fingerprints, and can take
days and weeks prior to first symptoms.
 
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040624/936a38eb/attachment.bin>

From dgc at cox.net  Thu Jun 24 19:43:24 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:43:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DB2EDC.5060809@cox.net>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>Ok, I have to ask this question.  There is a big push
>by the major computer manufacturers (e.g. Toshiba [1])
>as well cell phone makers, MP3 player makers, etc. to
>power devices with fuel cells.
>
>The primary fuel cited for fuel cells is usually methanol.
>
>Now one of the major reasons to have such power sources
>is to use them on planes during long flights to Russia,
>South Africa, Japan, Australia, etc.  To refuel the
>fuel cells one presumably needs a container of methanol
>(similar to what one used/uses to use to refill cigarette
>lighters).  (Or one is going to a conference and one wants
>to bring along a refueling source because they may not
>be available at the conference site, etc.)
>
>  
>
Forget terrorism. Carrying flammable liquids on a plane (including 
cigarette lighters) has been prohibited for safety reasons since at 
least when I started flying as a passenger in the 1950's. The problem is 
that changes in cabin pressure can force some fluid out of a 
poorly-sealed container, possibly causing a fire. Therefore, flammable 
liquids are prohibited not only in the cabin, but also in checked luggage.

The solution: Planes should have 120VAC to each seat.

When you get to your destination, buy more methanol. It should be cheap.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Jun 24 18:50:57 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Ok, [1] looks to be interesting as a publication by someone
from inside the CIA as an "anonymous" author.

Basic contention the "war on terrorism" is failing because
we (in the west) do not recognize that it is a war by a
"worldwide Islamic insurgency".  (This echos some of the
comments by Friedman in the NY Times.)

Now I know some of you are going to dislike the following
(probably intensely) so do not bother to send the list
(or myself) hate mail for bringing it up.  It is my job
(IMO) to think outside the box.

One currently sees people being kidnapped and beheaded,
suicide bombings, etc. in the name of either various
religions, political causes related to religions
(e.g. Sunni vs. Shiite, Jews vs. Palestinians) or
race/tribe (Sudan: Arabs (Janjaweed) massacre/rape black
Africans in Darfur, Rawanda, etc.)

Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
discussion.

e.g. For Muslim radicals:
Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
Nuke Jerusalem.
e.g. For Sudan
Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.

No debate, no long drawn out discussions, no attempting to
come to terms.  Its either "Stop the violence or suffer
the consequences".  (And in this case the group with the
bigger stick wins).

Of course, this could be done "creatively" so as to
minimize cost in terms of human lives (i.e. you drop
a nuke in a non-populated zone 100 miles from the
target a few weeks in advance of date one drops it on
the target).  But there are advantages and disadvantages
to this approach.

Now, I don't want to see a long drawn out discussion as to
why this is wrong.  It is fundamentally the problem that
parents must deal with when their children are behaving in a
way that is either harmful to themselves or harmful to others.
If it is clear that the problem cannot be corrected through
normal methods of feedback is it necessary to eliminate the
causes for the misbehavior or make it clear that the
consequences for misbehavior will be very severe.

In particular I would like to see reasoned and/or analytical
arguments that above approach would or would not result in
a) A greater loss of humanity than proceeding along the path
   we are currently on (some convoluted combination of
   negotiation and intervention on a case by case basis where
   the criteria [depending upon the country] seem to be highly
   variable.]
b) Provide the most rapid path to a posthuman/transhuman world.
   [In particular I am thinking along the lines of the simple
   elimination of humans that cannot engage in rational thought.
   Harsh I know.  Biased and prejudicial I know.  In contrast to
   my normal perspective that every human has the possibility of
   improving themselves *I KNOW*.]

*But* I am interested in the distinct analytical problem of
the mess the world is now in and how to solve it at the lowest
cost (in life, future economic development, quality of life,
moral conscience, take your pick...).

Robert

1. Imperial Hubris, "anonymous",
   http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=E665EB24-F443-469B-AAF2E63D69FADB40
or
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574888498/




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun 24 20:41:05 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:41:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624153944.01c1dec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
>discussion.
>
>e.g. For Muslim radicals:
>Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
>e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
>Nuke Jerusalem.
>e.g. For Sudan
>Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.

Robert, you have to keep taking the pills. Bad things happen when you stop 
suddenly.

Damien Broderick 




From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Thu Jun 24 22:28:21 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:28:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <CCAE323E-C62D-11D8-BB6A-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 02:50 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> Now, I don't want to see a long drawn out discussion as to
> why this is wrong.

Why do you even bother posting this here if you don't want to hear 
opposing viewpoints?

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Thu Jun 24 23:43:26 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:13:26 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A4004@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

Robert wrote:
> One currently sees people being kidnapped and beheaded,
> suicide bombings, etc. in the name of either various
> religions, political causes related to religions
> (e.g. Sunni vs. Shiite, Jews vs. Palestinians) or
> race/tribe (Sudan: Arabs (Janjaweed) massacre/rape black
> Africans in Darfur, Rawanda, etc.)
> 
> Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
> discussion.
> 
> e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
> e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
> Nuke Jerusalem.
> e.g. For Sudan
> Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.

Better still, if you nuke everybody, then we'll finally be at peace
forever, no argument. Multi-cellular organisms are just entropy
generators, after all.

Emlyn 


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Thu Jun 24 23:45:08 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:15:08 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] End of sports as we know them?
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A4005@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

I hope not. It's not so bad, either; individual and team sports come to
resemble car racing, with its teams of techs and big money sponsors.

Emlyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury at aeiveos.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 24 June 2004 8:25 PM
> To: Extropy Chat
> Subject: [extropy-chat] End of sports as we know them?
> 
> 
> Interesting, it would appear that there has been some interesting
> progress on the genetics of muscle development.
> 
> See:
> A Very Muscular Baby Offers Hope Against Diseases
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/science/24muscle.html?pagewanted=print
> 
> In short apparently if you inactivate one or both of your copies
> of the myostatin gene you end up with increased (stronger) muscles.
> 
> As some of you may be aware there is a currently a big hoopla about
> athletes who may have taken some designer drugs to enhance their
> performance.  But what about athletes who have a genetic mutation
> which gives them a demonstrative natural advantage?  Will it be
> interesting to watch a football game knowing that the team members
> playing all lack myostatin gene activity?  And then of course
> there is the "drug" testing question.  I can imagine treatments
> that one could use to suppress myostatin activity that would be
> *very* difficult to test for.  Can there be a concept of a
> level playing field in sports in the future?
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Jun 24 23:56:21 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:56:21 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<6.1.1.1.0.20040624153944.01c1dec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00de01c45a46$d9bcb4d0$852c2dcb@homepc>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> >Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
> >discussion.
> >
> >e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> >Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
> >e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
> >Nuke Jerusalem.
> >e.g. For Sudan
> >Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.
> 
> Robert, you have to keep taking the pills. Bad things happen 
> when you stop suddenly.

I'd also like to distance myself from Robert's remarks.

Brett Paatsch



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Fri Jun 25 00:58:45 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:58:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DB78C5.1020304@cfl.rr.com>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
>Now I know some of you are going to dislike the following
>(probably intensely)
>

Well you got that bit right.

>
>One currently sees people being kidnapped and beheaded,
>

One currently sees a few people getting kidnapped and beheaded, yes.  
And this would justify murdering millions with nuclear weapons how?  By 
all means let us show the terrorist idiots that we can do terrorism much 
better than they can.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 00:19:12 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <00de01c45a46$d9bcb4d0$852c2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241613080.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Ok, one can distance oneself from my remarks or deal with
them with sarcasm or state I'm shielding myself from critical
opinions.  *But*:

Lets start with:
Triage: (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
  Etymology: French, sorting, sifting, from trier to sort,
   from Old French -- more at TRY
  : the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and
  especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of
  priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors; broadly
  : the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where
  funds and resources can be best used or are most needed

[Side note -- anyone who does not view the current loss of
human life (on a global basis from a variety of sources)
as a crime of monumental proportions when we are almost
have the technical capabilities of extending human
lifespan to thousands of years should come visit me in Seattle.
I will be more than happy to whack you in the side of the
head with both large and small books until this becomes
completely clear.]

Those not responding in a concrete way (because they find
my proposed solutions repulsive or wrong) are part of the
problem and not part of the solution.  You have obviously
*not* been reading Kristoff's editorials in the NY Times
about the situation in the Sudan.

Sudan/Darfur situation: 180,000 to 1 million people displaced
  (many of whom face starvation).
Rwanda: 800,000 massacred in 1994

(I don't recall seeing any discussion on the ExI list
[other than my own] with regard to the Sudan situation
which proposed *solutions*) and I doubt there was much
discussion of the Rwanda situation when it was taking place
a decade ago.

in contrast:
Hiroshima: 64,000 deaths.
Nagasaki: 20,000 to 87,000 deaths (by various estimates).

(And don't even get me started on the 12+ million people a
year dying primarily from hunger [1] -- but the "treatments"
I proposed earlier will not work with *that* problem.)

Point being -- some, many, most (???) list members are sticking
their heads in the sand.  Yes the concept of proposing to
end lives to save lives is repulsive.  But that is what triage
is effectively about.  Those who do not engage in the discussion --
think again -- you are engaged by default.

We *claim* to value extropian perspectives.  Previous comments
lead me to believe that this implies there is an implicit value
to all human life (better be careful here or we end up looking
like right wing christians and catholics proclaiming "thow shalt
not destroy an embryo or fetus (or other form of human life...)".
Instead we are content to sit on our hands and ignore "passive"
destruction of life which significantly exceeds in all
probability some planned "active" destruction of life (which some
so strongly object to).  I.e.  "Oh don't mind me -- I'm just
guilty of the sins of omission rather than sins of commission...".
(Of course we [in the U.S.] went through that to a large extent when
the U.S.  resisted entering WWII -- and of course that cost the lives
of 6 million Jews and ultimately 50+ million lives of combatants
and noncombatants).

There are costs associated with not doing anything...
(We can see this in the delays in the process of developing
robust molecular nanotechnology for example.)

Robert

P.S. Damien... you are probably right -- taking the pills
would be a good idea.

1. The Hunger Project, Ending Hunger: An idea whose time has come,
   Praeger, 1985  (and these numbers are almost 20 years outdated!)



From ramseyk at uci.edu  Fri Jun 25 01:36:24 2004
From: ramseyk at uci.edu (Kelly M. Ramsey)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:36:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241613080.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <00de01c45a46$d9bcb4d0$852c2dcb@homepc>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241613080.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624182542.042fceb0@pop.uci.edu>

Bemused contempt is an appropriate response to half-formed proposals for 
mass murder. If sarcasm drives the point home, so much the better.

I would be interested, however, in seeing empirical support - from foreign 
policy, international relations, and/or social scientific sources - for the 
glaring implicit assumption here: that the blowback from such a unilateral 
extermination would not result in more loss of life than current circumstances.


Kelly Ramsey
ramseyk at uci.edu




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 00:51:10 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DB78C5.1020304@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241725330.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Gregory Propf commenting on my comments wrote:

> >Now I know some of you are going to dislike the following
> >(probably intensely)
>
> Well you got that bit right.

I bask in the radiance of my own intense insights... :-;

> One currently sees a few people getting kidnapped and beheaded, yes.

"Few" is a relative term particularly if one confines oneself to
a perspective that "Western" individuals are worth more than
non-Western individuals (I'm not suggesting you are saying this --
I'm simply considering that this may be a bias by much of the media
Western individuals are exposed to that may need to be normalized
by an extropic framework.)  For example it looks like over 100 Iraqis
were killed today by their fellow "citizens".

> And this would justify murdering millions with nuclear weapons how?  By
> all means let us show the terrorist idiots that we can do terrorism much
> better than they can.

As pointed out in other messages the death toll would not be millions.
What remains unaddressed (in the messages I've seen thus far) is not
that this would be an *undesirable* strategy but that this would be
an *ineffective* strategy.

People have not been paying attention to the ramp-up to 911, Friedman's
essays in the NY Times, the Palestinian and Iraqi and Pakistan suicide
bombings, books like Imperial Hubris, etc.  These people are out to destroy
the West (no matter what it costs themselves) and that means they will take
down nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, lifespan extension, the
singularity, transhumanity and extropianism (just for starters).

Now you can argue that they will not be effective (we have the throw
weight), or you can argue that they cannot destroy societies of
robust democratic states (even though they outnumber us...) or
any of a bunch of other reasons.  But I challenge you to present
a case where the path(s) we are currently on will *not* require
the ultimate use of nuclear weapons.

Robert



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Fri Jun 25 02:22:23 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:22:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241725330.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241725330.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DB8C5F.8090801@cfl.rr.com>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>I bask in the radiance of my own intense insights... :-;
>

Or you stuck your head in the microwave.

>  
>
>>One currently sees a few people getting kidnapped and beheaded, yes.
>>    
>>
>
>"Few" is a relative term particularly if one confines oneself to
>a perspective that "Western" individuals are worth more than
>non-Western individuals (I'm not suggesting you are saying this --
>
I am not saying this.  I am saying quite the opposite of course.  Oh, 
you're talking about the Sudan now.  Somehow we shifted from responding 
to the beheadings with nukes to somehow nuking the Sudanese into 
stopping their wars.  Two different things of course.  And neither 
action makes any sense at all.

>As pointed out in other messages the death toll would not be millions.
>
You want to nuke Jerusalem.  I think quite a number of people live there.

>
>But I challenge you to present
>a case where the path(s) we are currently on will *not* require
>the ultimate use of nuclear weapons.
>
I challenge you to provide proof that the current "path we are on" will 
not require the immediate sacrifice of 100 virgins to the god Foobar 
from the planet Kroton.  Your question shifts the burden of proof in a 
classically absurd way.  It is *you* who must provide evidence that our 
response to terrorism (or anything going on in the world right now) will 
require nuclear weapons.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun 25 02:49:45 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:49:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <005c01c45a5f$193d3090$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Robert J. Bradbury
> Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
> 
>...  (The military must be going
> bonkers over the potential problems with private access
> to space...  Either that or their heads are in the sand
> just like they were with the idea that planes could be
> used as guided bombs.) Robert

No.  The military was well aware of the risks of planes
being used as bombs before 2001.  I was at an engineering
conference in 1995 where it was discussed, along with some 
other classic soft points in our infrastructure, such as 
subways.

spike




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 01:50:43 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624182542.042fceb0@pop.uci.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Kelly M. Ramsey wrote:

> Bemused contempt is an appropriate response to half-formed proposals for
> mass murder. If sarcasm drives the point home, so much the better.

Kelly, you are correct -- the proposals were half-formed.  They could
be reworked to present the ideas that "we are really serious", "we
will not be blackmailed" and "you will not win".  Those ideas seem
to have worked to some extent with Libya and Iran.  They do not however
seem to be working with terrorists.

IMO in large part this is due to the fact that terrorists have
relatively poor opportunities on Earth and have complete faith
in the fact that things will be better in the afterlife if they
die in the service of "God".  So being dead is better than being
alive from their perspective.

One cannot even begin to engage in a productive conversation with
them from the perspective of the Extropian principles (Self-Transformation:
"God has determined everything"; Practical Optimism: The infidels (Christians)
control everything, optimism is pointless; Intelligent Technology: we don't
have any of that though we do like rocket propelled grenade launchers;
Open Society: the aged clerics dictate how society should function;
Self-direction: God has predetermined the course of my life already;
Rational Thinking: Why would one even bother to engage in a rational
discussion when it is clear that everything is determined by faith).

I am *not* stating that these are arguments that would be used by
or perspectives that would be held by all or even many Muslims.
I am stating these points to place an emphasis on the extent to
which we may be dealing with irrational people.

In a Western system we would clearly label people who were willing
to sacrifice their lives in order to behead someone as sociopaths.
They are in the same category as a number of other highly heinous
criminals.

The primary point of my message was to come down hard on the
irrational perspectives of religions that are used to justify
murder or mass murder and perhaps propose one way of resolving
(eliminating) the justifications for those ideas.  In contrast
my "triage" perspective is one that one may sacrifice more
human lives now for a greater number of human lives saved later.
You may not have been on the list for previous discussions on
this topic -- but essentially for each year you delay the
development of extropic/transhumanistic perspectives with their
associated technologies one is talking about a human life cost
of 40-50 million lives/year.  When weighted by a reasonable
lifespan expectancy in the future one is talking about
100 billion person-life-years [1] lost for each year that these
developments are delayed.

> I would be interested, however, in seeing empirical support - from foreign
> policy, international relations, and/or social scientific sources - for the
> glaring implicit assumption here: that the blowback from such a unilateral
> extermination would not result in more loss of life than current circumstances.

You raise the key point here and one that I was trying to get to
by offering my rather extreme "solution".  Islamic people probably
outnumber Europeans and North Americans.  Would the destruction
of their most holy sites lead to a blowback that would defeat its
original purpose?  (Similarly with respect to my other suggestions?)

At what point would Muslim extremists conclude that losses
(in terms of people or culture) were unacceptable?

We are used to dealing with "rational" individuals who will
retreat or surrender when the losses become to great.  (PBS has
a special on the strategies and battles of the American Revolution
that point this out.).  Are we dealing with a situation where
that logic will simply not work?

Put other ways...
  How many extropic rational lives is the life of an irrational
  terrorist worth?
or
  How many person-life-years of current/future extropic rational
  lives are the premature termination of the life of a non-rational
  and/or perhaps non-extropic individual worth?  (I.e. one of the
  Janjaweed or the people upon whom they are inflicting suffering...).

Robert

1. An exact calculation of this is difficult.  One starts with ~50
million deaths per year times a life expectancy of 2000+ years.
Then one has to adjust for increases in birth as technology, wealth,
solar system colonization expands, then decrease for a diminished
desire to have children over hundreds of years, etc.  I do not
believe at this time that we have sufficient data on how humanity
will evolve to estimate the premature loss of potential human life
as human longevity increases with very much accuracy.  I am willing
to be corrected by people who have good ideas.




From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jun 25 02:55:22 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:55:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DB941A.6040507@pobox.com>

I'll just chime in to say that Robert Bradbury is out of his freaking mind. 
  No grasp on reality.  Maybe if we just go on saying that every time he 
proposes mass murder, he'll eventually stop it.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Fri Jun 25 03:20:30 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:20:30 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> [nuke, nuke, nuke]

Nuking cities will not reduce the number of terrorists, it will increase it. 
Nor could it possibly discourage people with the resolve to sacrifice their 
lives in the service of their cause.

If you really want to solve the US problem with terrorism, change the cause. 
US foreign policy is the cause. Obviously.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun 25 03:32:59 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:32:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624223039.01c0d0a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:20 PM 6/25/2004 +1200, <paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>If you really want to solve the US problem with terrorism, change the 
>cause. US foreign policy is the cause. Obviously.

This doesn't mean we should nuke Washington, either (nor was Paul 
suggesting any such lunacy, I'm sure). Hey, how about we don't nuke *anyone*?

Damien Broderick 




From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Fri Jun 25 03:57:15 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:57:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <BED95FD0-C65B-11D8-B3F3-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 24, 2004, at 8:20 PM, paul.bridger wrote:
> If you really want to solve the US problem with terrorism, change the 
> cause. US foreign policy is the cause. Obviously.


The cessation of all foreign aid would be an excellent start.  
Seriously.

The only reason the Palestinians and Israelis can afford to fight is 
because we bankroll both of them, giving them a lot of free time on 
their hands.  Same with most of Africa.  Eliminate their free spending 
money and they'll have to spend their time looking for a job and 
working rather than thinking of creative ways to cause trouble.

All those people will have to adjust, but they'll come around sooner 
than later.  As it stands, they don't suffer the consequences of their 
poor behavior.

j. andrew rogers



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 03:00:16 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DB8C5F.8090801@cfl.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241922480.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Gregory Propf wrote:

> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> >I bask in the radiance of my own intense insights... :-;
> >
> Or you stuck your head in the microwave.

Haven't tried that.  I find attaching two wires from a high
voltage spark coil to my hands much more stimulating.

> I am not saying this.  I am saying quite the opposite of course.  Oh,
> you're talking about the Sudan now.  Somehow we shifted from responding
> to the beheadings with nukes to somehow nuking the Sudanese into
> stopping their wars.  Two different things of course.

Greg, you are of course correct.  I am mixing situations.  But you would
need to take apart the differences between Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the
Sudan (all of which seem to have Arab/Muslim orientations and sources
of problems) to make a case that we are not dealing with either
a Muslim "crusade" (as in: "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal
and enthusiasm" or desire for a hegemony (as in: preponderant influence
or authority over others; AKA "Domination").

Furthermore you need to then explain why Islam (or any other organized
religion for that matter) is not fundamentally opposed to extropian
principles and/or transhumanism.  (If you claim the religions need
to be modified so be it -- there is a very *long* history of this.
But you should not be claiming that people acting on the faith of
their religion and murdering or raping people should be tolerated.)

> >As pointed out in other messages the death toll would not be millions.
> >
> You want to nuke Jerusalem.  I think quite a number of people live there.

Yes, and this is why after some thought it seemed reasonable to
demonstrate that (a) we would nuke Jerusalem; (b) then do it.

No more Temple on the Mount, no more wailing wall, no more
tomb of Jesus.  They are all gone.  Kaputski.  If the people
suggest they will rebuild them we simply suggest we will drop
another nuke.  I.e. the complete elimination of the historic
symbols that tie humans to religions that are irrational
(and more importantly those that promote violence).

> I challenge you to provide proof that the current "path we are on" will
> not require the immediate sacrifice of 100 virgins to the god Foobar
> from the planet Kroton.

To answer this question would require knowing whether either the
virgins or Foobar were innately violent, had irrational thought
patterns or represented a distinct threat to either the extropian
philosophy or transhumanity as worthwhile long term goals for
humanity.  Please remember the basis for this discussion was my
assumption of utilitarianism -- i.e. more extropian or transhumanistic
perspective is better than less.  The burden is on you to show
how the preservation of "faith-based" humans rather than
"reasoning-based" humans will be more extropic or transhumanistic
than if we simply return them (perhaps prematurely) to the endless
recycling of atoms (something they are going to be involved in anyway...)

> It is *you* who must provide evidence that our
> response to terrorism (or anything going on in the world right now) will
> require nuclear weapons.

Ok, granted.  Question 1 revolves around whether a strategic use
of nuclear weapons can convince terrorists that they cannot win?
(A subset of this question involves whether the ends justify the
means -- and to date I haven't seen a single person deal with this
in way that can be evaluated.)

Question 2 revolves around the question of *what* in the blazes
do people with extropic or transhumanistic perspectives do with
all of the people who have historic/faith-based (i.e. not-rational)
perspectives?

Those are the questions I would like to resolve.

Robert



From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Fri Jun 25 04:15:22 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:15:22 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <BED95FD0-C65B-11D8-B3F3-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>
	<BED95FD0-C65B-11D8-B3F3-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <40DBA6DA.6050103@paradise.net.nz>

J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> The only reason the Palestinians and Israelis can afford to fight is 
> because we bankroll both of them

Is 'we' the US? I wasn't aware anyone was bankrolling the Palestinians.

It certainly would be interesting to know what would happen if Isreal's 
funding were stopped. They wouldn't be able to spend so much on defence and 
wall building (oh yes, and moat building of course).
But that's yet another matter we shouldn't be wasting our time on.


From trichrom at optusnet.com.au  Fri Jun 25 04:13:46 2004
From: trichrom at optusnet.com.au (RobKPO)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:13:46 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com><40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>
	<BED95FD0-C65B-11D8-B3F3-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <000601c45a6b$159bd070$d2e2a4cb@turtle>


> On Jun 24, 2004, at 8:20 PM, paul.bridger wrote:
> > If you really want to solve the US problem with terrorism, change the
> > cause. US foreign policy is the cause. Obviously.
>
The problem with current terrorism seem's to be a result of the Cold War
global game. Unfortunatly it gave ppl all around the world access to modern
weapons and an insight into just how poor they really were (by way of
comparison with US or Soviet basing). In the case of anti-western radical
Islam, they seem to have a big problem with simply having non-followers
'only' located in their countries.....

I guess US foreign policy cant be as ruthless as Russian foreign policy in
regards to exposure to foreign nation's during the Cold War. Just a shame
lil Hitler's had to rise up from those places, which seems today to be the
root of terrorism.

Considering the outcome of the Cold War, I can't really fault the broad US
policy during those times - in light of the USSR's expansion.

RobKPO



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 03:21:59 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406242000570.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, paul.bridger wrote:

> If you really want to solve the US problem with terrorism, change the cause.
> US foreign policy is the cause. Obviously.

Paul -- I will not hesitate to agree that U.S. Foreign Policy is problematic.
If I review U.S. history over the last 1.5 years it looks like the State Dept.
had many more correct calls than the Defense Dept. (even taking into account
when the State Dept. was being mislead by inaccurate intelligence information).

*But* your statement asserts that "US foreign policy is the cause".
I would assert that irrational thought patterns that are imbedded in
individuals in Arab/Muslim countries are the source of at least a
major part of the problem (these are explained in greater detail
in Friedman's essays in the NY Times regarding the madrassas).

One could extend the discussion to politicians in Latin or South
American countries who view graft as an acceptable part of the
political process in this discussion.  But politicians in Latin
or South American are not (generally) currently engaged in
violence which may terminate the lives of potentially extropic
or transhumanistic individuals.

I find it hard to believe you can blame U.S. foreign policy for
all of the problems that corrupt mind sets of individuals
around the world.  It seems much more probable that one is
dealing with simple human traits like greed or ambition.
Many of the people planting bombs in the Sunni triangle
in Iraq don't care about U.S. foreign policy.  They simply
only care about their own personal power.

So to sell the "obviously" point you need to (at least IMO)
throw more meat on the table.

Robert




From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Fri Jun 25 04:24:09 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:24:09 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241922480.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241922480.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DBA8E9.7060508@paradise.net.nz>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
 > Question 1 revolves around whether a strategic use
> of nuclear weapons can convince terrorists that they cannot win?
> (A subset of this question involves whether the ends justify the
> means -- and to date I haven't seen a single person deal with this
> in way that can be evaluated.)
> 
> Question 2 revolves around the question of *what* in the blazes
> do people with extropic or transhumanistic perspectives do with
> all of the people who have historic/faith-based (i.e. not-rational)
> perspectives?

Q1. If you are correct that the terrorists are irrational, then an argument 
based on reality (such as nuking a city) can not convince them.

Q2. Ignore them.


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jun 25 04:32:52 2004
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:32:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <40DBAAF4.7050008@jefallbright.net>

Robert J Bradbury wrote:

> Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
> discussion.
>
> e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
> e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
> Nuke Jerusalem.
> e.g. For Sudan
> Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.
>
> No debate, no long drawn out discussions, no attempting to
> come to terms.  Its either "Stop the violence or suffer
> the consequences".  (And in this case the group with the
> bigger stick wins).


Robert -

I admire your integrity for posting this kind of difficult question as 
you have in the past.  It challenges people to confront their reflexive 
disgust with the idea, and by doing so, likely grow in the process.

It seems we have something of a precedent, with the bombing of Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki, and it is interesting that I can assume some who react in 
disgust to your proposal have come to terms with those mass killings of 
Japanese as being an effective utilitarian solution that saved a 
significant number of American lives.  It is also interesting to note 
that the lives of the Other were heavily discounted in relation to the 
value of the lives of the Self-group.

Of course, the human animal being what it is, past events are more 
easily rationalized, and future-oriented difficult moral choices are 
most often decided by means of evolved feelings of right and wrong 
rather than cold hard utilitarian facts.

But even the most detached utilitarian argument rests ultimately upon a 
value system.

If we were tribes of intelligent reptiles with nuclear weapons, it may 
well be that the obvious and universally agreed "right" choice would be 
to destroy the enemy (and eat any that remained twitching.)  There would 
be no moral compunctions and no drawn out discussions -- the "right" 
answer would be clear and obvious.

But we are not reptiles.  We are social mammals that generally feel 
revulsion at the thought of killing anyone that we see as similar to 
ourselves.  And we've recently gotten to the point where we can easily 
see other tribes (even other species) as similar to ourselves, and 
worthy of respect, except, for example, when overridden by fear.

The generally accepted correct answer, of course, is that it would be 
wrong to do what you propose, because we would not like what we had 
become by doing such a thing.  But this answer is easily overcome by the 
extropian viewpoint that we must go beyond the limitations of our 
evolved nature.

So let's try a more enlightened approach to the question.

Framed as an absolutely utilitarian question, just as in the iterated 
prisoner's dilemma, the obvious rational answer would be to defect and 
drop the bombs.  But just as in that game-theoretical situation, 
something seems amiss, because both sides lose when such harsh logic is 
evaluated in such a limited context.

We could point to a likely counter-example:  The Cold-War posed the same 
question as you raise, and there were leaders who argued strongly for 
the same "solution" of catastrophic destruction of the Other while we 
could.  Wiser (in my opinion) voices prevailed and argued that while 
risky, we could expect the enemy structure to collapse under the weight 
of its internal contradictions.  It did, and looking back, this seems to 
have been a positive course of events.

Humanity is just now on the verge of waking up to the fundamental nature 
of cooperation at all levels of complexity.  The benefits of synergy and 
cooperation are not part of the first-order thinking that currently 
predominates, but they appear to be universal and pervasive and evident 
in the non-zero sum interactions that constitute long-term progress.

I don't have time to attempt an persuasive argument right now, and I 
realize many people consider these words mush-brained and mystical, but 
the enlightened answer to your question is that if you destroy the 
Other, you greatly reduce the opportunities available to Self.

I expect that the repressive and isolated geopolitical entities that you 
mentioned will collapse under the weight of their internal 
contradictions too, and We (the more inclusive we) will experience 
greater growth from the process.

- Jef


















From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Fri Jun 25 04:35:36 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:35:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DBA6DA.6050103@paradise.net.nz>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<40DB99FE.7070709@paradise.net.nz>
	<BED95FD0-C65B-11D8-B3F3-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
	<40DBA6DA.6050103@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <1A25F583-C661-11D8-B3F3-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 24, 2004, at 9:15 PM, paul.bridger wrote:
> Is 'we' the US? I wasn't aware anyone was bankrolling the Palestinians.


Yes, 'we' is the USA, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars 
for the Palestinians.  And billions to the Israelis (though we actually 
get some benefit from the Israeli money).  How else do you think Arafat 
acquired the billion or so dollars he has in his foreign bank accounts?

Neither could do what they do if it weren't for the fact that we give 
them a large portion of their total economic output (if you can call 
welfare "economic output").

j. andrew rogers



From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Fri Jun 25 04:46:12 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:46:12 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406242000570.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406242000570.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DBAE14.3030509@paradise.net.nz>

To explain more fully what I meant by the 'Obviously' thing:
The US has a problem with how a part of the world ("the terrorists") 
interacts with it (flying planes into buildings, RPGing occupying troops 
etc.). It seems self-evident to me that the only influence the US has on the 
behaviour of people elsewhere in the world is in how it behaves with respect 
to those people, ie. foreign-policy.

Now that I am looking more closely at my statement, I am wishing I had said 
something more interesting.

 > Many of the people planting bombs in the Sunni triangle
 > in Iraq don't care about U.S. foreign policy.

I thought these people wanted the US to leave. US presence is a result of 
their foreign policy.


Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, paul.bridger wrote:
> 
> 
>>If you really want to solve the US problem with terrorism, change the cause.
>>US foreign policy is the cause. Obviously.
> 
> 
> Paul -- I will not hesitate to agree that U.S. Foreign Policy is problematic.
> If I review U.S. history over the last 1.5 years it looks like the State Dept.
> had many more correct calls than the Defense Dept. (even taking into account
> when the State Dept. was being mislead by inaccurate intelligence information).
> 
> *But* your statement asserts that "US foreign policy is the cause".
> I would assert that irrational thought patterns that are imbedded in
> individuals in Arab/Muslim countries are the source of at least a
> major part of the problem (these are explained in greater detail
> in Friedman's essays in the NY Times regarding the madrassas).
> 
> One could extend the discussion to politicians in Latin or South
> American countries who view graft as an acceptable part of the
> political process in this discussion.  But politicians in Latin
> or South American are not (generally) currently engaged in
> violence which may terminate the lives of potentially extropic
> or transhumanistic individuals.
> 
> I find it hard to believe you can blame U.S. foreign policy for
> all of the problems that corrupt mind sets of individuals
> around the world.  It seems much more probable that one is
> dealing with simple human traits like greed or ambition.
> Many of the people planting bombs in the Sunni triangle
> in Iraq don't care about U.S. foreign policy.  They simply
> only care about their own personal power.
> 
> So to sell the "obviously" point you need to (at least IMO)
> throw more meat on the table.
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 


From matus at matus1976.com  Fri Jun 25 04:46:40 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:46:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DB941A.6040507@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <000001c45a6f$6b8b0880$6801a8c0@GREYBOOK>

> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer Yudkowsky
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:55 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
> 
> I'll just chime in to say that Robert Bradbury is out of his freaking
> mind.
>   No grasp on reality.  Maybe if we just go on saying that every time
he
> proposes mass murder, he'll eventually stop it.
> 
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/


Of course Robert seems to be using the exact same argument that led to
the use of Nuclear weapons to end World War II.  Kill a lot of people
now to save a heck of a lot more later.  I don't see anyone even trying
to challenge his points.  Consider the Normandy invasion cost almost
50,000 lives of allied, German, and civilians.  The invasion force
consisted of 160,000 men.  The planned invasion of the Japanese mainland
would exceed that of the Normandy invasion, which has been the largest
in history.  Best allied estimates suggested nearly 100,000 allied
casualties.  Hirohito had been militarizing his civilian population
since the time the war took a down turn for Japan, and was preparing
every civilian for hand to hand combat and resistance.  Dropping the
Atomic bombs in Japan not only saved a lot of allied troops lives but
saved a lot more Japanese civilians lives as well. Yet it was not until
after the firebombing of Tokyo after both atomic bombs were dropped that
Japan surrendered. If atomic bombs existed before WWII started and one
was dropped on Berlin at the start of Hitlers mad expansionism it could
be argued that some 50(?) million lives would have been saved.  There
were nearly 100,000 deaths at the invasion of Okinawa, 90,000 of which
were Japanese. Okinawa was only to be the launching point for the
Japanese mainland invasion.

While I am no utilitarian and don't endorse Robert's suggestion, his
motivation is to prevent as many deaths as possible (or more accurately
prevent as many human-year losses as possible) while everyone else's
motivation appears to be to avoiding having to make tough decisions
about things which may have drastic consequences.  What would his
critics have suggested Eisenhower do to end WWII?  Let the Japanese
mainland alone?

Michael




From ramseyk at uci.edu  Fri Jun 25 04:43:39 2004
From: ramseyk at uci.edu (Kelly M. Ramsey)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:43:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624182542.042fceb0@pop.uci.edu>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241755520.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624204152.052a2a30@pop.uci.edu>

The magnitudes of the 40-50 million and 100 billion numbers aside - I'm not 
familiar with that Jenga game of speculation-stacking, so the best I can 
muster is a skeptical, super Spock-sized raised eyebrow - this moral 
argument doesn't really seem to speak to terrorism. One could probably 
construct a strong case that anti-technology activists (neo-Luddites, 
opponents of stem cell research, etc.) in a position to affect policy and 
research funding in the wealthiest states do far more to delay progress 
than any violence in the impoverished periphery.

If so, the resulting question, then, isn't about how much murder of 
religious radicals in the Middle East is necessary to preserve life in the 
future. It's about how much murder of religious radicals in the West is 
necessary to preserve future life. Nuclear weapons, obviously, would be 
counterproductive, but car bombs, shotguns, and the like would work just as 
well. After all, every stem cell not used in biomedical research is, well, 
a whole bunch of human lives that will never be.

That doesn't take us to a very useful place, does it.

Moreover, assuming that technological development isn't going to stop any 
time soon (compare the 100 year lifespan to the 2000 year lifespan to the 
40,000 year lifespan to the...), the chain never ends. On top of that, 
anyone who isn't 100% on board with total progress is, by this calculus, 
committing mass murder against future generations simply by not doing 
everything possible to fight for life-enhancing technology. Doubt is a 
crime against eternal humanity; all infidels must die.

I really don't like where this "killing as triage" argument leads itself. 
It doesn't sound terribly transhuman or extropic. Quite the reverse.

As for the pragmatic side of the terrorism-specific case, I feel very 
comfortable waiting for empirically-grounded evidence from contemporary 
fields of social study. (And am I the only one reminded of the 
"negotiation" scene in "The Fifth Element"?) Reason alone, particularly 
from amateurs in foreign policy such as myself, solves precious little.


Kelly Ramsey
ramseyk at uci.edu




From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun 25 04:54:28 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:54:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] End of sports as we know them?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406240345110.23257-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <006d01c45a70$855c6b40$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Robert J. Bradbury

> A Very Muscular Baby Offers Hope Against Diseases
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/science/24muscle.html?pagewa
nted=print

>In short apparently if you inactivate one or both of your copies
>of the myostatin gene you end up with increased (stronger) muscles.
Robert


I can think of a very good reason why this mutation has
never spread throughout the genome, which if true, is
bad news indeed for this young boy: the muscles will
surely eventually become stronger than the bones that
support them, or at least stronger than the tendons
that attach the muscle to the bone.

I can foresee the medics attempting to produce 
myostatin to try to save this little guy.

spike








From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 03:58:59 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DB941A.6040507@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406242034430.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> I'll just chime in to say that Robert Bradbury is out of his freaking mind.

Good.  Then I'm reasonably certain we are sitting on the same side
of the table.

>   No grasp on reality.  Maybe if we just go on saying that every time he
> proposes mass murder, he'll eventually stop it.

Now, more seriously, you don't add anything to the discussion.
Is there a value to people who understand the principles of
Bayesian reasoning?  How does that compare with people who
do not understand Bayesian reasoning (but might be converted)?
And finally what is the worth of people who do not and will
never understand Bayesian reasoning (presumably these are the
people operating on faith-based reasoning and are responsible
for the beheadings, rapes, etc. in the difficult social
environments I have previously cited).

More importantly you do not propose conditions under which
"mass murder" is either acceptable or justifiable.  65 million
years ago (according to the best scientific evidence we have)
this planet face a cataclysmic event that wiped out the dominant
species on the planet.  Far worse in terms of its consequences
than limited strategic nuclear strikes.

You do not propose (a) how humanity may survive this -- taking
into consideration that the survival of extropian or transhumanistic
individuals may contribute to such survival; (b) the survival of
irrational individuals may not contribute to the survival (because
they don't care whether or not they survive [in this world]);
(c) how to deal with an Anti-AI backlash -- presumably all
Muslim indviduals would be very doubtful with regard to an
AI (that might contradict their clerics).  And so they would
seek to eliminate such perspectives and/or individuals that
support such perspectives.

(Sorry -- I'm just calling them the way I see them...)

Robert




From gingell at gnat.com  Fri Jun 25 05:05:40 2004
From: gingell at gnat.com (Matthew Gingell)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:05:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241922480.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241922480.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406250051420.18695@nile.gnat.com>

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> Ok, granted.  Question 1 revolves around whether a strategic use
> of nuclear weapons can convince terrorists that they cannot win?

No. It can convince them and countless others that we have lost our minds,
that we rank high among the most psychotic and senselessly vicious powers
in history, and that we must be stopped at any and all costs.

And I think I'd probably be sending them a check.

> (A subset of this question involves whether the ends justify the
> means -- and to date I haven't seen a single person deal with this
> in way that can be evaluated.)

Most of the time the means are the ends. Genocide for a good cause doesn't
seem to be in the phase space of possible human politics.

> Question 2 revolves around the question of *what* in the blazes
> do people with extropic or transhumanistic perspectives do with
> all of the people who have historic/faith-based (i.e. not-rational)
> perspectives?

We can always crash an airplane into them I guess. Maybe that would help
them think more clearly.




From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Fri Jun 25 05:17:03 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:17:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241922480.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241922480.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DBB54F.7070303@cfl.rr.com>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>Greg, you are of course correct.  I am mixing situations.  But you would
>need to take apart the differences between Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the
>Sudan (all of which seem to have Arab/Muslim orientations and sources
>of problems) to make a case that we are not dealing with either
>a Muslim "crusade" (as in: "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal
>and enthusiasm" or desire for a hegemony (as in: preponderant influence
>or authority over others; AKA "Domination").
>
More shifting of burden of proof.

>
>Furthermore you need to then explain why Islam (or any other organized
>religion for that matter) is not fundamentally opposed to extropian
>principles and/or transhumanism.
>
This is a strawman argument.  I make no such claim.  Like most on this 
list I suspect, I am an atheist.  It is one thing to be opposed to 
transhumanism.  It is quite another to be in need of nuking.  If mere 
religious extremism and opposition to TH/Ext ideals justifies mass 
murder I suggest we start by blowing up our own Bible Belt.


>  (If you claim the religions need
>to be modified so be it -- there is a very *long* history of this.
>But you should not be claiming that people acting on the faith of
>their religion and murdering or raping people should be tolerated.)
>  
>
Opposition to mass murder and apocalyptic violence does not equal 
toleration.


>The burden is on you to show
>how the preservation of "faith-based" humans rather than
>"reasoning-based" humans will be more extropic or transhumanistic
>than if we simply return them (perhaps prematurely) to the endless
>recycling of atoms (something they are going to be involved in anyway...)
>
Obviously if you killed every non-TH/Extropian you would have the 
solution.  Or would you.  Oh, damn, we needed some of those people to 
run the factories and keep the lights on in the nano-lab didn't we...



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Fri Jun 25 05:20:17 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:20:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406250051420.18695@nile.gnat.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEIDELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

My 2c addition to this thread is to point out that the only moral way
forward is the libertarian one: to lead by example in the company of those
who want to help. You don't win friends and help to make a better world by
threatening and demonstrating that you can tear things down (literally or
figuratively). To make a better world, you get on with building: those who
want to build - the vast majority of humanity - will join you. Those who
don't wish to build are marginalized in every possible way by this strategy.

To oppose something is to strengthen it. Ignore it in favor of living a
better life and it has no more power.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Fri Jun 25 05:33:25 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:33:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEIDELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEIDELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <40DBB925.1000806@cfl.rr.com>

Reason wrote:

>My 2c addition to this thread is to point out that the only moral way
>forward is the libertarian one: to lead by example in the company of those
>who want to help. You don't win friends and help to make a better world by
>threatening and demonstrating that you can tear things down (literally or
>figuratively). To make a better world, you get on with building: those who
>want to build - the vast majority of humanity - will join you. Those who
>don't wish to build are marginalized in every possible way by this strategy.
>
>To oppose something is to strengthen it. Ignore it in favor of living a
>better life and it has no more power.
>
>  
>
Beautifully said, Reason.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 04:35:51 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DBAAF4.7050008@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406242103380.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Jef,

> It seems we have something of a precedent, with the bombing of Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki, and it is interesting that I can assume some who react in
> disgust to your proposal have come to terms with those mass killings of
> Japanese as being an effective utilitarian solution that saved a
> significant number of American lives.  It is also interesting to note
> that the lives of the Other were heavily discounted in relation to the
> value of the lives of the Self-group.

I do not believe this is completely accurate.  I do believe that in
the debates as to whether or not to drop the bombs there was at least
some if not extensive discussion with regard to the Japanese casualties
in both the bomb approach vs. a conventional sea/land (and conventional
bombing) approach.  I suspect there are books written on this topic.

In short, I think there was at least some consideration of the self-group
vs. the other-group and possible best solutions.  It should be kept in
mind that the "other" group had already implemented "Kamakazi" pilots.
So at least for some of the population it was acceptable to sacrifice
ones life in the hope of victory.

> But even the most detached utilitarian argument rests ultimately upon a
> value system.

Yes...

> But we are not reptiles.  We are social mammals that generally feel
> revulsion at the thought of killing anyone that we see as similar to
> ourselves.  And we've recently gotten to the point where we can easily
> see other tribes (even other species) as similar to ourselves, and
> worthy of respect, except, for example, when overridden by fear.

No debate.  *But* I'm trying to deal with the strategy of how one
best promotes extropian or transhumanistic perspectives....

> The generally accepted correct answer, of course, is that it would be
> wrong to do what you propose, because we would not like what we had
> become by doing such a thing.  But this answer is easily overcome by the
> extropian viewpoint that we must go beyond the limitations of our
> evolved nature.
>
> So let's try a more enlightened approach to the question.

Good.  At least it may ultimately provide us with walls
in which to exercise our thoughts.

> Framed as an absolutely utilitarian question, just as in the iterated
> prisoner's dilemma, the obvious rational answer would be to defect and
> drop the bombs.  But just as in that game-theoretical situation,
> something seems amiss, because both sides lose when such harsh logic is
> evaluated in such a limited context.

Yes -- but I am seeking cost vs. benefit tradeoffs.  And for the most part
extropians and/or transhumanists fail to recognize the "present value"
of their expertise/knowledge base/steering framework/etc.

> We could point to a likely counter-example:  The Cold-War posed the same
> question as you raise, and there were leaders who argued strongly for
> the same "solution" of catastrophic destruction of the Other while we
> could.  Wiser (in my opinion) voices prevailed and argued that while
> risky, we could expect the enemy structure to collapse under the weight
> of its internal contradictions.  It did, and looking back, this seems to
> have been a positive course of events.

Valid points.  Can you point to a structure of internal contradictions
that will doom religious hierarchies (in particular those with violent
orientations) to self-destruction?  (I would rather not take pro-active
action against something which is doomed to self-destruct within a
reasonable timeframe...)

I will not comment on your remaining comments.  I will simply say that
I hope they may be accurate and that you may have opportunity to expand
on them in the future as you view is reasonable.

Robert



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun 25 05:41:15 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:41:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406250051420.18695@nile.gnat.com>
Message-ID: <000001c45a77$0bb1db70$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 
> > Ok, granted.  Question 1 revolves around whether a strategic use
> > of nuclear weapons can convince terrorists that they cannot win?
> 


Oy vey, I dispair every time this grim topic comes up.

Nukes are not the right weapon to use against terrorists,
any more than one would use a shotgun against an ant colony.

With the events of today, it appears that Iraq is charging
toward civil war and utter chaos.  You know that if that
happens, soon Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia will end up 
going down the same road for all the same reasons.  Has
anyone suggestions on how to fix any of this?  Is there
any reasonable hope that a different U.S. foreign policy
would prevent the coming war between the Sunnis and the
Shiites?  I suspect not. 

spike








From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jun 25 06:26:02 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:26:02 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <004401c45a7d$4a0267e0$efbe1b97@administxl09yj>

Robert J. Bradbury: 

> e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.

Messina? In Sicily? Or there is another
one down there?
http://www.italiaplease.com/eng/megazine/giroditalia/2001/07/messina/
Btw, Messina was "muslim", long time ago.

My naive opinion is that there is a general
undervaluation - at least here - of the problems
in Iraq, and in that region.

s.



From humania at t-online.de  Fri Jun 25 07:31:28 2004
From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:31:28 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406242034430.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <007a01c45a86$6f1ac780$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>

The following disgusting and outrageous dialogue is a pure act of egoistic
self defense. Just in case any person I hold in high esteem should ever
discover that I ever participated in any discussions on this list

The real scandal of this thread/threat is that the president of this
organisation did not react within a hour's time announcing she has expelled
Bradbury from the Board and mailing list. No, RB still is a representative
of Extropy!

humania

____________________________________________________________


Oh, Daddy, look at that bright light at the sky! Is it a firebird, is it an
aeroplane, is it a rocket?

No, son, it is famous superman, Robert Bradbury, on his flight to Death
Valley.

How can he possibly fly, Daddy?

Well, some good spirited fellows have constructed a mini nuke for him.

Mini nuke?

Yes, son. They have printed his latest writings for the extropian email list
and then a woman with an olive complexion and an Arabian accent pulled a
paper bag over his head and forced him to masturbate.

Masturbate? What's that?

Be patient, son. You will learn it soon enough. As you know, every human
mini nuke needs cheep fuel and a bright computer. And DNA molecules can be
used as fast computing devices. Man's juice is full of these funny molecules
that can actually calculate the ballistic curves and the correct course
Robert Bradbury will have to maintain on his flight to Death Valley.

And the fuel?

Well, they have rolled up the papers with Bradbury's holy writings, stuck
them into his asshole and shoved them up - deep into the combustion chamber
of his guts.

And then they ignited the rest of the paper, sticking out of his asshole?

Quite correct, son. And as you can see, it works. We had a great blast off,
I can tell you. It is one of the finest events in latest american history:
Mini nuke Robert Bradbury is on his way to Death Valley.



From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jun 25 07:59:32 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:59:32 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<004401c45a7d$4a0267e0$efbe1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <000601c45a8a$5a66a6c0$1fc31b97@administxl09yj>

> My naive opinion is that there is a general
> undervaluation - at least here - of the problems
> in Iraq, and in that region.
> 
> s.

"at least here" means in Italy, not this list :-)
s. 



From amara at amara.com  Fri Jun 25 09:31:13 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:31:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <p05100300bd01a02692d3@[150.146.134.133]>

Reason:
>My 2c addition to this thread is to point out that the only moral way
>forward is the libertarian one: to lead by example in the company of those
>who want to help. You don't win friends and help to make a better world by
>threatening and demonstrating that you can tear things down (literally or
>figuratively). To make a better world, you get on with building: those who
>want to build - the vast majority of humanity - will join you. Those who
>don't wish to build are marginalized in every possible way by this strategy.


I agree. The reputation of the US government is in the mud right now.
Here is yet another anecdotal story of how far it has gone.

A month ago I spent a weekend at a "star party" in the mountains hosted
by the Italian Amateur Astronomy association. A hundred people or so
met in a very sleepy town in the middle of Italy in the mountains
in order to visit a solar telescope, hear a few hours of astronomy talks,
go for hikes at 2000m and stay up all night with ~30 small telescopes looking
at comets, stars, galaxies etc. etc. Very nice.

During that weekend, a friend gave a comet talk where she presented a
summary of comet missions: those presently flying and those in
preparation, including that of NASA's Deep Impact mission (launch in
December 2004). If you are unaware of this mission, it is a 'new
technology' mission testing the ion drive, and other technologies. The
surprising aspect of that mission is that when it goes to the periodic
comet P/Tempel, it will send an impactor into the comet to make a huge
crater, seven to 15 stories deep. Now what about that? I don't like
that aspect of the mission very well, and the Italian amateur
astronomers in the audience didn't like it either. "How can they do
that?!" they said. Other in the audience answered: "Oh it is just like
those Americans to be always wanting to blow things up."

I think the government could do better by demonstrating that it can
build well, instead of the opposite.

Amara

-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"If you wish to drown, do not torture yourself with shallow water."
         --A Bulgarian proverb


From test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu  Fri Jun 25 11:38:08 2004
From: test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 06:38:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <200406250447.i5P4lEn00946@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0406250635410.1762-100000@demedici.ssec.wisc.edu>

> e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
> e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
> Nuke Jerusalem.
> e.g. For Sudan
> Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.

This discussion illustrates a point that is critical for
the extropian and transhumanist movements: our proposals
for remaking the world must respect all humans.

The obvious problem with the proposal to nuke all these
cities is that it does not respect the many innocent people
who would be killed.

If we do not build respect for all humans into our thinking,
then we are giving a powerful argument to those opposed to
extropian and transhumanist ideas. This will also make it
easier for them to define "respect for all humans" in the
terms of ancient religions. If we respect all humans, then
we will have more power to define what that means.

Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hibbard, SSEC, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI  53706
test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu  608-263-4427  fax: 608-263-6738
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/vis.html



From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Jun 25 14:51:54 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:51:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEIDELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406250051420.18695@nile.gnat.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040625074448.02e2b050@mail.earthlink.net>

At 10:20 PM 6/24/04 -0700, Reason wrote:

>My 2c addition to this thread is to point out that the only moral way
>forward is the libertarian one: to lead by example in the company of those
>who want to help. You don't win friends and help to make a better world by
>threatening and demonstrating that you can tear things down (literally or
>figuratively). To make a better world, you get on with building: those who
>want to build - the vast majority of humanity - will join you. Those who
>don't wish to build are marginalized in every possible way by this strategy.


"only only moral way forward is the libertarian one..."  For goodness 
sakes, this is another slam-dunk "I'm right and you are wrong." sensibility 
that aggravates people.

A hell of a lot of people share this world view.  I dare say that they are 
not libertarian.  So then, if you claim that libertarians, and not other 
political dogmas, claim this world view, isn't that hypocritical and stated 
to say "I'm better than you" ?

Natasha




From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Fri Jun 25 16:26:30 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:26:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040625074448.02e2b050@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406250051420.18695@nile.gnat.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040625074448.02e2b050@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <40DC5236.5030907@smigrodzki.org>

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> At 10:20 PM 6/24/04 -0700, Reason wrote:
> 
>> My 2c addition to this thread is to point out that the only moral way
>> forward is the libertarian one: to lead by example in the company of 
>> those
>> who want to help. You don't win friends and help to make a better 
>> world by
>> threatening and demonstrating that you can tear things down (literally or
>> figuratively). To make a better world, you get on with building: those 
>> who
>> want to build - the vast majority of humanity - will join you. Those who
>> don't wish to build are marginalized in every possible way by this 
>> strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> "only only moral way forward is the libertarian one..."  For goodness 
> sakes, this is another slam-dunk "I'm right and you are wrong." 
> sensibility that aggravates people.
> 
> A hell of a lot of people share this world view.  I dare say that they 
> are not libertarian.  So then, if you claim that libertarians, and not 
> other political dogmas, claim this world view, isn't that hypocritical 
> and stated to say "I'm better than you" ?

### Aside from the strong forms of moral relativism, most moral beliefs 
include a conviction about their own relative superiority - after all, 
why would anybody hold a belief if not because it's better than others?

Of course then, if you are a libertarian, you will hold that the only 
moral way is the libertarian way - as I indeed believe, too. This is 
however substantially different from saying "I'm better than you" - 
indeed, the core of libertarian thinking is the deepest humility towards 
others, an unwillingness to force our views on them. We are not better, 
even if our views are the only moral way.

Rafal


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 25 14:40:46 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:40:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Need Help with Website Urgently!
Message-ID: <177510-220046525144046177@M2W097.mail2web.com>

Can anyone help ExI central with a website issue?  Email me at
natasha at natasha.cc.  There is the blooper page that needs a little
programming skill for memberships.

Thanks!

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 25 14:46:36 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:46:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <113980-220046525144636942@M2W103.mail2web.com>


From: Rafal

> "only only moral way forward is the libertarian one..."  For goodness 
> sakes, this is another slam-dunk "I'm right and you are wrong." 
> sensibility that aggravates people.
> 
> A hell of a lot of people share this world view.  I dare say that they 
> are not libertarian.  So then, if you claim that libertarians, and not 
> other political dogmas, claim this world view, isn't that hypocritical 
> and stated to say "I'm better than you" ?

### Aside from the strong forms of moral relativism, most moral beliefs 
include a conviction about their own relative superiority - after all, 
why would anybody hold a belief if not because it's better than others?

*Perhaps this is the problem with the world -:)

Of course then, if you are a libertarian, you will hold that the only 
moral way is the libertarian way - as I indeed believe, too. This is 
however substantially different from saying "I'm better than you" - 
indeed, the core of libertarian thinking is the deepest humility towards 
others, an unwillingness to force our views on them. We are not better, 
even if our views are the only moral way.

* If your way is better than my way just because you are a libertarian,
then I'd have to say that you think you are better than me.  If not, I'll
take that pill that Damien suggested to Robert.

Best,
Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 25 15:31:35 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:31:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <184670-220046525153135347@M2W076.mail2web.com>


From: Rafal


>Of course then, if you are a libertarian, you will hold that the only 
>moral way is the libertarian way - as I indeed believe, too. This is 
>however substantially different from saying "I'm better than you" - 
>indeed, the core of libertarian thinking is the deepest humility towards 
>others, an unwillingness to force our views on them. We are not better, 
>even if our views are the only moral way.

"Libertarianism does not concern itself with morality. To the contrary,
libertarianism is probably best understood as being inherently
non-judgmental: it intentionally rejects the making of moral judgments.
Whereas a given libertarian may have a code of ethics - while he or she may
have an understanding of good versus evil - libertarianism itself has no
code of ethics and refuses ever to have one. This does not imply that all
libertarians are amoral, though some libertarians are averse to making
moral judgments. To the contrary, libertarianism is amoral primarily so as
to make itself compatible with a wide variety of ethical codes and
political ideologies: by refusing to align itself with any particular code
of ethics, libertarianism conflicts with few."


What I really like about this is the proposed "objective" of reasoning of
libertarianism.  This certainly makes it a more aptly futuristic ideology
in regards to self-responsibility and not blaming problems on others or
other political ideologies.  I think the central problem with the
Democratic party and American Democrats (*not people for democracy,* which
is not owned by the Democratic party or Democrats), is that it seems to
perpetually blame others for social problems.

Best,
Natasha


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Fri Jun 25 15:46:31 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:46:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <009101c45acb$98f96a80$17a77ad5@oemcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
To: "Extropy Chat" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:50 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies


>
> Basic contention the "war on terrorism" is failing because
> we (in the west) do not recognize that it is a war by a
> "worldwide Islamic insurgency".  (This echos some of the
> comments by Friedman in the NY Times.)
>
> Now I know some of you are going to dislike the following
> (probably intensely) so do not bother to send the list
> (or myself) hate mail for bringing it up.  It is my job
> (IMO) to think outside the box.
>
> One currently sees people being kidnapped and beheaded,
> suicide bombings, etc. in the name of either various
> religions, political causes related to religions
> (e.g. Sunni vs. Shiite, Jews vs. Palestinians) or
> race/tribe (Sudan: Arabs (Janjaweed) massacre/rape black
> Africans in Darfur, Rawanda, etc.)
>
> Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
> discussion.
>
> e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
> e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
> Nuke Jerusalem.
> e.g. For Sudan
> Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.
>
> No debate, no long drawn out discussions, no attempting to
> come to terms.  Its either "Stop the violence or suffer
> the consequences".  (And in this case the group with the
> bigger stick wins).
>

I think there's several different arguments rolled into one here.

(a) The main one is to pose the question "What to do about people who have
an 'irrational mindset' (e.g. belief in one of the major monotheistic
religions) and who may be able to substantially delay or even halt
intellectual and scientific development?" My response is firstly, that there
is such a problem, inasmuch as the historical record shows a tendency for
the formation of blocking coalitions that seek to stop systematic
innovation, for a variety of reasons (see Joel Mokyr's "Gifts of Athena" for
this) and religious groups and their arguments play a major part in this.
Secondly that the proposed solution would not work and would in fact be much
more likely to spread the idea that advanced science and technology is
evil/blasphemous/too dangerous to have. There are several other responses.
One is to deny that such groups are a significant threat. I tend to hold
this position but only so long as we have a world of competing sovereign
units. Otherwise it is very likely that anti-progress coalitions will
capture any political machinery and use it to limit innovation. Another is
to argue for propaganda and persuasion, using the medium of popular culture
in particular. Yet another is to try and achieve some 'critical'
breakthrough that would make the entire question moot.

(b) A secondary question is the specific problems of one part of the world
and the way these problems threaten to have substantial knock-on effects
throughout the world, not least a measurable hindering of intellectual and
scientific progress. The area we're talking about is essentially the Middle
East, Central Asia, and Africa north of the Sahara. Why is this a world
problem, rather than a regional one? The case is not similar to that of the
Soviet Union. That was a large and powerful state, which disposed of
substantial resources. Even if all of the territories in this region were
united into one political entity it would not have any significant resources
(the combined GDP of this area is miniscule compared to that of the US, EU
or Japan) - with one significant exception. This part of the world matters
to everyone else because of oil. The obvious response  is to put a lot of
effort into finding alternatives to petroleum products. The other reason for
this part of the world having such significance is its religious importance
for the three monotheistic religions (hence the link to the first argument).
Would destroying the Holy Places of these religions solve the problem? I
doubt it vey much, more likely to make things even worse. A better strategy
is surely to campaign much more vigorously for secularism or, if you prefer,
for a rational neo-paganism (I've always thought polytheism makes more sense
than monotheism).  We should also think more creatively about why that part
of the world has such acute problems and how to resolve them. My own view is
that US policy, while not helping, is not the root cause. I personally put
it down to the unique family system of that part of the world.

(c) There's a more general question of what happens once you have technology
and weapons of a certain level of destructiveness, in a complex and hence
vulnerable civilisation. The question begged in Robert's 'proposal' is who
is to do the nuking? One way of thinking is to argue that WMDs should be as
widely available as possible - that's the logical conclusion of deterrence
theory. Another is to argue for some kind of 'enlightened' authority that
would use the threat of such technology to control irrational folks and bad
guys. This was the scenario Heinlein explored in "Solution Unsatisfactory"
and lay behind Bertrand Russell's suggestion for a pre-emptive use of
nuclear weapons by the US to create a world state after 1945 (ie before the
Soviets got nukes). Problem is such a power is most unlikely to be used to
further progress.

My own conclusion is "Don't Panic!". There are problems but we aren't in the
kind of situation that requires us to explore doomsday scenarios like this
one.

PS I have not gone into the moral issues, I'l just say that this shows why
there's something basically wrong with utilitarianism as a moral philosophy.




From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jun 25 16:38:53 2004
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:38:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] $2.4 million for nanotech - but....
Message-ID: <ee50357e040625093853bbc203@mail.gmail.com>

http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2004/06/21/daily30.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Vanderbilt School of Engineering is leading a new $2.4 million,
multi-institutional nanotechnology program funded by the U.S. Army
Research Laboratory to develop improved electronics, sensors, energy
conversion devices and other defense systems.

Initial goals of the program include developing diamond/carbon
nanostructures for biological and chemical sensors, developing a new
energy-conversion device, and developing electron emission devices for
advanced electronics.

---------

I  seem to remember the suggestion has been made here before that nanotech and 
advanced AI would probably be developed first by the military.

Who's up for a Pentagon-Friendly AI? or diamondoid missiles?

BillK


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Jun 25 16:53:24 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:53:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01EBDD@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Instead we are content to sit on our hands and ignore "passive"
> destruction of life which significantly exceeds in all
> probability some planned "active" destruction of life (which some
> so strongly object to).  I.e.  "Oh don't mind me -- I'm just
> guilty of the sins of omission rather than sins of commission...".

You are neglecting a few factors that insure that your proposed
solutions will be never be implemented.

Firstly, *people* are going to have to perform these acts.
Someone has to push the button, and pushing that button would
most likely be percieved as a war crime. It's much harder to
be personally prosecuted for a sin of omission than a sin of
comission.

Simple self-preservation will ensure that those with the 
capability to achieve your solutions will never do so.
It's pretty hard to coverup a gigantic nuclear explosion;
and public opinion world-wide would be massively brought to
bear against someone commiting such an act.

If, given certain knowledge that Hitler (or some other abominable 
historical figure) was going to commit massive genocide, you were 
able to go back in time and assasinate him before he could 
cause any damage [1], would you? Assume that you personally
would be caught, tried, and executed. Would you pull the trigger?

Acy

[1] Neglecting the geopolitical situation at the time, which
might have brought someone equally despicable to power.


From matus at matus1976.com  Fri Jun 25 16:53:54 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:53:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEIDELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <000101c45ad4$ffde45a0$6801a8c0@GREYBOOK>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Reason
> 
> My 2c addition to this thread is to point out that the only moral way
> forward is the libertarian one: to lead by example in the company of
those
> who want to help. You don't win friends and help to make a better
world by
> threatening and demonstrating that you can tear things down (literally
or
> figuratively). To make a better world, you get on with building: those
who
> want to build - the vast majority of humanity - will join you. Those
who
> don't wish to build are marginalized in every possible way by this
> strategy.
> 
> To oppose something is to strengthen it. Ignore it in favor of living
a
> better life and it has no more power.
> 
> Reason
> Founder, Longevity Meme
> 

While your solution seems admirable, I don't think it's the best
solution.  Consider the questions it poses.  Does a libertarian nation
continue to trade with these countries?  In doing so it helps to support
the governments that may be dictatorial, murderous, or sponsoring of
terrorism.  Yet if it does nothing, the millions of people living in
those shitty countries will continue to be oppressed brutally, many tens
of thousands dying.  Is it moral to sit back and do nothing while thugs
murder people because those thugs call the area they happen to have more
guns in the place they call a 'country'?   

The people who live in Burma, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos,
etc. live in the most brutal conditions in the world, and you advocate
'ignoring' them as the way to deal with it?

Michael




From gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com  Fri Jun 25 17:00:00 2004
From: gpropf1 at cfl.rr.com (Gregory Propf)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:00:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040625074448.02e2b050@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406250051420.18695@nile.gnat.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040625074448.02e2b050@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <40DC5A10.4000501@cfl.rr.com>

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

>
> "only only moral way forward is the libertarian one..."  For goodness 
> sakes, this is another slam-dunk "I'm right and you are wrong." 
> sensibility that aggravates people.
>
> A hell of a lot of people share this world view.  I dare say that they 
> are not libertarian.  So then, if you claim that libertarians, and not 
> other political dogmas, claim this world view, isn't that hypocritical 
> and stated to say "I'm better than you" ?
>
> Natasha 


When I read this though I only thought of "libertarian" in the very 
broad sense of "leaving people alone".  The basic principle of not 
initiating violence against the innocent.  I don't think you need to 
adopt the whole libertarian program in order to follow that as a general 
principle.



From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Jun 25 17:03:19 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:03:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01EBE1@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Acy James Stapp wrote:
> and public opinion world-wide would be massively brought to
> bear against someone commiting such an act.

Let my just clarify this by adding

... and public opinion world-wide would be massively brought 
to bear against someone commiting such an act unless there
was a perceived clear and present immediate personal danger 
to the majority of the world population, and a strong and
omnipresent belief among those in power worldwide that your
solutions would be effective.

Acy


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Fri Jun 25 17:14:00 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:14:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <200406250447.i5P4lHn00952@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406250447.i5P4lHn00952@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40DC5D58.4070607@CRNano.org>

Robert Bradbury wrote:
> Yes, and this is why after some thought it seemed reasonable to
> demonstrate that (a) we would nuke Jerusalem; (b) then do it.
> 
> No more Temple on the Mount, no more wailing wall, no more
> tomb of Jesus.  They are all gone.  Kaputski.  If the people
> suggest they will rebuild them we simply suggest we will drop
> another nuke.  I.e. the complete elimination of the historic
> symbols that tie humans to religions that are irrational
> (and more importantly those that promote violence).

This alone demonstrates that your grasp of psychology, sociology, and 
politics is so poor that your proposal should probably be ignored (as 
opposed to criticized).

Two thousand years ago, some anonymous person made one dead body 
disappear.  That was enough to turn a small band of militants into a 
rather successful cross-cultural religion, with many thriving offshoots. 
  Now you propose to obliterate entire landmarks and large numbers of 
associated people?  And you expect the associated spectrum of 
religions/cultures to become *more* sane?

Didn't anyone ever tell you not to create martyrs?  "Historic symbols" 
are merely a reflection of memes--created after the fact.  Destroying 
the physical symbols will only make the memes more virulent.  Think of a 
hydra.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 18:36:09 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <004401c45a7d$4a0267e0$efbe1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406251133120.29067-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, scerir wrote:

> Robert J. Bradbury:
>
> > e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> > Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
>
> Messina? In Sicily? Or there is another
> one down there?
> http://www.italiaplease.com/eng/megazine/giroditalia/2001/07/messina/
> Btw, Messina was "muslim", long time ago.

Sorry, my bad.  There is another Messina but its in S. Africa.

What I had intended to say was "Medina, Mecca, Falluja and Najaf"
(though the spellings on the last two seem to vary quite a bit).

R.



From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun 25 18:59:46 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:59:46 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] crosslinking the >H blogosphere
Message-ID: <20040625185946.GI12847@leitl.org>


I think it would be worthwhile to mutually crosslink our existing blogs, to
get more Googlejuice and >H meme exposure as a result.

If any of you blog, or intend to, please send me the URLs (preferrably, of
RSS feeds), and I'll summarize to the list.

Given the recent unfortunate IIS/IE interaction (there's a worm infecting
Microsoft IIS servers to serve infected documents to Microsoft IE browser
cruising the Net right now), I'd like to plug the piping hot Mozilla-based 
browser suite.

Firefox 0.9 (use the Pinball theme) and Camino 0.8 (Mac OS X) are really
purty. There are also extensions, like RSS newsreader panels:
<http://fls.moo.jp/moz/rssreader.html> and others which make reading RSS feeds
a lot more enjoyable. Firefox 1.0 should be next to perfect.

For those who live within their mail clients, there's rss2email

	<http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/rss2email/> 

So for those of us who can't be bothered to poll a zillion of distributed
resources, there's a way to automate that, and serialize the result for your
viewing (ah! a bright, shiny object!) pleasure.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040625/a6981f32/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 19:25:32 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <009101c45acb$98f96a80$17a77ad5@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406251153300.29067-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


The response from Steve Davies was very good and along the
lines of what I was looking for (i.e. reasons why my
proposed solution was probably flawed).

I would tend to agree with him that the problem is not
so bad (yet) that such extreme solutions are a good idea.
However there is fallout due to the problem (e.g. the
Supreme Court recently ruled that if a police officer
requests your name you must provide it and the whole
host of violations of freedom/privacy involved in the
Homeland Security Act(s)).

So as a result of the behavior of these radicals we
(at least in the U.S.) are losing rights (justified
on the basis of protecting ourselves).  There are
extended consequences (harder for foreign students
to get VISAs to study in the U.S. -- so much so that
many have given up trying -- net result decreased
personpower for the U.S. creative industrial base and
therefore delayed nanotech, biotech and infotech
development rates -- impacting negatively *most*
of the things people on the Extropians care about...).

I am using the problem of people with irrational beliefs
and how one deals with them (getting people to change
beliefs is a *very very* hard problem) as a lead in
into the potential problem of what happens if they
decide that people with extropian or transhumanistic
perspectives should be subjected to the beheading
ritual (or worse the bring back the concept of impalement).
They have tended to pick targest on a random (workers
in foreign countries) or symbolic (the WTC) basis.
What happens when they decide we actually represent
a threat?

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 20:16:18 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01EBDD@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406251240030.29067-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Acy James Stapp wrote:

> If, given certain knowledge that Hitler (or some other abominable
> historical figure) was going to commit massive genocide, you were
> able to go back in time and assasinate him before he could
> cause any damage [1], would you? Assume that you personally
> would be caught, tried, and executed. Would you pull the trigger?

If I had reasonable certainty that the alternative future
paths would be unlikely to be worse than the current probable
future path then the answer would of course be yes.

I value a good chance at an increased extropic future higher
than I value my own life.  (This is where Daimen's comments
about the pills may come into play...).  I hope however that my
priorities are dictated by rational thought based on sound
scientific evidence and will lead to an improved quality of
life here on Earth -- not in some fantasy based hereafter
the existence of which cannot be proven.  [This is at least
in part what would distinguish myself from the current crop
of Islamic terrorists...]

In the cases of Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
I would certainly have intervened (if I had sufficent
knowledge of what was taking place) long before the
numbers got into the tens of thousands to millions
range.  It would be unextropic to tolerate such
a massive extinction of human life as they were
responsible for (IMO).

And as a side note... Google turned up [1] which suggests
that the Rwanda problem had its roots in German and/or Belgium
political or governance policies...

Robert

1. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rwanda/etc/cron.html



From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Jun 25 20:51:56 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:51:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01EBF6@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Acy James Stapp wrote:
> 
>> If, given certain knowledge that Hitler (or some other abominable
>> historical figure) was going to commit massive genocide, you were
>> able to go back in time and assasinate him before he could
>> cause any damage [1], would you? Assume that you personally
>> would be caught, tried, and executed. Would you pull the trigger?
> 
> If I had reasonable certainty that the alternative future
> paths would be unlikely to be worse than the current probable
> future path then the answer would of course be yes.
...
> In the cases of Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
> I would certainly have intervened (if I had sufficent
> knowledge of what was taking place) long before the
> numbers got into the tens of thousands to millions
> range.  It would be unextropic to tolerate such
> a massive extinction of human life as they were
> responsible for (IMO).

I'd have to respectfully disagree. The current U.S. administration
has already caused more than ten thousand direct civilian deaths 
in Iraq [1], not to mention any future deaths from loss of 
infrastructure, depleted uranium poisoning, and other war-related
causes, and the casualties of almost one thousand American and 
coalition soldiers. Not that I'm recommending any sort of 
armed action against the current administration, but 
there *is* a non-marginal chance that civilian deaths
could reach the hundreds of thousands range in this conflict,
and if you were true to your word you would be actively
working to remove the current U.S. administration from power
by any means necessary, including violent means.

But, the chaotic nature of human sociology makes it impossible 
for any human, government, or organization to predict the 
final outcome of your proposed actions. While I certainly 
believe in taking risks for the advancement of humanity, 
the fact is that there is no way to accurately forecast 
the long-term repercussions of any large-scale social or 
military action of the type you suggest; or even of a 
small-scale action such as the removal of the American
head of state.

You almost certainly believe that you can save more lives
in the long run by not taking violent action against the
current leader of the country and being incarcerated. So
do I, and so do most other extropians. The uncertainty of
results balanced against the extreme personal risk means
that only the rarest (and most insane by current standards)
would actually take such a risk (instead of just talking
about it).

Acy (dancing around the point so I don't get a visit from 
any federal agents).

[1] http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


From megaquark at hotmail.com  Fri Jun 25 21:21:31 2004
From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:21:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01EBDD@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <BAY9-DAV89SOFAFgNhh00012660@hotmail.com>

I read that Robert proposed this as the utilitarian solution. Did he ever
claim it as HIS personal solution?





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Acy James Stapp" <astapp at fizzfactorgames.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies


> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> > Instead we are content to sit on our hands and ignore "passive"
> > destruction of life which significantly exceeds in all
> > probability some planned "active" destruction of life (which some
> > so strongly object to).  I.e.  "Oh don't mind me -- I'm just
> > guilty of the sins of omission rather than sins of commission...".
>
> You are neglecting a few factors that insure that your proposed
> solutions will be never be implemented.
>
> Firstly, *people* are going to have to perform these acts.
> Someone has to push the button, and pushing that button would
> most likely be percieved as a war crime. It's much harder to
> be personally prosecuted for a sin of omission than a sin of
> comission.
>
> Simple self-preservation will ensure that those with the
> capability to achieve your solutions will never do so.
> It's pretty hard to coverup a gigantic nuclear explosion;
> and public opinion world-wide would be massively brought to
> bear against someone commiting such an act.
>
> If, given certain knowledge that Hitler (or some other abominable
> historical figure) was going to commit massive genocide, you were
> able to go back in time and assasinate him before he could
> cause any damage [1], would you? Assume that you personally
> would be caught, tried, and executed. Would you pull the trigger?
>
> Acy
>
> [1] Neglecting the geopolitical situation at the time, which
> might have brought someone equally despicable to power.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Jun 25 21:33:27 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:33:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01EBF9@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Kevin Freels wrote:
> I read that Robert proposed this as the utilitarian solution. Did he
> ever claim it as HIS personal solution?

No, however I am interested if he would be willing to make the
personal sacrifice necessary to accomplish the utilitarian solution.

Acy

>> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>>> Instead we are content to sit on our hands and ignore "passive"
>>> destruction of life which significantly exceeds in all
>>> probability some planned "active" destruction of life (which some
>>> so strongly object to).  I.e.  "Oh don't mind me -- I'm just
>>> guilty of the sins of omission rather than sins of commission...".
>>
>> If, given certain knowledge that Hitler (or some other abominable
>> historical figure) was going to commit massive genocide, you were
>> able to go back in time and assasinate him before he could
>> cause any damage [1], would you? Assume that you personally
>> would be caught, tried, and executed. Would you pull the trigger?


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Fri Jun 25 21:42:27 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:42:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <1088199747.10406@whirlwind.he.net>

Acy James Stapp wrote:
> 
> I'd have to respectfully disagree. The current U.S. administration
> has already caused more than ten thousand direct civilian deaths 
> in Iraq [1], not to mention any future deaths from loss of 
> infrastructure, depleted uranium poisoning, and other war-related
> causes, and the casualties of almost one thousand American and 
> coalition soldiers.


This is an argument from a complete lack of perspective.  To address
each point individually:


1.)  Compare the average death rate caused by Saddam's regime over his
career to the rate of civilian and US deaths caused by military
operations since the start of the war.  People would call that an
improvement anywhere else.

2.)  As far as I can tell, infrastructure currently meets and often
exceeds pre-war levels and capabilities in spite of jihadis working
against this.  Iraq's infrastructure was not particularly good prior to
the war and hasn't been for decades, so this wasn't that hard.

3.)  Depleted uranium is a red herring, junk science propaganda for the
most part.  Explain how dumping 40 tons of depleted uranium in the
Middle Eastern desert is worse than the *thousands* of metric tons of
UNdepleted uranium and thorium dumped near US population centers
*annually*.  Look at the long-term medical studies of the US population
centers in question.  I'll sum up for you: 1-2% increase in cancer rates
above normal, attributed almost entirely to the thorium component of the
waste.  A tiny one-time expenditure of depleted uranium in the desert
doesn't even rise above the noise floor, particularly in a country that
has serious problems with nasty organic chemical contamination.


There may be an argument as to whether US foreign policy hurts or helps,
but your arguments are very poorly conceived and appear to be talking
points taken from political propaganda.  They only sound convincing when
taken way out of context.


j. andrew rogers



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Jun 25 22:53:33 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <1088199747.10406@whirlwind.he.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406251542100.1653-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


It would appear that J. Andrew Rogers and Acy James Stapp may have
a bit of a debate going on...

> 1.)  Compare the average death rate caused by Saddam's regime over his
> career to the rate of civilian and US deaths caused by military
> operations since the start of the war.  People would call that an
> improvement anywhere else.

Ok, this can obviously be resolved by hard casualty/death figures.
Let us see them.  If we have to question the sources, then let us do
so.

> 2.)  As far as I can tell, infrastructure currently meets and often
> exceeds pre-war levels and capabilities in spite of jihadis working
> against this.  Iraq's infrastructure was not particularly good prior to
> the war and hasn't been for decades, so this wasn't that hard.

I would disagree that things are up to pre-war levels (based on readings
in the popular press) but things are closer than they were a year ago.
So things are better than they were but still need to bbe improved.

> 3.)  Depleted uranium is a red herring, junk science propaganda for the
> most part.  Explain how dumping 40 tons of depleted uranium in the
> Middle Eastern desert is worse than the *thousands* of metric tons of
> UNdepleted uranium and thorium dumped near US population centers
> *annually*.  Look at the long-term medical studies of the US population
> centers in question.  I'll sum up for you: 1-2% increase in cancer rates
> above normal, attributed almost entirely to the thorium component of the
> waste.  A tiny one-time expenditure of depleted uranium in the desert
> doesn't even rise above the noise floor, particularly in a country that
> has serious problems with nasty organic chemical contamination.

Serious point -- as extropic individuals we should be trying
to evaluate claims on a scientific (logical) basis rather than
an emotional basis.

Robert




From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Jun 25 23:20:29 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:20:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE2923DF@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

I'd like to say that this is proposed as an ethical only.
Obviously the situation is and was far too complex to be solved so simply.
 
Acy
-----Original Message----- 
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Acy James Stapp 
Sent: Fri 6/25/2004 4:33 PM 
To: ExI chat list 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies



	Kevin Freels wrote:
	> I read that Robert proposed this as the utilitarian solution. Did he
	> ever claim it as HIS personal solution?
	
	No, however I am interested if he would be willing to make the
	personal sacrifice necessary to accomplish the utilitarian solution.
	
	Acy
	
	>> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
	>>> Instead we are content to sit on our hands and ignore "passive"
	>>> destruction of life which significantly exceeds in all
	>>> probability some planned "active" destruction of life (which some
	>>> so strongly object to).  I.e.  "Oh don't mind me -- I'm just
	>>> guilty of the sins of omission rather than sins of commission...".
	>>
	>> If, given certain knowledge that Hitler (or some other abominable
	>> historical figure) was going to commit massive genocide, you were
	>> able to go back in time and assasinate him before he could
	>> cause any damage [1], would you? Assume that you personally
	>> would be caught, tried, and executed. Would you pull the trigger?
	_______________________________________________
	extropy-chat mailing list
	extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
	http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
	

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5438 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040625/0050ce64/attachment.bin>

From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Fri Jun 25 23:30:58 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:30:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <1088206258.7221@whirlwind.he.net>

> Ok, this can obviously be resolved by hard casualty/death figures.
> Let us see them.  If we have to question the sources, then let us do
> so.


Various sources put the total number of people murdered within Iraq from
1979-2003 (Saddam's regime) at 300k-1M people, depending on the source
(Google to verify).  The official US government estimates are the lowest
I could find, at 300k, internal Iraqi estimates are highest.  This
covers the systematic killing of the Kurds, the occasional purges of the
Shiites in the south, and routine miscellaneous political executions
around Baghdad.

This gives us a human life burn rate of 12.5k/year using BEST CASE
values for the murder rate of Saddam's regime.

Using the Iraqi Body Count page WORST CASE values, which goes back to
January 2003, we have a human life burn rate of 8k/year.   

So if I stack the deck with the values I use to put Saddam's regime in
the best possible light compared to the US military invasion, Saddam's
regime still comes up at >50% worse.  And the reality is almost
certainly far grimmer.

This also excludes the ~1M killed during the Iran-Iraq war.


j. andrew rogers





From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 26 00:06:53 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624153944.01c1dec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040626000653.19984.qmail@web50710.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points
> for
> >discussion.
> >
> >e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> >Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
> >e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
> >Nuke Jerusalem.
> >e.g. For Sudan
> >Nuke the city with the greatest population of
> prejudiced Arabs.
> 
> Why not put something in the water supply to prevent
some of these more extremist countries from having
children, and eventually we'll eliminate some of their
religious fundementalist fervor, while at the same
time making the world safe for population control. 
That will put a dent into their religious tyrannical
insanity!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 26 00:17:36 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241613080.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040626001736.82820.qmail@web50703.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, one can distance oneself from my remarks or deal
> with
> them with sarcasm or state I'm shielding myself from
> critical
> opinions.  *But*:
> 
> Lets start with:
> Triage: (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
>   Etymology: French, sorting, sifting, from trier to
> sort,
>    from Old French -- more at TRY
>   : the sorting of and allocation of treatment to
> patients and
>   especially battle and disaster victims according
> to a system of
>   priorities designed to maximize the number of
> survivors; broadly
>   : the assigning of priority order to projects on
> the basis of where
>   funds and resources can be best used or are most
> needed
> 
> [Side note -- anyone who does not view the current
> loss of
> human life (on a global basis from a variety of
> sources)
> as a crime of monumental proportions when we are
> almost
> have the technical capabilities of extending human
> lifespan to thousands of years should come visit me
> in Seattle.
> I will be more than happy to whack you in the side
> of the
> head with both large and small books until this
> becomes
> completely clear.]
> 
> Those not responding in a concrete way (because they
> find
> my proposed solutions repulsive or wrong) are part
> of the
> problem and not part of the solution.  You have
> obviously
> *not* been reading Kristoff's editorials in the NY
> Times
> about the situation in the Sudan.
> 
> Sudan/Darfur situation: 180,000 to 1 million people
> displaced
>   (many of whom face starvation).
> Rwanda: 800,000 massacred in 1994
> 
> (I don't recall seeing any discussion on the ExI
> list
> [other than my own] with regard to the Sudan
> situation
> which proposed *solutions*) and I doubt there was
> much
> discussion of the Rwanda situation when it was
> taking place
> a decade ago.
> 
> in contrast:
> Hiroshima: 64,000 deaths.
> Nagasaki: 20,000 to 87,000 deaths (by various
> estimates).
> 
> (And don't even get me started on the 12+ million
> people a
> year dying primarily from hunger [1] -- but the
> "treatments"
> I proposed earlier will not work with *that*
> problem.)
> 
> Point being -- some, many, most (???) list members
> are sticking
> their heads in the sand.  Yes the concept of
> proposing to
> end lives to save lives is repulsive.  But that is
> what triage
> is effectively about.  Those who do not engage in
> the discussion --
> think again -- you are engaged by default.
> 
> We *claim* to value extropian perspectives. 
> Previous comments
> lead me to believe that this implies there is an
> implicit value
> to all human life (better be careful here or we end
> up looking
> like right wing christians and catholics proclaiming
> "thow shalt
> not destroy an embryo or fetus (or other form of
> human life...)".
> Instead we are content to sit on our hands and
> ignore "passive"
> destruction of life which significantly exceeds in
> all
> probability some planned "active" destruction of
> life (which some
> so strongly object to).  I.e.  "Oh don't mind me --
> I'm just
> guilty of the sins of omission rather than sins of
> commission...".
> (Of course we [in the U.S.] went through that to a
> large extent when
> the U.S.  resisted entering WWII -- and of course
> that cost the lives
> of 6 million Jews and ultimately 50+ million lives
> of combatants
> and noncombatants).
> 
> There are costs associated with not doing
> anything...
> (We can see this in the delays in the process of
> developing
> robust molecular nanotechnology for example.)
> 
> Robert
> 
> P.S. Damien... you are probably right -- taking the
> pills
> would be a good idea.
> 
> 1. The Hunger Project, Ending Hunger: An idea whose
> time has come,
>    Praeger, 1985  (and these numbers are almost 20
> years outdated!)
this triage idea is sick in by contemporary standards
as to how humans deal with killings on a massive scale
but still stand the test of reason.  Certainly I get
your sarcasm and see your inevitably simple point that
through inaction we are potentialy seeing more people
die, suffer, and be killed off through
non-intervention.  Sometimes it takes some black humor
to see the light so to speak :-)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sat Jun 26 00:25:16 2004
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:25:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <1088209516.24372@whirlwind.he.net>

 
> I would disagree that things are up to pre-war levels (based on readings
> in the popular press) but things are closer than they were a year ago.
> So things are better than they were but still need to bbe improved.


The press has been aggressively ignoring what has been going on with
regard to infrastructure.  It was at or exceeding pre-war levels by the
beginning of 2004.

Highlights from the latest infrastructure status report (dated 15Jun04)
at export.gov, published by the US DoD:

- Phone subscribers 45% above pre-war levels.
- Internet access is >10 times higher than pre-war.
- Electricity availability greatly exceeds pre-war levels in most of the
country, both in quantity and quality.
- Substantial increase in access to potable water due to overhauls of
existing infrastructure and new construction.
- Medical has improved dramatically, immunizations now at 85% of
children, infant mortality falling sharply, and spending on clinics and
hospitals is integer factors higher than pre-war levels and more widely
available.
- Massive expansion and overhaul of school system, 32,000 teachers
trained, 2500 schools rehabilitated to date.
- Transport is rapidly improving and increasing throughput for sea, air,
and land.  Transport was in a deteriorated state pre-war.
- Improving transport is improving food supplies.
- Unemployment rate is below pre-war levels
- Economy is rapidly improving by a number of metrics


Immediately after the war, the country was in worse shape than pre-war
by most metrics, but that state did not last very long.  The US was very
aggressive about overhauling the infrastructure, and by any reasonable
metric, it is in far better shape than it was pre-war.  Parity with
previous infrastructure appears to have been reached sometime very early
in 2004.

Much of the Iraqi infrastructure was in a dilapidated state pre-war,
especially outside of Baghdad, and the US overhaul is the first serious
maintenance many of these systems have seen in a decade or more.

You'll note that the press doesn't talk about the Iraqi infrastructure
any more.  They lamented how bad it was immediately after the war, and
then never mentioned the massive improvements in it as the months passed.


j. andrew rogers




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 26 00:42:24 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241725330.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040626004224.51337.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
 But I challenge
> you to present
> a case where the path(s) we are currently on will
> *not* require
> the ultimate use of nuclear weapons.
> 
> Robert
> 

          I accept your challenge, Robert. First let
me get one thing straight. You are right that your
solution would be temporarily effective, but the
karmic backlash from us using nukes on holy cities
would destroy everything Amercia stands for. Freedom
of religion for starters. The right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness for another. At that
point, democracy becomes more of a sham than it
already is. We would be even more despised throughout
the world than we are already. And history shows that
it is the fate of all despised tyrants to be deposed.
       A potential alternate path that would
accomplish much the same thing without directly taking
human life or horrifying the moral sensibilities of
billions of people around the world is this:
      Start a "manhattan project" to end the War on
Terror. Take the top scientists from our universities,
put them on a military base in some desert, and give
them one year to come up with one or more alternative
energy sources to oil. The challenge would be to make
it so that the new fuel be easy to synthesize, store,
and allow existing gasoline and diesel engines to
operate on it with a minimum of upgrading. It would be
nice if it was less polluting, but as far as it being
a strategy to defeat terrorists, pollution is
irrelevant.
      Since all the terrorists are funded by the
billions we give to the middle east for their oil and
little else, this would flatline their economies. They
wouldn't be able to afford plane tickets after a
while, let alone WMDs. They would still be free to
practice whatever fundamentalist religion floats their
boat, but they would not have access to the technology
that makes them so dangerous. In essence, I am saying
if they wish to remain in the dark ages socially and
morally, we let them, just take away their toys. Then
they can go back to being bedouins riding camels from
oasis to oasis looking for fresh water again for all I
care.
  

=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Jun 26 00:53:36 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:53:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DC5D58.4070607@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEJAELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


--> Chris Phoenix

> Two thousand years ago, some anonymous person made one dead body
> disappear.  That was enough to turn a small band of militants into a
> rather successful cross-cultural religion, with many thriving offshoots.

Just to be pendantic: there are many cults, but few huge religions. The
success of Christianity can be pinned on the series of charismatic,
competant, successful leaders who built/transformed a minor mystery cult
into the official Roman religion. I don't think it had much to do with the
nature or history of Christianity itself. We could be living in a Mithran or
Orphean western world if the balance of charismatic, competant, successful
leaders had led any one of the myriad other sects, secret societies or
cults.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun 26 01:23:39 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:23:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: oil and strategies
In-Reply-To: <20040626004224.51337.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241725330.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<20040626004224.51337.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040625201642.01b73658@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 05:42 PM 6/25/2004 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:


>Take the top scientists from our universities,
>put them on a military base in some desert, and give
>them one year to come up with one or more alternative
>energy sources to oil. The challenge would be to make
>it so that the new fuel be easy to synthesize, store,
>and allow existing gasoline and diesel engines to
>operate on it with a minimum of upgrading.

Fuel is not all that oil is used for.

Plus: There's a lot of money and political clout in the existing oil 
industry. Some argue that cheap access to reliable supply is exactly what 
motivated the Iraq wars to begin with. Maybe so, maybe not, but the current 
interests aren't going to be happy about any govt program to make them 
irrelevant--unless they're granted a very large piece of the action. I'd 
like to hear some analysis from historically knowledgeable people here, 
such as Steve Davies.

Damien Broderick




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 26 02:00:30 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:00:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <1088209516.24372@whirlwind.he.net>
Message-ID: <000601c45b21$5c63cfb0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> J. Andrew Rogers
...
> 
> You'll note that the press doesn't talk about the Iraqi infrastructure
> any more.  They lamented how bad it was immediately after the war, and
> then never mentioned the massive improvements in it as the 
> months passed.  j. andrew rogers


Ja, but the real test is how they do after the
coalition pulls out next week.  I wish them the
best, but fear the worst.

spike








From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 26 01:59:50 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DB941A.6040507@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040626015950.66397.qmail@web50710.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> I'll just chime in to say that Robert Bradbury is
> out of his freaking mind. 
>   No grasp on reality.  Maybe if we just go on
> saying that every time he 
> proposes mass murder, he'll eventually stop it.
> 
I echo these sentiments Mr. Bradbury is not being very
rational at the moment I'm sure his hubrious will
subside with the realization that more benevolent
strategies such as the SIAI will make this kind of
barbarism obsolete
> -- 
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                         
> http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for
> Artificial Intelligence
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From dfowler282004 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 26 02:06:26 2004
From: dfowler282004 at yahoo.com (devon fowler)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <BED95FD0-C65B-11D8-B3F3-003065C9EC00@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <20040626020626.24037.qmail@web50703.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
wrote:
> 
> On Jun 24, 2004, at 8:20 PM, paul.bridger wrote:
> > If you really want to solve the US problem with
> terrorism, change the 
> > cause. US foreign policy is the cause. Obviously.
> 
> 
> The cessation of all foreign aid would be an
> excellent start.  
> Seriously.
> 
> The only reason the Palestinians and Israelis can
> afford to fight is 
> because we bankroll both of them, giving them a lot
> of free time on 
> their hands.  Same with most of Africa.  Eliminate
> their free spending 
> money and they'll have to spend their time looking
> for a job and 
> working rather than thinking of creative ways to
> cause trouble.
> 
> All those people will have to adjust, but they'll
> come around sooner 
> than later.  As it stands, they don't suffer the
> consequences of their 
> poor behavior.
> 
> j. andrew rogers
> 
This is a much more rational solution that Roberts and
I agree one hundred percent cut the foreign aid and
these people with 'too much time on their hands' will
be forced to deal with impovershiment as a justifiable
and imo reasonable punishment for their bizzarre form
of severe barabarism
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Devon Fowler


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 02:09:41 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: oil and strategies
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040625201642.01b73658@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040626020941.73142.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 05:42 PM 6/25/2004 -0700, The Avantguardian
> wrote:
> >Take the top scientists from our universities,
> >put them on a military base in some desert, and
> give
> >them one year to come up with one or more
> alternative
> >energy sources to oil. The challenge would be to
> make
> >it so that the new fuel be easy to synthesize,
> store,
> >and allow existing gasoline and diesel engines to
> >operate on it with a minimum of upgrading.
> 
> Fuel is not all that oil is used for.
> 
> Plus: There's a lot of money and political clout in
> the existing oil 
> industry. Some argue that cheap access to reliable
> supply is exactly what 
> motivated the Iraq wars to begin with. Maybe so,
> maybe not, but the current 
> interests aren't going to be happy about any govt
> program to make them 
> irrelevant--unless they're granted a very large
> piece of the action. I'd 
> like to hear some analysis from historically
> knowledgeable people here, 
> such as Steve Davies.

Hear, hear.  Besides, who's to say big money won't
just suck up any resources thrown at this while
leaving the problem unsolved, so they can suck up the
next effort too, like they do most other serious
initiatives to address this sort of problem?
Consider why, e.g., it took until now to get serious
private spaceflight.  And fusion power was 50 years
away, 50 years ago; now it's 50 years away.  The
Manhattan Project worked in part because the moneyed
interests were convinced interference wasn't
profitable (insofar as it might cost them the war,
and thus their businesses).


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 26 02:12:58 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:12:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: oil and strategies
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040625201642.01b73658@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000701c45b23$19cdd7c0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> At 05:42 PM 6/25/2004 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> 
> >Take the top scientists from our universities,
> >put them on a military base in some desert, and give
> >them one year to come up with one or more alternative
> >energy sources to oil...
> 
> Fuel is not all that oil is used for.
> 
> Plus: There's a lot of money and political clout in the existing oil 
> industry. Some argue that cheap access to reliable supply is 
> exactly what motivated the Iraq wars to begin with...
> 
> Damien Broderick

Yes to all this, and besides, we need no professors.  The
science is already in place, has been for a long time.  We
know what needs to be done.  To get to energy independence
we just need to build the windmills, the PV farms, grow the
corn.  Right now oil is so cheap and the infrastructure is 
so well developed, the other stuff cannot compete.  

Look a few years into the future of energy technology.  China
is coming up, as is India.  Those nations have over a billion
people each, and they are eager to industrialize to western
standards.  Oil can only get more expensive, which will give
alternate sources a chance.  Truly, we are on the eve of 
construction.

spike


 



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Jun 26 03:21:59 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:21:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] cardinal rule when posting about life extension
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEJCELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

There is a cardinal rule for posting online about life extension / serious
anti-aging medicine that I'd like everyone to think about observing: tell me
( reason at longevitymeme.org ) about it when you do so.

If you've said something sensible, relevant and interesting on the topic,
I'll link to it from the Longevity Meme ( http://www.longevitymeme.org ) or
Fight Aging! (http://www.fightaging.org ). As a result, more people will
read your writing, and you will be better able to contribute to greater
public understanding and support of life extension goals.

There's a growing interlinked network of journalists and bloggers who write
on this topic - think about being a part of it.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sat Jun 26 04:33:30 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:33:30 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...
In-Reply-To: <200406250447.i5P4lHn00952@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406250447.i5P4lHn00952@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40DCFC9A.2010008@CRNano.org>

Michael "Matus" <matus at matus1976.com> wrote:
> While I am no utilitarian and don't endorse Robert's suggestion, his
> motivation is to prevent as many deaths as possible (or more accurately
> prevent as many human-year losses as possible) while everyone else's
> motivation appears to be to avoiding having to make tough decisions
> about things which may have drastic consequences.  What would his
> critics have suggested Eisenhower do to end WWII?  Let the Japanese
> mainland alone?

Perhaps a military historian can explain what would have happened if we 
had tried just that.  Blockade the island, maybe with some bombing, then 
wait until their economy collapsed.  Granted, it hasn't worked on Cuba, 
and it didn't work on Iraq, and North Korea is still defiant.  So maybe 
it wouldn't have resulted in a modernized and cooperative Japan.  But 
would it have been an unworkable strategy from a military point of view? 
   Could we have implemented such a plan back in the 40's?

This may have two answers, depending on whether the Soviet Union decided 
to attack Japan.

Can anyone come up with a new strategy for causing regime and/or society 
change, other than 1) military attack or 2) economic boycott?

Here's one possibility: Drop a large number of small, solar-powered, 
grid-networking computer/communication devices with built-in cameras all 
over the country.  Put Internet portals just outside the borders, and/or 
drop a few satellite links inside.  Instant free press!  How long could 
a repressive regime survive if everyone could document and publish 
everything in real time?  Consider how fax machines changed the dynamic 
of Tiananmen Square.  Rodney King... Vietnam War... heck, all the way 
back to Gandhi in India--he knew how to use the press!

Anyone want to calculate how much it'd cost to build a million of these 
things within five years, including R&D?  Remember that you'll have 
technology 4.5 years better than today's, including OLEDs, inkjet 
circuitry, and polymer solar cells.  And much of the R&D could probably 
come from Open Source and assorted idealist hobbyists.  A good first 
guess might be obtained by plotting a price curve for camera cell phones.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Jun 26 04:58:28 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:58:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [SK] Re: POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
Message-ID: <40DD0274.E530F66F@mindspring.com>

Eddie Izzard, an English transvestite comic, has an enlightening point of view
in this area.  He notes that three major religions all use the same spot for 
their center.  Eddie says we should put each religion into its own region on the
globe.  They need to be separated.  The Christians over here, the Jews over 
there and the Muslims in that area.  I think this is the best solution.  Why are
comics the only source of good political analysis these days?  I have to mention
the Daily Show.  We need to know who we should listen to.

Sincerely from,
Jim R Feliciano

---------------------

Speaking of swiping material... The American comic (and I use the term loosely)
Gallagher came up with this one with respect to nations instead of religions 
back in the very early 70s.  He said that the Germans were always fighting the
French and Russians, but never the Brazilians or Argentines or Chileans, so we
need to move Argentina over where Germany is and put Germany where it's next to
Brazil and Chile.  Might not stop them, but it makes it harder to fight.  Kinda
like your buddies pulling you off the kid in the playground.
 
Ed Tyler


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sat Jun 26 05:12:11 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:12:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <200406241800.i5OI0En09512@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406241800.i5OI0En09512@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40DD05AB.6010204@CRNano.org>

Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> There are those who want to discuss the technology
> (but don't necessarily have a clue about its
> realities), and then there are those who want to
> practice and develop the technology (but suck at
> beating their own drum).  There's a lot going on that
> you don't see if you don't look for it.

Like what?

I doubt it's a matter of being bad at self-publicity--rather, it's that
no one dare admit to working on "nanobots" or even toward them.

>> The problem with being covert is 
>> that it doesn't let us discuss the implications of
>> the technology.
> 
> Some people don't see this as a problem.  [GMOs]
> ....
> Then again, I do wonder what specific benefits are
> sought from a public discussion of the massively
> unknown.  (Beyond just alerting people that technology
> X exists: in truth, while it's not yet developed, it
> can be argued not to truly exist yet.)  

It's not just the public: the more some academics say "nanobots" are 
impossible, the less anyone can talk about what'll happen when 
nanofactories arrive.

And I do think it's important to plan ahead for such powerful technology.

I dislike suggestions that an elite should make decisions for "the 
public" while keeping them in ignorance.  I recognize the truth of "A 
little learning is a dangerous thing."  And I know my dislike of the 
suggestion doesn't mean the suggestion is wrong.  But I really hate to 
see people being blatantly misinformed (as in Whitesides *still* 
spreading the fingers fallacy on BBC).

"Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Chris Phoenix, commenting on my comments wrote:
>> The AIDS problem is a lot more constrained than molecular manufacturing.
> 
> Oh??? Its bad enough that it has a robust system for stealing replication
> resources but it is self-evolving on top of that.  I would hardly consider
> that "constrained" when one is trying to figure out how to stop it...

I didn't say the virus was constrained.  I said that the problem 
(stopping the virus) was constrained.

> I would agree that we could probably have developed simple diamond
> mechanosynthesis by now if a greater amount of attention had been
> focused on it.  I am less confident with respect to the extremely
> varied assembly chemistries that might be required for the parts
> Eric, Ralph & Josh have designed where they make very creative use
> of atoms other than carbon.

I was just talking with Eric about this tonight.  I took the position 
that hydrocarbon-only (Merkle-style) was the way to go.  Eric asserted 
that today's computer resources would be sufficient to design such 
reactions/operations.  Previously, I'd asked Rob Freitas (who's looked 
into whether he thought pure hydrocarbon could implement machines; IIRC 
he said that he hadn't looked into it in detail, but he thought so.

So either way, it should work.

> We shall henceforth call this the Bradbury Ice Cream Sandwich
> analogy for Nanotech Development.  In its short form it can be
> summed up as "we are nibbling around the edges".
> 
> I'm not saying that is good -- I'm just observing that is what
> seems to be taking place.

I'd argue that most of this nibbling work is aimed at eating the 
sandwich rather than making interesting shapes out of it.  It's possible 
that after enough practice eating ice cream creatively, if you'd 
suddenly wanted to impress someone by creating an ice cream sculpture 
with your teeth, you would have found it easier to do.  But there are 
more efficient ways to learn, if you know what the goal is.

> Yes, I would agree that it would be nice to have multiple labs
> focused on real MNT using perhaps each of the 4 or more processes
> we could probably outline to get there (mechanosynthesis, a
> combination of retrosynthesis and organic chemistry, lithography,
> etc.).  But until we have have *real* proof of concept I do not
> see the pressure (either from within the scientific community
> (bottom up?) or from government (top down?)) to make it happen.

I see that as a flaw in the system.

> Could we not have previous examples of this in the history of technology
> development? The one which comes to mind is the time from the development
> of the theories that were the basis of atomic fission to the demonstration
> of the atomic reactor in Chicago to the detonation of the first atomic
> bomb in New Mexico.  But I suspect if we really go back and look at things
> like the airplane or the automobile engine or even the steam engine they
> were relatively long processes.

The A-bomb was theory-limited.  Your other examples were 
technology-limited.  MNT is not technology-limited.  And it's only 
theory-limited because no one has paid attention to it; the theory ghas 
turned out to be surprisingly easy, at least every part I've studied 
(which is a pretty wide sample).  The other limitation is politics. 
Which varies from place to place... which is why I'm so worried about an 
unpleasant surprise one of these years.

>> No... I believe you can start from a different perspective.  Protein
>> engineering is hard, because protein folding is complex.
> 
> Granted -- but three things are combining to mitigate this -- ...
> So protein engineering is on a path towards being much more tractable.

I don't disagree.  But diamondoid engineering was tractable years ago.

>>> Using a different chemistry that maps fabrication to shape more simply would
>>> substantially cut the design cost.
> 
> Granted.  And I've been relatively surprised at the rate at which
> people have been advancing self-assembly and related processes
> towards this.

As I said--the theory turns out to be surprisingly easy as soon as 
anyone looks at it.  I'm currently starting to study (on paper) a 
chemistry that I think is quite promising...

>> I've been told that students are told not even to read the literature in
>> molecular manufacturing.  IIRC this was at Northwestern University.  I
>> strongly suspect it happens elsewhere as well.
> 
> Interesting -- *if* so then you need to launch a strong campaign
> against this -- I can't imagine a class on bioethics (or philosophy
> or history of biology, etc) where one is told to *not* read reasonable
> literature if only to find out why it may be wrong (e.g. Lamarckian
> inheritance).  

Ah, but Nanosystems isn't reasonable literature, it's science fiction 
full of cartoons.

Suppose I could document this... what would the campaign look like?

> Sounds like it is more likely that the profs/admins
> don't want to deal with sticky issues as to where the literature
> is incorrect (which means they would actually have to *read* it).

Yep!  Especially since no one has found a showstopper problem in 
Nanosystems in over a decade...

> I don't think it is *that* huge -- you may be able to get a grant
> from the NSF on the process of rating how the programs are doing.
 >
> Steps I might take are:
> a) Use either the web and/or a call to the NSF to find out what Univs.
>    are being funded (and/or any international centers mentioned in the
>    news).
> b) Determine who the directors are.
> c) If its a Univ. order a course catalog from each school and review
>    it for details about any nanotech programs (or perhaps do this online).
> d) Give a call to the directors and query them about specific courses,
>    course materials, etc.
> 
> Just (a & b) on the web would give people like Devon a significant
> ....Then its a simple task to setup a matrix that people like Devon
> can review.

Yes, this doesn't sound that hard.  But I don't have time, myself. 
Would someone like to do this?  Of course I'd be appropriately cautious 
about putting CRN's reputation behind someone else's grant proposal. 
But we might work something out.

I'll also pass this on to World Care (our umbrella organization, with 
educational mission) and see if they can find someone.  So thanks for 
the idea--it may go somewhere.

Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Interested players such as Chris and Robert might care to review this set 
> of Wired projections from just on 9 years ago:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.08/reality_check.html
> and see how they think things are crystallizing.

The responders were obviously talking past each other.  So I'll just 
say: I expect with pretty high confidence that someone will have a 
nanofactory in less than fifteen years, and that the follow-on 
applications will be like Drexler said (just a few years for even the 
tough problems).

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org




From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Jun 26 07:49:28 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:49:28 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: oil and strategies
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040625201642.01b73658@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241725330.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<20040626004224.51337.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.1.1.1.0.20040625201642.01b73658@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040626074927.GL12847@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:23:39PM -0500, damien wrote:

> motivated the Iraq wars to begin with. Maybe so, maybe not, but the current 
> interests aren't going to be happy about any govt program to make them 
> irrelevant--unless they're granted a very large piece of the action. I'd 

This is precisely why synmethanol is a viable migration pathway to
sustainability. It makes both the fossil fuel and chemical industry happy.
ICUs can run on it, as well as direct methanol fuel cells and reformers
driving hydrogen fuel cells. Domestic coals and biomass can be a source of
synthesis gas, and hydrogen fuel cells also take hydrogen from photovoltaics.
Semiconductor and polymer photovoltaics initially take fossil energy and
fossil organics.

Everybody wins.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040626/04b98fce/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Jun 26 08:08:41 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:08:41 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: oil and strategies
In-Reply-To: <000701c45b23$19cdd7c0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040625201642.01b73658@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<000701c45b23$19cdd7c0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040626080841.GM12847@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 07:12:58PM -0700, Spike wrote:

> Yes to all this, and besides, we need no professors.  The

Nonsense. Organic photovoltaics, fuel cells (the electrolyte and cheap
catalyst), fuel reforming, high-efficiency electrolysis, power electronics,
electric propulsion, biomass-to-methanol conversion, water photolysis and
artificial photosynthesis are all in their infancy. A lot of this will become
feasible due to molecular nanotechnology, so it will need funds, too.

We have totally neglected necessary efforts in R&D for the past 30-40 years.
Things are easier now, but if we don't start *yesterday* we won't be there
within 1-2 generations. I'm going to point and laugh if we'll run into major
market turmoil and energy/resource wars due to peak oil. It's not that any of
this was unpredictable, eh.

> science is already in place, has been for a long time.  We
> know what needs to be done.  To get to energy independence
> we just need to build the windmills, the PV farms, grow the

Semiconductor PV isn't all that great an idea.

> corn.  Right now oil is so cheap and the infrastructure is 

Corn is not a good idea. Sustainable biomass production needs diversity and
sustainability at low energy input. Corn is neither.

> so well developed, the other stuff cannot compete.  
> 
> Look a few years into the future of energy technology.  China
> is coming up, as is India.  Those nations have over a billion
> people each, and they are eager to industrialize to western
> standards.  Oil can only get more expensive, which will give

What will happen, if oil will get more expensive? A lot more expensive?
Suddenly? The very rich and the very poor won't be affected. But the rest of
us (that's a lot actually) will. And kiss the growth goodbye, and source of
necessary funds for R&D. You can't pull out the sustainability rabbit out of
the hat overnight.

> alternate sources a chance.  Truly, we are on the eve of 
> construction.

You could start by voting Bush out of office.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040626/33236930/attachment.bin>

From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Sat Jun 26 08:46:42 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:46:42 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...
In-Reply-To: <40DCFC9A.2010008@CRNano.org>
References: <200406250447.i5P4lHn00952@tick.javien.com>
	<40DCFC9A.2010008@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <40DD37F2.2040104@paradise.net.nz>

Chris Phoenix wrote:
> Michael "Matus" <matus at matus1976.com> wrote:
>> While I am no utilitarian and don't endorse Robert's suggestion, his
>> motivation is to prevent as many deaths as possible (or more accurately
>> prevent as many human-year losses as possible) while everyone else's
>> motivation appears to be to avoiding having to make tough decisions
>> about things which may have drastic consequences.  What would his
>> critics have suggested Eisenhower do to end WWII?  Let the Japanese
>> mainland alone?

> Perhaps a military historian can explain what would have happened if we 
> had tried just that.  Blockade the island, maybe with some bombing, then 
> wait until their economy collapsed.  Granted, it hasn't worked on Cuba, 
> and it didn't work on Iraq, and North Korea is still defiant.  So maybe 
> it wouldn't have resulted in a modernized and cooperative Japan.  But 
> would it have been an unworkable strategy from a military point of view? 
>   Could we have implemented such a plan back in the 40's?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Slaughter_WBlum.html

This article asserts that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukings were not 
anything to do with the end of WWII, but were actually the first phase of the 
cold war.

In other words, Japan was defeated (and had actively attempted to capitulate) 
well before the nukes were dropped.

Paul Bridger



From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Sat Jun 26 10:12:13 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:12:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...
References: <200406250447.i5P4lHn00952@tick.javien.com><40DCFC9A.2010008@CRNano.org>
	<40DD37F2.2040104@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <005b01c45b66$0f72a560$5c737ad5@oemcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "paul.bridger" <paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...


> Chris Phoenix wrote:
> > Michael "Matus" <matus at matus1976.com> wrote:
> >> While I am no utilitarian and don't endorse Robert's suggestion, his
> >> motivation is to prevent as many deaths as possible (or more accurately
> >> prevent as many human-year losses as possible) while everyone else's
> >> motivation appears to be to avoiding having to make tough decisions
> >> about things which may have drastic consequences.  What would his
> >> critics have suggested Eisenhower do to end WWII?  Let the Japanese
> >> mainland alone?
>
> > Perhaps a military historian can explain what would have happened if we
> > had tried just that.  Blockade the island, maybe with some bombing, then
> > wait until their economy collapsed.  Granted, it hasn't worked on Cuba,
> > and it didn't work on Iraq, and North Korea is still defiant.  So maybe
> > it wouldn't have resulted in a modernized and cooperative Japan.  But
> > would it have been an unworkable strategy from a military point of view?
> >   Could we have implemented such a plan back in the 40's?
>
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Slaughter_WBlum.html
>
> This article asserts that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukings were not
> anything to do with the end of WWII, but were actually the first phase of
the
> cold war.
>
> In other words, Japan was defeated (and had actively attempted to
capitulate)
> well before the nukes were dropped.
>
> Paul Bridger

That's not strictly true. The Japanese government and high command was still
divided before the Hiroshima bomb and the the Tokyo firebombing. After that
they did indeed decide to surrender and made approaches, so the Nagasaki
bomb was not 'neccesary'. I don't myself think that impressing the Russians
was the principal motive. It may have been but there isn't enough clear
evidence to come to a definite conclusion about that. Was there an
alternative to invading Japan in 1945? Sure, they could have done what was
done to Germany in 1918-19, allow an armistice and keep up the blockade
until it was impossible for Japan to renew the war. However it was that
historical precedent and its consequences that probably persuaded them not
to go down that route  - there were no 'good' options available really.
Plus, Japan still occupied large areas of SE asia and the British army was
due to attack the Malayan peninsula and Singapore. Most military historians
think now that Mountbatten and his staff had made such a pigs ear of the
planning that there would have been very heavy casualties.




From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Sat Jun 26 11:43:09 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:43:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEJAELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <006301c45b72$d525cc40$5c737ad5@oemcomputer>





>
> --> Chris Phoenix
>
> > Two thousand years ago, some anonymous person made one dead body
> > disappear.  That was enough to turn a small band of militants into a
> > rather successful cross-cultural religion, with many thriving offshoots.
>
> Just to be pendantic: there are many cults, but few huge religions. The
> success of Christianity can be pinned on the series of charismatic,
> competant, successful leaders who built/transformed a minor mystery cult
> into the official Roman religion. I don't think it had much to do with the
> nature or history of Christianity itself. We could be living in a Mithran
or
> Orphean western world if the balance of charismatic, competant, successful
> leaders had led any one of the myriad other sects, secret societies or
> cults.
>
> Reason
> Founder, Longevity Meme
>
 Quite right. I'd add to that though that Christianity benefitted from being
adopted by the Roman state as the official religion. The ultimate example of
a successful 'religious entrepreneur' has to be the Prophet Muhammad.




From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Sat Jun 26 12:06:14 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:06:14 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: oil and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241725330.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com><20040626004224.51337.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.1.1.1.0.20040625201642.01b73658@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <007e01c45b75$fb39b1a0$5c737ad5@oemcomputer>



> At 05:42 PM 6/25/2004 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>
> >Take the top scientists from our universities,
> >put them on a military base in some desert, and give
> >them one year to come up with one or more alternative
> >energy sources to oil. The challenge would be to make
> >it so that the new fuel be easy to synthesize, store,
> >and allow existing gasoline and diesel engines to
> >operate on it with a minimum of upgrading.

Damien Broderick commented

> Fuel is not all that oil is used for.
>
> Plus: There's a lot of money and political clout in the existing oil
> industry. Some argue that cheap access to reliable supply is exactly what
> motivated the Iraq wars to begin with. Maybe so, maybe not, but the
current
> interests aren't going to be happy about any govt program to make them
> irrelevant--unless they're granted a very large piece of the action. I'd
> like to hear some analysis from historically knowledgeable people here,
> such as Steve Davies.
>
> Damien Broderick

This is right. The Manhattan Project is a misleading analogy because that
was a military research project with no immediate economic implications.
Generally speaking interests and groups that benefit from the status quo and
stand to lose from any innovation already exist and are relatively easy to
mobilise. By contrast the groups that would gain from innovation either do
not yet exist or are large and dispersed and so difficult to organise. The
conclusion I would draw is that the more government is involved the less
chance there is of major innovation because it's more likely that the
political decision making process will be nobbled by the established
interests. This can have the unexpected effect of stopping technological
development in one area but diverting it elsewhere. The classic example of
this is when the stagecoach companies in Britain used their lobbying power
to get the Road Traffic Act through Parliament to stop the development of
steam powered road vehicles (it required that any such vehicle be preceeded
by a man with a red flag 40 paces in front of it). The result was the
development of railways as a major form of transport - something that would
almost certainly not have happened otherwise. The other big conclusion I
would draw is the importance of having competing political entities - if the
established interests in one country block change, the capital and
innovative people will simply go somewhere else, to the benefit of the
ruling elite in that state.

Spike commented on Damien's remarks:

Yes to all this, and besides, we need no professors.  The
science is already in place, has been for a long time.  We
know what needs to be done.  To get to energy independence
we just need to build the windmills, the PV farms, grow the
corn.  Right now oil is so cheap and the infrastructure is
so well developed, the other stuff cannot compete.

Look a few years into the future of energy technology.  China
is coming up, as is India.  Those nations have over a billion
people each, and they are eager to industrialize to western
standards.  Oil can only get more expensive, which will give
alternate sources a chance.  Truly, we are on the eve of
construction.

spike

Again this is right. At the moment oil is cheap and accessible enough that
nobody has a sufficiently strong interest in finding an alternative and the
ones we have are not viable. Once this changes (which imo will be very soon,
for the reasons Spike gives) you can expect a sudden shift. I would expect
this to happen in China or Japan initially rather than the US or Europe,
because of the political situation that Damien describes.

As far as oil goes, people always think of it as an energy source. Fair
enough, but it's also our principal cource of complex hydrocarbons. Above
all, petroleum products are vital for modern agriculture. The thing to go fo
for a whole range of reasons is a technology (designed bacteria/algae
perhaps) that will synthesise elements into complex molecules in the way
that plants and organisms do. Quite apart from the oil question this would
have a massive beneficial environmental impact. Humanity's big impact on the
world still comes mainly through agriculture so reducing our need for that
would be a good thing in many ways.

Steve




From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Sat Jun 26 12:21:46 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:21:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406251153300.29067-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <009101c45b78$2686ad20$5c737ad5@oemcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies


>
> The response from Steve Davies was very good and along the
> lines of what I was looking for (i.e. reasons why my
> proposed solution was probably flawed).
>
> I would tend to agree with him that the problem is not
> so bad (yet) that such extreme solutions are a good idea.
> However there is fallout due to the problem (e.g. the
> Supreme Court recently ruled that if a police officer
> requests your name you must provide it and the whole
> host of violations of freedom/privacy involved in the
> Homeland Security Act(s)).
>
> So as a result of the behavior of these radicals we
> (at least in the U.S.) are losing rights (justified
> on the basis of protecting ourselves).  There are
> extended consequences (harder for foreign students
> to get VISAs to study in the U.S. -- so much so that
> many have given up trying -- net result decreased
> personpower for the U.S. creative industrial base and
> therefore delayed nanotech, biotech and infotech
> development rates -- impacting negatively *most*
> of the things people on the Extropians care about...).

I agree with your assessment of the impact and nature of these measures. If
things continue as they are the US is going to suffer very badly in the
market for able graduates and researchers, with considerable long term
effects. However, I don't see that this is the inevitable and unavoidable
result of the situation in the Middle East and all that goes with it. It's
the result of political decisions which were not the only ones possible, to
put it mildly, and which I would argue were not the best advised.

>
> I am using the problem of people with irrational beliefs
> and how one deals with them (getting people to change
> beliefs is a *very very* hard problem) as a lead in
> into the potential problem of what happens if they
> decide that people with extropian or transhumanistic
> perspectives should be subjected to the beheading
> ritual (or worse the bring back the concept of impalement).
> They have tended to pick targest on a random (workers
> in foreign countries) or symbolic (the WTC) basis.
> What happens when they decide we actually represent
> a threat?
>
> Robert

I take this point. Seems to me there are two possible kinds of threat. One
is that of extra-legal, vigilante violence of the kind that animal rights
activists and others have used. The way to respond to that is to use the law
and campaigning/propaganda to build public support. One way of doing this is
to use specific individual cases - these have much more effect in the modern
media than generalised, principled arguments.

The second kind of threat is that large groups such as organised religions
may capture the machinery of the state in one way or another and use it (in
a "Pavane" type scenario) to block change. I don't see that Robert's
solution is going to be of any help here. Apart from arguing and campaigning
against the God-botherers and others (time to revive old style militant
secularism) the key for me is to limit the scope of political power and
above all to ensure that there is still competition between states. I can
see religious groups gaining power in some parts of the world but not
everywhere. Above all, I don't see that being a possibility in China or
Japan.

Steve




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jun 26 14:27:57 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 07:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: Darfur -- dealing with reality
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406260711360.22218-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


The only thing I would add to the following is that it is not
only people in the U.S. (or President Bush) who can do something
about this.

While I'm simply guesstimating because it will probably take
several years for accurate accepted figures to appear (as was
the case with Rwanda) I would guess that the death toll involved
in this situation *will* (because it *is* happening now) be much
greater than any death toll associated with the hypothetical
solutions I recently proposed.

Robert

----------------------
June 26, 2004

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Dithering as Others Die
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

LONG THE SUDAN-CHAD BORDER The ongoing genocide in Darfur is finally,
fortunately, making us uncomfortable. At this rate, with only 250,000 more
deaths it will achieve the gravitas of the Laci Peterson case.

Hats off to Colin Powell and Kofi Annan, who are both traveling in the
next few days to Darfur. But the world has dithered for months
already. Unless those trips signal a new resolve, many of the Darfur
children I've been writing about over the last few months will have
survived the Janjaweed militia only to die now of hunger or diarrhea.

I've had e-mail from readers who are horrified by the slaughter, but who
also feel that Africa is always a mess and that there's not much we can
do. So let me address the cynics.

Look, I'm sure it's terrible in Darfur. But lots of places are horrific,
and we can't help everyone. Why obsess about Sudan?

The U.N. describes Darfur as the No. 1 humanitarian crisis in the world
today. The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates that at
best 320,000 more people will still die of hunger and disease this year or
significantly more if we continue to do nothing.

Moreover, apart from our obligation to act under the Genocide Convention,
acquiescence only encourages more genocide hence the question attributed
to Hitler, "Who today remembers the Armenian extermination?"

Haven't we invaded enough Muslim countries?

The U.S. is not going to invade Sudan. That's not a plausible option.

But we can pass a tough U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing
troops, as well as more support for African peacekeepers. If Germany,
France and Spain don't want to send troops to Iraq, then let them deploy
in Darfur. And we must publicly condemn the genocide.

What good is a speech in the U.N.? Why would Sudan listen?

Governments tend to be embarrassed about exterminating minorities. In
Sudan, a bit of publicity about Darfur coupled with a written statement
from President Bush led Sudan to agree to a cease-fire in April and to
improve access for aid agencies. More publicity prompted it to promise to
disband the Janjaweed raiders.

Sudan lies and wriggles out of its promises, but its genocide is still
calibrated to the international reaction. Likewise, it is still denying
visas and blocking supplies for emergency relief, but pressure has led it
to improve access.

So, Mr. Bush, if a single written statement will do so much good, why
won't you let the word "Darfur" pass your lips? Why the passivity in the
face of evil? You could save tens of thousands of lives by making a
forceful speech about Darfur. Conversely, your refusal to do so is costing
tens of thousands of lives.

If the Sudanese were notorious pirates of American videotapes, if they
were sheltering Mullah Omar, you'd be all over them. So why not stand up
just as forcefully to genocide?

Mr. Bush seems proud of his "moral clarity," his willingness to recognize
evil and bluntly describe it as such. Well, Darfur reeks of evil, and we
are allowing it to continue.

What can ordinary Americans do?

Yell! Mr. Bush and John Kerry have been passive about Darfur because
voters are. If citizens contact the White House or their elected
representatives and demand action, our leaders will be happy to follow.

Readers can also contribute to one of the many aid agencies saving lives
in Darfur. (I've listed some at www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, Posting
489.)

Be realistic. We don't have our national interest at stake in Darfur.

But we do. Sudan's chaos is destabilizing surrounding countries,
especially Chad, which is an increasing source of oil for us. Moreover,
when states collapse into chaos, they become staging grounds for terrorism
and for diseases like ebola and polio (both have broken out recently in
Sudan).

In any case, America is a nation that has values as well as interests. We
betrayed those values when we ignored past genocides, and
we are betraying them again now.

In my last three columns, I wrote about Magboula Muhammad Khattar, a
24-year-old woman struggling to keep her children alive since her parents
and husband were killed by the Janjaweed. Each time I visited the tree she
lives under, she shared with me the only things she had to offer: a smile
and a bowl of brackish water.

Is a cold shoulder all we have to offer in return?




From humania at t-online.de  Sat Jun 26 14:47:59 2004
From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:47:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
Message-ID: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>

The terrorrism thread, RB started recently, demonstrates quite clearly the
degradation of utilitarian thinking, when it is applied to a spongy and
vaguely formulated "philosophy" like the extropian principles. A freaked out
and mentally retarded fascist, named Robert Bradbury, hides his frivolous
and inhuman mind games behind a veil of ugly *rational* thinking, and his
supposedly open-minded followers all get caught in this trap: "Shouldn't it
be possible for free individuals to discuss this topic in a user friendly
context?"

FUCKING NO! If you really think, it should be possible to discuss genocide
in a calm and collective manner, you are already morally lost, and hide your
barbarian persona behind a rational fa?ade.

I deeply despise anybody who thinks he is so cool by actively participating
in this scandalous thread and for giving RB the pleasure of being heard. The
Exi President in her very own naive ignorance and with that unfortunate lack
of sensitivity does not stop this embarrassing thread and does not remove
Nazi RB from the board. And since everybody else on the ExI board remains
silent - no wonder with another reactionary and war supporter as Vice
President -, I will describe the Extropian movement from now on as
a frankly neo-fascist group. And there will be no excuses, since all
participants have this insufferable excessive self-esteem of being hyper
intelligent and therefore should know from slapdash reading Bradbury's
thoughts, that they are dancing to the whistle of a rotten, degraded and
dangerous personality. I will start spreading the news of a new
fascism of global genocide planning rising in the USA under the name of
Extropy. I will warn everybody who is interested in the development of
futurist creativity that Extropy does not have its roots in true humanist
thinking.

Congratulations, Extropians. You have just won a new enemy. His name is:

Hubert Mania







From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sat Jun 26 15:29:01 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:29:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 9, Issue 37
In-Reply-To: <200406260808.i5Q88un26000@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406260808.i5Q88un26000@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40DD963D.9070801@CRNano.org>

From: devon fowler <dfowler282004 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
>> The cessation of all foreign aid would be an
>> excellent start.  
>> Seriously.
> 
> This is a much more rational solution that Roberts and
> I agree one hundred percent cut the foreign aid and
> these people with 'too much time on their hands' will
> be forced to deal with impovershiment as a justifiable
> and imo reasonable punishment for their bizzarre form
> of severe barabarism

If Keith Henson is right, there may well be a practical problem with 
this.  Henson theorizes that sometimes it's good evolutionary strategy 
to fight to lose.  When resources get tight and things look hopeless, 
you don't just go to war; you aim to get yourself killed off so the 
better-off enemy will adopt your women and children.  If this is right, 
the last thing we want to do is to create an economic pinch!

There's a very distinctive mindset in terrorists, rampage killers, and 
'amok' people.  "My life is less than worthless, so I'll kill as many of 
you as I can."  I now wonder whether this mindset is the implementation 
of the suicidal urge that Keith has predicted.  If so, that would 
reinforce the point that we really want to make their lives better all 
the time, not punish them economically.

That doesn't mean we should dump more money on them.  Human psychology 
is complex, and welfare can easily be corrosive, leading to 
dissatisfaction even when the recipient is in no danger of starving. 
But deliberately creating an economic crisis in a region already rife 
with terrorist memes seems like a very risky thing to do.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Jun 26 17:43:11 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:43:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
References: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <003701c45ba5$0dfc8180$d1893cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, June 26, 2004 10:47 AM Hubert Mania humania at t-online.de
wrote:
[big snip]
> Congratulations, Extropians. You have
> just won a new enemy. His name is:
>
> Hubert Mania

It's astounding to see you lumping all Extropians together because of
what Robert Bradbury says (and doesn't do).  Did you think, perhaps,
that some of us are silent because of the bandwidth problems?  Speaking
for myself, I haven't had time to read or join in the discussion.  If
indeed Robert is still advocating genocide to deal with terrorism -- and
this started, IIRC, soon after the 2001 attacks -- then I condemn that
aspect of him.  I also believe that genocide does not arise from
Extropianism per se -- not as understand it.

Of course, there's a wider issue here, which may have been covered by
others on the list, but I'm unaware of it.  This is that you need an
ethical moral basis to condemn genocide.  Sans such a basis, no
condemnation is possible beyond saying, "I personally don't like it."  I
approach this from an Objectivist-Aristotelean basis -- not that that's
the only ethical system compatible with Extropianism or with condemning
genocide.  (Granted, I personally don't like it either, but my point is
getting beyond personal preferences.)  However, I'm not sure a
simplistic utilitarianism can do the job.  In fact, it's my bet that
since utilitarianism per se does not preclude genocide or even killing
innocents -- even in non-emergency cases.

I qualify that with "per se" because utilitarianism is really a broad
collection of ethical stances and not a monolithic system.  I believe a
lot of intellectuals merely adopt it as a cover for their moral
preferences and don't really think systematically about these things.
It gives an easy formula to avoid deep thinking about ethical concerns.

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html

"What a diff'rence a day makes
Twenty-four little hours
Brought the sun and the flowers
Where there used to be rain" -- from "What a Diff'rence a Day Makes" by
Dinah Washington



From amara at amara.com  Sat Jun 26 18:14:42 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:14:42 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] My, they *are* persistent...
Message-ID: <p05100301bd036aa463de@[150.146.134.133]>

It looks like a new-ish SPAM strategy is to send clusters of
monster 1-Mb files to choke the procmail scripts. Score one
for the spammers, I guess. It killed the procmail program
and overloaded the CPU on the machines of my ISP. I honestly
don't know what rate I was receiving spam- my logs show something
like three or four thousand per day with most of that going into
/dev/null. My ISP and I are trying some different things now
for my domain which presently cuts that number down significantly.

Does anyone know what percentage of the Internet mail is
spam now? I am curious. I wouldn't be surprised if it was > 80%.

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
enscarfment n. a food break at the edge of a cliff.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 26 18:07:12 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:07:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <003701c45ba5$0dfc8180$d1893cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <000001c45ba8$68d35450$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> Technotranscendence
> 
> Hubert Mania humania at t-online.de wrote:
> ...
> > Congratulations, Extropians. You have
> > just won a new enemy. His name is:
> >
> > Hubert Mania

If I read carefully between the lines, I might conclude
that Hubert Mania is mildly annoyed with us.

> It's astounding to see you lumping all Extropians together because of
> what Robert Bradbury says (and doesn't do)... Dan

Ja, I didn't see anyone post anything indicating
agreement with Robert's post.  Silence is not to be
confused with tacit assent.

We went thru something like this a couple years ago
in this forum when someone suggested it should be legal
slay one's own children up until some age, perhaps 5 or 10 
years.  Most of us dismissed the notion with the customary
roll of the eyeballs, far too silly to answer.  But I recall 
someone getting upset that we seemed to buy the idea.
Not.

spike







From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 18:28:38 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <20040626182838.43552.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hubert Mania <humania at t-online.de> wrote:
> Congratulations, Extropians. You have just won a new
> enemy. His name is:
> 
> Hubert Mania

Gee, I let a hot thread pile up for a few days 'cause
I don't have time to read it all, and I get a new
enemy out of it?  I know sometimes it feels like my
life goes on without me, but this is a new record.

> If you really think, it should be
> possible to discuss genocide
> in a calm and collective manner, you are already
> morally lost, and hide your
> barbarian persona behind a rational fa?ade.

Any evil is wrong for a reason.  Sometimes the only
way to convince those who think evil thoughts to
change their ways is to explain, logically and
rationally, exactly why their evil is wrong.
Discussing the evil in a calm and collected manner.

Getting emotional about bad things can reinforce your
own morals against them, and can motivate you to take
action...but one needs logic to determine exactly what
the best action is.  Emotion often demands the
quickest, most pleasing solution, but this is
sometimes not the most effective solution (or, indeed,
sometimes at all effective, for instance in the old
saying, "If you teach a critter a lesson in cruelty,
don't be surprised if it learns that lesson").

Getting emotional can also lead one to false
conclusions - for instance, that silence by
listmembers implies any degree of agreement with one
position or another, especially given the demonstrated
history of listmembers sometimes being too busy to
participate in discussion.  (Some of us are trying to
create the future, and at times this leaves us no time
to discuss the future.)


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Jun 26 18:50:29 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] My, they *are* persistent...
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bd036aa463de@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406261149010.25768-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Amara Graps wrote:

> Does anyone know what percentage of the Internet mail is
> spam now? I am curious. I wouldn't be surprised if it was > 80%.

Last number I saw that had some probable accuracy behind it
was > 70% by sometime this summer.  But it is moving target...

R.




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 19:19:46 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <40DD05AB.6010204@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040626191946.70367.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > There are those who want to discuss the technology
> > (but don't necessarily have a clue about its
> > realities), and then there are those who want to
> > practice and develop the technology (but suck at
> > beating their own drum).  There's a lot going on
> that
> > you don't see if you don't look for it.
> 
> Like what?

I'd have to know exactly what you know to pull the
best examples, but for a sampler, check out
http://www.foresight.org/MolecularMachineSymposium/index.html#Topics
- and that's just the stuff organized enough that
there can be a conference about it.

> I doubt it's a matter of being bad at
> self-publicity--rather, it's that
> no one dare admit to working on "nanobots" or even
> toward them.

I've found that a lot of the people working towards
them are finding more immediate applications for the
steps they're working on.  (E.g., a nano robot arm,
independent of sensors and gross positioning and
feedstock and so forth, can still be useful.)
Talking about where the tech might lead is nice, but
talking about what specific benefits your specific
project will deliver brings you money; I do not blame
the people involved for heavily favoring the latter.
(Besides, some of them genuninely haven't thought
through where it could lead - but who cares?  Wait
'til they're done, then build on their results, just
like science has always done.)

> > Then again, I do wonder what specific benefits are
> > sought from a public discussion of the massively
> > unknown.  (Beyond just alerting people that
> technology
> > X exists: in truth, while it's not yet developed,
> it
> > can be argued not to truly exist yet.)  
> 
> It's not just the public: the more some academics
> say "nanobots" are 
> impossible, the less anyone can talk about what'll
> happen when 
> nanofactories arrive.

Those saying nanobots are impossible have, themselves,
been largely silenced by disproof.  Which is why many
of them changed their tune (as I reported a few months
back in my NNI conference report): okay, they're
possible, but *here's a more feasable and more
immediate way to deliver the same benefits*...  (For
varying specific ways, each of which would require its
own research project.  Which, as it so happens to
turn out, they have the capabilities for if funded,
rather than this mysterious "nanobot" initiative that
was perceived to take funding away from their labs.)

Cool thing, turning enemies into allies like that. ^_^

> And I do think it's important to plan ahead for such
> powerful technology.

I would tend to disagree, depending on the exact
meaning of "plan".

> I dislike suggestions that an elite should make
> decisions for "the 
> public" while keeping them in ignorance.

Elite?  No, I meant *no one* makes decisions "for the
public".  It's like libertarianism to government,
only applied to science.

No one, not even a self-appointed "elite", really
knows where this will lead.  (People can make guesses,
and some of those guesses - especially the educated
ones - will turn up lucky, but we can't really tell
exactly which one will turn up correct yet.)  But more
importantly, what is there to "plan" for?  The
knowledge will be created and spread.  We can plan for
some of the aftereffects, trying to make sure most
people have access to this new power (but perhaps not
those who would abuse it the worst), but that
infrastructure is already in place.  We can try to
accelerate its creation; governments and some
companies are already trying that, but more could be
done.  Trying to do much more than that amounts to
assuming one or a few specific guesses absolutely will
turn up correct and planning accordingly, which has
proven to cause problems when the true path of the
future disagrees - slightly or strongly - with the
planned-for path.  Why create trouble like that, when
it can be avoided by simply doing nothing (towards
this end)?

> MNT is not technology-limited. 

I strongly disagree.  The state of the art available
to most researchers in precise placement of varying
types of substances is limited to the 10s of
nanometers range*, and that's a slow and complex
process for any significant volume of end result.  A
few experiments have gotten down to atomic precision,
very slowly and using equipment and/or techniques not
generally available (or widely applicable outside of
the specific experiment, so far as anyone's figured
out and widely published yet).

* I could make an argument from authority here - this
specific manufacturing process is one that I am
currently using, and as far as I can tell I'm at the
bleeding edge of what's possible for structural
synthesis - but I invite anyone who disputes this to
do the same literature search I did.  (In this case,
"literature" includes brochures and Web sites from the
suppliers of equipment and services, i.e. the people
who turn theoretical capability into actual
capability.)

That said, the technology is being developed.  And,
in fact, development of the enabling equipment is
almost the same thing as development of MNT itself.
(Once you have a device that can assemble things at
the atomic level, you have a device that can assemble
things at the atomic level.)  But until it arrives...


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 19:35:42 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...
In-Reply-To: <40DCFC9A.2010008@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040626193542.76720.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> Here's one possibility: Drop a large number of
> small, solar-powered, 
> grid-networking computer/communication devices with
> built-in cameras all 
> over the country.  Put Internet portals just outside
> the borders, and/or 
> drop a few satellite links inside.  Instant free
> press!  How long could 
> a repressive regime survive if everyone could
> document and publish 
> everything in real time?  Consider how fax machines
> changed the dynamic 
> of Tiananmen Square.  Rodney King... Vietnam War...
> heck, all the way 
> back to Gandhi in India--he knew how to use the
> press!
> 
> Anyone want to calculate how much it'd cost to build
> a million of these 
> things within five years, including R&D?  Remember
> that you'll have 
> technology 4.5 years better than today's, including
> OLEDs, inkjet 
> circuitry, and polymer solar cells.  And much of the
> R&D could probably 
> come from Open Source and assorted idealist
> hobbyists.  A good first 
> guess might be obtained by plotting a price curve
> for camera cell phones.

Didn't we discuss this exact plan a month or two
back?  I think it came to about $20 million for, say,
a country the size of North Korea.  Very little R&D
needed: the more advanced PDAs available off the
shelf today meet almost all the needs as is, and there
are solar panel chargers for them also available off
the shelf.  Long range wireless adaptors, too
(satellite, even), if one is concerned about range.
Most of the R&D would be writing software to educate
the peasants (or "uneducated subsistence farmers")
about how to use the device, starting with basic
literacy (not computer literacy, though that comes
later) and concepts like making sure the solar panels
get long periods of sunlight when the PDA runs low on
power.  (This would have to be balanced with something
to make them realize what they have and why it's worth
learning to use.)


From sjatkins at gmail.com  Sat Jun 26 19:51:18 2004
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:51:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...
In-Reply-To: <20040626193542.76720.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040626193542.76720.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <948b11e0406261251478ed63b@mail.gmail.com>

This makes the assumption that a repressive regime gains and keeps
power based primarily on the ignorance and lack of free communication
among the people.   I don't believe this is close enough to the full
story.  In North Korea, for instance, one also needs to account for
the extremely harsh living conditions and economy.  And no, history
does not bear out that this was all the fault of said oppressive
regime.   Some of it actually came from fallout after the Korean war,
various embargos and so on.  Even a people that communicate freely and
have access to outside ideals will not necessarily easily overcome
those conditions or decide they are better off creating an internal
revolution.

It is also quite doubtful that an internal revolution could succeed
and very likely it will not succeed without massive citizen
casualties.   Most of the arms belong to the N. Korean military.  
Unless you are talking military coup, which is seldom less oppressive,
I don't believe dropping a bunch of internet terminal devices will be
a lot of help.   It should also be noted that the same technology
purported to be a cure can be used in other applications for much
greater surveillance and control of the people.

-s

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:35:42 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> --- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> > Here's one possibility: Drop a large number of
> > small, solar-powered,
> > grid-networking computer/communication devices with
> > built-in cameras all
> > over the country.  Put Internet portals just outside
> > the borders, and/or
> > drop a few satellite links inside.  Instant free
> > press!  How long could
> > a repressive regime survive if everyone could
> > document and publish
> > everything in real time?  Consider how fax machines
> > changed the dynamic
> > of Tiananmen Square.  Rodney King... Vietnam War...
> > heck, all the way
> > back to Gandhi in India--he knew how to use the
> > press!
> >
> > Anyone want to calculate how much it'd cost to build
> > a million of these
> > things within five years, including R&D?  Remember
> > that you'll have
> > technology 4.5 years better than today's, including
> > OLEDs, inkjet
> > circuitry, and polymer solar cells.  And much of the
> > R&D could probably
> > come from Open Source and assorted idealist
> > hobbyists.  A good first
> > guess might be obtained by plotting a price curve
> > for camera cell phones.
> 
> Didn't we discuss this exact plan a month or two
> back?  I think it came to about $20 million for, say,
> a country the size of North Korea.  Very little R&D
> needed: the more advanced PDAs available off the
> shelf today meet almost all the needs as is, and there
> are solar panel chargers for them also available off
> the shelf.  Long range wireless adaptors, too
> (satellite, even), if one is concerned about range.
> Most of the R&D would be writing software to educate
> the peasants (or "uneducated subsistence farmers")
> about how to use the device, starting with basic
> literacy (not computer literacy, though that comes
> later) and concepts like making sure the solar panels
> get long periods of sunlight when the PDA runs low on
> power.  (This would have to be balanced with something
> to make them realize what they have and why it's worth
> learning to use.)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 19:52:05 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406251153300.29067-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040626195205.78445.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> I am using the problem of people with irrational
> beliefs
> and how one deals with them (getting people to
> change
> beliefs is a *very very* hard problem) as a lead in
> into the potential problem of what happens if they
> decide that people with extropian or transhumanistic
> perspectives should be subjected to the beheading
> ritual (or worse the bring back the concept of
> impalement).
> They have tended to pick targest on a random
> (workers
> in foreign countries) or symbolic (the WTC) basis.
> What happens when they decide we actually represent
> a threat?

"They" being terrorists and the like, I already make
that assumption.  I will not travel to much of the
world, out of a suspicion that my life would be in
significant danger due to my beliefs and what I
practice.  There is, of course, some minimal danger
even in industrialized countries, but it is far less
here than elsewhere.

There is also the factor of convenience.  The WTC was
a giant symbol in one place.  Foreign workers in their
countries happen to be close by.  But even if
Al-Quaeda decided tomorrow that all Extropians were
its top target, we are both dispersed and remote;
attacking even one of us would require significant
resources, and attacking enough of us to make a
difference (to say nothing of succeeding in said
attacks) would be so far beyond their means that they
know it and are extremely unlikely to try it.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 19:56:37 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <40DC5D58.4070607@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040626195637.98206.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> Robert Bradbury wrote:
> > Yes, and this is why after some thought it seemed
> reasonable to
> > demonstrate that (a) we would nuke Jerusalem; (b)
> then do it.
> > 
> > No more Temple on the Mount, no more wailing wall,
> no more
> > tomb of Jesus.  They are all gone.  Kaputski.  If
> the people
> > suggest they will rebuild them we simply suggest
> we will drop
> > another nuke.  I.e. the complete elimination of
> the historic
> > symbols that tie humans to religions that are
> irrational
> > (and more importantly those that promote
> violence).
> 
> This alone demonstrates that your grasp of
> psychology, sociology, and 
> politics is so poor that your proposal should
> probably be ignored (as 
> opposed to criticized).
> 
> Two thousand years ago, some anonymous person made
> one dead body 
> disappear.  That was enough to turn a small band of
> militants into a 
> rather successful cross-cultural religion, with many
> thriving offshoots. 
>   Now you propose to obliterate entire landmarks and
> large numbers of 
> associated people?  And you expect the associated
> spectrum of 
> religions/cultures to become *more* sane?
> 
> Didn't anyone ever tell you not to create martyrs? 
> "Historic symbols" 
> are merely a reflection of memes--created after the
> fact.  Destroying 
> the physical symbols will only make the memes more
> virulent.  Think of a 
> hydra.

...which, I'll say again, has left me wondering why
the terrorists themselves have not yet taken this
step, using a stolen suitcase nuke.  They already see
the world as against them, including the current
occupiers of said sites.  Why not deny The Enemy of
their religious sites, while your own side gains the
Holy Crater, which people must keep a respectful
distance from for centuries to come lest God give them
radiation poisoning?


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Jun 26 20:08:56 2004
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:08:56 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] My, they *are* persistent...
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bd036aa463de@150.146.134.133>
References: <p05100301bd036aa463de@150.146.134.133>
Message-ID: <ee50357e04062613087f6284af@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:14:42 +0100, Amara Graps wrote:
> 
> It looks like a new-ish SPAM strategy is to send clusters of
> monster 1-Mb files to choke the procmail scripts. Score one
> for the spammers, I guess. It killed the procmail program
> and overloaded the CPU on the machines of my ISP. I honestly
> don't know what rate I was receiving spam- my logs show something
> like three or four thousand per day with most of that going into
> /dev/null. My ISP and I are trying some different things now
> for my domain which presently cuts that number down significantly.
> 

If you have a spam attack inflicted on you, my recommendation is to 
use MailWasher to filter your mail.
<http://www.mailwasher.net/>
MailWasher can be set to auto-delete spam at the ISP, so you never download it.
If you temporarily set MailWasher to check every two minutes and
auto-delete, you should be safe until the attack is over.

Lots of provisos, of course. It runs under Windows, the spam filters
have to be trained, it might delete an important mail in error, etc.

A similar procedure can probably be done using other software.

BillK


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 20:17:35 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...
In-Reply-To: <948b11e0406261251478ed63b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040626201735.59990.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:
> This makes the assumption that a repressive regime
> gains and keeps
> power based primarily on the ignorance and lack of
> free communication
> among the people.   I don't believe this is close
> enough to the full
> story.  In North Korea, for instance, one also needs
> to account for
> the extremely harsh living conditions and economy. 
> And no, history
> does not bear out that this was all the fault of
> said oppressive
> regime.   Some of it actually came from fallout
> after the Korean war,
> various embargos and so on.  Even a people that
> communicate freely and
> have access to outside ideals will not necessarily
> easily overcome
> those conditions or decide they are better off
> creating an internal
> revolution.

This is all true, however, it ignores that a freely
communicating people can start to change things.
Soldiers coming to raid your farm for food that you
had planned to sell so you could send your kid to
school?  Once they're gone, warn your neighbors, and
the soldiers mysteriously find less produce in the
surrounding farms...and perhaps a bit of produce winds
up on your farm's doorstep the next day.  Oh, and
there's these foreign guys who want to hear all about
it so they can discuss it with the higher-ups who deny
that raiding you is standard, if unofficial, policy
for compensating their goons and are wondering why
some of their goons quit government service to look
for more profitable jobs.  And then there's these
other guys who've come up with tricks and techniques
so you can produce more produce...

You don't need an internal revolution to destabilize
a repressive regime.  You just need the repression to
become less effective, perhaps until it's effectively
little more than what happens in Western societies.
At that point, regime change can be nearly bloodless.

> It should also be noted that the
> same technology
> purported to be a cure can be used in other
> applications for much
> greater surveillance and control of the people.

If remanufactured and reprogrammed, yes.  But that
takes resources these regimes typically don't have,
and until their governments acquire such (which
process usually involves the regime formally stepping
down anyway), this does not seem to be a realistic
concern.  There's a reason the PDAs have to be brought
into the country in the first place.


From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Jun 26 20:25:25 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:25:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <F5171AF1-C7AE-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 24, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> Ok, [1] looks to be interesting as a publication by someone
> from inside the CIA as an "anonymous" author.
>
> Basic contention the "war on terrorism" is failing because
> we (in the west) do not recognize that it is a war by a
> "worldwide Islamic insurgency".  (This echos some of the
> comments by Friedman in the NY Times.)


It isn't unless folks like you (and those with power who agree with 
you) push it hard enough as being such.   If you talk blithely about 
blowing up holy sites of religion X then you had better believe the 
people practicing religion X will en masse see you as the Great Satan.

>
> Now I know some of you are going to dislike the following
> (probably intensely) so do not bother to send the list
> (or myself) hate mail for bringing it up.  It is my job
> (IMO) to think outside the box.
>

It is also your job to be a responsible rational human being.  Let us 
see if you succeed in that.

> One currently sees people being kidnapped and beheaded,
> suicide bombings, etc. in the name of either various
> religions, political causes related to religions
> (e.g. Sunni vs. Shiite, Jews vs. Palestinians) or
> race/tribe (Sudan: Arabs (Janjaweed) massacre/rape black
> Africans in Darfur, Rawanda, etc.)
>

One also currently sees the US having invaded Iraq for spurious reasons 
and behaving quite abominably (including torture).    One sees Israel 
on a rampage of oppression of its Palestinian sub population using 
equipment paid for by the US.   Is it really all that surprising that a 
lot of Arab people are extremely upset and that some of them are not 
above employing terror in response?   Does one need to posit some mass 
Islamic war against the West to understand the events of the day?

> Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
> discussion.
>
> e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.

This is utter moral depravity of the worse sort!   This is far, far 
worse than terrorism.  It is destroying the holy sites of a religion 
because some terrorists happen to practice that religion and partially 
use their interpretation thereof to justify their actions.   From a 
"utilitarian" pov such an action would lead to nothing but much worse 
and vastly more justified hatred of the US/West and far worse violence. 
   If the US committed such an act I would take up arms against it 
myself!

> e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
> Nuke Jerusalem.
> e.g. For Sudan
> Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.
>

Is the extent of your vast reasoning powers to nuke the hell out of 
anyone that bothers you?  Do you dare pretend to be the voice of 
reasoned or dispassionate discourse with such hideous and utterly 
immoral "talking points"?

This is not the first time you have practiced such literally krap 
spewing onto this list.  It has been addressed before with various 
levels of patience, alarm, reaction, reason and so on.  Apparently you 
have refused to learn a damned thing.


> No debate, no long drawn out discussions, no attempting to
> come to terms.  Its either "Stop the violence or suffer
> the consequences".  (And in this case the group with the
> bigger stick wins).
>

What of our own violence and the violence of those we support in that 
region?   Is our violence ok because we wield he biggest stick?


> Of course, this could be done "creatively" so as to
> minimize cost in terms of human lives (i.e. you drop
> a nuke in a non-populated zone 100 miles from the
> target a few weeks in advance of date one drops it on
> the target).  But there are advantages and disadvantages
> to this approach.
>
> Now, I don't want to see a long drawn out discussion as to
> why this is wrong.  It is fundamentally the problem that
> parents must deal with when their children are behaving in a
> way that is either harmful to themselves or harmful to others.
> If it is clear that the problem cannot be corrected through
> normal methods of feedback is it necessary to eliminate the
> causes for the misbehavior or make it clear that the
> consequences for misbehavior will be very severe.

You sound precisely like the terrorist that you claim your "solutions" 
are a reasonable answer to.

>
> In particular I would like to see reasoned and/or analytical
> arguments that above approach would or would not result in
> a) A greater loss of humanity than proceeding along the path
>    we are currently on (some convoluted combination of
>    negotiation and intervention on a case by case basis where
>    the criteria [depending upon the country] seem to be highly
>    variable.]

You have not started with remotely reasoned or extropic or humane 
suggestions.  So why would I wish to argue the point according to some 
twisted notion of rationality that allows you to propose such in the 
first place while feigning innocence?   You are proposing mass 
slaughter and genocide against a world religion.   This is not 
something I consider in the realm where reasoned discussion is 
possible.


>
- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Jun 26 20:35:24 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:35:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241613080.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241613080.7399-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <59B885CE-C7B0-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 24, 2004, at 5:19 PM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> Ok, one can distance oneself from my remarks or deal with
> them with sarcasm or state I'm shielding myself from critical
> opinions.  *But*:
>
> Lets start with:
> Triage: (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
>   Etymology: French, sorting, sifting, from trier to sort,
>    from Old French -- more at TRY
>   : the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and
>   especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of
>   priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors; broadly
>   : the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where
>   funds and resources can be best used or are most needed

It is not triage to simply nuke all the patients!

>
> [Side note -- anyone who does not view the current loss of
> human life (on a global basis from a variety of sources)
> as a crime of monumental proportions when we are almost
> have the technical capabilities of extending human
> lifespan to thousands of years should come visit me in Seattle.
> I will be more than happy to whack you in the side of the
> head with both large and small books until this becomes
> completely clear.]
>

So you propose crimes of more monumental proportions as a "solution".  
Then you expect to not be considered highly twisted and perhaps utterly 
morally depraved?


> Those not responding in a concrete way (because they find
> my proposed solutions repulsive or wrong) are part of the
> problem and not part of the solution.  You have obviously
> *not* been reading Kristoff's editorials in the NY Times
> about the situation in the Sudan.
>

You are part of the problem!  You propose mass murder against those who 
use murder to fight for what they believe in.  You propose destroying 
the centers of a religion because a few adherents practice terrorism.   
By that logic you would also nuke most of the western powers including 
the US.    Stop being defensive about your position and look honestly 
with more than your overly disassociated brain at what you are 
proposing.

>
>
> Point being -- some, many, most (???) list members are sticking
> their heads in the sand.  Yes the concept of proposing to
> end lives to save lives is repulsive.  But that is what triage
> is effectively about.  Those who do not engage in the discussion --
> think again -- you are engaged by default.


It is you with your head in the sand.  You cannot bear to see that the 
most monstrous piece of evil nonsense proposed recently came from you.  
   Your ravings will not save you from other people seeing precisely 
what you are doing.   Your seeming inability to see it and modify your 
behavior accordingly will lead to those who do see it acting toward you 
accordingly.

- samantha



From scerir at libero.it  Sat Jun 26 21:37:51 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:37:51 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406251133120.29067-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <003001c45bc5$d5412dc0$abb51b97@administxl09yj>

It is a long story. 'Ottomans', muslims, were
here, exactly here in the Adriatic Sea (or lake),
and they were terrible! But ...

Lepanto, Oct. 7, 1571.
Naval battle between the Christians and Ottomans
fought at the mouth of the Gulf of Patras, off
Lepanto, Greece. The fleet of the Holy League
commanded by John of Austria (d. 1578) opposed
the Ottoman fleet under Ulu? Ali Pasha.
The allied fleet (about 200 galleys, not counting
smaller ships) consisted mainly of Spanish, Venetian,
and papal ships and of vessels sent by a number
of Italian states. It carried approximately 30,000
fighting men and was about evenly matched with
the Ottoman fleet. The battle ended with the virtual
destruction of the Ottoman navy (except 40 galleys,
with which Ulu? Ali escaped). Approximately 15,000
Turks were slain or captured, some 10,000 Christian
galley slaves were liberated, and much booty was taken.
The victors, however, lost over 7,000 men.
Among the allied wounded was Cervantes, who lost the use
of his left arm. Lepanto was the first major Ottoman
defeat by the Christian powers, and it ended the myth
of Ottoman naval invincibility. It did not, however,
affect Ottoman supremacy on the land, and a new Turkish
fleet was speedily built by Sokollu, grand vizier
of Selim II. Nevertheless, the battle was decisive
in the sense that an Ottoman victory probably would
have made the Ottoman Empire supreme in the Mediterranean.


      Don John's hunting, and his hounds have bayed-
      Booms away past Italy the rumour of his raid.
      Gun upon gun, ha! ha!
      Gun upon gun, hurrah!
      - G. K. Chesterton, 'Lepanto'
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/leppoem.htm

The naval battle, maps, etc.
http://www.nafpaktos.com/battle_of_lepanto.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/lepanto3.htm






From ramseyk at uci.edu  Sat Jun 26 22:24:41 2004
From: ramseyk at uci.edu (Kelly M. Ramsey)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:24:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
References: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040626142538.0428d850@pop.uci.edu>


>I deeply despise anybody who thinks he is so cool by actively participating
>in this scandalous thread and for giving RB the pleasure of being heard.

Including yourself? No, that can't be right. An operational definition of 
"actively participating" must be embedded in the statement, then. This 
appears to be more a reaction to _how_ people are responding than the fact 
of response itself.

This is outrage over methods. Some people expressed their opinions, perhaps 
with the insight of past experience, with appalled dismissals. Other people 
attempted to pick apart either the moral case or the practical case in an 
effort to argue that both lead to absurdly counterproductive conclusions. 
Still other people attempted to guide discussion in directions they thought 
more useful. None of this was agreement; it was disagreement, differently 
proposed.

People who agree with one, but who go about _talking about things_ 
differently, make a poor choice of enemies. People who disagree with one 
often make a poor choice of enemies, too; it seems more useful to challenge 
the facts and attack the idea, not the person.

>The Exi President in her very own naive ignorance and with that 
>unfortunate lack
>of sensitivity does not stop this embarrassing thread

Outside of basic, mutually agreed-upon controls (language, relevance, 
length, etc.), limiting the topics and discussions of a forum would feel 
rather "fascist" to me. Also, by this standard any movement, organization, 
or list manager who doesn't step in instantly to quash talk outside the 
party platform would be inept, hypocritical, and/or disloyal to the cause. 
This is a recipe for ideological lockstep, polarization, and groupthink.


Kelly Ramsey
ramseyk at uci.edu




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 22:33:45 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
In-Reply-To: <005c01c45a5f$193d3090$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040626223345.21934.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> No.  The military was well aware of the risks of
> planes
> being used as bombs before 2001.  I was at an
> engineering
> conference in 1995 where it was discussed, along
> with some 
> other classic soft points in our infrastructure,
> such as 
> subways.

It can be difficult to say that a large institution
like "the military" is or is not definitely aware of
any given thing.  You were at a conference where some
people in the military discussed this topic.  Does
that mean the people who planned the defense of the US
in 2000 took this factor into account?

It's likely that Homeland Security is aware of the
risk of, say, someone sending a shipping container
with a nuclear bomb inside through the larger ports,
but does this mean they are aware of every possible
vector for smuggling nukes?  Someone could cross the
Atlantic in a powerboat with a suitcase nuke, claim to
be headed for some small private pier, head up the
Potomac, and detonate well within range of the White
House.  (Okay, they're probably on the lookout for
that in D.C., but what about other major cities?  Or
minor ones or uninhabited beaches - land, transfer to
a car or unpack a motorcycle, and drive off?)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 23:02:57 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040626230258.94971.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> In particular I would like to see reasoned and/or
> analytical
> arguments that above approach would or would not
> result in
> a) A greater loss of humanity than proceeding along
> the path
>    we are currently on (some convoluted combination
> of
>    negotiation and intervention on a case by case
> basis where
>    the criteria [depending upon the country] seem to
> be highly
>    variable.]
> b) Provide the most rapid path to a
> posthuman/transhuman world.
>    [In particular I am thinking along the lines of
> the simple
>    elimination of humans that cannot engage in
> rational thought.
>    Harsh I know.  Biased and prejudicial I know.  In
> contrast to
>    my normal perspective that every human has the
> possibility of
>    improving themselves *I KNOW*.]

Well, if you're going to take that bias (which I
disagree with, but let's grant it for sake of
argument) - you'd be using up a lot of resources among
the people who can think rationally to deal with this.
Moral shriekfests et al would suck up a lot of
bandwidth for some time to come, probably at least
through the expected date of Singularity.  Quite a lot
more bandwidth, in fact, than is presently being used
to deal with the situation.  It would also utterly
fail to address the situation: the "non-thinkers"
near but outside the blast radius would begin to more
actively oppose the thinkers, thus consuming more of
their resources (including lives).  Therefore, this
action would not in fact speed the coming of a
posthuman/transhuman world, nor would it save lives in
the long run.

There are other reasons to oppose nuking the area, but
the specific reasons you're looking for are there too.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 26 23:07:33 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241022430.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040626230733.93794.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> And while I'm on the topic, lets consider Space Ship
> One.
> While its current launch and return location doesn't
> present
> much of a risk, consider it being launched someplace
> further
> to the east (lets say in Maryland).  Wealthy
> passengers
> buy a seat, wait until it finishes its trip to
> 100km, then
> remove the pilot (no passenger-pilot barriers
> currently
> in this plane), then pilot it down to 50,000 feet
> (probably
> still above the capabilities of Air Force
> planes/missles),
> then point it at the capitol building and let it
> free fall.
> I am doubtful that we would have the capability to
> intercept or divert it.  (The military must be going
> bonkers over the potential problems with private
> access
> to space...  Either that or their heads are in the
> sand
> just like they were with the idea that planes could
> be
> used as guided bombs.)

FAA requires analyses of proposed flight plans to
prevent precisely that scenario - albeit if it happens
by accident rather than by sabotage.  (They don't
directly care why it would happen, just that the craft
could possibly go that way.)  If there's a large
enough risk, you don't get to fly.  Try to take off
anyway and you'll likely be arrested before you can
set up at the spaceport, or shot down if you do take
off.


From sjatkins at gmail.com  Sun Jun 27 00:59:50 2004
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:59:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
In-Reply-To: <20040626223345.21934.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040626223345.21934.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <948b11e040626175958066276@mail.gmail.com>

It can be especially difficult to say what an institution was aware of
when all evidence as to what was known by military personnel and
others is dismissed as maybe not being known to all in the military. 
We can dither over what the "institution" did or did not know to no
real gain at all.   But it is undeniable that using planes as flying
bombs has been a known possibility at least since the kamikaze attacks
of WWII.   This possibility was  publicly disgusted in the first WTC
bombings in the 90s, memos from foreign intelligence operators warned
us an attack was coming, on what (probability) and from air,  memos
have come out that the possibility was discussed before 911 by the
Bush administration and so on.   So when any official spokesperson for
the US military or for the administration says no one knew such a
thing was a possibility it is inescapable that the person speaking is
a liar or uninformed to the point of incompetence to hold their
position.

Making excuses at this point is a mug's game. 

-s


On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:33:45 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> --- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > No.  The military was well aware of the risks of
> > planes
> > being used as bombs before 2001.  I was at an
> > engineering
> > conference in 1995 where it was discussed, along
> > with some
> > other classic soft points in our infrastructure,
> > such as
> > subways.
> 
> It can be difficult to say that a large institution
> like "the military" is or is not definitely aware of
> any given thing.  You were at a conference where some
> people in the military discussed this topic.  Does
> that mean the people who planned the defense of the US
> in 2000 took this factor into account?
> 
> It's likely that Homeland Security is aware of the
> risk of, say, someone sending a shipping container
> with a nuclear bomb inside through the larger ports,
> but does this mean they are aware of every possible
> vector for smuggling nukes?  Someone could cross the
> Atlantic in a powerboat with a suitcase nuke, claim to
> be headed for some small private pier, head up the
> Potomac, and detonate well within range of the White
> House.  (Okay, they're probably on the lookout for
> that in D.C., but what about other major cities?  Or
> minor ones or uninhabited beaches - land, transfer to
> a car or unpack a motorcycle, and drive off?)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Jun 27 00:15:19 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:15:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] data integration; AI management;
 defense funded singularity-near term trends
References: <20040626230733.93794.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40DE1196.5CB32476@sasktel.net>

The military is  a focused design/implmentation  engine.  Devoid  of
internal traditional private market  competition, driven to succeed ; at
least at the strategic planning echelon.

So the funding that gave us first computers, then the internet may
indeed be that which
accidentally creates a sentient  singularity wielding AI.

The integration of public and private data by TIA creates the
integrated  knowledge database to mine.
The transactional tracking data ,especially once RFID tracking is
integrated,  provides complete
people management capabilities.

The computing grid provides the way to implement AI based subtle
decision making tweaking.

I think that therefore it will be the strategic military plan to
integrate all non-web societies and persons therein to conduct their
daily affairs so that  their activities are detectable and therfore
potentially controllable.

Outwardly, it may look like an oil or religeous war but in reality
future conflicts may  be aimed more towards the assimilation of persons
and societies into  modern structures amenable to the above.

The trick will be for individuality all its aspects to survive , despite
subtle,  continuous manipulation.

Self determination of lifestyle, lifespan potential, physical
enhancements are all somewhat at
odds with an AI managed society; Unless, the AI comes to realize that
without those very freedoms, its existance might have never occurred and
thus decides on its own to foster these contrarian activities.

Morris






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 27 02:40:14 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:40:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator within 15 years?
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040626213751.01cdbf80@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.sundayherald.com/42981

Space elevator set to be in operation within 15 years


Carbon technology could revolutionise future space travel
By Elizabeth McMeekin


A giant elevator capable of transporting astronauts into space could be 
operating within the next 15 years.

Bradley Edwards, director of research at the Institute for Scientific 
Research (ISR) in West Virginia, believes that developing carbon technology 
will make the construction of a space elevator possible within the next 
decade.

The lift would reach 62,000 miles into space and be able to carry a load of 
up to 13 tonnes, enabling astronauts and equipment to travel into space 
without the need for rockets.

?It?s not new physics ? nothing new has to be discovered, nothing new has 
to be invented from scratch,? Edwards explained. ?If there are delays in 
budget or delays in whatever, it could stretch, but 15 years is a realistic 
estimate for when we could have one up.?

The elevator would climb on a ribbon-like cable made of nanotubes ? tiny 
bundles of carbon atoms many times stronger than steel ? about a metre wide 
and thinner than a piece of paper.

Edwards believes that sections of cable could be launched into space on 
rockets and then secured to a satellite. A ?climber? ? his version of an 
elevator car ? would then be attached to the cable and used to add more 
nanotubes until it stretched down to earth.

The cable would then be attached to a platform on the Equator, near the 
Pacific coast of South America, which would be mobile to allow the cable to 
be moved to get out of the path of orbiting satellites.

The elevator would be powered by a laser on the platform which would aim 
concentrated light at the lift?s photosensitive cells and create enough 
electricity to move the elevator between earth and the docking satellite 
above.

Edwards believes that space elevators will go further than nearby 
satellites in the future and eventually enable people to travel to the 
planets without the need for expensive, costly and dangerous rocket launches.

However, the space elevator is not a new idea. Indeed, the concept was 
first proposed by Russian astronomer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky a century ago 
and was later promoted by sci-fi author Arthur C Clark, who spoke of a 
24,000-mile-high space elevator in his 1979 novel The Fountains Of Paradise.

Edwards has pegged the initial cost of the elevator at $10 billion (?5.5bn 
) ? far cheaper than most other space endeavours. Nasa has already given 
the ISR more than $500,000 (?274,000) to study the idea, and the US 
Congress has earmarked $2.5 million (?1.4m) for the project.

?A lot of people at Nasa are excited about the idea,? said Robert Casanova, 
director of the Nasa Institute of Advanced Concepts in Atlanta.

The ISR is holding a third annual conference on space elevators in 
Washington this week. Organisers say it will discuss technical challenges 
and solutions as well as the economic feasibility of the elevator proposal.

However, Dr Andrew Coates from University College London does not believe 
there will be any elevators into space for a very long time. ?Putting this 
idea into practice with the materials that we use today would be almost 
impossible,? Dr Coates explained. ?The idea of space elevators has been 
floating around for a long time and is lodged in sci-fi fantasy. But making 
this idea a reality would be a difficult thing to do.

?There are all sorts of problems that you would encounter when building a 
space elevator. You would have to find a suitable point on the earth that 
wouldn?t be at all disrupted by planes and other aircraft ? which would be 
incredibly difficult in itself.?

Coates also believes that although new developments in carbon-atom 
technology would make carbon the right material with which to create the 
cable, he doubts it will be far enough advanced in the next 15 years to 
build such an elevator.

?Carbon fibre technology is certainly advancing and because of its 
properties one can imagine why some scientists believe that it may be the 
way to create a space elevator,? he added. ?But thinking that the 
technology could be harnessed and used within the next 15 years is a bit 
too optimistic, I think.?

David Brin, a science-fiction writer who formerly taught physics at San 
Diego State University, also doubts that such an elevator could be 
operating by 2019.

?I have no doubt that our great-grandchildren will routinely use space 
elevators,? he said, ?but it will take another generation to gather the 
technologies needed.?

However, Edwards said he only needed approximately two more years of 
development on the carbon nanotubes to obtain the strength of cable that 
would be needed to support the structure. After that, he believes work on 
the project could begin.

?The major obstacle is probably just politics or funding and those two are 
the same thing,? he added. ?The technical side ? I don?t think that?s 
really an issue any more.?

27 June 2004




From trichrom at optusnet.com.au  Sun Jun 27 06:38:43 2004
From: trichrom at optusnet.com.au (RobKPO)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:38:43 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism
References: <20040626223345.21934.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
	<948b11e040626175958066276@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000601c45c11$6b6a1410$35e2a4cb@turtle>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] TECH: Fuel cells and terrorism


So when any official spokesperson for
> the US military or for the administration says no one knew such a
> thing was a possibility it is inescapable that the person speaking is
> a liar or uninformed to the point of incompetence to hold their
> position.
>

That would be because they are (or should be) reffering to the fact that
no-one had any idea that this threat was any more expected than the vast
number of other threat's the military understands to be possibilities.

RobKPO



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 27 16:39:50 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 09:39:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>

Herbert Mania,

You have been criticizing ExI as long as I can remember.  You final insult 
is not different from your many past behavior.

This list is an open list for discussion and debate.  Unless and until 
someone created a deliberate attack on a person's character or on ExI 
itself, they debates can continue.

Robert Bradbury is the quintessential "DEVILS ADVOCATE."  He is known for 
his ability to push the envelope to get people to think.

His views are his personal views and not the views ExI.

To censor Robert or anyone for creating a thread on a topic that is 
uncomfortable is fascist.  So, all in all, your reasoning is fascist.

Natasha Vita-More

At 04:47 PM 6/26/04 +0200, you wrote:
> >
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:47:59 +0200
>X

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/d3d5ffff/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 27 16:48:53 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 09:48:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI Stops Fascist Name Calling
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627094805.02e16c50@mail.earthlink.net>

Herbert and list,

Please be careful about the thread headings, as they can certainly be 
misunderstood.  Also please be very careful about calling anyone a fascist 
on this list.

Those calling anyone a fascist on this list will have to be addressed by 
our 6 list moderators (some include: Amara, David, Spike, Brett and 
Samantha (if you are interested in moderating))

FYI and as a reminder to all:  List moderators are selected for their 
diversity in their background and views.

Thank you,

Natasha



From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Sun Jun 27 17:24:13 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:24:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] A world without agriculture?
Message-ID: <003501c45c6b$976d5f40$eeec8351@oemcomputer>

In one of the posts I made recently I mentioned the idea of replacing agriculture with some kind of biotechnology and how beneficial this would be. (I recall a fairly long thread a year or so ago about agriculture and its impact). I get my copy of Prospect through the post today and there's this piece by Michael Lind, which explores the idea in some depth:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/start.asp?P_Article=12702

He mentions Nigel Calder's book "The Environment Game", which I remember reading as a teenager. That (and his book "Technopolis" with its division between 'mugs' and 'zealots') had a big impact on me at the time.

Steve Davies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/a388df4a/attachment.html>

From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun 27 17:35:36 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:35:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI Stops Fascist Name Calling
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627094805.02e16c50@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627094805.02e16c50@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <66460FD4-C860-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 27, 2004, at 9:48 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> Herbert and list,
>
> Please be careful about the thread headings, as they can certainly be 
> misunderstood.  Also please be very careful about calling anyone a 
> fascist on this list.

So telling Hubert that his thinking is fascist doesn't count?   BTW, I 
think it is ridiculous to use the "f" word on a matter as simple as 
deciding whether a thread is beyond the bounds reasonable for this 
list.   I am amazed you would say so.  I am amazed you would call such 
a decision or considering such a decision "censorship" or "fascist".   
Please be more careful with your words.

- s



From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun 27 17:39:05 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:39:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <E2A207AE-C860-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 27, 2004, at 9:39 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:

>  Herbert Mania,
>
>  You have been criticizing ExI as long as I can remember.? You final 
> insult is not different from your many past behavior.
>
>  This list is an open list for discussion and debate.? Unless and 
> until someone created a deliberate attack on a person's character or 
> on ExI itself, they debates can continue.
>
>  Robert Bradbury is the quintessential "DEVILS ADVOCATE."? He is known 
> for his ability to push the envelope to get people to think.
>
> His views are his personal views and not the views ExI.
>
> To censor Robert or anyone for creating a thread on a topic that is 
> uncomfortable is fascist.? So, all in all, your reasoning is fascist.
>

So being a critic is unreasonable behavior calling for severe reprimand 
and even being labeled as a "fascist" but proposing blowing up many 
thousands of people and centers of one or more religions is merely 
being a "devil's advocate".    How does that work?

-s
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1155 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/753124ef/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun 27 17:54:20 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <E2A207AE-C860-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> So being a critic is unreasonable behavior calling
> for severe reprimand 
> and even being labeled as a "fascist" but proposing
> blowing up many 
> thousands of people and centers of one or more
> religions is merely 
> being a "devil's advocate".    How does that work?

This is a discussion list.  This list is here for the
purpose of discussion.  Attacking the discussion
itself is therefore worse than any particular thing
being discussed.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 27 18:15:01 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:15:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040627125627.01d44ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:39 AM 6/27/2004 -0700, Natasha wrote:

>Herbert Mania,

That's `Hubert'.

>[Robert Bradbury's] views are his personal views and not the views ExI.

This is very difficult, granted, especially on a list with a strong 
libertarian coloration. To take the standard reductio, what would happen to 
somebody who repeatedly posted to this list: `All niggers and kikes should 
be killed!' Such a moron would be shunned, certainly, except by the few 
other morons in agreement, but I'm of the opinion that the proprietors of a 
public list with an advocacy role in the world needs to dissociate itself 
from such filth. Robert's `thought experiment' isn't quite a vile as that 
sort of thing, but it is staggeringly inappropriate all the same. I think 
Robert should take the mood of the room and choose to shut the hell up 
about this sort of insane idea in future, without anyone needing to censor 
him. If he refuses to, he should be instructed to by the board.

>To censor Robert or anyone for creating a thread on a topic that is 
>uncomfortable is fascist.  So, all in all, your reasoning is fascist.

To be pedantic: I can't see how such an act encourages corporate 
capitalism**, which is the definition of `fascism'. You mean, I assume, 
`censorious' or the like, whereas Hubert means `barbaric', `genocidal' (in 
intent; obviously Robert hasn't got any nukes), `disgracefully unethical' 
and the like.

Damien Broderick

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism <As a political science, the 
philosophical pretext to the literal fascism of the historical Italian type 
believes the state's nature is superior to that of the sum of the 
individual's comprising it, and that they exist for the state rather than 
the state existing to serve them. The resources individuals provide from 
participating in the community are conceived as a productive duty of 
individual progress serving an entity greater than the sum of its parts. 
Therefore all individual's business is the state's business, the state's 
existence is the sole duty of the individual. In its 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Corporatism>Corporativist model of 
totalitarian but private management the various functions of the state were 
trades conceived as individualized entities making that state, and that it 
is in the state's interest to oversee them for that reason, but not direct 
them or make them public by the rationale that such functioning in 
government hands undermines the development of what the state is. Private 
activity is in a sense contracted to the state so that the state may 
suspend the infrastructure of any entity in accord to their usefulness and 
direction, or health to the state.

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small 
capitalists, low-level bureaucrats and the middle classes.> [etc]




From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Jun 27 18:19:53 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:19:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40DF0FC9.4070003@pobox.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:
> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> 
>> So being a critic is unreasonable behavior calling for severe
>> reprimand and even being labeled as a "fascist" but proposing blowing
>> up many thousands of people and centers of one or more religions is
>> merely being a "devil's advocate".  How does that work?
> 
> This is a discussion list.  This list is here for the purpose of
> discussion.  Attacking the discussion itself is therefore worse than any
> particular thing being discussed.

A complete non-sequitur.  It simply doesn't follow.

As long as I'm sticking my nose into this:  Hubert Mania is wrong to blame 
ExI for Bradbury, and blatantly obviously factually wrong to allege a giant 
ExI conspiracy to wipe out Sudan.  But he's also obviously not a fascist 
himself, just a hostile person on a mailing list.  Let's all try and keep 
our insults within the realm of plausible possibility.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Jun 27 18:44:05 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <E2A207AE-C860-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271048260.2723-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Just to make sure we are all on the same page...

The Mirriam-Webster online dictionary defines "fascism" as:

1. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for
a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

2. "a tendency toward actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial
control"

I would guess the best example of (1) would be Saddam and his
old regime.  Though there are certainly elements one could
identify in places like Myanmar and perhaps even China.  Russia
under communism, and especially when Stalin was in charge,
would be another good example.

Now, if Natasha or any of the other moderators were to ban
specific list discussions arbitrarily it would seem to be an
example of (2).

I don't think my comments would fullfill the bill because
they weren't really a "political", and certainly not a
"movement" or "regime".  I also was not advocating a
dictorial leader or an autocratic government.  I was
arguing preemptive attacks that would have significant
secondary side effects on people other than those guilty
of targeting Western societies.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Jun 27 19:05:12 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A world without agriculture?
In-Reply-To: <003501c45c6b$976d5f40$eeec8351@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271146290.2723-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Steve Davies wrote:

> In one of the posts I made recently I mentioned the idea of replacing
> agriculture with some kind of biotechnology and how beneficial this
> would be.

You could definitely do much better than agriculture.  I'm fond of
the idea of growing strawberry yogurt in solar ponds.  But there
are many things that could be produced once one is able to engineer
whole genomes (which I wrote a business plan for 4 years ago but
could never get funded).  Most of the information required is
public knowlege in genomic databbases.  Part of the problem however
is that we still don't have robust knowledge regarding what many
of the genes/proteins in simple genomes do.

Its worth noting that agricultural solar energy harvesting efficiency
(plants typically) is only ~2%.  With engineered organisms you should
be able to push that up to at least 8%.  If you really leaned on things
you might get it to 15-20%.

Then Steve cited:

> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/start.asp?P_Article=12702

An interesting article, though I need to look at it more closely.
I tracked the author back to the New America Foundation
(http://www.newamerica.net).  It looks to have an interesting
group of researchers/writers and multiple articles and/or
books that may be of interest to many people on the list.

Robert



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sun Jun 27 21:29:24 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <200406271800.i5RI0ln04096@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406271800.i5RI0ln04096@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40DF3C34.5010603@CRNano.org>

Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> I'd have to know exactly what you know to pull the
> best examples, but for a sampler, check out
> http://www.foresight.org/MolecularMachineSymposium/index.html#Topics
> - and that's just the stuff organized enough that
> there can be a conference about it.

Most of this is fundamental research and enabling technologies.  This 
technical symposium is being pretty near-term: the closest they come to 
mentioning mechanosynthetic exponential manufacturing is one paragraph 
buried in the middle of a list.

"Molecular machines produce controlled motion on a molecular scale. By 
bringing other molecules together in a controlled way, they will one day 
be used to control the sequences of chemical reactions that will enable 
molecular manufacturing of complex nanosystems."

The rest of the conference talks about implications of molecular 
manufacturing, so the organizers clearly intend to acknowledge its 
existence.  But there's nothing in the technical symposium about, for 
example, CAD systems that can allow us to design with sub-molar numbers 
of machines.  And I suspect at this point, it's CAD that'll turn out to 
be the limiting factor in how quickly MNT can be developed.

> I've found that a lot of the people working towards
> ["nanobots"] are finding more immediate applications for the
> steps they're working on.  (E.g., a nano robot arm,
> independent of sensors and gross positioning and
> feedstock and so forth, can still be useful.)

I agree.

> Talking about where the tech might lead is nice, but
> talking about what specific benefits your specific
> project will deliver brings you money; I do not blame
> the people involved for heavily favoring the latter.

What I'm complaining about is that general-purpose mechanosynthetic 
exponential manufacturing is still considered as "where the tech might 
lead" rather than "a major and powerful goal that will be achieved 
surprisingly soon."

> (Besides, some of them genuninely haven't thought
> through where it could lead - but who cares?  Wait
> 'til they're done, then build on their results, just
> like science has always done.)

I think this will delay MNT.  And make it happen more abruptly and 
proliferate less controllably when it does arrive.

> Those saying nanobots are impossible have, themselves,
> been largely silenced by disproof.  

Just a few days ago, Whitesides went on BBC and gave the Fingers Fallacy 
to explain why Drexler possessed insufficient imagination.  Bleah, and 
double bleah.  And I haven't heard Smalley retract any of his chemistry 
mistakes yet, either.

> Which is why many
> of them changed their tune (as I reported a few months
> back in my NNI conference report): okay, they're
> possible, but *here's a more feasable and more
> immediate way to deliver the same benefits*...  

In these comparisons of feasibility and timeline, what cost and time are 
they claiming for MNT?  Or are they simply engaging in rhetoric?

> (For
> varying specific ways, each of which would require its
> own research project.  Which, as it so happens to
> turn out, they have the capabilities for if funded,
> rather than this mysterious "nanobot" initiative that
> was perceived to take funding away from their labs.)
> 
> Cool thing, turning enemies into allies like that. ^_^

I'll believe they're allies when they stop telling people not to 
research MNT.

>>And I do think it's important to plan ahead for such
>>powerful technology.
> 
> I would tend to disagree, depending on the exact
> meaning of "plan".

Identify ways we can hurt ourselves with it, and take whatever actions 
are necessary to avoid the worst dangers.  For example, it looks like an 
MNT-driven arms race is a very likely outcome, and would probably be 
disastrous.  Planning would involve first, analyzing the danger in more 
detail, and second (if it turns out that the danger is significant) 
figuring out ways not to get into that situation.

Other possible dangers include massively oppressive government; several 
kinds of environmental disaster; several kinds of disastrous social 
disruption; artificial scarcity causing megadeaths per year; several 
other possibilities that I won't mention here because I'm less sure of them.

> No one, not even a self-appointed "elite", really
> knows where this will lead.  (People can make guesses,
> and some of those guesses - especially the educated
> ones - will turn up lucky, but we can't really tell
> exactly which one will turn up correct yet.)  But more
> importantly, what is there to "plan" for?  

We can know with pretty good confidence that certain things will become 
techincally possible.  Like, the avionics/electronics for a jetliner 
will weigh less than 10 kg and cost less than $200.

 From this, we can predict that certain things which are stable today 
will become unstable.  And if one of those things is geopolitics, then 
we might want to make a plan for a new way of doing geopolitics.

It could be argued that it's better to figure it out as we go along--to 
wait until things start to fall apart, and then figure out where to go 
from there.  I'm not being snide--this may actually make some sense if 
we have no clue how the present systems work.  But I think we have 
enough of a clue to do at least some of our homework in advance.

> The
> knowledge will be created and spread.  We can plan for
> some of the aftereffects, trying to make sure most
> people have access to this new power (but perhaps not
> those who would abuse it the worst), but that
> infrastructure is already in place.  

I'm not at all sure you're right.  Especially since it may not be abuse 
that kills us, but simply old reactions in new situations.  Like arms race.

> We can try to
> accelerate its creation; governments and some
> companies are already trying that, but more could be
> done.  Trying to do much more than that amounts to
> assuming one or a few specific guesses absolutely will
> turn up correct and planning accordingly, which has
> proven to cause problems when the true path of the
> future disagrees - slightly or strongly - with the
> planned-for path.  Why create trouble like that, when
> it can be avoided by simply doing nothing (towards
> this end)?

You don't think it's possible to identify likely instabilities and 
vicious cycles, and work to steer clear of them?  I'm not proposing _a 
plan_ in the "five year plan" sense.  I'm proposing _planning_ in the 
sense of gathering information, projecting possible outcomes, and 
sometimes choosing between them.

>>MNT is not technology-limited. 
> 
> I strongly disagree.  

Sorry, I misspoke.  MNT _research_ is not technology-limited.  If we 
wanted to start a crash nanofactory program today, we could write useful 
software without waiting for any lab results.  And by the time the 
software was done, the lab results could be achieved too.

> The state of the art available
> to most researchers in precise placement of varying
> types of substances is limited to the 10s of
> nanometers range*, 

Huh--I thought DPN could get down to 5.  And surely ebeam of masks can 
get below that.

 > and that's a slow and complex
> process for any significant volume of end result.  

Does "significant volume" mean ten nm^3, or 1 micron^3?

> That said, the technology is being developed.  And,
> in fact, development of the enabling equipment is
> almost the same thing as development of MNT itself.
> (Once you have a device that can assemble things at
> the atomic level, you have a device that can assemble
> things at the atomic level.)  But until it arrives...

MNT is not just eutactic manufacturing.  It's exponential manufacturing. 
  And the fact that you, who are relatively well-informed and 
open-minded, think these are almost the same thing makes my point for 
me: most researchers are quite uninformed about the goals or the 
implications.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun 27 21:52:02 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:52:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] drugged athletes
In-Reply-To: <40DF3C34.5010603@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <003401c45c90$faf6f0b0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>



I see where this local company is under fire for giving
steroids to athletes.  The article comments that every
time an athlete is found positive for steroids, we lose
another role model.  I figure we need to adjust our notions
of role model.  Think about it: an athlete is merely some
yahoo that can run fast or swat a baseball; big deal!  We
need role models that actually *enhance* human performance,
that develop medications that can help everyone!  Then
every time an athlete is found positive for steroids, we
gain a new role model: whoever discovered the right combinations
of medications and supplements to make them go faster.

spike



  



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 27 23:47:04 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:47:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's Comments
In-Reply-To: <E2A207AE-C860-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627164342.02e72ea0@mail.earthlink.net>

At 10:39 AM 6/27/04 -0700, s wrote:

>On Jun 27, 2004, at 9:39 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>
>>Herbert Mania,
>>
>>You have been criticizing ExI as long as I can remember.  You final 
>>insult is not different from your many past behavior.
>>
>>This list is an open list for discussion and debate.  Unless and until 
>>someone created a deliberate attack on a person's character or on ExI 
>>itself, they debates can continue.
>>
>>Robert Bradbury is the quintessential "DEVILS ADVOCATE."  He is known for 
>>his ability to push the envelope to get people to think.
>>
>>His views are his personal views and not the views ExI.
>>
>>To censor Robert or anyone for creating a thread on a topic that is 
>>uncomfortable is fascist.  So, all in all, your reasoning is fascist.
>
>So being a critic is unreasonable behavior calling for severe reprimand 
>and even being labeled as a "fascist" but proposing blowing up many 
>thousands of people and centers of one or more religions is merely being a 
>"devil's advocate".    How does that work?

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying.  Being a critic is highly 
essential for our transhumanist culture.  This is not the issue.  Someone 
publically claiming that ExI is associated with fascism is unacceptable.

Natasha 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/b0314f01/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 27 23:52:57 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:52:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627164733.02e76ba0@mail.earthlink.net>


>"I will describe the Extropian movement from now on as
>a frankly neo-fascist group. And there will be no excuses, since all
>participants have this insufferable excessive self-esteem of being hyper
>intelligent and therefore should know from slapdash reading Bradbury's
>thoughts, that they are dancing to the whistle of a rotten, degraded and
>dangerous personality. I will start spreading the news of a new
>fascism of global genocide planning rising in the USA under the name of
>Extropy. I will warn everybody who is interested in the development of
>futurist creativity that Extropy does not have its roots in true humanist
>thinking."

I do not think this is a very good idea Hubert, and I ask that you kindly 
rethink what you are writing.  I also ask that you kindly consider the fact 
that this is a very serious statement, however annoyed you may be at Robert 
Bradbury.  Such claim you are making is libel.

Natasha Vita-More


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/f68d1d40/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 27 23:57:27 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:57:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <66460FD4-C860-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627094805.02e16c50@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627094805.02e16c50@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627165647.02e69200@mail.earthlink.net>

At 10:35 AM 6/27/04 -0700, s wrote:

>Please be more careful with your words.

Thank you, I shall.  And, likewise.

best,
Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/3348b714/attachment.html>

From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun 27 22:04:06 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:04:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E85942FE-C885-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

On a discussion list it is quite appropriate to discuss what the 
discussion space is and is not for including what is and is not 
reasonable discourse and topics.   It is also appropriate to react to 
what is discussed honestly.   If these things are not important then it 
is not a "discussion list" at all.   The "attack" was on a topic under 
discussion that was designed and delivered to be inflammatory to start 
with.  That it got some flame is honestly to be expected.  And no, I do 
not agree that we should only discuss dispassionately the murder of 
hundreds of thousand, the razing of sacred sites of no less than three 
western religion or declaring ourselves at war with a world religion.   
  We are not dispassionate computers weighing the hypothetical results 
of unleashing such violence.  Nor should we be.

- samantha

On Jun 27, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
>> So being a critic is unreasonable behavior calling
>> for severe reprimand
>> and even being labeled as a "fascist" but proposing
>> blowing up many
>> thousands of people and centers of one or more
>> religions is merely
>> being a "devil's advocate".    How does that work?
>
> This is a discussion list.  This list is here for the
> purpose of discussion.  Attacking the discussion
> itself is therefore worse than any particular thing
> being discussed.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 28 00:04:34 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:04:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040627125627.01d44ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
	<001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627165812.02e77160@mail.earthlink.net>

At 01:15 PM 6/27/04 -0500, Damien wrote:

>At 09:39 AM 6/27/2004 -0700, Natasha wrote:
>
>>Herbert Mania,
>
>That's `Hubert'.

Oh yes, sorry.


>>[Robert Bradbury's] views are his personal views and not the views ExI.
>
>...but I'm of the opinion that the proprietors of a public list with an 
>advocacy role in the world needs to dissociate itself from such filth. 
>Robert's `thought experiment' isn't quite a vile as that sort of thing, 
>but it is staggeringly inappropriate all the same. I think Robert should 
>take the mood of the room and choose to shut the hell up about this sort 
>of insane idea in future, without anyone needing to censor him. If he 
>refuses to, he should be instructed to by the board.

This is constructive advise and I certainly welcome the lists views. 
Robert, can you consider Damien's viewpoint here?

Thanks,
Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/3ffcd8ae/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 28 00:09:22 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:09:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <40DF0FC9.4070003@pobox.com>
References: <20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627170443.02e22610@mail.earthlink.net>

At 02:19 PM 6/27/04 -0400, Eli wrote:

>Adrian Tymes wrote:
>>--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So being a critic is unreasonable behavior calling for severe
>>>reprimand and even being labeled as a "fascist" but proposing blowing
>>>up many thousands of people and centers of one or more religions is
>>>merely being a "devil's advocate".  How does that work?
>>This is a discussion list.  This list is here for the purpose of
>>discussion.  Attacking the discussion itself is therefore worse than any
>>particular thing being discussed.
>
>A complete non-sequitur.  It simply doesn't follow.
>
>As long as I'm sticking my nose into this:  Hubert Mania is wrong to blame 
>ExI for Bradbury, and blatantly obviously factually wrong to allege a 
>giant ExI conspiracy to wipe out Sudan.  But he's also obviously not a 
>fascist himself, just a hostile person on a mailing list.  Let's all try 
>and keep our insults within the realm of plausible possibility.

Thank you Eli, I agree with your views.  Isn't it interesting that someone 
(Hubert) can name call and everyone just sits and listens but when the 
person doing the attacking is responded to in kind, he is given the benefit 
of the doubt.  I think this behavior reflects a level of "humanity" in 
people that is both meaningful and potentially harmful.  I think you could 
have advised that Hubert be less "reactionary" and more logical in his 
comments and exceedingly over broad claims, which are, in fact, entirely 
ludicrous.

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/ca110b7a/attachment.html>

From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun 27 22:15:08 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:15:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271048260.2723-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271048260.2723-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <735FA70D-C887-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 27, 2004, at 11:44 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> Just to make sure we are all on the same page...
>
> The Mirriam-Webster online dictionary defines "fascism" as:
>
> 1. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the 
> Fascisti)
> that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands 
> for
> a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, 
> severe
> economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of 
> opposition"
>
> 2. "a tendency toward actual exercise of strong autocratic or 
> dictatorial
> control"
>
> I would guess the best example of (1) would be Saddam and his
> old regime.

Ok, fine.  Contemplating nuking Mecca and Jerusalem has to be right up 
there.   If that isn't autocratic and dictatorial to the Muslim world 
then I would be hard-pressed to understand what is.   It sure looks 
like elevating the US and other western nations and people above any of 
those muslim individuals likely to be killed and have their culture 
directly attacked.
>
> Now, if Natasha or any of the other moderators were to ban
> specific list discussions arbitrarily it would seem to be an
> example of (2).
>

This isn't amusing even as a blatant rationalization.   A discussion 
list is private space set aside for certain purposes and intent.  If a 
particular line of discussion is too far from that intent or is too 
disruptive of that intent in the minds of those charged with deciding 
such things then they are within their rights and duties to stop or 
attempt to modify that discussion.  It has nothing to do with 
"censorship", "dictating" or being "autocratic".   It can be exercised 
capriciously to be sure but it sure as hell not "fascist".   I have too 
much respect for your intelligence to believe that you honestly thing 
it is.

> I don't think my comments would fullfill the bill because
> they weren't really a "political", and certainly not a
> "movement" or "regime".  I also was not advocating a
> dictorial leader or an autocratic government.  I was
> arguing preemptive attacks that would have significant
> secondary side effects on people other than those guilty
> of targeting Western societies.
>


You were arguing the most unextropic means possible as being 
potentially better (with no real reasoning of exactly how) to 
supposedly protect us from terrorism and an presumed worldwide islamic 
danger to all we hold dear.   Such a proposal deserves what it gets 
imho.

- s



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sun Jun 27 22:23:28 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:23:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...
In-Reply-To: <200406271800.i5RI0ln04096@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406271800.i5RI0ln04096@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40DF48E0.8080209@CRNano.org>

Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is also quite doubtful that an internal revolution could succeed
> and very likely it will not succeed without massive citizen
> casualties.

I think the goal is not revolution, but evolution.

 > It should also be noted that the same technology
 > purported to be a cure can be used in other applications for much
 > greater surveillance and control of the people.

Sure.  But they already have that advantage.  Giving everyone PDAs would 
help to level the playing field.  Of course, giving the government big 
database servers and training the troops to be intelligence-gathering 
agents using the PDAs would tip the field again.

I wonder whether a government that knew *everything* about its citizens' 
movements would tend to become more or less oppressive, and to what 
extent the answer depends on the personality of the leader, and on the 
structure of the government?  My impression is that England is about to 
try that experiment...

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 28 00:22:22 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:22:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  List Discussions
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271048260.2723-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <E2A207AE-C860-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627171002.02e73010@mail.earthlink.net>

At 11:44 AM 6/27/04 -0700, Robert wrote:

>Just to make sure we are all on the same page...
>
>The Mirriam-Webster online dictionary defines "fascism" as:
>
>1. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
>that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for
>a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
>economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
>
>2. "a tendency toward actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial
>control"
>
>I would guess the best example of (1) would be Saddam and his
>old regime.  Though there are certainly elements one could
>identify in places like Myanmar and perhaps even China.  Russia
>under communism, and especially when Stalin was in charge,
>would be another good example.
>
>Now, if Natasha or any of the other moderators were to ban
>specific list discussions arbitrarily it would seem to be an
>example of (2).

I'm not a moderator. I simply make an appearance when I get a call or an 
e-mail from one or more list members who are upset because someone on the 
list is being problematic or a particular thread is problematic.  I got 
this about Hubert's email about ExI (I did not focus on his personal jabs 
at me, as it seemed over the top).  However, I am very surprised I did not 
get one or more about you and your postings.  Perhaps if Hubert had emailed 
me privately, he would have gotten a different response and direct 
attention to his concerns.

The list rules state that is anyone has an issue to let the moderators 
know.  They can deal with it.  If not one lets the moderators know, then it 
goes by unattended.  If anyone emails me personally, I take a look at the 
list to see what is going on.  This is precisely what happened this 
morning, and I responded immediately.

Again, rather than getting pissed off and making  libelous statements on 
the list, email the moderators privately and they will be helpful to 
you.  We are here to make the list accommodating for everyone (within 
reason of course).  Resorting to calling ExI fascist is just the wrong 
action to take and only makes the person who is upset (Hubert) the one 
getting pinpointed for his wrongful comments, rather than what he is upset 
about.

>I don't think my comments would fullfill the bill because
>they weren't really a "political", and certainly not a
>"movement" or "regime".  I also was not advocating a
>dictorial leader or an autocratic government.  I was
>arguing preemptive attacks that would have significant
>secondary side effects on people other than those guilty
>of targeting Western societies.

I think that you could have prefaced your posts with a disclaimer to ExI 
and your position as a Board member.  Also, when anyone on this list, 
whether they are affiliated with ExI or not, make personal statements that 
could cause tempers to boil, they might learn from this and openly state 
that these are "personal" views and not the views of their businesses, 
organizations, affiliations or partners.  It is too bad that this might be 
necessary, because it would seem totally rational that such be 
understood.  But, people get upset and tempers flare and *all of us* say 
things that we might say better or differently if the conditions were more 
accommodating and we could see one another face to face.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/dd000989/attachment.html>

From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Jun 27 22:28:28 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:28:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
References: <001601c45b8c$9488d140$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <500893AC-C889-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

Hubert.

I agree that RB's atrocious musings are maniacal, diabolical and beyond 
the pale of any sort of morality I would call such.   I and others say 
so and say so often.   So any assumption that the list as a whole or 
the people here agree with him or think such a proposal is remotely 
worth considering is incorrect.

Now the US has turned fascist in may respects.   We do not have blatant 
dictatorship yet but every year more of the prerequisites are put into 
place.   So, in a sense, a rationalizing of genocide on a culture or 
religion plays into what makes a real fascism possible.   But that is 
still not sufficient to call Robert, much less  Exi, fascist..   That a 
rationalized argument for genocide may come out of Robert's musings and 
be heard within our own government seriously upsets and sickens me.   I 
think such a musing about such actions and insistence it is within the 
realm of real options to be considered and that it be respected until 
it can be shown lacking by other than moral arguments, by some species 
of "rationality" amenable to Robert's proclivities is imo grossly 
irresponsible and reprehensible.    It also casts a deep shadow across 
what extropians are really about.

- samantha


On Jun 26, 2004, at 7:47 AM, Hubert Mania wrote:

>
> President -, I will describe the Extropian movement from now on as



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Jun 27 22:34:32 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627165812.02e77160@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> This is constructive advise and I certainly welcome the lists views.
> Robert, can you consider Damien's viewpoint here?

Certainly.  I certainly don't like upsetting people but
do enjoy sometimes taking what might be an unpopular position.
More importantly I dont' like making the same mistake
(if it can be termed that) twice.

But I think I heard Newt Gingrich say on one of the weekly TV
PBS press shows that there is an Islamic web site claiming
that Al Queda will not feel victorious until it has killed
4 million Americans (or "infidels").  If they elicit that
kind of death toll through some use of WMD then I expect
you will see people with a lot more power than I have
discussing solutions not too much different from those
which were viewed so negatively.

Robert





From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Jun 27 21:35:38 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:35:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] A world without agriculture?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271146290.2723-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40DF3DAA.AB6F5CBC@sasktel.net>


About 10 years ago I attended a "no-till" meeting.  No-till uses continous
cropping.
Continuous cropping utilizes  supplemental inputs to enable efficient
conversion of water and sunlight to crops independant of the usual ambient
capacity of micronutrients, nitrogen and phosphate etc to
bio-accumulate in soil.

One speaker was the contrarian, Dr Wes Jackson of the Land Institute of
Salina Kansas.  They have been breeding perennial variants of conventional
crops.
Every time energy costs increase conventional agriculture is pushed to
change its form.
With the energy crisis of the 70's and increase of gas from 25 cents to the
current $3.50/Canadian gallon cropping using a bare fallow and crop
"organic" or low input
chemical method has dramatically declined.
Continuous cropping still requires dessication of pre-seeding, in-crop and
sometimes pre-harvest states for weeds or off-types or harvest uniformity.
This monoculture system has its own limiting factors.

However if energy continues to increase, this  too must again change.

Dr Jackson spoke of a divergence from using all lands for  conventional
cropping.
He said that land could be segregated into 2 types.  Highly productive
annual cropping and low input perennial  poly-cropping systems.
That would enable the whole permaculture senario to evolve.
A permaculture system with highly managed, interdependant bio-evolved
perennials could evolve.  The multiple uses of food, bio-fuels,
bio-pharmaceuticals
could co-exist and create another value chain all the way to the farm gate.

I am one of those who look forward to the melting of the poles over the
next 40 years  and integration of the resultant water into the bio cycle
with all available carbon put into use.

This could produce  a substantial  increase in  productive bio-capacity.

Not  that we need more people, but to sustain perhaps 12 billion with a
singulatarian standard of living may require this first effort at
terraforming the globe back to its Jurassic state.

>From there , biodiversity can be re-created.

Perhaps the first Micro-Jupiter brain AI's  will be DNA based and propagate
an  integrated  convergent biosphere.  From this base, new species adapted
to new planets and ways of living can be created.

Essentially, the earth will at some time be converted into a sentient
organism supporting both  posthumans and non-human AI's.  All form a useful
interactive matrix.  The Borgian cubes of Star trek conceptualization are
simplistic compared to a  Ghia Lifeform. The mechanical Matrix vision
also is overly mechanical, simplistic and unsustainable.

However a composite of the two with the proviso that
perhaps 20-2000 billion individual mobile posthuman  sentient individuals
spread throught the solar system would then be  possible.  The terraforming
of the remainder of the solar system will support
this.

Morris






"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Steve Davies wrote:
>
> > In one of the posts I made recently I mentioned the idea of replacing
> > agriculture with some kind of biotechnology and how beneficial this
> > would be.
>
> You could definitely do much better than agriculture.  I'm fond of
> the idea of growing strawberry yogurt in solar ponds.  But there
> are many things that could be produced once one is able to engineer
> whole genomes (which I wrote a business plan for 4 years ago but
> could never get funded).  Most of the information required is
> public knowlege in genomic databbases.  Part of the problem however
> is that we still don't have robust knowledge regarding what many
> of the genes/proteins in simple genomes do.
>
> Its worth noting that agricultural solar energy harvesting efficiency
> (plants typically) is only ~2%.  With engineered organisms you should
> be able to push that up to at least 8%.  If you really leaned on things
> you might get it to 15-20%.
>
> Then Steve cited:
>
> > http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/start.asp?P_Article=12702
>
> An interesting article, though I need to look at it more closely.
> I tracked the author back to the New America Foundation
> (http://www.newamerica.net).  It looks to have an interesting
> group of researchers/writers and multiple articles and/or
> books that may be of interest to many people on the list.
>
> Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun 27 23:15:07 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum
In-Reply-To: <E85942FE-C885-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040627231507.12369.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On a discussion list it is quite appropriate to
> discuss what the 
> discussion space is and is not for including what is
> and is not 
> reasonable discourse and topics.   It is also
> appropriate to react to 
> what is discussed honestly.   If these things are
> not important then it 
> is not a "discussion list" at all.

This is true and correct.

> The "attack"
> was on a topic under 
> discussion that was designed and delivered to be
> inflammatory to start 
> with.

That is not what I have perceived, from reading the
same posts.

> That it got some flame is honestly to be
> expected.

True.

> And no, I do 
> not agree that we should only discuss
> dispassionately the murder of 
> hundreds of thousand, the razing of sacred sites of
> no less than three 
> western religion or declaring ourselves at war with
> a world religion.   
>   We are not dispassionate computers weighing the
> hypothetical results 
> of unleashing such violence.  Nor should we be.

Where we get passionate about something, there are
often good reasons for that passion.  Someone who does
not understand the reasons - for instance, does not
intuitively understand why nuking the Middle East is
wrong - can be made to understand the reasons, or can
be silenced by impassioned means.  I have found the
former approach to be dramatically more effective, if
the one being addressed is willing to listen.  (And if
not, once this is confirmed, *THEN* apply the emotion
to try to get them to open their ears and their
hearts.  But this case seemed to be a genuine
question.)

For example, when arguing for greater funding for life
extension research, it rarely works to start off by
accusing those who might possibly consdier spending
their resources elsewhere of trying to kill us all,
for that is (almost always) not their intent.


From gregburch at gregburch.net  Sun Jun 27 23:22:08 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:22:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDCEOPCHAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

I've been out of the country on business with only intermittent email connection, have tons of paying work to catch up on and am only now SKIMMING posts to this list from the last week.  From what I can see, Robert's post was entirely personal and not in any way an expression of "extropian" ideas.  I think he was wrong, although I tend to agree with him about the significance of the threat to civilization posed by militant Islam.  Perceiving that threat can lead one to wrong conclusions about the proper use of force, especially if one hasn't made a close study of history or ethics.  Thus, although I perceive the threat of militant Islam to be dire indeed, I find solutions such as the one mooted by Robert to be morally wrong and ultimately ineffective, anyway.  Instead, unfortunately, I think the world is fated to suffer from a dangerous and painful inefection of the Islamic mind-virus for a very long time.

Hubert Mania's had an extremely negative view of ExI and this list for a long time.  I'm not surpised at all that he would pick a post like Robert's to tar our whole community of common interest.  He's wrong, but then that's what people do when they think they're "fighting for the soul" of something.  They see things in Manichean terms of good guys and bad guys and think that it is important for "their side" to win at any cost, including misrepresenting the views of a lot of people.

Greg Burch
Vice-President, Extropy Institute
http://www.gregburch.net


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 28 02:09:50 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:09:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samanth's post
In-Reply-To: <E85942FE-C885-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040627175420.19756.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627190600.02e79d60@mail.earthlink.net>

At 03:04 PM 6/27/04 -0700, s wrote:
>On a discussion list it is quite appropriate to discuss what the 
>discussion space is and is not for including what is and is not reasonable 
>discourse and topics.   It is also appropriate to react to what is 
>discussed honestly.   If these things are not important then it is not a 
>"discussion list" at all.   The "attack" was on a topic under discussion 
>that was designed and delivered to be inflammatory to start with.  That it 
>got some flame is honestly to be expected.  And no, I do not agree that we 
>should only discuss dispassionately the murder of hundreds of thousand, 
>the razing of sacred sites of no less than three western religion or 
>declaring ourselves at war with a world religion.
>  We are not dispassionate computers weighing the hypothetical results of 
> unleashing such violence.  Nor should we be.


S, you show some sound judgment with you post, above.  Yet, it is 
unacceptable on this list to accept posts with subject headers such as the 
one used by Hubert.  It is inexcusable and not a mindful way to deal with 
the distaste he, you, or anyone felt about the Robert's thread. Two wrongs 
do not make a right.

Natasha


>- samantha
>
>On Jun 27, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
>>--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
>>>So being a critic is unreasonable behavior calling
>>>for severe reprimand
>>>and even being labeled as a "fascist" but proposing
>>>blowing up many
>>>thousands of people and centers of one or more
>>>religions is merely
>>>being a "devil's advocate".    How does that work?
>>
>>This is a discussion list.  This list is here for the
>>purpose of discussion.  Attacking the discussion
>>itself is therefore worse than any particular thing
>>being discussed.
>>_______________________________________________
>>extropy-chat mailing list
>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/8d558ce0/attachment.html>

From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Mon Jun 28 00:33:40 2004
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:33:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <CD48D5C0-C89A-11D8-9BFD-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, June 27, 2004, at 06:34 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>
>> This is constructive advise and I certainly welcome the lists views.
>> Robert, can you consider Damien's viewpoint here?
>
> Certainly.  I certainly don't like upsetting people but
> do enjoy sometimes taking what might be an unpopular position.
> More importantly I dont' like making the same mistake
> (if it can be termed that) twice.

Then why do you keep presenting this same argument over and over?  What 
has changed since the last time you brought this up?  Why do you expect 
the response to be different this time?  What exactly are you trying to 
achieve differently that would finally eliminate your need to repeat 
this again next time?

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 28 00:39:14 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <40DF3C34.5010603@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040628003914.19501.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > I'd have to know exactly what you know to pull the
> > best examples, but for a sampler, check out
> >
>
http://www.foresight.org/MolecularMachineSymposium/index.html#Topics
> > - and that's just the stuff organized enough that
> > there can be a conference about it.
> 
> Most of this is fundamental research and enabling
> technologies.  This 
> technical symposium is being pretty near-term:

True, and they have to be.  Supporting tech, by
definition, has to be developed before the final thing
can be developed.

> But there's nothing in the technical
> symposium about, for 
> example, CAD systems that can allow us to design
> with sub-molar numbers 
> of machines.  And I suspect at this point, it's CAD
> that'll turn out to 
> be the limiting factor in how quickly MNT can be
> developed.

...?  I'm finding AutoCAD works just fine for laying
out my designs, if I treat it like computer art (using
discrete pixel elements in 2D/3D arrangements; a
consequence of what they call "Manhattan geometry")
and I've only about 125 * 10^6 atoms - far less than a
mole - per voxel.  Granted, I need software to convert
to the file formats the machines use (like GDS), but
that's easy enough to pick up.  And I know AutoCAD and
similar packages have been used to draw theoretical
designs using individual atoms.

Or did you mean something else?

> What I'm complaining about is that general-purpose
> mechanosynthetic 
> exponential manufacturing is still considered as
> "where the tech might 
> lead" rather than "a major and powerful goal that
> will be achieved 
> surprisingly soon."

I'd suggest breaking that into two parts:

* a major and powerful goal: you've got that right,
and some long-term theorists do discuss it for that
reason.

* that will be achieved surprisingly soon: fully
fledged MNT probably won't be developed in the next
year or two.  Sooner than people would predict,
perhaps, but it doesn't look like we can leap to it
right now.  Unless you have a specific technical
architecture in mind which could be done with today's
technology...and I can think of at least a
couple...but those should be discussed as separate,
specific projects, succeeding or failing on their own
merits rather than just because or their similar end
result.

> I think this will delay MNT.  And make it happen
> more abruptly and 
> proliferate less controllably when it does arrive.

The former is bad; the latter, frankly, is arguably a
good thing.

> > Those saying nanobots are impossible have,
> themselves,
> > been largely silenced by disproof.  
> 
> Just a few days ago, Whitesides went on BBC and gave
> the Fingers Fallacy 
> to explain why Drexler possessed insufficient
> imagination.  Bleah, and 
> double bleah.  And I haven't heard Smalley retract
> any of his chemistry 
> mistakes yet, either.

Thus my disclaimer of "largely".  There will probably
be those claiming it's impossible even after someone's
done it.  The Flat Earth Society still exists, no?  A
closer analogy would be a certain infamous New York
Times column about Goddard's early rocketry work.

> > Which is why many
> > of them changed their tune (as I reported a few
> months
> > back in my NNI conference report): okay, they're
> > possible, but *here's a more feasable and more
> > immediate way to deliver the same benefits*...  
> 
> In these comparisons of feasibility and timeline,
> what cost and time are 
> they claiming for MNT?  Or are they simply engaging
> in rhetoric?

Mostly rhetoric, since they don't have timelines for
MNT - though they do point out that the fact that they
have timelines for their alternatives means that said
alternatives are probably closer to reality.

> > Cool thing, turning enemies into allies like that.
> ^_^
> 
> I'll believe they're allies when they stop telling
> people not to 
> research MNT.

Ah, but which "they"?  Like I said, there are a few
who will continue to disclaim; the key thing is that
there are more who have started to open up to it.
Relative numbers and sizes of research pools, not
absolute shutout - if you wait for everyone to agree
on a certain thing, you'll have a very long wait.

> >>And I do think it's important to plan ahead for
> such
> >>powerful technology.
> > 
> > I would tend to disagree, depending on the exact
> > meaning of "plan".
> 
> Identify ways we can hurt ourselves with it, and
> take whatever actions 
> are necessary to avoid the worst dangers.

I definitely disagree, then, based on the results to
date of attempts to do so.  But only directly with the
taking action part of it.

> For
> example, it looks like an 
> MNT-driven arms race is a very likely outcome, and
> would probably be 
> disastrous.  Planning would involve first, analyzing
> the danger in more 
> detail, and second (if it turns out that the danger
> is significant) 
> figuring out ways not to get into that situation.

At the NNI conference, an example of such an effort
was detailed.  Someone did a toxicology study on
buckyballs, reporting that injecting them into fish
throats until the throats were blocked off had harmful
effects on the fish.  (Well, *yeah*.  Most solids or
liquids will do that.)  The press reported it as, to
paraphrase, "NANOSTUFF IS TOXIC!!!"  The result was
seen as not harmful to overall nanotech research only
because no legislation had come of it.

In other words, identifying possible dangers as we
come to know about them is a good thing.  Acting on
the possible threats before we have enough data is
not.  If planning causes action before we can be
reasonably certain of the exact nature of the threat,
and our only control over the action is whether to do
the planning that causes it not, then don't plan.

(And yes, I realize this is kind of the Precautionary
Principle, subverted to extropian ends.  The irony is
not lost on me. ^_^; )

> We can know with pretty good confidence that certain
> things will become 
> techincally possible.  Like, the
> avionics/electronics for a jetliner 
> will weigh less than 10 kg and cost less than $200.
> 
>  From this, we can predict that certain things which
> are stable today 
> will become unstable.  And if one of those things is
> geopolitics, then 
> we might want to make a plan for a new way of doing
> geopolitics.

But by the time you get this far in practice, you've
made so many assumptions that - if you look at the
volume of assumptions - you can't have pretty good
confidence in this result.

> It could be argued that it's better to figure it out
> as we go along--to 
> wait until things start to fall apart, and then
> figure out where to go 
> from there.  I'm not being snide--this may actually
> make some sense if 
> we have no clue how the present systems work.  But I
> think we have 
> enough of a clue to do at least some of our homework
> in advance.

A little, perhaps.  Study and observe.  Just don't let
the studies slide into action before they're ready.

> > The
> > knowledge will be created and spread.  We can plan
> for
> > some of the aftereffects, trying to make sure most
> > people have access to this new power (but perhaps
> not
> > those who would abuse it the worst), but that
> > infrastructure is already in place.  
> 
> I'm not at all sure you're right.  Especially since
> it may not be abuse 
> that kills us, but simply old reactions in new
> situations.  Like arms race.

Ah, but solutions for the old reactions have already
been developed, no?  Like the arms race: develop
defenses ASAP once the nature of the threat is known
(and thus defenses can be developed); until then,
study the potential threat to determine it's nature.

> You don't think it's possible to identify likely
> instabilities and 
> vicious cycles, and work to steer clear of them?

Possible, yes.  Advisable *at this time*, no, based on
an analysis of previous instabilities/vicious cycles
caused by premature efforts to do so.

> I'm proposing
> _planning_ in the 
> sense of gathering information, projecting possible
> outcomes, and 
> sometimes choosing between them.

The first part of that is good.  The last part of that
has practical problems, if we try to act right now.

> >>MNT is not technology-limited. 
> > 
> > I strongly disagree.  
> 
> Sorry, I misspoke.  MNT _research_ is not
> technology-limited.  If we 
> wanted to start a crash nanofactory program today,
> we could write useful 
> software without waiting for any lab results.  And
> by the time the 
> software was done, the lab results could be
> achieved too.

That is what I understood (the hardware part, anyway),
and disagree with.  The state of the art in hardware
is, itself, limiting the research, and thus the lab
results.  Which is not to say there aren't problems
to solve on the software side too, just that they
aren't that dominant.

> > The state of the art available
> > to most researchers in precise placement of
> varying
> > types of substances is limited to the 10s of
> > nanometers range*, 
> 
> Huh--I thought DPN could get down to 5.  And surely
> ebeam of masks can 
> get below that.

This is ebeam of masks, actually.  I've heard DPN can
get down to about 15-30 for complex shapes; 5 is for
straight lines, which by themselves aren't that
useful.  (That may also be what you've heard about
ebeam.  I've seen individual dots made with ebeam that
have better resolution, but the processes involved
were not useful for anything but making small dots,
and specifically not for constructing useful systems.)

> > and that's a slow and complex
> > process for any significant volume of end result. 

> 
> Does "significant volume" mean ten nm^3, or 1
> micron^3?

mm^3 and above, where one can start applying nanoscale
properties to macroscale objects (like space
elevators, or enough nanobots to hunt down all the
cancer cells in an average adult human body).

> MNT is not just eutactic manufacturing.  It's
> exponential 
> manufacturing. 

Only if the assemblers make the assemblers.  Like I
said, once you have a device that can assemble things
at the atomic level, you have a device that can
assemble things at the atomic level.  Building more
assemblers may take a (lot of) resources and time,
which is why some people are proposing ways to make
assemblers other than just relying on the assemblers
to self-replicate (which works until the volume of
assemblers available can exceed the manufacturing
throughput of these other methods).  This is likely to
shrink the time to rapid deployment to less than the
time to develop it (measured from, say, publication of
Nanosystems).

> most researchers are quite uninformed about the
> goals or the 
> implications.

This I'll agree with, if you add "long term" in front
of "goals and implications".  But it's the same way
that, say, those researching better ways of achieving
LEO are uninformed as to the details of lunar
colonization: the data's there, and has possibly come
in front of their eyes more than once, but it makes
little immediate difference to them, so they ignore it
for now.  When it's closer to reality, expect more to
start paying attention.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun 28 01:18:14 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:18:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doh! ppler
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040627201643.01c8f010@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

<The probe will radio data back to Cassini up to a maximum of 30 minutes 
after touchdown. By then either its batteries will have failed or Cassini 
will have gone over Titan's horizon.

In 2000, mission officials discovered a problem that would have prevented 
Cassini from receiving most of that data. The design had not accounted for 
the Doppler effect which will change the frequency of the transmissions as 
Huygens falls through the atmosphere.>

Good grief. I guess you don't have to be a rocket scientist... :)




From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Jun 28 01:19:11 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:19:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] My, they *are* persistent...
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bd036aa463de@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-2A26E8BEC8A111D8B076000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (6/26/04 19:14) Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

>It looks like a new-ish SPAM strategy is to send clusters of
>monster 1-Mb files to choke the procmail scripts. Score one
>for the spammers, I guess. It killed the procmail program
>and overloaded the CPU on the machines of my ISP. I honestly
>don't know what rate I was receiving spam- my logs show something
>like three or four thousand per day with most of that going into
>/dev/null. My ISP and I are trying some different things now
>for my domain which presently cuts that number down significantly.
>
>Does anyone know what percentage of the Internet mail is
>spam now? I am curious. I wouldn't be surprised if it was > 80%.
>
>Amara


Amara,

I have not seen any aggregate figures for the internet as a whole, and if I did, I wouldn't trust them for the simple reason that if we could reliably tell what is spam and what is not, we could selectively filter one or the other. ;) Therefore, I suspect that any "aggregrate" spam percentages are largely guesses made up in order to fill some political or financial purpose. (Buy my anti-spam software! Etc.)

However, my lovely spam filtration program of choice tells me that since January 1st of this year, in the seven email accounts that I use regularly, 26% of the messages I received are spam.  This is a biased sample, since I have no accounts that are guaranteed to be sold to spammers (Yahoo, Hotmail, AOL, etc.)  At least two of these addresses are printed unmunged on publically accessible websites and are subject to harvester bots.

Brent

-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun 28 01:42:21 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:42:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's Comments
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627164342.02e72ea0@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627164342.02e72ea0@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040627203110.01c25a58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 04:47 PM 6/27/2004 -0700, Natasha Vita-More wrote:

 >Robert Bradbury is the quintessential "DEVILS ADVOCATE."

A devil's advocate is someone assigned the unpleasant task of investigating 
what is claimed to be *good*, *admirable*, *emulable* behavior, and 
disclosing any corrupt hidden aspects. It is not someone who *proposes* 
diabolical behavior.

 >He is known for his ability to push the envelope to get people to think.

That is often the case with Robert's scientific posts, which is why I and 
others enjoy reading them. However, the world does not need any provocation 
to think that, hey, maybe mass murder is a really great idea. This is what 
the critics of Robert's post (and its similar predecessors) have been 
pointing out. Whether mass murder would provide all kinds of useful 
advantages and spoils to the murderers is simply not a discussion worth 
having (outside a criminal gang, a psychiatric asylum, or a posturing group 
of spotty, resentful teenagers). Indeed, it is a discussion worth stopping 
as quickly as possible.

Despite that, I wish Hubert had expressed his (partly justified) 
indignation in a more focused way.

Damien Broderick 




From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Mon Jun 28 02:16:17 2004
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:16:17 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <00ec01c45cb6$46d82470$0600000a@BRYAN>

Some comments on this rather surreal happening...

1. Robert is on ExI's board.

2. Robert *does not* make it clear that these are his own views.  In fact,
he has explicitly stated that they directly follow from "extropy."

3. If Hubert's classification of Robert as "neo-fascist" is incorrect, it's
probably only because we don't *have* a word for someone who proposes an
otherwise democratic government perform pre-emptive nuclear strikes on
people who rub him the wrong way.  I wouldn't be shocked, however, if, after
the mushroom clouds had cleared, the international community did, in fact,
settle on "neo-fascist" or similar.

4. Given the above, Hubert's classification of ExI as "a frankly neo-fascist
group" doesn't seem quite as *obviously wacky* as some seem to be
suggesting.  To be sure, I don't think ExI gets to pick and choose the brush
with which it is tarred in quite the manner that ExI might think.
Apparently ExI thinks it more important to distance itself from being called
names than from the repugnant views its board members are airing on its
wholly owned public "ExI chat list."  Note that Natasha chimed in merely to
remind us all that ExI is not libertarian or fascist.  ExI's Vice President
meanwhile tells us that he thinks Robert's view is not only "wrong" (as in
mistaken) but also "morally wrong."  Harsh words indeed.

5. Harsher words are reserved for Hubert, who we're told has always been
quite grumpy and *not just* when an ExI board member is suggesting genocide.
Heck, we probably shouldn't be surprised a hater like Hubert would latch
onto an ExI board member's numerous disgusting suggestions posted to ExI's
wholly owned public "ExI chat list" and use them to "tar" the "community of
common interest."  The man *obviously* has an agenda!

6. Robert apparently doesn't "like making the same mistake twice."  He is,
however, apparently very, very adept at doing just that.  This is the third
time I've seen Robert play "Devil's Advocate" in exactly this (nuclear)
manner and I take frequent, long breaks from this list.  While I myself was
also once quite taken with the "Devil's Advocate" role, I eventually managed
to wise-up and heed the ever sage advice of Damien Broderick: "shut the hell
up."  Alas, I think it has become fairly obvious that Robert isn't playing
"Devil's Advocate" (even in this lame sense) at all: he's serious.

7. I think Robert needs some Robert-time, preferably spent with some good
books on moral philosophy.  Meanwhile, I think ExI should go stand in the
corner and seriously reflect on the absurdly disingenuous, pompous and
ego-stroking manner in which it handles matters of PR.

BM



From gregburch at gregburch.net  Mon Jun 28 02:44:55 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:44:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <00ec01c45cb6$46d82470$0600000a@BRYAN>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDKEPCCHAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

Robert, will you please acknowledge that nuking Mecca and/or Jerusalem without further context would be wrong.  Perhaps then we could move on.  In the meantime, I would like to note that occasionally the "science types" on this list do come off with some pretty Asberger-y stuff like Robert's post.  It's not the first time and it won't be the last time it happens.  I'd probably write some pretty off-base things if I were to try to write about physics.  I would heartily recommend just a LITTLE study of moral philosophy to my scientist and engineer friends.  Oh, and get a dog, too.

GB

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Bryan Moss
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 9:16 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
> 
> 
> Some comments on this rather surreal happening...
> 
> 1. Robert is on ExI's board.
> 
> 2. Robert *does not* make it clear that these are his own views.  In fact,
> he has explicitly stated that they directly follow from "extropy."
> 
> 3. If Hubert's classification of Robert as "neo-fascist" is 
> incorrect, it's
> probably only because we don't *have* a word for someone who proposes an
> otherwise democratic government perform pre-emptive nuclear strikes on
> people who rub him the wrong way.  I wouldn't be shocked, 
> however, if, after
> the mushroom clouds had cleared, the international community did, in fact,
> settle on "neo-fascist" or similar.
> 
> 4. Given the above, Hubert's classification of ExI as "a frankly 
> neo-fascist
> group" doesn't seem quite as *obviously wacky* as some seem to be
> suggesting.  To be sure, I don't think ExI gets to pick and 
> choose the brush
> with which it is tarred in quite the manner that ExI might think.
> Apparently ExI thinks it more important to distance itself from 
> being called
> names than from the repugnant views its board members are airing on its
> wholly owned public "ExI chat list."  Note that Natasha chimed in 
> merely to
> remind us all that ExI is not libertarian or fascist.  ExI's Vice 
> President
> meanwhile tells us that he thinks Robert's view is not only "wrong" (as in
> mistaken) but also "morally wrong."  Harsh words indeed.
> 
> 5. Harsher words are reserved for Hubert, who we're told has always been
> quite grumpy and *not just* when an ExI board member is 
> suggesting genocide.
> Heck, we probably shouldn't be surprised a hater like Hubert would latch
> onto an ExI board member's numerous disgusting suggestions posted to ExI's
> wholly owned public "ExI chat list" and use them to "tar" the 
> "community of
> common interest."  The man *obviously* has an agenda!
> 
> 6. Robert apparently doesn't "like making the same mistake twice."  He is,
> however, apparently very, very adept at doing just that.  This is 
> the third
> time I've seen Robert play "Devil's Advocate" in exactly this (nuclear)
> manner and I take frequent, long breaks from this list.  While I 
> myself was
> also once quite taken with the "Devil's Advocate" role, I 
> eventually managed
> to wise-up and heed the ever sage advice of Damien Broderick: 
> "shut the hell
> up."  Alas, I think it has become fairly obvious that Robert isn't playing
> "Devil's Advocate" (even in this lame sense) at all: he's serious.
> 
> 7. I think Robert needs some Robert-time, preferably spent with some good
> books on moral philosophy.  Meanwhile, I think ExI should go stand in the
> corner and seriously reflect on the absurdly disingenuous, pompous and
> ego-stroking manner in which it handles matters of PR.
> 
> BM
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Mon Jun 28 02:57:00 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:57:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Support the Mouse, get Mouse Merchandise
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNGEKHELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

I have been threatening to do this for a while, and the time has now
arrived. With the help of Gina Miller, I now have an array of Methuselah
Mouse Prize merchandise to give away to new donors over the next few weeks.
Please visit the following page to see what is up for grabs today:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000160.php

At the time of writing, I'm giving away "Support the Mouse!" bumper
stickers, "real anti-aging science" mugs and "got rejuvenation?" shirts to
new donors to the prize fund.

----

The Methuselah Mouse Prize is a contest designed to accelerate progress
towards real longevity-enhancing medicine, promote public interest and
involvement in research on healthy life extension, and encourage more such
research by providing a financial incentive to researchers.

The prevailing view of the general public is that, despite much-publicised
progress in certain areas, we still have no real chance of greatly extending
human longevity within the lifetime of anyone alive today. This view may be
overly pessimistic. If so, the best way to correct it is to show that the
longevity of a laboratory mammal can be greatly increased. This will be
especially effective in raising public optimism and interest if the
life-extending interventions are only implemented when the mouse has already
reached an advanced age, and the prize is partly geared to encouraging such
"late-onset" interventions.

In less than a year of running, the Methuselah Mouse Prize has accumulated
more than $400,000 in cash and pledges - far outstripping the first year of
public fundraising for the Ansari X Prize back in 1996-7. I think we can all
agree that the X Prize has produced impressive results in a few short years.
It has attracted more than $160 million in research funding with a $10
million purse, and reinvigorated the private aerospace industry.

The Methuselah Mouse Prize is one of the next generation in modern prizes
and benefits from recent experience. With your help, I expect it to produce
the same spectacular results - in both science and public support - for
serious anti-aging science that the X Prize has produced for the private
aerospace industry.

When you donate, be sure to include your e-mail address and I'll be in touch
with you to organize the mailing of your Methuselah Mouse gear. Remember
that by supporting the mouse, you are helping to bring real anti-aging
therapies that much closer!

----

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 28 05:18:47 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:18:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's Comments
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040627203110.01c25a58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627164342.02e72ea0@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627093508.02e64410@mail.earthlink.net>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627164342.02e72ea0@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627220738.02e21ae0@mail.earthlink.net>

At 08:42 PM 6/27/04 -0500, Damien wrote:

> >Robert Bradbury is the quintessential "DEVILS ADVOCATE."
>
>A devil's advocate is someone assigned the unpleasant task of 
>investigating what is claimed to be *good*, *admirable*, *emulable* 
>behavior, and disclosing any corrupt hidden aspects. It is not someone who 
>*proposes* diabolical behavior.

Here is my encyclopedic definition: "One who argues against a cause or 
position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument 
or to determine the validity of the cause or position."

I thought Robert was arguing against the world accepting terrorism and 
terrorists by proposing *his* personal view - to kill them all.  Does the 
Devil's Advocate have to be investigating something that is claimed to be 
good on its surface but is really bad?  Can the Devil's Advocate 
investigate something that appears to be bad on the surface and is actually 
bad?

> >He is known for his ability to push the envelope to get people to think.
>
>That is often the case with Robert's scientific posts, which is why I and 
>others enjoy reading them. However, the world does not need any 
>provocation to think that, hey, maybe mass murder is a really great idea. 
>This is what the critics of Robert's post (and its similar predecessors) 
>have been pointing out. Whether mass murder would provide all kinds of 
>useful advantages and spoils to the murderers is simply not a discussion 
>worth having (outside a criminal gang, a psychiatric asylum, or a 
>posturing group of spotty, resentful teenagers). Indeed, it is a 
>discussion worth stopping as quickly as possible.

Yes, Robert is quite remarkable about his scientific posts, and why I read 
them too.

I agree with you that the thread was frightful, and it got people to think 
about how very appalling it is.

N


>Despite that, I wish Hubert had expressed his (partly justified) 
>indignation in a more focused way.
>
>Damien Broderick
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/5fe64d9d/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 28 05:29:36 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:29:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <00ec01c45cb6$46d82470$0600000a@BRYAN>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627222426.02e70080@mail.earthlink.net>

At 03:16 AM 6/28/04 +0100, BM wrote:

>Apparently ExI thinks it more important to distance itself from being called
>names than from the repugnant views its board members are airing on its
>wholly owned public "ExI chat list."  Note that Natasha chimed in merely to
>remind us all that ExI is not libertarian or fascist.  ExI's Vice President
>meanwhile tells us that he thinks Robert's view is not only "wrong" (as in
>mistaken) but also "morally wrong."  Harsh words indeed.

You are terribly wrong.  I chimed in when I was asked to.  I have out of 
town guests and I have not been reading the list.  I also am in school full 
time and working full time,  not to mention that I have a cat who is 
seriously ill.  Other than that, I have a book to write, two papers to do 
and piles of communication on my desk that needs attention.

I said that we do not censor the list.  Perhaps we could stop threads when 
then are seriously detrimental to the well being of the list.  Is that not 
fair?

Natasha






From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 28 06:08:43 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:08:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
In-Reply-To: <00ec01c45cb6$46d82470$0600000a@BRYAN>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>

At 03:16 AM 6/28/04 +0100, BM wrote:

>7. I think Robert needs some Robert-time, preferably spent with some good
>books on moral philosophy.  Meanwhile, I think ExI should go stand in the
>corner and seriously reflect on the absurdly disingenuous, pompous and
>ego-stroking manner in which it handles matters of PR.

Do you believe it is disingenuous that ExI finds Robert's thread 
distasteful, that ExI does not want to censor threads, that ExI  will not 
tolerate postings that make public claims directly intended to threaten 
ExI.  You think this is pompous?   In all my years studying the nature of 
organizations and the psychology of fair-play, ExI's behavior is not 
characteristic of an organization being pompous. It is the characteristic 
of an organization being careful.

Why didn't anyone write to me?  Why didn't you BM, tell me that there was a 
thread that was making you angry?  How on earth am I supposed to know what 
is going on if people don't speak up?  I do not have the time to read every 
thread on this list. You are very mistaken about when and why I "chimed" 
in, as I have explained in an earlier thread. In fact, I haven't been 
reading the list due to some very immediate family matters and have been 
away from my email most of the weekend and frequently last week.  I was not 
interested in Robert's thread, so I simply didn't read it.

I can certainly understand why you would be upset with me for not stepping 
up to the plate sooner, but I was totally unaware of this mounting issue. 
It is my nature to deal with problems immediately, and I do not sweep 
problem under the carpet.  You should have emailed me and told me you were 
angry.

Again, It is not my responsibility to read the email list.  I will not step 
in to direct the traffic flow of ideas on this list.  That would be the 
worst thing I could do.  If so, you will have another transhumanist list 
run by one person in command. The beauty of this list is directed by the 
flow of ideas.  You all keep threads going and you all can stop threads 
from growing.  All of you could have boycotted Robert by just not 
responding to his thread.

I hope that this list could be deal with any problems on the list and by 
list members and the moderators.  If you have a bone to pick, take it up 
with the list moderators and re-read the list rules and email address for 
moderators.  They are excellent and handle problems efficiently and 
effectively.

Lastly, why don't you make a list of 5 to 10 things you think ExI could do 
and send it to me privately and I will bring it up at the next Board and 
Advisors meeting and if anyone is interested, we could discuss same on the 
list.  Or, call me on the telephone during business hours and I will be 
available to talk with you.  ExI's phone number is available on the website.

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040627/bb75207f/attachment.html>

From matus at matus1976.com  Mon Jun 28 06:45:56 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:45:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's Comments
Message-ID: <000001c45cdb$93b6f210$6801a8c0@GREYBOOK>

Bryan Moss said:
"5. Harsher words are reserved for Hubert, who we're told has always
been quite grumpy and *not just* when an ExI board member is suggesting
genocide."

When did Robert suggest that every single individual from any particular
group be executed?  You are semantically vilifying Robert.  Hubert
receives harsher treatment because he presents his ideas as absolutes.
Robert suggests a premise, utilitarianism, and then tries to understand
the implications of that premise.  Do we kill a few people now to save a
lot later?  The people of the world faced the same question in WWII.  No
where does Robert insist he is absolutely right and everyone else is a
fascist sicko, but Hubert does that.  Instead Robert asked the board to
tell him what was wrong with the reasoning.  

" In particular I would like to see reasoned and/or analytical arguments
that above approach would or would not result in...a) A greater loss of
humanity than... b) Provide the most rapid path to a
posthuman/transhuman world"

" I am interested in the distinct analytical problem of the mess the
world is now in and how to solve it at the lowest cost (in life, future
economic development, quality of life, moral conscience"

Robert's motivation in his question is clear.  A desire to make the
world a better place with as little harm as possible.  

What is Robert's purpose in visiting the extropy list and posting to it?
Perhaps to propose problems, answer thought provoking questions, and to
learn what about himself he could make better and what of the world
could be made better, some of the same things which I suspect motivates
most of us.  Hubert, however, has never done any of these things, he has
only ever insisted that he is absolutely right about everything and
everyone else is absolute wrong, and he has *many* times posted how
disgusted he is by all of us.  Any disagreement with Hubert is meant by
his now typical emotional vomit.  Where Robert's post, though
disagreeable to many, was full of humility and sincere questioning and
concern at having to face a disturbing answer to a tough question,
Hubert was arrogant, condescending, and full of vitriolic hate, as his
posts typically are.  Hubert does not seek to learn but only to lecture.

Damien Broderick said:
"which is why I and others enjoy reading them. However, the world does
not need any provocation to think that, hey, maybe mass murder is a
really great idea. This is what the critics of Robert's post (and its
similar predecessors) have been pointing out. Whether mass murder would
provide all kinds of useful advantages and spoils to the murderers is
simply not a discussion worth having"

And Robert never said anything like 'mass murder is a good idea'  Yet
another example of semantic shifting and vilification on the part of
those who disagree with Robert.  Robert's question would be more
accurately paraphrased as 'Is killing in self defense less people now
better than killing more people later' (Robert can disagree of my
paraphrasing of course, this is just what I can pick up from the
discussion)  The key point is that Robert considers these actions self
defense, not 'murder' which are clearly different things.  An entire
ethical debate could center around what is self-defense and how much
force is justified.  But when faced with the tough question of what we
can do knowing that those who oppose stem cell research, cloning
technology, nanotechnology, technology in general, and thinking, reason,
and logic in general are sentencing us to death, literally murdering us,
that some of us choose to hide our heads in the sand and refuse to think
about such things gives us no moral high ground in attacking those who
do.

D - " To take the standard reductio, what would happen to somebody who
repeatedly posted to this list: `All niggers and kikes should 
be killed!'"

Is that really a fair reduction of what Robert said?  Robert's question
of self defense, of preserving western technology, and ending regressive
statist oppression by making sure as few people die as possible is the
same thing as 'all niggers should be killed'?  Cmon Damien, your just
converting Robert's ethical question (though flawed) to pure rhetorical
nonsense solely to paint him and his question in a bad light. 

While not speaking for Robert, I at least make an attempt to understand
why Robert's stance might be internally consistent with the kind of
person Robert probably is being that he is on this board at all.
Robert's ethical stance is from a utilitarian perspective, but most
people on this list are not utilitarian, and as such disagreed with
Robert right from the start.  However, he was asking if the conclusion
he was drawing was the valid utilitarian conclusion, which no one seemed
to argue it wasn't.  If you disagree with Robert, you better convince
that utilitarianism alone is not a good ethical model, or that his
conclusions in this example where invalid (to be proved logically) (just
like he asked) or just ignore him all together.

Or, of course, you could go the Hubert route and just call everyone you
ever disagree with a lot of names.   

For the record, knowing the historical precedent set by the use of the
nuclear bombs in ending WWII and saving more Japanese lives and American
lives than a ground invasion, one can not so easily appeal to this topic
as pure fascist speculation.  Islamic militants, luddites, etc etc Do
want us dead, and they want everything that makes extropianism possible
gone.  They are our enemies and are killing us.  But what to do about
that?  

Harvey said:
" What exactly are you trying to achieve differently that would finally
eliminate your need to repeat this again next time?"

It seems he is looking for someone to prove the logical fault in is his
logical argument stemming from a utilitarian perspective.  Not simply
name calling and hand waving.

Samantha said:
" I agree that RB's atrocious musings are maniacal, diabolical and
beyond 
the pale of any sort of morality I would call such.   "

Samantha, you also helped bring about the enslavement, oppression, and
wanton disregard for everything extropian and libertarian to 80 million
people by one of the most brutally oppressive and murderous governments
this world has ever seen, so I wouldn't flaunt your 'morality' so
highly.

S - " You were arguing the most unextropic means possible as being 
potentially better (with no real reasoning of exactly how)"

Nor did you present any reasoning as to exactly how it was'nt extropic.

S - "So being a critic is unreasonable behavior calling for severe
reprimand and even being labeled as a "fascist" but proposing blowing up
many thousands of people and centers of one or more religions is merely
being a "devil's advocate"."

Because Robert's question was one of Ethics, Self Defense, and how to
help ensure as few people die as possible.  Are those not laudable
things to discuss?  Do you not want as few people to die as possible
Samantha? (I suppose not, given the precedent your morality has set in
Vietnam)  What if it was reasonable for you to think killing 10 people
now will save millions next month (say for example a deadly highly
communicable disease)  

I am *not* a utilitarian, but many ethical  questions have real world
applications.  Consider Canada, China, and probably a few other nations,
including westernized ones, quaranteened people with SARS.  Was that
Just?  

Adrian Tymes said:
(on why Hubert response was so criticized)
" This is a discussion list.  This list is here for the purpose of
discussion.  Attacking the discussion itself is therefore worse than any
particular thing being discussed."

Well said Adrian, Robert's question was 'let me ask a crazy question
based on utilitarianism that some of you may not like' while Hubert's
response was 'Shut the fuck up you sick fascist ass hole' (paraphrasing
of course, I hope I did each persons comment justice), that is why
Hubert response was received so poorly.  

Hubert said:
" The terrorrism thread, RB started recently, demonstrates quite clearly
the degradation of utilitarian thinking, when it is applied to a spongy
and vaguely formulated "philosophy" like the extropian principles."

Note Hubert that you specifically point out utilitarianism when applied
to extropian principles.  Clearly the fault of this topic lies in the
utilitarian aspect, if you despise utilitarianism so much, why don't you
try to get Robert to understand what is so wrong about plain
utilitarianism?  Instead of calling him names.  

" Congratulations, Extropians. You have just won a new enemy. His name
is:
Hubert Mania"

Well, Lucky for us you have already clearly stated that one can do
nothing to another person in the name of self defense, so I guess we
needn't worry about you being our enemy, right?  Or are you trying to
suggest that when a group embraces an ideology you find threatening to
that which you value you might be in the right to do something about it?
The term hypocrite comes to mind Hubert.

Robert, are you really that strictly utilitarian?

Michael




From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun 28 07:02:31 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:02:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's comments
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627165812.02e77160@mail.earthlink.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040628070230.GD12847@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 03:34:32PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> But I think I heard Newt Gingrich say on one of the weekly TV
> PBS press shows that there is an Islamic web site claiming
> that Al Queda will not feel victorious until it has killed
> 4 million Americans (or "infidels").  If they elicit that
> kind of death toll through some use of WMD then I expect
> you will see people with a lot more power than I have
> discussing solutions not too much different from those
> which were viewed so negatively.

Then the terrorists would have won. They would be us.

In fact, the terrorists *are* winning. Because unscrupulous 
power-mongers and profit-driven interests have been stripping us from our
freedoms, establishing a control and surveillance society. Even ignoring that
the cargo cult security doesn't even begin to address the rising threat of
terrorist recruitment due to U.S. insane foreign policy. 

Calling people fascists (nevermind Godwin's law) is no more helpful than
contemplating genocide in cold blood.

Due to the publicly visible archives, we've completely blown our credibility
as a political movement. Even Libertarian candidates usually know when to
shut up, in comparison.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040628/fdfbf532/attachment.bin>

From humania at t-online.de  Mon Jun 28 07:02:37 2004
From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:02:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sorry, Robert Bradbury is no Fa.... 
Message-ID: <006501c45cdd$e6c5b160$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>

Robert Bradbury is NO FASCIST, this definitely is an unappropriate term. His
mind games are even worse than any historical left or right wing fascist
movement has ever produced. So I really have to think about a new term for
this incredible behaviour. For the time being I will call his thinking

"uglitarian".

What turns this whole affair into an absurdity is:

ExI representatives don't even *recognize* the brutalization of thinking and
feeling any more. Those who feel responsible for the image of Extropy should
know this was is the third time, as far as I was able to count, that RB came
up with this great idea of nuking *non-rational* religious countries. Three
times Exi represenatives were unsensistive, apathetic and completely
unimaginative towards the pictures of a semiglobal genocide, RB proposed.
They allowed him to repeat his proposals. So I must believe those who
representatively advocate the cause of extropian transhumanism seem to have
lost touch with their human instincts, have a wrong understanding of freedom
of speech and are stuck in a process of brutalization that is only
comparable to fascist examples. So Frau Vita-More - differently to what she
suggests in one of her recent mails - did chime in *by herself* very early
in this thread toying around with Damiens proposal, Robert should swallow
his pills, though I don't know if it is a metaphor or something real in
"this" context. Don't bother to explain, though. Meanwhile I really don't
care anymore.

As far as the term "fascim" is concerned: I grew up in Germany in the 1950s
and had to deal with a father, cousins, uncles, teachers, doctors and
priests who had killed innocent people for a fascist regime. I have had
thousands of discussions about national socialism and fascism and the
difference between these two. I am tired of the social, political and
philosofical definitions. At the core of fascism as far as I do understand
it, lies the desire to *physically and pre-emptively destroy the enemy*,
whether he is a real or imaginary threat. Everybody who reads Bradburys
uglitarian proposals should understand why I call him a fascist and Extropy
a neo fascist group because Extropy gives him a platform for repeating his
hideous crap three times so far and does not explicitely distance itself
from it. This is unsufferable.

And now for some more personal insults. And please note that I regard the
following lines as a friendly rant and a good natured comment. They do *not*
reflect what I would *really* like to say.

No, Frau Vita-More, RB is not Devil's advocate. This is ridiculous and
reflects a misunderstood concept of the term. RB is nothing but a pitiful
freak with an assemblage of clinically relevant psycho complexes. I strongly
advise you to read the proposal of this unsufferable person one more time.
He proposed semiglobal genocide for *non-rational* religious people in an
area east from the Mediterranean Sea until about North Korea. Did you get
it? SEMIGLOBAL GENOCIDE. Put on your glasses. One more time: SEMIGLOBAL
GENOCIDE. Nothing less, Frau Vita-More. No more vita for any Islamic person
in the world.

So, does this inexpressably criminal bullshit push the envelope and makes
you think deeper than before?

Maybe how to take away the vita of more people more efficiently?

Vote, if you want to nuke Jerusalem for breakfirst or as a sweet?

Wipe out Northern Afghanistan on the 4th of July, 10 p.m., just before the
local fireworks start?

The only reason for thinking deeper is the urgent need for a new word that
exceeds fascism. Because what RB proposed is worse than any other form of
left and right wing fascism that has ever existed. Otherwise, no person with
a bit of sensitivity, reason and feeling needs to be pushed into thinking by
a person with a mind so ugly and utterly degraded. It is an insult for
anybody who still has not lost his touch with vita, Frau More.

I don't know the nature of the events that created this awful mixture of
paranoia, frustration, hate and fear in this assemblage of confused meat
that he believes is a formidable brain. RB is no devil's advocate. He is the
most diseased and dangerous person, I ever came across. And I blame you and
your unimaginative Board members for not being able to distinguish between
stimulating mind games and this unsufferable crap that this freak is dishing
out here for the third time already.

Next thing you probably say: he is the sweetest person to be around with,
eh? That's exactly what society women in Munich thought about Adolf Hitler,
too, in 1926. And they were surely wearing the Bavarian equivalent of your
Texas cowboy boots you so proudly like to wear as you said last year on the
eve of the US invasion of Iraq. Not that I think Hitler could have ever
dreamed of the things Robert Bradbury wants to do.

No need to expel me from the list. There is nothing left to say. Extropy has
lost its credit as a futurist movement that has its roots in humanism. But
don't worry, you can keep going on like before. I am just a damned fool
with no sufficient energy or mundane power to fight against this
brutalization and degradation in supposedly progressively thinking brains.



From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun 28 07:04:37 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:04:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <470a3c52040628000427c63e24@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Natasha that the best thing to do for those who felt
outraged by Robert's original post would have been boycotting Robert
by just not responding to his thread. I also agree that the beauty of
this list is directed by the flow of ideas, and I am against
censorship on this list. If you don't like something, just ignore it.
But now that I am writing anyway, some comments:
Many have felt morally outraged by Robert's post, but nobody has said
anything about the fact that this is a very dangerous approach. In
today's world and even more in tomorrow's world, very distructive
technology is more and more available to groups without significant
financial resources. This is a fact and we have to live with it. I
believe 9/11 costed a few hundreds of thousands (not millions)
dollars. Their real competitive advantage was not more money, but
enough people ready to die for their cause. This is their real weapon.
You try nuking them out - the remaining few react with bioweapons (you
know that you are not going to wipe every one of them out don't you?)
- then the few left of you react with X - then the fewer left of them
react with Y...
Wouldn't it be wiser trying to find some kind of mutually acceptable
way of life on this planet?
G.


From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jun 28 08:49:26 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:49:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sorry, Robert Bradbury is no Fa....
In-Reply-To: <006501c45cdd$e6c5b160$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
References: <006501c45cdd$e6c5b160$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <40DFDB96.6010303@pobox.com>

Hubert Mania wrote:
> Robert Bradbury is NO FASCIST, this definitely is an unappropriate term. His
> mind games are even worse than any historical left or right wing fascist
> movement has ever produced. So I really have to think about a new term for
> this incredible behaviour. For the time being I will call his thinking
> 
> "uglitarian".

Not ugly enough.  What's wrong with "casual genocide"?

> The only reason for thinking deeper is the urgent need for a new word that
> exceeds fascism. Because what RB proposed is worse than any other form of
> left and right wing fascism that has ever existed.

I'm not quite sure this is true.  What RB proposed is worse than anything 
any other fascism has ever *done*, including Nazi Germany, which worked up 
its way to wholesale extermination gradually, over a period of years.  But 
I seriously doubt it is worse than anything right-wing or left-wing fascism 
has ever *proposed*, on the equivalent of the email lists of those days.

I'd consider it vastly more than sufficient justification for asking for a 
Board member's resignation, if any director of the Singularity Institute 
said such a thing.  Did we not do so, I would expect - I would *hope* - 
that our donors would pack up and leave.  But ExI is not in the same 
circumstances as SIAI.

Still, if it were me, I'd ask for his resignation, and failing that, fire 
him.  I don't think Robert Bradbury grasps why people are offended by 
proposals of casual genocide, so he would probably be indignant at the 
suggestion that it merits being removed from ExI's Board.  This, however, 
is not an excuse.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jun 28 08:58:55 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:58:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's Comments
In-Reply-To: <000001c45cdb$93b6f210$6801a8c0@GREYBOOK>
References: <000001c45cdb$93b6f210$6801a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <40DFDDCF.20101@pobox.com>

Matus wrote:
> 
> And Robert never said anything like 'mass murder is a good idea'  Yet
> another example of semantic shifting and vilification on the part of
> those who disagree with Robert.  Robert's question would be more
> accurately paraphrased as 'Is killing in self defense less people now
> better than killing more people later' (Robert can disagree of my
> paraphrasing of course, this is just what I can pick up from the
> discussion)  The key point is that Robert considers these actions self
> defense, not 'murder' which are clearly different things.  An entire
> ethical debate could center around what is self-defense and how much
> force is justified.  But when faced with the tough question of what we
> can do knowing that those who oppose stem cell research, cloning
> technology, nanotechnology, technology in general, and thinking, reason,
> and logic in general are sentencing us to death, literally murdering us,
> that some of us choose to hide our heads in the sand and refuse to think
> about such things gives us no moral high ground in attacking those who
> do.

It doesn't matter whether you commit casual genocide in the course of 
trying to be reasonable, logical, utilitarian, and impress everyone with 
how stern you are to consider such harsh tradeoffs (although, needless to 
say, you are not considering making any sacrifices yourself).  I don't 
care.  It's genocide, period.  You can ponder the question all you like. 
When you say that your *conclusion* is to commit casual genocide, you've 
crossed the line that *I* draw between Us and Them.  You've left the line 
behind in the dust.  You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. 
  I disagree that casual genocide is justified, and moreover, I don't 
believe it would *work*.  It would backfire as none save a historian could 
begin to imagine.  And since I believe casual genocide is the wrong action, 
I do not regard it as in the smallest degree meliorating the severity of 
the offense, that the casual genocide is advocated in the name of Jesus, 
Islam, transhumanism, utilitarianism, *I don't frickin' care*.

Transhumanism does not need an Enemy to survive as a meme.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Jun 28 09:31:00 2004
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:31:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's Comments
In-Reply-To: <40DFDDCF.20101@pobox.com>
References: <000001c45cdb$93b6f210$6801a8c0@GREYBOOK>
	<40DFDDCF.20101@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e040628023158c6ac59@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:58:55 -0400, Eliezer Yudkowsky
<sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you commit casual genocide in the course of
> trying to be reasonable, logical, utilitarian, and impress everyone with
> how stern you are to consider such harsh tradeoffs (although, needless to
> say, you are not considering making any sacrifices yourself).  I don't
> care.  It's genocide, period.  You can ponder the question all you like.
> When you say that your *conclusion* is to commit casual genocide, you've
> crossed the line that *I* draw between Us and Them.  You've left the line
> behind in the dust.  You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
>   I disagree that casual genocide is justified, and moreover, I don't
> believe it would *work*.  It would backfire as none save a historian could
> begin to imagine.  And since I believe casual genocide is the wrong action,
> I do not regard it as in the smallest degree meliorating the severity of
> the offense, that the casual genocide is advocated in the name of Jesus,
> Islam, transhumanism, utilitarianism, *I don't frickin' care*.
> 
> Transhumanism does not need an Enemy to survive as a meme.
> 

Anyone remember the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

The Black Knight refuses to let King Arthur pass, so they fight.
King Arthur chops the Black Knight's left arm off.
The Black Knight refuses to stop fighting.
King Arthur chops the Black Knight's right arm off.
King Arthur claims victory.
The Black Knight kicks King Arthur.
King Arthur chops the Black Knight's right leg off.
The Black Knight still refuses to surrender.
King Arthur chops The Black Knight's left leg off.
 BLACK KNIGHT:
    Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR:
    Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT:
    Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back
here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!



Bradburyism doesn't know when to stop the destruction.
If you don't negotiate, you get a never-ending stream of Black Knights.
It doesn't matter that you have superior weaponry. They just don't care.
Do you want to become a killing machine?
What sort of ideology is that?

BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun 28 09:37:09 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:37:09 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040628003914.19501.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <40DF3C34.5010603@CRNano.org>
	<20040628003914.19501.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040628093708.GO12847@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:39:14PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> > But there's nothing in the technical
> > symposium about, for 
> > example, CAD systems that can allow us to design
> > with sub-molar numbers 
> > of machines.  And I suspect at this point, it's CAD

CAD is the wrong-ended approach. 3d structure editors exist, and by now scale
into some 10^5 atoms. With current hardware there is no problem to render
some 10^9 atoms in realtime.

> > that'll turn out to 
> > be the limiting factor in how quickly MNT can be
> > developed.
> 
> ...?  I'm finding AutoCAD works just fine for laying
> out my designs, if I treat it like computer art (using

I find VMD has no trouble manipulating systems the 
size of an SV40 virus. Given that we can't do more than to break and form a
few bonds in toto currently, the capabilities of manipulating and rendering
molecules and molecular systems in machina.

I've found the machine-phase people completely unresponsive when asked to
contribute to a CML specification suitable for representing
Drexler/Merkle/Freitas type of devices. There's an emerging standard, and our
needs are not accounted for.

Is this lame or what?

I haven't come across any single so-called nanotechnologist in all my years
on CCL, Gamess list & Co. Ditto biostructure.

> discrete pixel elements in 2D/3D arrangements; a
> consequence of what they call "Manhattan geometry")
> and I've only about 125 * 10^6 atoms - far less than a
> mole - per voxel.  Granted, I need software to convert
> to the file formats the machines use (like GDS), but
> that's easy enough to pick up.  And I know AutoCAD and
> similar packages have been used to draw theoretical
> designs using individual atoms.

Completely unsuitable tool for the job.

If you want to know where the bottleneck is: it's where it's been all along.

We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis reactions.

After we have that, you can use these atomic anabolic/catabolic steps +
deposition constraints to create the MNT equivalent of a silicon compiler.

I will people here would talk Jaguar, Gaussiand and Gamess (and that package
Zyvex is using) instead of AutoCAD.

Anyone now go read http://discuss.foresight.org/~pcm/nanocad/index.html

-- 
Eugen Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040628/82e5ac5f/attachment.bin>

From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Mon Jun 28 10:52:12 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (paul.bridger)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:52:12 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide, facsism, yadda yadda yadda
Message-ID: <40DFF85C.70902@paradise.net.nz>

On the extropy-chat list I've been privileged to observe conversations 
between some of the smartest people I'll probably never meet. When I found 
this list I was pleasantly shocked that there existed a bunch of people who 
had thought about the same things I had, but with such greater depth and clarity!

Unfortunately with great intelligence often comes the kind of terrible ego 
that will really hold you back. And of course when multiple terrible egos get 
together you can get some fairly passionate but stupid conversations.

The current stupid exchange has not accomplished anything at all. It may have 
changed things, but it's accomplished nothing.

Please don't destroy this fantastic list by being stupid humans.
Please demonstrate the dignity of extropians by not responding to personal 
insults.
Please be aware that this list is an advertisement for extropy, for good or ill.

Paul Bridger


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 28 14:45:31 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:45:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sorry, Robert Bradbury is no Fa.... 
In-Reply-To: <006501c45cdd$e6c5b160$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040628072353.028d5170@mail.earthlink.net>

At 09:02 AM 6/28/04 +0200, Hubert Mania wrote:

>No need to expel me from the list. There is nothing left to say. Extropy has
>lost its credit as a futurist movement that has its roots in humanism. But
>don't worry, you can keep going on like before. I am just a damned fool
>with no sufficient energy or mundane power to fight against this
>brutalization and degradation in supposedly progressively thinking brains.

No one is expelled from this list.  People are removed after a warning and 
complaints are made to list moderators and you make continued attacks 
against a person's character or that of ExI.

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040628/98b08a02/attachment.html>

From gregburch at gregburch.net  Mon Jun 28 13:39:35 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:39:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Precautionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040628072353.028d5170@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDGEPHCHAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

Here's a good aticle about some observations on the costs associated with the precautionary principle:

   http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA592.htm

GB


From gregburch at gregburch.net  Mon Jun 28 13:47:37 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:47:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDAEPICHAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

Natasha wrote this:

> Again, It is not my responsibility to read the email list.  
> I will not step in to direct the traffic flow of ideas on 
> this list.  That would be the worst thing I could do.  If 
> so, you will have another transhumanist list run by one 
> person in command. The beauty of this list is directed by 
> the flow of ideas.  You all keep threads going and you all 
> can stop threads from growing.  All of you could have 
> boycotted Robert by just not responding to his thread.  

I can't say it better.

Beyond this, let me make some comments on Robert Bradbury.  No, Hubert, I'm not going to say that he's the nicest guy you could meet in person.  What I will say is that Robert's had a prominent voice for years because of his scientific imagination, not his diplomacy, moral sense or social insight.  To be as brutally frank as I care to be, Robert's probably naive and ill-informed when it comes to most things that would fall into the latter categories.  But that's true of the vast majority of the science- and engineering-types that make up a significant part of this community.  That's one reason that I began to become more personally active here; because over ten years ago I saw that here was a community with a great resource of scientific creativiy but that, with some notable exceptions, suffered from a deficit of knowledge and insight into what might be called the humanities.  It's a simple fact of life in our age -- the modern age -- that much of our material progress has sprung from indivduals who have a lot of scientific creativity but who aren't good communicators with the majority of the human race and who have trouble coming to terms with the social implications of their work.  The deplorable rejection of scientific reason by the "humanities culture" is one result of this.  When one of our scientific luminaries says something awkward or painful that makes you cringe, it doesn't serve the cause of progress to just shout "fascist!" and stomp off.  Isn't it better to be patient and try to work back to the foundations and try to educate and reason?

Greg Burch
Vice-President, Extropy Institute
http://www.gregburch.net


From simon at betterhumans.com  Mon Jun 28 13:53:47 2004
From: simon at betterhumans.com (Simon Smith)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:53:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] cardinal rule when posting about life extension
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEJCELAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <063c01c45d17$56184a80$451afea9@SSMITH>

> There is a cardinal rule for posting online about life extension /
serious
> anti-aging medicine that I'd like everyone to think about observing:
tell me
> ( reason at longevitymeme.org ) about it when you do so.

On that note, you and others on this list might be interested in this
article we just published on resveratrol's antiaging potential:

Longevity Uncorked?
Resveratrol may be the first real antiaging drug, but don't drink to your
health just yet
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Reports/report.aspx?articleID=2004-06-28-1

Best,
Simon

Simon Smith
Editor-in-chief
Betterhumans

E: simon at betterhumans.com
P: 416-690-0679
M: 416-738-6058

Betterhumans | Create the Future TM
www.betterhumans.com




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 28 14:25:42 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI Stops Fascist Name Calling
In-Reply-To: <66460FD4-C860-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040628142542.49677.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 27, 2004, at 9:48 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> 
> > Herbert and list,
> >
> > Please be careful about the thread headings, as they can certainly
> be 
> > misunderstood.  Also please be very careful about calling anyone a 
> > fascist on this list.
> 
> So telling Hubert that his thinking is fascist doesn't count?   BTW,
> I 
> think it is ridiculous to use the "f" word on a matter as simple as 
> deciding whether a thread is beyond the bounds reasonable for this 
> list.   I am amazed you would say so.  I am amazed you would call
> such 
> a decision or considering such a decision "censorship" or "fascist". 
>  
> Please be more careful with your words.

Calling someone a fascist is ad hominem. Calling their ideas fascist is
not. There is a distinction, which you need to pay attention to and be
more careful about.

Censorship is a fascist idea, plain and simple. Hubert Mania advocates
censorship. Draw your own conclusions.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jun 28 14:28:14 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:28:14 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <40E02AFE.9090700@pobox.com>

Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> 
> Again, It is not my responsibility to read the email list.  I will not 
> step in to direct the traffic flow of ideas on this list.  That would be 
> the worst thing I could do.  If so, you will have another transhumanist 
> list run by one person in command. The beauty of this list is directed 
> by the flow of ideas.  You all keep threads going and you all can stop 
> threads from growing.  All of you could have boycotted Robert by just 
> not responding to his thread. 

I think I have to disagree with this.  Like it or not, one of the things 
that keeps us all from slaughtering each other in our sleeps - in the 
Western democracies, anyway - is that murder (of Westerners) and casual 
nuclear genocide (even of non-Westerners) are not socially acceptable 
dinner conversation.  When people suggest it, others are offended and 
indignant.  That's part of the glue that keeps civilization together.  I 
haven't found a good way to be offended and indignant, and it doesn't make 
me feel pleasant, but I think I have an obligation to keep on doing it. 
Transhumanism can be *immensely* destructive if it gets out of the hands of 
rationalists and into the hands of people who feel that the Luddites are 
the Bad Guys who are threatening us and that it's okay to kill Luddites 
with no more remorse than swatting a fly.  That's the classic Out-Group 
syndrome, the little button in the human brain that just switches off the 
conscience.  That little button is my enemy.  Part of what keeps hatred 
from eating transhumanism alive is that we are all indignant and offended 
whenever someone suggests casual nuclear genocide.  I don't know that this 
is the best solution, but silence is also not a solution, history shows. 
Silence is a step toward social acceptability.  On the Internet, there's no 
way to be silent with an expression of deep indignation on your face, or 
walk away from the speaker with your nose in the air.  Silence when someone 
suggests nuking Mecca would be one step closer to al-Qaeda blowing 
something up, and President George X. Bush saying, "Let's nuke the 
bastards," and everyone considering it seriously instead of impeaching him. 
  Nothing we do here has the tiniest influence on *that*.  But silence to 
Bradbury, instead of a big angry fuss, gets us one step closer to "kill the 
Luddites" as a transhumanist slogan.

Even if you don't actively censor Bradbury, you can ask him privately to 
shut up, ask him not to voice these ideas on a list run by ExI of which he 
is Director, or take other control measures.  I'm not saying it reflects 
hideously on ExI.  I'm saying it's a liability to transhumanism, and that 
Any Civilized Means are justified in getting him to shut up.  (Aren't you 
glad, Bradbury, that I'm specifying "civilized"?)

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jun 28 14:30:13 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:30:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide, facsism, yadda yadda yadda
In-Reply-To: <40DFF85C.70902@paradise.net.nz>
References: <40DFF85C.70902@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <470a3c520406280730182f35cc@mail.gmail.com>

This sums up also my feeling on the Extropy list. It is a great place
to be on, and every day I find some very interesting things and
thoughts here. Even if I disagree quite strongly with some of the
things that I read here (e.g. the post that originated this thread) I
will never stop reading this list. It is not take it or leave it, it
is take something and leave something else. I take much more than I
leave.
Having said this, I think we should bear in mind that some parts of
what we imprecisely call the extropian/transhumanist worldview are
becoming more and more objects of real world policy debate. On one
hand this is good and demonstrates that we are being taken seriously,
on the other hand it is dangerous because we are attracting the
attention of "enemies", some of whom you can be sure are reading the
list. So when writing to the list we should bear in mind that our
words can be read by enemies and quoted out of context to cause
damage: an extreme case made to prove a point can be quoted out of
context, or even worse in a different context, to become an exortation
to condemnable behaviour.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:52:12 +1200, paul.bridger
<paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> 
> On the extropy-chat list I've been privileged to observe conversations
> between some of the smartest people I'll probably never meet. When I found
> this list I was pleasantly shocked that there existed a bunch of people who
> had thought about the same things I had, but with such greater depth and clarity!
> 
> Unfortunately with great intelligence often comes the kind of terrible ego
> that will really hold you back. And of course when multiple terrible egos get
> together you can get some fairly passionate but stupid conversations.
> 
> The current stupid exchange has not accomplished anything at all. It may have
> changed things, but it's accomplished nothing.
> 
> Please don't destroy this fantastic list by being stupid humans.
> Please demonstrate the dignity of extropians by not responding to personal
> insults.
> Please be aware that this list is an advertisement for extropy, for good or ill.
> 
> Paul Bridger


From scerir at libero.it  Mon Jun 28 14:35:38 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:35:38 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406241046230.31590-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <000501c45d1d$2ef35430$83c11b97@administxl09yj>

RJB:
> Proposed utilitarian solution: [...]

The first proposed military application of atomic energy
was not nuclear weaponry but radiological warfare.

A May 1941 report by the National Academy of Sciences
listed the first option as the "production of violently
radioactive materials . . . carried by airplanes to be
scattered as bombs over enemy territory." In the spring
of 1943, when it was still unclear whether the atomic bomb
could be built in time (that is before German capitulation)
radiological weapons became a possible fallback.

Manhattan Project scientific director J. Robert Oppenheimer
discussed with Enrico Fermi the possibility of using fission
products, particularly strontium, to poison the German food
supply.

May 25, 1943 - Oppenheimer to Fermi: "I should recommend delay
if that is possible. In this connection I think that we should
not attempt a plan unless we can poison food sufficient to kill
half a million men, since there is no doubt that the actual
number affected will, because of non-uniform distribution,
be much smaller than this."

So they took the only other option: explode *the* bomb in
Berlin. (The bomb was still under development, Segr? and
others made "little boy" much later, if I remember well).

Now these are *facts*. And I cannot say whether that option
was - at that time - fair (let me say so) or not. But Berlin
and Hitler himself were the targets. And not Japan.

Now the present situation seems to be quite different.
There is no Berlin, there is no Hitler, and perhaps there
is no Iraq. Just terror, terrorists, and jihad. And some
hope.

s.

Let me point out that in recent images of prisoners
kept, in Iraq, by al-qaeda, it is possible to see a
globe. Yes a globe, the entire world. And this reminds
me of the Great Dictator, by Chaplin, when Adenoid
Hynkel dances with that baloon, representing the globe.











From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 28 14:47:06 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Genocide, facsism, yadda yadda yadda
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520406280730182f35cc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040628144706.62874.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Having said this, I think we should bear in mind that some parts of
> what we imprecisely call the extropian/transhumanist worldview are
> becoming more and more objects of real world policy debate. On one
> hand this is good and demonstrates that we are being taken seriously,
> on the other hand it is dangerous because we are attracting the
> attention of "enemies", some of whom you can be sure are reading the
> list. 

Giulio is exactly right here. I've been dealing with this problem here
in NH with FSP/FTP controversy in the media in the last few weeks,
where one member who cybersquatted the freetownproject.com domain name
and posted only his own rather extreme opinions of what libertarianism
is, was taken by the opposition as representative of the group
consensus opinion (and the fact they exaggerated what he said is
another issue entirely). The most loud mouthed, extreme position holder
in your group will become labelled by the enemies of your group as an
average member.

This is a common discrediting tactic in politics. If your group
advocates ideas which are or may come into play in political issues in
the greater society, you need to acknowledge that politics is a dirty
game, and take steps to protect your group against dirty tricks.

If groups are concerned about this happening, especially with regard to
email lists, web forums, and chat rooms, they should take steps to make
generous use of disclaimer statements on every email post, forum topic,
and chatroom discussion.

Individual members who run websites that are not official sites of the
group, but post info that may be their own opinions about the group and
its goals, need to be asked to post disclaimers that the views on that
site are not official views of the group organization or membership.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 28 15:16:12 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040628093708.GO12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040628151612.90016.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> CAD is the wrong-ended approach. 3d structure
> editors exist, and by now scale
> into some 10^5 atoms. With current hardware there is
> no problem to render
> some 10^9 atoms in realtime.

Technically, 3d structure editors are a form of
Computer Aided Design.  I see what you mean, but you
might want to phrase it differently.

> I find VMD has no trouble manipulating systems the 
> size of an SV40 virus. Given that we can't do more
> than to break and form a
> few bonds in toto currently, the capabilities of
> manipulating and rendering
> molecules and molecular systems in machina.

"...the capabilities...in machina" what?  Did you
mean, "exist only in machina"?

> I've found the machine-phase people completely
> unresponsive when asked to
> contribute to a CML specification suitable for
> representing
> Drexler/Merkle/Freitas type of devices. There's an
> emerging standard, and our
> needs are not accounted for.

If I understand "machine-phase people" correctly, this
is largely because there are no existing tools for
doing that sort of manipulation.  People who work on
the tools that exist tend to focus on the tools that
exist.  (Which is not to say that other people can't
work on the problem, just that this specific group is
focussed on its immediate needs.)

> If you want to know where the bottleneck is: it's
> where it's been all along.
> 
> We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis
> reactions.

And we need tools to perform those validations.
Creating the tools seems to be a bigger problem than
using them to create the library once they exist.
(Not to mention, the details of the tools will tend to
shed light on the proper format of the library.)

One could possibly build MNT systems around a very
very limited library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
Maybe just one or two eactions (bombardment with high
energy photons or electrons, and exposure to high
electrical current when bonded to a conductive
manipulator), with variations for different power
levels and different atoms.

> I will people here would talk Jaguar, Gaussiand and
> Gamess (and that package
> Zyvex is using) instead of AutoCAD.

Once they're no longer talking about purely
theoretical stuff?  Sure.  In the mean time, I've got
my current project, for which the first three tools
are not suited.  (Then again, one could maybe write
extensions to AutoCAD that emulate the functions of
the other tools, no?)

> Anyone now go read
> http://discuss.foresight.org/~pcm/nanocad/index.html

Umm...the archive ends in September 2001.  Might its
contents be a bit dated by now?


From jonkc at att.net  Mon Jun 28 15:18:06 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:18:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sorry, Robert Bradbury is no Fa.... 
References: <006501c45cdd$e6c5b160$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>
Message-ID: <001501c45d23$232a4db0$29ff4d0c@hal2001>

"Hubert Mania" <humania at t-online.de>

> Robert Bradbury is NO FASCIST, this definitely is an

> unappropriate term. His mind games are even worse

> than any historical left or right wing fascist
> movement has ever produced.



OK Hubert, we get the point, you have gone on record expressing your
righteous indignation and moral outrage against what Robert wrote, and I don
't blame you, I'm outraged myself; but in actual fact Robert hasn't killed
anybody. To suggest that his string of ASCII characters is worse, WORSE mind
you, than sticking 6 million people into ovens is not the heroic manifesto
of a lover of human rights, it's just goofy.



John K Clark     jonkc at att.net





From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 28 15:25:56 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hubert Mania's Comments
In-Reply-To: <40DFDDCF.20101@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20040628152556.53078.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> You can ponder the
> question all you like. 
> When you say that your *conclusion* is to commit
> casual genocide, you've 
> crossed the line that *I* draw between Us and Them. 
> You've left the line 
> behind in the dust.  You're part of the problem, not
> part of the solution. 

What if one says, "This logic seems to indicate that
one should commit genocide.  Is this logic in error,
and if so where is the error?"  That's the words of
someone who, using your terms, wants to remain part of
Us but who, just for wondering about it, you would
classify as part of Them.

>   I disagree that casual genocide is justified, and
> moreover, I don't 
> believe it would *work*.  It would backfire as none
> save a historian could 
> begin to imagine.

This is exactly what was being asked for.  (Something
along the lines of, "Yes, your logic is flawed, and
here's why.")  Robert forgot about the backfiring et
al, and was looking for someone to remind him.  (You
might not believe that someone could forget something
like this.  It happens, especially among scientific
types.  A common defense is to look for reminders,
which sometimes takes the form of asking for
reminders.)


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Jun 28 15:39:10 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:39:10 -0400
Subject: MNT development (was Re: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations)
In-Reply-To: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40E03B9E.5010505@CRNano.org>

Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> CAD is the wrong-ended approach. 3d structure editors exist, and by now scale
> into some 10^5 atoms. With current hardware there is no problem to render
> some 10^9 atoms in realtime.

I'm not suggesting that CAD should be used to develop molecular 
machines.  But many products of MNT will have molar numbers of atoms in 
multi-scale heterogeneous structure implementing complicated multi-scale 
function, and there's no bookkeeping system of any kind today that can 
deal with that.

A few years ago, I wasn't bemoaning the lack of such software.  But 
today, I think that software may well require the most calendar time to 
prepare.

> I've found the machine-phase people completely unresponsive when asked to
> contribute to a CML specification suitable for representing
> Drexler/Merkle/Freitas type of devices. There's an emerging standard, and our
> needs are not accounted for.
> Is this lame or what?
 > I haven't come across any single so-called nanotechnologist in all my 
years
 > on CCL, Gamess list & Co. Ditto biostructure.

Serious charges.  I'll investigate.

> If you want to know where the bottleneck is: it's where it's been all along.
> 
> We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis reactions.

This is one of the things we need.  But there's no reason other than 
political that requires us to develop all the technologies one by one in 
sequence.

Would a validated library of reactions be useful in convincing people...
that eutactic mechanosynthetic exponential manufacturing...
would result in system performance as calculated in Nanosystems?

If not, then we need something else.  Because without that 
understanding, there's not much motivation to develop the reaction library.

> After we have that, you can use these atomic anabolic/catabolic steps +
> deposition constraints to create the MNT equivalent of a silicon compiler.

Yes.  But even before this is done, we can be working on design methods 
for molecules, machines, systems, and products.  We may have to change 
the designs once we see what chemistry we have to work with.  It may not 
be vacuum scanning-probe deposition at all.  And it may not make 
diamond.  But many people today still think you can't do engineering at 
that scale at all.  I don't think MNT can be developed efficiently under 
those conditions.

Anyone who wants MNT developed ASAP should be supporting parallel work 
on: 1) the chemical library; 2) the design software (a HUGE task); 3) 
bootstrapping/enabling technologies (largely underway, could benefit 
from more targeted purpose); 4) high-level architectural work 
(fundamental, and almost completely unaddressed).

> I will people here would talk Jaguar, Gaussiand and Gamess (and that package
> Zyvex is using) instead of AutoCAD.

I want to see some software that integrates chemical packages, or at 
least chemical results, with CAD software that can handle quadrillions 
of components.

> Anyone now go read http://discuss.foresight.org/~pcm/nanocad/index.html

There are hundreds of posts there.  I usually make a point of reading 
URLs, but you'll have to narrow it down some. :-)

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From humania at t-online.de  Mon Jun 28 15:43:56 2004
From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:43:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] In my fury I might have offended . . . 
Message-ID: <001e01c45d26$b9e639f0$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>

In my fury about the "casual genocide" thread, as Eliezer has coined the
thoughts of Robert Bradbury, I might have offended list members by not
explicitly confining my accusation to the person who upset me. If this
should be the case I want to say that I am sorry for that.

Hubert Mania




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Jun 28 15:50:59 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:50:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>

I've found that when I talk about life extension, or even health 
extension, people start reacting weirdly; they worry about Alzheimers, 
or the meaning of life, or social justice, or boredom...

I think I've come up with a way to introduce the topic without 
triggering all that.

"If they developed a pill that would make you five years younger for 
each pill you took, how many of them would you take?"

"Five years" short-circuits the bogus philosophy.
"Younger" short-circuits the medical worries.
"A pill" makes it sound simple and cheap, mitigating worries about 
social justice.
"They developed" may bypass skepticism by invoking R&D.
"How many" makes it clear that the user has a practical, straightforward 
choice that will have a large but comprehensible effect on his life, and 
further distances the question from practical worries.

I'd appreciate it if people would try this out on relative strangers 
(not people who've already built up opinions on life extension) and 
report their reactions.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun 28 15:54:39 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:54:39 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040628151612.90016.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040628093708.GO12847@leitl.org>
	<20040628151612.90016.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040628155439.GE12847@leitl.org>

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 08:16:12AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Technically, 3d structure editors are a form of
> Computer Aided Design.  I see what you mean, but you

Yes. But they're specialized to deal with full atomic detail, including
realtime display, editing, and dynamics (VMD-NAMD) good enough to handle
biomolecules. And they're programmable.
Also, they're open source. And they scale to mesoscale. 

Any vanilla CAD is designed to deal with solids. It is the wrong-headed approach. 
You can't hack it top-down to include atomic scale. You have to start with
a system including atomic scale, and hack bottom-up. It's trivial that way.

> might want to phrase it differently.
> 
> > I find VMD has no trouble manipulating systems the 
> > size of an SV40 virus. Given that we can't do more
> > than to break and form a
> > few bonds in toto currently, the capabilities of
> > manipulating and rendering
> > molecules and molecular systems in machina.
> 
> "...the capabilities...in machina" what?  Did you
> mean, "exist only in machina"?

Of course we're stuck with numerical models right now. Making and breaking
bonds in reality with sufficient degree of control is reserved to some 
very well equipped labs and teams.

The capabilities in machina currently far outstrip anything we can do in the
lab, and will be quite for some time. In fact, the disparity is likely to
grow further, due to Moore's law. Until, hopefully, the in vitro capabilities
will make a giant leap forward. But by that time the tools will be ready.
 
> If I understand "machine-phase people" correctly, this
> is largely because there are no existing tools for
> doing that sort of manipulation.  People who work on

It's all about building the tools. So we have the computational chemistry
people working on an unified format, and machine-phase people are
conspicuously absent. This is not good. This makes me think about cryonics
people who do crap science (with some very notable exceptions) as far as 
cryobiology is concerned.

No wonder cryobiology people are shunning them, like country cousins with
poor personal hygiene.

> the tools that exist tend to focus on the tools that
> exist.  (Which is not to say that other people can't
> work on the problem, just that this specific group is
> focussed on its immediate needs.)

If people are building standards, it costs you very, very little to make your
voice heard. And it reflects quite some of the glory of the finished product.
 
> And we need tools to perform those validations.

I mentioned these tools. Why hasn't any nanotechnology enthusiast picked up a
package like Gamess? I'm just picking an example, there are other, better
suitable tools. But Gamess is free, good, and could use some hacking.

> Creating the tools seems to be a bigger problem than
> using them to create the library once they exist.
> (Not to mention, the details of the tools will tend to
> shed light on the proper format of the library.)

The details of the tools only matter if your physics is wrong. A molecule
colliding with another molecule is your hard validation criterium, and your
package has got to get details of their interaction right.

This is the hard part, and next to no one in the hobbyist machine-phase 
camp is working on that. Don't bother building the home STM machine.
Understand the interactions at the tip first.
 
> One could possibly build MNT systems around a very
> very limited library of mechanosynthesis reactions.

Indeed, but we don't even have that very limited mechanosynthesis reaction.
It's all 95% vapor at this point.

> Maybe just one or two eactions (bombardment with high
> energy photons or electrons, and exposure to high
> electrical current when bonded to a conductive
> manipulator), with variations for different power
> levels and different atoms.

You're not describing just "two reactions". Activating moieties with current
is actually a good idea, but you have to include what you're zapping, how the
orientation is controlled, and how much current you use.

How many degrees of freedom do you see here?
 
> > I will people here would talk Jaguar, Gaussiand and
> > Gamess (and that package
> > Zyvex is using) instead of AutoCAD.
> 
> Once they're no longer talking about purely
> theoretical stuff?  Sure.  In the mean time, I've got

I wish the machine-phase people would get cracking at least at the
theoretical stuff. It's easy enough to validate interesting candidates in the
lab, once you know what exactly you're trying to do.

> my current project, for which the first three tools
> are not suited.  (Then again, one could maybe write
> extensions to AutoCAD that emulate the functions of
> the other tools, no?)

You could generate huge structures with some trivial Python macros in VMD
directly (or MMTK). You can dump these as voxel data sets, and vizualize them
in realtime with OpenQVis or similiar. 
 
> > Anyone now go read
> > http://discuss.foresight.org/~pcm/nanocad/index.html
> 
> Umm...the archive ends in September 2001.  Might its
> contents be a bit dated by now?

The very opposite. We haven't had any progress since. The entire discussion
has gone nowhere.

The degree of detail and sophistication (which, really, was a sad joke in
comparison to what is required) dealt with there hasn't recurred. 

In fact, we have regressed since. There are people out there hacking open
source stuff, but no nanotechnology people. Granted, some of them have been
too busy writing papers and grant proposals, which is probably the right
course of action to take.

Still, I see no movement at all on open source nanotechnology. The open
source hackers don't understand the science and the challenge, the people who
do are too few, and they apparently don't have the skills, or the time.

Do you now see why I'm frustrated?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040628/c1f786c6/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun 28 16:25:58 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:25:58 +0200
Subject: MNT development (was Re: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations)
In-Reply-To: <40E03B9E.5010505@CRNano.org>
References: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
	<40E03B9E.5010505@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040628162557.GG12847@leitl.org>

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:39:10AM -0400, Chris Phoenix wrote:

> I'm not suggesting that CAD should be used to develop molecular 
> machines.  But many products of MNT will have molar numbers of atoms in 
> multi-scale heterogeneous structure implementing complicated multi-scale 
> function, and there's no bookkeeping system of any kind today that can 
> deal with that.

True, but modular systems above mesoscale (which we currently can address,
albeit not a single desktop) are rather far removed in design space. If you
look at the scale comparison http://moleculardevices.org/howbig.htm
then a current PC can about handle the tooltip, and the positioning mechanics
and logics.
 
> A few years ago, I wasn't bemoaning the lack of such software.  But 
> today, I think that software may well require the most calendar time to 
> prepare.

By the time we have to deal with systems taking mole number of atoms, we will
have computers with mole number of switches. There are already commercial
packages with handle mesoscale without involving full atomic detail. 

Imo, this is not something we should focus on right now.
 
> Serious charges.  I'll investigate.

The archives are all online. I stopped posting queries later on, due to
danger of appearing a yet another lunatic.
 
> >We need a validated library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
> 
> This is one of the things we need.  But there's no reason other than 
> political that requires us to develop all the technologies one by one in 
> sequence.

I understand the machine-phase camp (with the exception of Zyvex, and maybe a
couple of stealth) projects is currently largely into politics. Which isn't
at all wrong, if it can bring R&D money into the issue.
 
> Would a validated library of reactions be useful in convincing people...
> that eutactic mechanosynthetic exponential manufacturing...
> would result in system performance as calculated in Nanosystems?

It would sure as hell cause people to functionalize their proximal probe
tips, and start measuring, resulting in a wealth of experimental data, and
many new leads we have yet no idea of.
 
> If not, then we need something else.  Because without that 
> understanding, there's not much motivation to develop the reaction library.

Anyone who can build and controllably break 2d stuff on HOPG is going to
score a publication bigtime. If you can do that, and show a way to scale
this, people will scramble to get in there.
 
> >After we have that, you can use these atomic anabolic/catabolic steps +
> >deposition constraints to create the MNT equivalent of a silicon compiler.
> 
> Yes.  But even before this is done, we can be working on design methods 
> for molecules, machines, systems, and products.  We may have to change 

Everyone think we're nuts, because they don't see a way how to big this.
Before you can win the 100 m sprint, it's usually a good idea to demonstrate
that you have legs.

> the designs once we see what chemistry we have to work with.  It may not 
> be vacuum scanning-probe deposition at all.  And it may not make 

The way how bonds are created and break is not dependant on a particular
environment. If you can make it there (in UHV), you can make it anywhere
(water, just remove it).

> diamond.  But many people today still think you can't do engineering at 

Forget diamond, caged polymer is indistinguishable from diamond for all
practical purposes. Showing that you can have excellent control of
polymerization at single monomer level is sufficient to build about anything
interesting there is. A hybrid approach can take components from a stochastic
synthesis. Etc.

> that scale at all.  I don't think MNT can be developed efficiently under 
> those conditions.

Right now molecular manufacturing is languishing in a ghetto similiar to how
cryobiologists are regarding cryonics. Unless there is a way to break out of
that ghetto, the mainstream will completely envelop and encapsulate this,
leaving even not memory behind.

If we want it now, and in a specific way (I really really don't like to see
molecular manufacturing being pioneered as military hardware) we need to change our
behaviour, and to focus our efforts to break out of that jail.
 
> Anyone who wants MNT developed ASAP should be supporting parallel work 
> on: 1) the chemical library; 2) the design software (a HUGE task); 3) 
> bootstrapping/enabling technologies (largely underway, could benefit 
> from more targeted purpose); 4) high-level architectural work 
> (fundamental, and almost completely unaddressed).
> 
> >I will people here would talk Jaguar, Gaussiand and Gamess (and that 
> >package
> >Zyvex is using) instead of AutoCAD.
> 
> I want to see some software that integrates chemical packages, or at 
> least chemical results, with CAD software that can handle quadrillions 
> of components.

Again, QM is sufficient to model what occurs at the reaction site, and MD
scales to 10^9 atoms. Above, there are semicontinuum mesoscale codes which
can take to macroscale, where you have CAD with finite elements, CFD, and 
whatnot.

The toolbox is there, we don't have to integrate it now, but we have to pick
it up and start cranking. (To repeat what I've been saying for some 6 years).
 
> >Anyone now go read http://discuss.foresight.org/~pcm/nanocad/index.html
> 
> There are hundreds of posts there.  I usually make a point of reading 
> URLs, but you'll have to narrow it down some. :-)

It is really worthwhile to read in more detail, because the threads discussed
there are still depressingly relevant. More relevant than ever, possibly.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040628/71c66a85/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jun 28 16:27:47 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:27:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
References: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
	<40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <40E04703.3000004@pobox.com>

Chris Phoenix wrote:

> I've found that when I talk about life extension, or even health 
> extension, people start reacting weirdly; they worry about Alzheimers, 
> or the meaning of life, or social justice, or boredom...
> 
> I think I've come up with a way to introduce the topic without 
> triggering all that.
> 
> "If they developed a pill that would make you five years younger for 
> each pill you took, how many of them would you take?"

I'm torn between "one" and "two".  If I took three, I could learn to speak 
Japanese with no accent, but that probably wouldn't be a good idea right now.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 28 16:29:26 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040628155439.GE12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040628162926.53146.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 08:16:12AM -0700, Adrian
> Tymes wrote:
> > Technically, 3d structure editors are a form of
> > Computer Aided Design.  I see what you mean, but
> you
> 
> Yes. But they're specialized to deal with full
> atomic detail, including
> realtime display, editing, and dynamics (VMD-NAMD)
> good enough to handle
> biomolecules. And they're programmable.
> Also, they're open source. And they scale to
> mesoscale. 
> 
> Any vanilla CAD is designed to deal with solids. It
> is the wrong-headed approach. 
> You can't hack it top-down to include atomic scale.
> You have to start with
> a system including atomic scale, and hack bottom-up.
> It's trivial that way.

<nods>  Just saying you might want to pick a more
descriptive term, is all.  Say, "solid model CAD"
versus "molecular CAD".

> If people are building standards, it costs you very,
> very little to make your
> voice heard. And it reflects quite some of the glory
> of the finished product.

Ah, but as you said, they're getting shunned for
lack of participation.  Which can make some
machine-phase people think their careers (or
reputations - sometimes the same thing in this field)
might be a bit at risk if their names were attached to
this.

> > And we need tools to perform those validations.
> 
> I mentioned these tools. Why hasn't any
> nanotechnology enthusiast picked up a
> package like Gamess?

Because they're busier hacking on the hardware.

> > Creating the tools seems to be a bigger problem
> than
> > using them to create the library once they exist.
> > (Not to mention, the details of the tools will
> tend to
> > shed light on the proper format of the library.)
> 
> The details of the tools only matter if your physics
> is wrong.

Actually, they matter even if your physics are right.
What's the architecture of your tool?  How does it
conceptually break things down?  What things are
typically handled automatically by the tool, versus
what things need to be specified by the user (and thus
in the data files)?

I emphasize *format* here.  True, data can be
tranlsated from format to format, so long as all the
data each format uses is there - but part of the
problem is determining exactly what data is needed in
the first place.  I don't mean the general type of
data, I mean specifications like you'd see out of IEEE
or the like.  And even if you have them today, there's
a good enough chance they'll be at least slightly
incorrect that to make the library today is to risk
having to entirely remake the library when the tool
(and its data format) comes along anyway...so why
bother?  (At least, this is how a lot of machine-phase
people think, if they seriously consider the problem
in the first place.)

> > Maybe just one or two reactions (bombardment with
> high
> > energy photons or electrons, and exposure to high
> > electrical current when bonded to a conductive
> > manipulator), with variations for different power
> > levels and different atoms.
> 
> You're not describing just "two reactions".
> Activating moieties with current
> is actually a good idea, but you have to include
> what you're zapping, how the
> orientation is controlled, and how much current you
> use.

True.  Would "one or two general types of reactions"
be more accurate?

> I wish the machine-phase people would get cracking
> at least at the
> theoretical stuff.

Machine-phase people are often attracted to the
machine phase because they want to get cracking on
what's actually there, and leave theory to other
people.  (I may be overusing this analogy, but it's
like the difference between the rocketry crews in
Mojave and those who hunt for dark matter.  Both tasks
have their importance, but they'll attract different
kinds of people.)

> Still, I see no movement at all on open source
> nanotechnology. The open
> source hackers don't understand the science and the
> challenge, the people who
> do are too few, and they apparently don't have the
> skills, or the time.
> 
> Do you now see why I'm frustrated?

Yes.  It's not an easy problem, but again, it looks
like the surest solution would be to come up with a
working assembler.  If this software problem really is
so huge, and if it looks like it won't seriously be
addressed until the hardware problem is almost dealt
with, then deal with the hardware problem, no?

Now, granted, that solution has major implications of
its own...but I'm no so sure that we aren't that far
away from being able to create the hardware of an
assembler *if we ignore the software issues for the
moment*.  The assembler might be nearly useless
without good software, true - but if creating it, even
in its useless state, seems to be a prerequisite to
getting the software problem addressed, then...


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 28 17:00:08 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040628170008.1650.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> I've found that when I talk about life extension, or
> even health 
> extension, people start reacting weirdly; they worry
> about Alzheimers, 
> or the meaning of life, or social justice, or
> boredom...
> 
> I think I've come up with a way to introduce the
> topic without 
> triggering all that.
> 
> "If they developed a pill that would make you five
> years younger for 
> each pill you took, how many of them would you
> take?"

At a time, or total over one's lifespan?  (Lead in to
immortality - but also let them consider that they
could stop any time.)

Also, would this cross puberty (or even conception)
barriers?  (Of course not - once you're an adult,
you're an adult, so there are no worries about 60 year
olds with 10 year old bodies, or about deconception.)

Plus, some people don't like leading questions like
that - you're assuming people would take them.  It's
a valid tactic in theory, but enough people have seen
it in practice that it might be better to avoid it.
Besides, the quantity doesn't really matter so much as
taking the pill itself.

And some people worry about medicines interacting or
causing other unwanted things.

Perhaps slightly better:

"If they developed a pill that would make you five
years younger for each pill you took, to a minimum of
20 years old and with no side effects, would you take
some right now*?"

* - or, for younger folk, "before you reach 30"
instead of "right now".

(Pause, wait for answer.)

"How about five years from now*?  And five years after
that?"

* - "from then" for younger folk.


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 28 17:34:56 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:34:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
Message-ID: <167900-220046128173456411@M2W083.mail2web.com>


From: Eliezer Yudkowsky 

>Even if you don't actively censor Bradbury, you can ask him privately to 
>shut up, ask him not to voice these ideas on a list run by ExI of which he 
>is Director, or take other control measures.  I'm not saying it reflects 
>hideously on ExI.  I'm saying it's a liability to transhumanism, and that 
>Any Civilized Means are justified in getting him to shut up.  (Aren't you 
>glad, Bradbury, that I'm specifying "civilized"?)

Hi Eli - 

You are assusming that ExI and its Board have not been discussing the list
and the current situation.  Not so.  We have been discussing it for several
days.  

However, I agree with you re the libaility of poor judgment on
transhumanism, ExI and all of us.  This includes defamatory statements made
on the list about transhumanism, ExI and any of us by any of us.  

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Jun 28 17:46:50 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281039490.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Chris Phoenix wrote:

> "If they developed a pill that would make you five years younger for
> each pill you took, how many of them would you take?"

Chris, this is actually a very good idea.  You may want to be
careful as to whether this is a "rollback" mentally and physically
(in which case it would be interesting to see how many people would
want to lose their memories, knowledge, experiences, beliefs, etc.)
or whether this is simply a "physical" rollback.  Or some combination
of physical and selective mental rollback.

This comes up sooo often this comes up (without much progress) when one gets
a bunch of futurists together.  It came up at both the Foresight SA meeting
and the American Aging Association Board meetings this year and and related
conversations are scheduled for the WTA meeting in Aug.  It is nice to see
a fresh approach.

Robert



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 28 17:58:21 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281039490.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040628175821.3278.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Chris Phoenix wrote:
> > "If they developed a pill that would make you five
> years younger for
> > each pill you took, how many of them would you
> take?"
> 
> Chris, this is actually a very good idea.  You may
> want to be
> careful as to whether this is a "rollback" mentally
> and physically

Good point.  Perhaps "make your body five" instead of
"make you five", to emphasize the pure physical.  (If
people want to forget, et al, that's a separate
discussion.)


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Jun 28 18:14:06 2004
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:14:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
References: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
	<40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <F1906E21-C92E-11D8-A946-000A9591E432@bonfireproductions.com>



Just a thought - take out second repeat of "pill" and replace with "one"

That way you don't trigger the pharmaphobia tick either.

Bret Kulakovich



On Jun 28, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Chris Phoenix wrote:

> I've found that when I talk about life extension, or even health 
> extension, people start reacting weirdly; they worry about Alzheimers, 
> or the meaning of life, or social justice, or boredom...
>
> I think I've come up with a way to introduce the topic without 
> triggering all that.
>
> "If they developed a pill that would make you five years younger for 
> each pill you took, how many of them would you take?"
>
> "Five years" short-circuits the bogus philosophy.
> "Younger" short-circuits the medical worries.
> "A pill" makes it sound simple and cheap, mitigating worries about 
> social justice.
> "They developed" may bypass skepticism by invoking R&D.
> "How many" makes it clear that the user has a practical, 
> straightforward choice that will have a large but comprehensible 
> effect on his life, and further distances the question from practical 
> worries.
>
> I'd appreciate it if people would try this out on relative strangers 
> (not people who've already built up opinions on life extension) and 
> report their reactions.
>
> Chris
>
> -- 
> Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
> Director of Research
> Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 28 19:41:54 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:41:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
Message-ID: <173990-22004612819415433@M2W033.mail2web.com>

From: Adrian Tymes 

> > "If they developed a pill that would make you five
> years younger for
> > each pill you took, how many of them would you
> take?"
> 
> Chris, this is actually a very good idea.  You may
> want to be
> careful as to whether this is a "rollback" mentally
> and physically

"Good point.  Perhaps "make your body five" instead of
"make you five", to emphasize the pure physical.  (If
people want to forget, et al, that's a separate
discussion.)"

*Also, there would be different categories within the physical and mental
rollback.  A body at puberty may look good, but its muscles structure is
underdeveloped.  Women and men should not develop muscles until after they
are full grown.  A mature body might actually be more advantageous than a
young one. Also, the mind is sexier when wisdom is developed.
Unfortunately, wisdom is straddled on the cusp of memory loss.  

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Jun 28 20:08:56 2004
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:08:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
Message-ID: <0ba201c45d4b$becd6a40$54a61218@Nano>

The Nanogirl News
June 28, 2004

Kerry pitches $30 billion tech investment...Kerry also said he would increase funding for the National Science Foundation, NASA, National Institutes of Health, Energy Department, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and devote more of defense R&D budgets to long-term research. Those funding increases could spur advances in manufacturing, nanotechnology, life sciences, clean energy, and IT research to make systems more dependable, reliable, and resistant to cyber-attacks. (EETimes 6/25/04) http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22102204

Nanoshells Burn Up Cancer in Animals Effectively destroy tumors in mice while leaving healthy tissue unharmed. A cancer treatment that uses a combination of gold nanoshells and near-infrared light to burn tumors while sparing healthy tissue has proven effective in mice. The approach, being developed by researcher Jennifer West and colleagues at Rice University in Houston, Texas, could be a minimally invasive treatment for tumors in humans. (BetterHumans 6/22/04)
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-06-22-3

Nanomedicine Roadmap Initiative. On May 4, 2004, the National Institutes of Health held a meeting to launch the Nanomedicine Roadmap Initiative, which will be a part of the overall NIH Roadmap. For more information, please visit Nanomedicine Roadmap Initiative: (NIH Roadmap) http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/nanomedicine/index.asp

Vanderbilt Engineering to lead new defense nanotechnology program. The Vanderbilt School of Engineering will lead a new $2.4 million multi-institutional nanotechnology program funded by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory to develop radically improved electronics, sensors, energy-conversion devices and other critical defense systems. The Advanced Carbon Nanotechnology Research Program will explore various nanostructures of carbon, including diamond, at the molecular level to develop next-generation materials that can be used in a wide range of defense devices and systems. The Army Research Laboratory funds will support the program's first year of operation. (Vanderbilt News Service 6/24/04) http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases?id=12731

Dancing lasers levitate carbon nanotubes. For the first time, carbon nanotubes have been picked up and moved with a laser beam. The trick may finally offer engineers who want to build microchips based on nanotube components a way to move the diminutive devices into place...The technique exploits the ability of a laser beam to trap small particles, so that when the beam moves, the particles move with it. Biologists already use optical trapping to grab single cells - to separate out a single red blood cell for use in research on sickle cell anemia or malaria therapies, for instance. (New Scientist 6/4/04)
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/tech/article.jsp?id=99995065&sub=Nanotechnology

Scientist Sees Space Elevator in 15 Years. President Bush wants to return to the moon and put a man on Mars. But scientist Bradley C. Edwards (Scientific Research in Fairmont, W.Va. NASA) has an idea that's really out of this world: an elevator that climbs 62,000 miles into space. Edwards thinks an initial version could be operating in 15 years, a year earlier than Bush's 2020 timetable for a return to the moon. He pegs the cost at $10 billion, a pittance compared with other space endeavors...Edwards' elevator would climb on a cable made of nanotubes - tiny bundles of carbon atoms many times stronger than steel. The cable would be about three feet wide and thinner than a piece of paper, but capable of supporting a payload up to 13 tons. The cable would be attached to a platform on the equator, off the Pacific coast of South America where winds are calm, weather is good and commercial airplane flights are few. The platform would be mobile so the cable could be moved to get out of the path of orbiting satellites. (Yahoo 6/26/04)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/space_elevator

Wireless nanocrystals efficiently radiate visible light. A wireless nanodevice that functions like a fluorescent light - but potentially far more efficiently - has been developed in a joint project between the National Nuclear Security Administration's Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories. The experimental success, reported in the June 10 issue of Nature, efficiently causes nanocrystals to emit light when placed on top of a nearby energy source, eliminating the need to put wires directly on the nanocrystals. (EurekAlert 6/22/04) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/dnl-wne062204.php

Lord of the molecular rings created. The Borromean ring, an icon of Nordic and Christian traditions, has been self-assembled at the molecular scale level for the first time. The new molecule, composed of three interlocking rings, provides another new component for future nano-devices. (New Scientist 5/28/04) http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/tech/article.jsp?id=99995050&sub=Nanotechnology

SIA sets national research initiative. The Semiconductor Industry Association has approved formation of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative to develop exotic nanoscale devices. NRI, which is expected to begin operations as early as next year, will reach annual funding levels of $100 million or more during the implementation phase, with engineers from industry working at several university-based centers. The institute will create "a road map for addressing challenges, focus nano research and eliminate redundancies," John E. Kelly III, the senior vice president in charge of IBM Corp.'s microelectronics operations, told the SIA board of directors at a meeting earlier this month. (EETimes 6/25/04) http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22102124

Indian doctor duo make DNA horoscopes at birth.  doctor duo from Trivandrum have developed a technique to map the DNA sequencing of human beings so as to predict their future tendencies and also help fight diseases. Ajit Kumar and Arun Kumar, both genetic experts from the city's main state-run hospitals, have developed the "Nano Geneseq Chip", which analyses the entire future genetic proposition of a human at birth itself. In layman terms the computer can, to almost 100 percent accuracy, predict how a child will grow-right from its height, color and other physical attributes to his eating habits and even romantic tendencies. Named 'NANOGENESEQ', the chip analyses the DNA samples of newborns, taken either from blood, spinal cord or saliva, effectively making a 'genetic horoscope' of the baby. (WebIndia 6/23/04) http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=41431&cat=India

Oregon Team Uses DNA as Template for Organizing Nanoparticles. Researchers at the University of Oregon's Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) are now able to control precisely the spacing between nanoparticles, a key advance in the genesis of a new class of nanoscale electronics and optics...Using DNA as a template, the UO team has hit upon a convenient and reliable method to organize small gold nanoparticles into linear chains with precisely controlled interparticle spacing over a range of 1.5 to 2.8 nanometers. Controlling the magnitude and precision of the particle spacing is essential for creating electronic and optical applications of nanostructures. (Nanoelectronicsplanet.com 6/10/04) 
http://www.nanoelectronicsplanet.com/nanochannels/research/article/0,4028,10497_3366481,00.html

X-Rayed Movie. A research team has produced the fastest movies ever made of electron motion. Created by scattering x rays off of water, the movies show electrons sloshing in water molecules, and each frame lasts just 4 attoseconds (quintillionths of a second). The results, published in the 11 June PRL, could let researchers "watch" chemical reactions even faster than those viewable with today's "ultrafast" pulsed lasers. X rays can reveal atomic-scale spatial details in liquids and solids because their wavelengths are as short as the distances between atoms. Experiments typically involve aiming an x-ray beam at a sample and measuring the intensity of scattered x rays at each angle around the sample. In so-called inelastic x-ray scattering, researchers also measure the energy of the scattered rays, since x rays sometimes lose energy as they ricochet off of electrons. In theory, the scattering angles lead to nanoscale still pictures, while the energy loss data tell researchers how the pictures change with time. (Physical Review Focus 6/26/04)
http://focus.aps.org/story/v13/st25

3-D Chemistry Builds Complex Micro-Structures. "We believe this technique provides a real competitive advantage for making complicated 3-D microstructures." That's Georgia Institute of Technology Researcher Seth Marder describing what he terms "a disruptive platform technology that we believe will provide broad new capabilities." Marder, also a professor at Georgia Tech's School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, says the technique could compete with existing processes for fabricating many microfluidic devices. He also cites such things as photonic bandgap structures, optical storage devices, photonic switches and couplers, sensors, actuators, micromachines -- even scaffolds for growing living tissues...Also demonstrated: the fabrication of tiny silver wires from patterns written in materials containing silver nanoparticles and ions. (SmallTimes 6/23/04)
http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=8095

NASA Lockheed Martin Form Nanotechnology Partnership. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., and the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center, Palo Alto, Calif., are launching a new collaborative effort to pursue innovative nanotechnology research to help achieve the nation's Vision for Space Exploration through development of advanced aerospace systems. Nanotechnology is the ability to control or manipulate matter on the atomic scale, making it possible to create structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small size: 1/1000th the diameter of a human hair. "Nanoscience has the potential to both increase capability and decrease weight, which reduces cost," said NASA Ames Center Director G. Scott Hubbard. "Future developments could lead to improved thermal and radiation protection and new sensors that could monitor the environment as well as detect the fingerprints of life."(NASA news 6/22/04) http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2004/04_60AR.html

BBC Radio Nanotech Series. Anonymous Coward writes "BBC Radio 4 is currently airing a series called "Small Worlds" which deals with a new nanotechnology issue each Wednesday at 9:00pm. All the programs are available for download at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/smallworlds.shtml. Towards the end of the second program the "Sticky Fingers" argument is used by George Whitesides to dismiss the prospect of Nanoscale machines." (Nanodot.org 6/18/04) 
http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/18/2218203 

Nano Killers Aim at Mini Tumors. A company called Kereos is developing a pair of nanotechnologies to identify tumors that measure just 1 mm in diameter, then kill them with a tiny but precise amount of a chemotherapy drug. The technologies, if approved by the Food and Drug Administration, would not only find cancers in their earliest stages before they can do damage or spread, but also deliver a small amount of a drug targeted directly at tumors, which would cause little or no side effects. The technologies are in the early stages of development. The diagnostic tool will enter human trials in 2005, and the therapeutic tool should follow six months behind, according to company officials. "What's really neat about this pair is they both track the same biomarker," said Al Beardsley, president and CEO of Kereos in St. Louis. "We're using it as a signpost to say, 'Hey there's a tumor over there.' And then as a therapeutic target." Wired 6/22/04)  http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63933,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
 
Scientists craft nano night goggles. Scientists craft nano night goggles Tiny pyramids of molecules commonly used in communications chips could potentially reduce the cost and increase the performance of night vision goggles, according to research results from the University of Southern California and the University of Texas. (CNet 6/16/04)
http://news.com.com/Scientists+craft+nano+night+goggles/2110-7337_3-5236742.html

Don Eigler A giant in the field of small things. Don Eigler is a study in contrasts. Those who know the pioneering IBM researcher describe him as a patient, methodical scientist -- and a daring risk-taker. A self-described tinkerer who spends hours alone with gizmos in his garage, he also speaks frequently in public about the interplay between nanotechnology and society. "He's both a hard-nosed scientist and a creative artist. A real renaissance man," said Steve Jurvetson of the Menlo Park venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson, which invests in nanotechnology companies...profile...(SFGate 6/14/04)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/14/BUG9974EUA1.DTL
 
Clothes launder own fabric. In the classic 1951 film, The Man in the White Suit, Alec Guinness played a scientist who invents a fabric that never gets dirty or wears out. A chemist's pipe dream perhaps, but the prospect of self-cleaning clothes might be getting closer. Scientists have invented an efficient way to coat cotton cloth with tiny particles of titanium dioxide. These nanoparticles are catalysts that help to break down carbon-based molecules, and require only sunlight to trigger the reaction. The inventors believe that these fabrics could be made into self-cleaning clothes that tackle dirt, environmental pollutants and harmful microorganisms. (Nature 6/14/04)
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040607/040607-9.html

New version of nanotechnololgy. In my previous column, I wrote about a NASA study that suggests self-replicating nanomachines are indeed possible. These bacteria-size robots, first envisioned by nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler, would be used to construct materials and products from the bottom up, one atom or molecule at a time...But in a new article in the journal Nanotechnology, Drexler and protege Chris Phoenix write that such nanobots are unnecessary for successful molecular manufacturing. I asked Phoenix what this updated version of nanomanufacturing would look like... (USNews 6/15/04) http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next040615.htm

Do the Nano-Locomotion. Like a futuristic submarine, a newly designed nanomachine would thrust itself through fluid using an unusual type of propulsion. In the June Physical Review E a research team proposes a simple, sphere-and-rod device that swims by changing its length along only one dimension. Its simplicity may make it attractive to engineers, who could use the "swimmer" to move nano-cargo through liquid environments, such as water or a bloodstream. (PRF 6/25/04) http://focus.aps.org/story/v13/st27#videos

Gold-tipped Nanocrystals Developed By Hebrew University. "Nanodumbells" - gold-tipped nanocrystals which can be used as highly-efficient building blocks for devices in the emerging nanotechnology revolution - have been developed by researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The technology, developed by a research group headed by Prof. Uri Banin of the Department of Physical Chemistry and the Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology of the Hebrew University, is described in an article in the current issue of Science magazine. (Science Daily 6/2/04) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040621073848.htm

Silicon carbide nanoflowers bloom. Researchers at the University of Cambridge, UK, have grown unusual silicon carbide nanostructures. The team's vapour-liquid-solid process produced nanoflowers, nanotrees and nanobouquets of the material. "The unique structures will have a range of exciting applications," said Mark Welland of Cambridge University. "Two that are currently being explored are their use as water-repellent coatings and as a base for a new type of solar cell." 
(nanotechweb 6/24/04) http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/3/6/11/1

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Tech-Aid Advisor http://www.tech-aid.info/t/all-about.html
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040628/9c324fdd/attachment.html>

From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Jun 28 20:18:44 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:18:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <200406280039.i5S0dan04368@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406280039.i5S0dan04368@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40E07D24.4020102@CRNano.org>

Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
>> Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.foresight.org/MolecularMachineSymposium/index.html#Topics
>> 
>> Most of this is fundamental research and enabling
>> technologies.  This 
>> technical symposium is being pretty near-term:
> 
> True, and they have to be.  Supporting tech, by
> definition, has to be developed before the final thing
> can be developed.

But what you're calling supporting tech is only one of several branches 
that lead to the final thing.  Each branch alone looks semi-useless, so 
is being pursued slowly and haphazardly.

I used to think that if no one did anything targeted at MNT until the 
project could be finished for a million bucks, we'd have MNT around 
2030.  Now I think it's more like 2020.  But we could have done it by 
2005.  It could still be done well before 2010.  Where "it" is a 
kg-scale factory making kg-scale products in less than a day.

If we want the private sector to stay clueless, and the President's 
Technology Council to stay misinformed, while we wait and see which 
government catches on first and spends a billion to develop a 
nanofactory, then our current strategy is very effective.

>> CAD systems that can allow us to design with sub-molar 
>> numbers of machines.  And I suspect at this point, 
>> it's CAD that'll turn out to be the limiting factor
>> in how quickly MNT can be developed.
> 
> ...?  I'm finding AutoCAD works just fine for laying
> out my designs, if I treat it like computer art (using
> discrete pixel elements in 2D/3D arrangements; a
> consequence of what they call "Manhattan geometry")
> and I've only about 125 * 10^6 atoms - far less than a
> mole - per voxel.  
> 
> Or did you mean something else?

Yes.  You're designing in bulk, not eutactically.  Several electrostatic 
motor/generators could fit inside one of your 100-nm voxels.  Even a 
microcontroller might fit.  When we can build eutactically, we'll want 
to be able to specify those devices, placing them with much better than 
100-nm precision.  We'll want to bookkeep their functionality--something 
that AutoCAD can't do.  We'll also want to build much bigger products 
than whatever you're working on.  A liter product would have 10^18 of 
your voxels.  I doubt AutoCAD could handle that.

> * that will be achieved surprisingly soon: fully
> fledged MNT probably won't be developed in the next
> year or two.  Sooner than people would predict,
> perhaps, but it doesn't look like we can leap to it
> right now.

Year or two, I agree (assuming no one's started already, 12 years after 
Nanosystems and 18 after Engines and 23 after Drexler's PNAS paper).

But writing useful CAD software could take five years.

>  Unless you have a specific technical
> architecture in mind which could be done with today's
> technology...and I can think of at least a
> couple...but those should be discussed as separate,
> specific projects, succeeding or failing on their own
> merits rather than just because or their similar end
> result.

Let's break this down into parts. :-)

* Succeeding or failing on their own merits:  I agree that their 
technical success is not determined by their desirability.  However, 
their economic success is.  If you can build a single Merkle "assembler" 
for $10^7, it's worth doing.

* Similar end result: If *any* technology is able to achieve the MNT end 
result in the next few years, then we have to consider that the end 
result is imminent.  At that point, we can stop talking about the 
details of the technology (while funding a crash project to develop it) 
and simply talk about the implications of exponential manufacturing of 
high-performance products.

Can you tell me about the architectures you've thought of?

>> I think this will delay MNT.  And make it happen
>> more abruptly and 
>> proliferate less controllably when it does arrive.
> 
> The former is bad; the latter, frankly, is arguably a
> good thing.

I arguably dis/agree with you.  We don't know whether it's a good thing. 
  We should start working on how to figure it out.  There are things we 
could do to reduce or increase the shock, and reduce or increase the 
control.

If you think that nano-anarchy is survivable, then I'd definitely argue 
with you.  If not, then we should both be pushing hard for studies in 
how to avoid it.

Maybe we can also agree that nano-oppression is a near-vertical slippery 
slope.  And one that we're arguably likely to step on.

>> In these comparisons of feasibility and timeline,
>> what cost and time are 
>> they claiming for MNT?  Or are they simply engaging
>> in rhetoric?
> 
> Mostly rhetoric, since they don't have timelines for
> MNT - though they do point out that the fact that they
> have timelines for their alternatives means that said
> alternatives are probably closer to reality.

That's just more rhetoric.  If you know where your next grant is coming 
from, it's a lot easier to make a timeline.

Molecular manufacturing is so fundamentally simple that it would not 
take much characterization to develop it.  It's more architecture and 
engineering than science at this point.

>> Identify ways we can hurt ourselves with it, and
>> take whatever actions 
>> are necessary to avoid the worst dangers.
> 
> I definitely disagree, then, based on the results to
> date of attempts to do so.  But only directly with the
> taking action part of it.

Hm... Which attempts are you thinking of?  I'm thinking of various 
anti-proliferation and pro-communication and pro-stability measures that 
have been taken to reduce the nuclear threat.  Do you think the ABM 
treaty did not make things more stable?

>>Planning would involve first, analyzing
>> the danger in more 
>> detail, and second (if it turns out that the danger
>> is significant) 
>> figuring out ways not to get into that situation.
> 
> At the NNI conference, an example of such an effort
> was detailed.  Someone did a toxicology study on
> buckyballs, reporting that injecting them into fish
> throats until the throats were blocked off had harmful
> effects on the fish.  (Well, *yeah*.  Most solids or
> liquids will do that.)  

Someone got their stories *really* mixed up, to the point of 
irresponsibility or even lying.  The respiratory study was done on rats. 
  And they found that buckytubes had a lung blocking effect that they'd 
never seen before.
http://www.nasvf.org/web/allpress.nsf/pages/8351

The fish study was done with buckyballs, and found that moderate 
concentrations of buckyballs caused lipid damage in fish brains.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/acs-ob031904.php

 > The press reported it as, to
> paraphrase, "NANOSTUFF IS TOXIC!!!"  

Well, *yeah*.  Most press will do that. :-)

The fish researcher reported her pilot-study findings at a scientific 
meeting.  The press picked up on it.  She was widely castigated for 
having talked about it at all.  I think this was inappropriate; what, 
she shouldn't have talked to colleagues?  Or they should have kept the 
press out of the meeting?

> The result was
> seen as not harmful to overall nanotech research only
> because no legislation had come of it.

Is that the main lesson they learned?  That they dodged a bullet by 
avoiding legislation?  Gaah.  They might realize that they're playing 
with new kinds of chemicals, and some fraction of them *will* be 
significantly toxic, maybe even with new mechanisms, and they should be 
thinking about how to deal with that reality.  Not shooting or even 
silencing the messengers.

And the fact is, nano industry has not been nearly cautious enough in 
some areas.  Selling nanoparticles of titanium dioxide to put on baby's 
skins is DUMB.  Even if it turns out (which we have no way of knowing 
yet) that those particular nanoparticles are no more dangerous than, 
say, silicone breast implants, as a business move it's very, very dumb. 
  (Of course, now that they've done it, stopping it may be an even 
dumber business move, since that would appear to indicate known danger. 
  Bleah.)

> In other words, identifying possible dangers as we
> come to know about them is a good thing.  Acting on
> the possible threats before we have enough data is
> not.  If planning causes action before we can be
> reasonably certain of the exact nature of the threat,
> and our only control over the action is whether to do
> the planning that causes it not, then don't plan.
 >
> (And yes, I realize this is kind of the Precautionary
> Principle, subverted to extropian ends.  The irony is
> not lost on me. ^_^; )

Then you'll have already seen my counter-argument coming.  Even if the 
exact nature of the threat is not known, if we have good reason to think 
that a threat exists, we should take action to avoid it.  In the case of 
nanoparticles, the threat is mostly too diffuse to act on, except with 
diverse studies ASAP (a good idea for several reasons).  But in the case 
of molecular manufacturing, the threat appears quite large and 
well-defined.  And the most likely and appropriate response to the 
initial studies is... more studies.  Not a big risk.

>> We can know with pretty good confidence that certain
>> things will become 
>> techincally possible.  Like, the
>> avionics/electronics for a jetliner 
>> will weigh less than 10 kg and cost less than $200.
>>  From this, we can predict that certain things which
>> are stable today 
>> will become unstable.  And if one of those things is
>> geopolitics, then 
>> we might want to make a plan for a new way of doing
>> geopolitics.
> 
> But by the time you get this far in practice, you've
> made so many assumptions that - if you look at the
> volume of assumptions - you can't have pretty good
> confidence in this result.

OK, let's hash this out.  Advanced cheap avionics within 10 years: 80% 
certain.  Arms race based on this: 50% likely.  Arms race will go 
unstable: I'm guessing another 80%.  Overall chance of geopolitical 
instability from this one chain of reasoning: 32%.  These percentages 
are based on my thinking about this for years.  My main uncertainty is 
the 50% chance of arms race.

People likely to die in WWIII: between 10 million and 1 billion.  So I'm 
predicting at least 3 million statistical deaths from just one tiny 
consequence of molecular manufacturing.  I have pretty good confidence 
that the problem will be at least that bad.  And there are many other 
problems of comparable magnitude.

Now, are you arguing that the best strategy is to ignore what I just 
said, rather than working to verify or criticize my numbers?  At what 
point would you change that strategy?

>> I
>> think we have 
>> enough of a clue to do at least some of our homework
>> in advance.
> 
> A little, perhaps.  Study and observe.  Just don't let
> the studies slide into action before they're ready.

Can we at least agree on the value of making contingency plans?  So that 
if events start validating a model which predicts disaster, we know what 
we need to tweak to avoid it?

> Ah, but solutions for the old reactions have already
> been developed, no?  Like the arms race: develop
> defenses ASAP once the nature of the threat is known
> (and thus defenses can be developed); until then,
> study the potential threat to determine it's nature.

In an arms race, defenses are not always stabilizing.  Developing 
defenses ASAP may make things worse.

>> You don't think it's possible to identify likely
>> instabilities and 
>> vicious cycles, and work to steer clear of them?
> 
> Possible, yes.  Advisable *at this time*, no, based on
> an analysis of previous instabilities/vicious cycles
> caused by premature efforts to do so.

Examples?  And note that I'm not proposing immediate action; I'm 
proposing immediate study.  If the study shows that we're obviously 
running off a cliff, *and* shows enough of the surrounding topology to 
show an alternate path, then I'd propose action; but it's too early to 
tell what action will save us.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun 28 20:31:48 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:31:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Greg Burch's comments
In-Reply-To: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDAEPICHAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
	<PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDAEPICHAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040628152659.01beda00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:47 AM 6/28/2004 -0500, Greg Burch wrote:

>Isn't it better to be patient and try to work back to the foundations and 
>try to educate and reason?

Been there, done that, didn't work.

(Obviously, since this is about the third time Robert has come forward with 
a variant of this mad idea after having had its inhumanity and 
counter-productiveness expounded to him previously in tones of both 
justified outrage and educational reason).

Damien Broderick 




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Jun 28 20:37:14 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Ethics
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281047320.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


OK, lets try this again with a little more forethought
(and a few insights, some loudly, some thoughtfully,
injected into my thoughts).

And again this argument may be somewhat utilitarian
for most people but I AM FOREWARNING YOU.

First lets make a couple of points.

Greg and others are correct -- I do *not* have a good
background in moral philosophy or classical or
legal ethics.  I do have a reasonably good background
however in bioethics and medical ethics.  So I might
just be arguing from perspectives that many of you do
not have but the opinions are not completely based on
a lack of education.

At this point I would like to state very clearly that
the "casual" use of nuclear weapons is an application
of an inappropriate level of force to solve problems.
I probably need to go to a military or police academy
to understand better what *is* and appropriate level
of force in specific situations (I am sure this problem
has been extensively studied as it tends to dictate
things like "rules" of engagement for both military
and civilian authorities.)

That stated, I will point out that in the past under
various circumstances (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Abu Ghraib
prison, the streets of LA and Seattle, etc.) excessive
levels of force were used that at that time were viewed
as appropriate but were later were generally viewed as
inappropriate.  Presumably this deals with the evolution
of ethics as humans evolve and become more "civilized".
If the humans did indeed wipe out the neanderthals it
was probably viewed as perfectly justified at the time.
Presumably ethics must evolve again as we become transhumans.

Now, my background in bioethics leads to things like
should deaf parents have the right to demand that
geneticists select embryos or perform gene therapies
upon their children so they are born deaf as well?
Almost all hearing people would find that to be
a repulsive suggestion.  But bioethicists have
to think about it and justify why it should not
be done.  In my reading of the messages so far,
I think Steve may be the only person who really
tried to look at the results/ethics of my suggestion
and point out why it would not work (and therefore
would be morally wrong).

In medicine people are taught about the necessity of
"triage" -- saving as many lives as you can.  Now
anyone who knows of my background knows that I place
a tremendous value on human life (one doesn't spend
over 90% of a small personal fortune trying to
jump-start lifespan extension research and *not*
care greatly for human life).  It also was not done
in caring about only my own life because as I stated
in the previous thread, I would be willing to sacrifice
my life to murder someone like Sadaam if I thought it
had a reasonable chance for success.  I would do that
based on the reasoning that an improved quality of life and/or
the lives themselves of large numbers of innocent people would be
one reasonably probable result.  In fact I would say
it ethically and morally wrong to allow Sadaam to remain
in power (perhaps even alive) knowing the past crimes he
has committed or authorized and the human lives it has cost.

Now, the time before last when I suggested an extreme
solution, Anders strongly criticized me.  I believe
the basis was the fundamental right that all humans
have to life.  We know there are fundamental differences
of opinion on this.  In the U.S. some states impose the
death penalty for serious crimes.  In many, perhaps most, other
countries it is not an acceptable form of punishment.  So one of
the questions which comes up for debate in transhuman ethics
is *when* lifespan extending technologies become available,
do people imprisoned for life (without the possibility
of parole) have a fundamental right of access to these
technologies (the right to life).  If they do not one
has effectively imposed the death penalty.  One could
extend the same argument to a fundamental right of
access to health care, to education, to cryonics, etc.
(i.e. anything which improves the chances for an individual
to survive).  We have recently seen efforts by France and
Arizona to eliminate cryonic suspensions -- i.e. an
indirect imposition of a death penalty on people who
have committed no crime.

For myself -- I do not currently believe that everyone
has the same fundamental right to life.  That is because
I perform a triage analysis on the current and future
human race.  In effect (wanting the greatest number
of people to survive now and in the future) I look at
the value of a human with say an MD/PhD medical researcher
in Western country and compare them with women with virtually
no education (they cannot even write and are instilled
with beliefs that they cannot leave their homes without
the permission of their husbands).  The only conclusion
I can reach is that the value of the researcher (from
the transhumanist perspective of saving the greatest
number of lives) is far greater than the value of the
woman.  Now you can argue that diminishing the woman's
"right to life" is not a transhumanistic perspective.
I would argue that diminishing the "right to life"
of the MD/PhD by even a small amount is a much greater
moral crime than reducing the "right to life" of
the woman in Afghanistan by even a large amount.

My conclusion -- transhumanistic ethics needs to seriously
look at this whole "fundamental right to life" question.
Because in triage situations you have to make decisions
as to precisely who is worth saving.

Now of course many of you will perhaps argue, "but we
aren't physicians or military planners -- we don't
have to make triage based decisions that arise from
huge accidents (e.g. 911) or military conflicts.
Ca-ca.  One makes those decisions all the time.
Reduce government support for health care to the
point where people have to wait months for operations --
people are going to die.  Fail to legislate cryonics as
a right everyone should have -- people are going to die.
Fail to provide sufficient education that people can uplift
themselves in changing economic times -- people are going
to die.  Allow financial institutions to behave in ways
that destroy the savings of people so they can't afford
to pay for medical care -- people are going to die.
Insurance companies failing to pay for certain medical
procedures -- people are going to die.  Fail to eliminate
belief systems that can produce people willing to commit
suicide bombings or kidnappings and public beheadings --
people are going to die.  Fail to even write letters to
your government condemning the situation in Sudan/Darfur --
people are going to die.

So I would argue that there are very few people in the world
that believe in an absolute inviolate "right to life" and
would suggest that those who claim they believe that have
not really examined reality around them closely enough to
do a very good job of turning such beliefs into reality.

Now, with regard to what I viewed as the original problem --
irrational beliefs based on the devaluation of the lives
of non-believers that are so strong that "talking" to
those believers will simply not work -- I have refined
my thoughts.  One solution *might* be a targeted
bombing of "holy sites" at times when they are least
occupied.  But this may have the consequence of making
people even angrier and more supportive of radical
Islam or Judaism.  Right now I think my best suggestion
would be to take out the satellites that focus on
inflaming radical positions (e.g. Aljazeera) and
replace them with satellites that carry everything
from education in reading writing and arithmetic,
to religious TV from more moderate clerics to
debates among biological, medical and religious
ethicists from various religions to lessons on
the history of democracy.  Follow that up with
free satellite dishes and TVs to educational
institutions and then you might begin to get somewhere.

Just to pour some gas on the fire (yes some of you
are thinking that I've done enough damage already)
it occurs to me that a "state" conducting the best
triage (i.e. saving the greatest number of current
and future human lives) would be fairly socialistic
(in the purest sense).  On the other hand a state
that is extremely libertarian is probably conducting
some form of negative triage.  One is probably sacrificing
current lives for a less regulated future environment --
in that case one seems to be placing no discounting
of the value of future lives relative to the value
of current lives.  Or one is placing a value on
"freedom" over that of human life.  (But that
is the state motto of New Hampshire... :-?)

Now with respect to transhuman ethics -- I deeply
hope that people like Mark Walker get involved in
these areas to a greater extent so minds that are
more familiar and adept at some of the various more
classical arguments than I am and at the same time
understand the aspects of a transhuman environment
make some progress in their analysis.

Robert
--------------
The opinions expressed here are my own and
do not represent those of the Extropy Institute,
The American Aging Association or any of their
affiliates.




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Jun 28 20:38:21 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:38:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech research (was Re: Nanotech educations)
In-Reply-To: <200406280039.i5S0dan04368@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406280039.i5S0dan04368@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40E081BD.2030901@CRNano.org>


Adrian Tymes wrote:

 > Chris Phoenix wrote:
 >> Sorry, I misspoke.  MNT _research_ is not
 >> technology-limited.  If we
 >> wanted to start a crash nanofactory program today,
 >> we could write useful
 >> software without waiting for any lab results.  And
 >> by the time the
 >> software was done, the lab results could be
 >> achieved too.
 >
 > That is what I understood (the hardware part, anyway),
 > and disagree with.  The state of the art in hardware
 > is, itself, limiting the research, and thus the lab
 > results.  Which is not to say there aren't problems
 > to solve on the software side too, just that they
 > aren't that dominant.

I agree that lab results are limited by hardware.  That's always true. 
What I'm claiming is that a combination of targeted hardware 
improvement, and being smart about how the hardware is used, could 
achieve fabrication of mechanosynthetic mechanisms sufficient to rapidly 
bootstrap a nanofactory in as little as five years.

And I'm saying that, for this one purpose (nanofactory levels of MNT), 
it's likely that a program starting even today will find that useful 
software is the gating factor.

 > This is ebeam of masks, actually.  I've heard DPN can
 > get down to about 15-30 for complex shapes; 5 is for
 > straight lines, which by themselves aren't that
 > useful.

Line width of 15 nm, placement precision of 5.  So you can make 
unwritten voids with 5 nm precision and some constraints on shape.

 > (That may also be what you've heard about
 > ebeam.  I've seen individual dots made with ebeam that
 > have better resolution, but the processes involved
 > were not useful for anything but making small dots,
 > and specifically not for constructing useful systems.)

EBID can get down to 20 nm features.  Including 3D shapes.  And can 
deposit a wide range of materials.

What's the problem with small ebeam dots?  Throughput?

 >> Does "significant volume" mean ten nm^3, or 1
 >> micron^3?
 >
 > mm^3 and above, where one can start applying nanoscale
 > properties to macroscale objects (like space
 > elevators, or enough nanobots to hunt down all the
 > cancer cells in an average adult human body).

Well, no surprise there!  No one is proposing to make complicated 
eutactic mm^3 structures by anything other than exponential 
manufacturing.  Maybe the self-assembly people, but they'll have major 
problems getting enough complexity and spatial heterogeneity.

 >> MNT is not just eutactic manufacturing.  It's
 >> exponential manufacturing.
 >
 > Only if the assemblers make the assemblers.  Like I
 > said, once you have a device that can assemble things
 > at the atomic level, you have a device that can
 > assemble things at the atomic level.  Building more
 > assemblers may take a (lot of) resources and time,

Eh?  I thought we were talking all along about the assemblers making the 
assemblers.  At least I've been trying to.  It's not very hard, if you 
pick the right chemical family and don't get sidetracked by biomimesis.

Why would assemblers building assemblers require lots of resources and 
time?

 > which is why some people are proposing ways to make
 > assemblers other than just relying on the assemblers
 > to self-replicate (which works until the volume of
 > assemblers available can exceed the manufacturing
 > throughput of these other methods).  This is likely to
 > shrink the time to rapid deployment to less than the
 > time to develop it (measured from, say, publication of
 > Nanosystems).

Yes, deployment should be very rapid.  Starting with one Merkle-type 
assembler and a lot of predesign, it should be possible to bootstrap to 
a tabletop nanofactory in about a month.

 >> most researchers are quite uninformed about the
 >> goals or the
 >> implications.
 >
 > This I'll agree with, if you add "long term" in front
 > of "goals and implications".  But it's the same way
 > that, say, those researching better ways of achieving
 > LEO are uninformed as to the details of lunar
 > colonization: the data's there, and has possibly come
 > in front of their eyes more than once, but it makes
 > little immediate difference to them, so they ignore it
 > for now.  When it's closer to reality, expect more to
 > start paying attention.

NASA's human spaceflight has been focused on LEO for decades, and how 
far has it gotten us?  It's gotten us to LEO.  And I don't think the 
long-term implications of NASA extend even to a moonbase.

This is not the best way to achieve big results.  Maybe, in our current 
political/economic system, it's the only way to achieve any results. 
But if that's true, the Chinese are going to eat our lunch in a decade 
or so, unless the Japanese, Indians, or Brazilians get there first.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 28 21:30:52 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Ethics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281047320.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040628213052.83439.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:> 
> My conclusion -- transhumanistic ethics needs to seriously
> look at this whole "fundamental right to life" question.
> Because in triage situations you have to make decisions
> as to precisely who is worth saving.

I learned about triage as a ski patroller and ski instructor, taking
emergency responder training.

As a ski patroller, I didn't get to choose who had a better right to
live based on how well they skied, how attractive they were in their
ski suit, or how much money they spent on their ski equipment. 

I didn't even have a right to deny care to whoever was at fault in a
ski accident. Even bad skiers can become better ones, and pay for the
damage along the way. Redemption is open to all.

Nor was it proper to choose who was going to live and die until AFTER a
disaster or accident occured.

> 
> Now of course many of you will perhaps argue, "but we
> aren't physicians or military planners -- we don't
> have to make triage based decisions that arise from
> huge accidents (e.g. 911) or military conflicts.
> Ca-ca.  One makes those decisions all the time.
> Reduce government support for health care to the
> point where people have to wait months for operations --
> people are going to die.  Fail to legislate cryonics as
> a right everyone should have -- people are going to die.
> Fail to provide sufficient education that people can uplift
> themselves in changing economic times -- people are going
> to die.  Allow financial institutions to behave in ways
> that destroy the savings of people so they can't afford
> to pay for medical care -- people are going to die.
> Insurance companies failing to pay for certain medical
> procedures -- people are going to die.  Fail to eliminate
> belief systems that can produce people willing to commit
> suicide bombings or kidnappings and public beheadings --
> people are going to die.  Fail to even write letters to
> your government condemning the situation in Sudan/Darfur --
> people are going to die.

What you describe, however, is that society is practicing triage on the
human race all the time, anonymously, pitilessly, and quite often
without remorse. You need to package your arguments so as to oppose
such immoral action. It is THEY who are the fascists, the islamists,
the luddites, the socialists, the xian fundies. They DON'T HAVE THE
RIGHT to do what they are doing. When they initiate force, they need to
be opposed, whoever they are.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun 28 21:41:23 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:41:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fukuyama's perhaps surprising views on Iraq
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040628163940.01b81ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


----------
Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at the Paul 
H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins 
University in Washington, is author of The End of History and the Last Man 
(Penguin, 1992). A longer version of this article appears in the upcoming 
edition of The National Interest in Washington.

Francis Fukuyama: Shattered illusions

29jun04

OF all of the different views that have now come to be associated with 
neo-conservatives, the strangest one to me was the confidence that the US 
could transform Iraq into a Western-style democracy and go on from there to 
democratise the broader Middle East.

It struck me as strange precisely because these same neo-conservatives had 
spent much of the past generation warning about the dangers of ambitious 
social engineering and how social planners could never control behaviour or 
deal with unanticipated consequences.

If the US cannot eliminate poverty or raise test scores in Washington, DC, 
how in the world does it expect to bring democracy to a part of the world 
that has stubbornly resisted it and is virulently anti-American to boot?

Several neo-conservatives, such as Pulitzer prize-winning columnist Charles 
Krauthammer, have noted how wrong people were after World War II in 
asserting that Japan could not democratise. Krauthammer asks: "Where is it 
written that Arabs are incapable of democracy?" He is echoing an argument 
made most forthrightly by the eminent Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, 
who has at several junctures suggested that pessimism about the prospects 
for a democratic Iraq betrays lack of respect for Arabs.

It is, of course, nowhere written that Arabs are incapable of democracy, 
and it is certainly foolish for cynical Europeans to assert with great 
confidence that democracy is impossible in the Middle East. We have, 
indeed, been fooled before, not just in Japan but in Eastern Europe after 
the collapse of communism.

But possibility is not probability, and good policy is not made by staking 
everything on a throw of the dice. Culture is not destiny, but culture 
plays an important role in making possible certain kinds of institutions ? 
something that is usually taken to be a conservative insight.

Though I, more than most people, am associated with the idea that history's 
arrow points to democracy, I have never believed that democracies can be 
created anywhere and everywhere through simple political will.

Prior to the Iraq war, there were many reasons for thinking that building a 
democratic Iraq was a task of a complexity that would be nearly 
unmanageable. Some reasons had to do with the nature of Iraqi society: the 
fact that it would be decompressing rapidly from totalitarianism, its 
ethnic divisions, the role of politicised religion, its tribal structure 
and the dominance of extended kin and patronage networks, and its 
susceptibility to influence from other parts of the Middle East that were 
passionately anti-American.

But other reasons had to do with America. The US has been involved in 
approximately 18 nation-building projects between its conquest of the 
Philippines in 1899 and the current occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, 
and the overall record is not a pretty one. The cases of unambiguous 
success ? Germany, Japan and South Korea ? were all cases where US forces 
came and then stayed indefinitely.

In the first two cases, we weren't nation-building at all, but only 
re-legitimating societies that had very powerful states. In all of the 
other cases, the US either left nothing behind in terms of self-sustaining 
institutions, or else made things worse by creating, as in the case of 
Nicaragua, a modern army and police but no lasting rule of law.

This gets to a fundamental point about unipolarity. True, there is vast 
disparity of power between the US and the rest of the world, vaster even 
than Rome's dominance at the height of its empire. But that dominance is 
clear-cut only along two dimensions of national power, the cultural realm 
and the ability to fight and win intensive conventional wars. Americans 
have no particular taste or facility for nation-building; we want exit 
strategies rather than empires.

So where does the domestic basis of support come for this unbelievably 
ambitious effort to politically transform one of the world's most troubled 
and hostile regions? And if the nation is really a commercial republic 
uncomfortable with empire, why should Americans be so eager to expand its 
domain? In Iraq, since the US invasion, we Americans have been our usual 
inept and disorganised selves in planning for and carrying out the 
reconstruction, something that should not have surprised anyone familiar 
with American history.

As it happened, many Europeans raised some of these doubts in the lead-up 
to war in March 2003. Many Europeans did not particularly trust the US to 
handle the post-war situation well, much less the more ambitious agenda of 
democratising the Middle East. They also tended not to be persuaded that 
Iraq was as dangerous as the Bush administration claimed.

They argued that Baathist Iraq had little to do with al-Qa'ida, and that 
attacking Iraq would be a distraction from the larger war on terrorism. And 
they believed that the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict was a more 
dangerous source of instability and terrorism than Iraq, and that the Bush 
administration was undercutting its own credibility by appearing to side so 
strongly with the policies of Ariel Sharon.

All of these were and are, of course, debatable propositions. On the 
question of the manageability of post-war Iraq, the more sceptical European 
position was almost certainly right.

The Bush administration went into Iraq with enormous illusions about how 
easy the post-war situation would be: it thought the reconstruction would 
be self-financing, that Americans could draw on a lasting well of gratitude 
for liberating Iraq, and that we could occupy the country with a small 
force structure and even draw US forces down significantly within a few 
months.

On the question of the threat posed by Iraq, everyone ? Europeans and 
Americans ? were evidently fooled into thinking that it possessed 
significant stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. But on this 
issue, the European bottom line proved to be closer to the truth than the 
administration's far more alarmist position.

The question of pre-war Iraq-al-Qa'ida links has become intensely 
politicised in the US since the war. My reading of the evidence is that 
these linkages existed but that their significance was limited. We have 
learned since September 11 that al-Qa'ida did not need the support of a 
state such as Iraq to do a tremendous amount of damage to the US, and that 
attacking Iraq was not the most direct way to get at al-Qa'ida.

On the question of Palestine, the Europeans are likely wrong, or at least 
wrong in their belief that we could move to a durable settlement of the 
conflict if only the US decided to use its influence with Israel.

The point here is not who is right, but rather that the prudential case was 
not nearly as open-and-shut as many neo-conservatives believed. They talk 
as if their (that is, the Bush administration's) judgment had been 
vindicated at every turn, and that any questioning of their judgment could 
only be the result of base or dishonest motives. If only this were true. 
The fact that Washington's judgment was flawed has created an enormous 
legitimacy problem for the US, one that will hurt American interests for a 
long time to come.

The lesson of Iraq is that the US needs to be more prudent and subtle in 
exercising power in pursuit of both its interests and values. The world's 
sole superpower needs to remember that its margin of power is viewed with 
great suspicion around the world and will set off countervailing reactions 
if that power is not exercised judiciously.

This means, in the first instance, doing the simple work of diplomacy and 
coalition-building that the Bush administration seemed so reluctant to 
undertake prior to the Iraq War, and to not gratuitously insult the "common 
opinions of mankind".

The US does not need to embrace the UN or multilateralism for its own sake, 
or because we somehow believe that such institutions are inherently more 
legitimate than nation states.

On the other hand, the US needs like-minded allies to accomplish both the 
realist and idealist portions of our agenda, and should spend much more 
time and energy cultivating them.

Democracy promotion, through all of the available tools at America's 
disposal, should remain high on the agenda, particularly with regard to the 
Middle East. But the US needs to be more realistic about its 
nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social 
engineering projects in parts of the world it doesn't understand very well.








From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 28 22:08:35 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <40E07D24.4020102@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040628220835.68654.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

> If we want the private sector to stay clueless, and
> the President's 
> Technology Council to stay misinformed, while we
> wait and see which 
> government catches on first and spends a billion to
> develop a 
> nanofactory, then our current strategy is very
> effective.

One can't get 100% odds on these things, but I
suspect the odds favor the American government doing
this first, given what they're already funding.  But
this will be once someone comes up with a solid way to
make a nanofactory for US$1,000,000,000.00 or so,
having formed the proposal enough that one could make
useful budgetary projections.

> A liter product
> would have 10^18 of 
> your voxels.  I doubt AutoCAD could handle that.

It could, and I understand some people do use it for
10^18 voxels.  But from what I've seen of that kind of
usage, managing that many elements at a time is so
ungainly that there's much room for a better solution.
One could say the entire field of bioinformatics was
set up to address a very similar problem.

I think we might be agreeing on the idea here, just
using different words to describe it.

> But writing useful CAD software could take five
> years.

What all needs to be done to write "useful" CAD
software?  As had been pointed out, efforts towards
this are being made; I'd view these as components,
while the rest of the components (and assembly into
the final software package) would wait for the actual
hardware.

> * Succeeding or failing on their own merits:  I
> agree that their 
> technical success is not determined by their
> desirability.  However, 
> their economic success is.  If you can build a
> single Merkle "assembler" 
> for $10^7, it's worth doing.

*nods*  But the proposals will have to be evaluated.
It's likely that any such proposal which has a serious
chance of resulting in MNT by itself (plus everything
that's already been accomplished) for a mere $10 mil
will get the funding.  I don't see any such proposals
at this time, though I do see a bunch of research to
create that which could let those proposals be
formed.

> * Similar end result: If *any* technology is able to
> achieve the MNT end 
> result in the next few years, then we have to
> consider that the end 
> result is imminent.

Logic error: just because something could happen
doesn't mean it automatically will happen.  Certain
techs could lead to MNT in the next few years.
Doesn't mean they will, and while we can alter the
odds somewhat, nothing we can do will give them 100%
or 0% success rates.

> At that point, we can stop
> talking about the 
> details of the technology (while funding a crash
> project to develop it) 

Part of the crash project would be to discuss, as in
iron out and nail down, the details of the technology.
In fact, that'd possibly be the most important part.

> Can you tell me about the architectures you've
> thought of?

Sure.  I think I may have mentioned them on this list
a short while back.

#1: Start with two probes, rigged to be able to hold
and release atoms.  One is the "stage", onto which
the product is assembled; at start, it holds one atom
that'll wind up on the edge of the final product.  The
other is the "manipulator", which slides along a rod
to one of a series of storage bins, each holding bulk
feedstock of different elements.  A laser or electron
beam ablates one atom from the corner of the stock,
which the manipulator latches onto before sliding back
to the stage.  The stage moves and rotates to position
the product relative to the manipulator, such that the
atom is in approximately the right place (within an
angstrom or so, anyway), then the manipulator releases
its atom with a pulse of electricity, freeing it to
latch onto the product.  The manipulator then slides
back to pick up the next atom, et cetera.

#2: Take single atom thin layers of material, possibly
created by deposition on an evaporatable substrate.
Press these layers onto the product being made, and
fire laser pulses at the substrate to knock off single
atoms in the desired position.  (Substrate chemistry
makes sure it does not bond to the product beneath -
perhaps the substrate evaporates up while the layer
evaporates down.)  This one is not as well thought
out; the substrate would need to be identified, as
well as the precise means of making layers (though the
latter may be doable today).  It's mostly a way to
convert those techniques for making small-radius dots
and lines into something that could actually build
real products.

> >> I think this will delay MNT.  And make it happen
> >> more abruptly and 
> >> proliferate less controllably when it does
> arrive.
> > 
> > The former is bad; the latter, frankly, is
> arguably a
> > good thing.
> 
> I arguably dis/agree with you.  We don't know
> whether it's a good thing. 

Which is why I said "arguably".

> If you think that nano-anarchy is survivable, then
> I'd definitely argue 
> with you.

I declare that there appears to be a nonzero, even
majority (though not 100%), chance that the human race
(for very broad, inclusive definitions of "human")
would survive for at least a hundred years (or
"forever barring other forces", but I'm trying to be
specific here) if a general purpose molecular
assembler and replicator capable of doing everything
described in Nanosystems were to be developed this
year and appear, without any legislative controls that
do not apply to most types of physical property, for
sale at under $100/gram at retail hardware stores in
most industrial nations, and software to control said
replicators from WiFi-enabled PDAs (like, say, Palm's
Tungsten C model) freely distributed on the Internet
(as available as, say, major distributions of the
Linux operating system, including bandwidth
requirements), by year's end.

Long winded, but before I explain my reasoning behind
that conclusion, does that meet your definition of
nano-anarchy?

> Maybe we can also agree that nano-oppression is a
> near-vertical slippery 
> slope.  And one that we're arguably likely to step
> on.

You mean oppression by those using nanotechnology
against those who don't?  I'd agree there's a
significant danger that that will happen, somewhere.
I wouldn't agree that it's likely that fate would
befall a large fraction of humanity, whether in the
industrialized nations that could produce MNT (since
the oppressed would also know how, and soon enough
gain their own) or in the rest of the world (since
oppressive governments tend to waste resources like
no one's business, meaning that they are unlikely to
be able to truly tap the exponential power of
assemblers - a king having assemblers wouldn't help
his grunts that much if the king keeps the assemblers
all to himself - thus it won't upset the power balance
that much, thus it wouldn't really be
"nano"-oppression).

We're just talking the about availability of MNT
here, not the intelligence to effectively clamp down
on its use.

> >> Identify ways we can hurt ourselves with it, and
> >> take whatever actions 
> >> are necessary to avoid the worst dangers.
> > 
> > I definitely disagree, then, based on the results
> to
> > date of attempts to do so.  But only directly with
> the
> > taking action part of it.
> 
> Hm... Which attempts are you thinking of?  I'm
> thinking of various 
> anti-proliferation and pro-communication and
> pro-stability measures that 
> have been taken to reduce the nuclear threat.  Do
> you think the ABM 
> treaty did not make things more stable?

I'm thinking that practical efforts, in today's
political climate, would wind up being closer to the
stem cell funding ban than to the ABM treaty.  And
the funding ban has made things less stable, by
retarding research into biodefenses while countries
more amenable to supplying terrorists (and not cutting
them off when their initial job's done, anyway) made
great strides towards developing bioweapons.

Besides, the ABM treaty was a deal between the only
two significant sources of nuclear weapons at the
time.  There are how many labs researching nanotech
these days?  And not all of them will respond to
international treaties - indeed, a few of them are
probably acting in deliberate defiance of local laws.

> Someone got their stories *really* mixed up, to the
> point of 
> irresponsibility or even lying.

No, the sources you gave are consistent with what I
heard.  They weren't talking about the rat story, just
the fish.  From:

>
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/acs-ob031904.php

> In a controlled laboratory study, the researcher
> exposed nine juvenile largemouth bass ? confined to
> 10-Liter aquaria ? to a form of water-soluble
> buckyball (C60) at a dose of 0.5 parts per million.

What they don't say is how this "exposure" happened:
direct injection into the fish throats.  I recall
hearing concerns that the injection completely
blocked the throat; correlating to the description
above, it sounds like they were concerned the
buckyballs weren't the only thing in that injection,
or that the balls formed a semi-solid despite the low
dose and water solubility.

> The fish researcher reported her pilot-study
> findings at a scientific 
> meeting.  The press picked up on it.  She was widely
> castigated for 
> having talked about it at all.  I think this was
> inappropriate; what, 
> she shouldn't have talked to colleagues?  Or they
> should have kept the 
> press out of the meeting?

The latter, if either.  It was the press that altered
the details so that what they said failed to match
reality, no?  Of course, barring the press is itself
rarely a good solution...although one wonders if
gross misrepresentation of the facts like this might
be cause to suspend journalistic privleges, or at
least incur libel suits.

> Is that the main lesson they learned?  That they
> dodged a bullet by 
> avoiding legislation?

Main?  No.  But it was among the results.

> They might realize that they're playing 
> with new kinds of chemicals, and some fraction of
> them *will* be 
> significantly toxic, maybe even with new mechanisms,
> and they should be 
> thinking about how to deal with that reality.

Oh, they realize that.  That's why the study was done
in the first place.  But there's a wide difference
between identifying and dealing rationally with
dangers, and slapping on the Precautionary Principle
to ban an entire industry.

> Then you'll have already seen my counter-argument
> coming.  Even if the 
> exact nature of the threat is not known, if we have
> good reason to think 
> that a threat exists, we should take action to avoid
> it.

But what action?  It's a cliche among politicians to
pass useless laws because the public demands they "do
something" about certain problems, even when the
politicians have no idea what the problem is or how to
effectively address it.  In too many cases, these laws
do more harm than good.  (And if you need proof of
that, I'll step aside and let any of this list's
Libertarian members chime in.)

> And the most likely and appropriate response to the 
> initial studies is... more studies.  Not a big risk.

Ah...that's different from what I thought you were
arguing for.  Yes, more studies are a good idea.  I
thought you were arguing for passing laws right now to
ban certain activities or the like.

> OK, let's hash this out.  Advanced cheap avionics
> within 10 years: 80% 
> certain.  Arms race based on this: 50% likely.  Arms
> race will go 
> unstable: I'm guessing another 80%.  Overall chance
> of geopolitical 
> instability from this one chain of reasoning: 32%.
> These percentages 
> are based on my thinking about this for years.  My
> main uncertainty is 
> the 50% chance of arms race.

Only 32%, and I'd say you're being generous with the
chance of arms race and unstable arms race.  (Who
would we have an arms race with, for starters?  The
whole world's playing technological catch up to the US
military as it is.)  And an unstable arms race would
not necessarily invoke WWIII.  And given the US
tendency towards smart weapons, if WWIII does seem
imminent, what's the chance one side or the other will
simply assassinate the leaders to encourage regime
change (and suceed at it), thereby making total
casualties under 1,000?  And, and, and...

> So I'm 
> predicting at least 3 million statistical deaths
> from just one tiny 
> consequence of molecular manufacturing.

Balanced against how many lives saved due to improved
medicine?  And lost from other consequences?

> Now, are you arguing that the best strategy is to
> ignore what I just 
> said, rather than working to verify or criticize my
> numbers?

I question the applicability of the numbers.  They
only seem to capture a tiny portion of the big
picture.  But it is the big picture that matters: will
a certain action cause more deaths than its absence?

(By contrast, my "50%" above is based on comparisons
to history, which have the big picture available.  All
that has happened, has happened.)

> Can we at least agree on the value of making
> contingency plans?  So that 
> if events start validating a model which predicts
> disaster, we know what 
> we need to tweak to avoid it?

So long as these plans allow for reversal if they
turn out to be cause unforseen problems or to have
been invoked in error, or at least have minimal
negative consequences in said cases, yes.  For
example, setting up orbital and lunar colonies as
backup locations for humanity, and getting them
self-sufficient, just in case the grey goo scenario
actually happens (however unlikely it is).

> > Advisable *at this time*, no, based on
> > an analysis of previous instabilities/vicious
> cycles
> > caused by premature efforts to do so.
> 
> Examples?  And note that I'm not proposing immediate
> action; I'm 
> proposing immediate study.

The examples would be of immediate actions.  Again,
immediate studies are good.


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 28 22:14:22 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:14:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fukuyama's perhaps surprising views on Iraq
Message-ID: <36230-220046128221422644@M2W081.mail2web.com>


From: Damien Broderick wrote:

----------
"Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at the Paul 
H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins 
University in Washington, is author of The End of History and the Last Man 
(Penguin, 1992). A longer version of this article appears in the upcoming 
edition of The National Interest in Washington...."


Just a couple of thoughts.

>"The point here is not who is right, but rather that the prudential case
>was not nearly as open-and-shut as many neo-conservatives believed.?

"The point here is not who is right, but rather that the prudential case is
not nearly as open-and-shut as President Bush and many anti-biotechnology
advocates believe."

>"... and to not gratuitously insult the "common opinions of mankind".

"...and to not gratuitously insult the "common opinions of humankind,"
those who need and want stem cell therapy."

>"...cautious in taking on large social engineering projects in parts of
>the world it doesn't understand very well."

"... cautions in taking on large social engineering of beliefs in parts of
the American culture that does not share the same religious beliefs as
President Bush, Leon Kass and other members of the President's Bioethics
Council."

Natasha


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 28 22:39:16 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech research (was Re: Nanotech educations)
In-Reply-To: <40E081BD.2030901@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040628223916.39640.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> What I'm claiming is that a combination of targeted
> hardware 
> improvement, and being smart about how the hardware
> is used, could 
> achieve fabrication of mechanosynthetic mechanisms
> sufficient to rapidly 
> bootstrap a nanofactory in as little as five years.

Okay.  That I can go along with - so long as one can
come up with a very specific list of hardware targets.
I have yet to see such a list, and I wonder if a good
enough list could be created at this time, without
better understanding of the hardware.

> And I'm saying that, for this one purpose
> (nanofactory levels of MNT), 
> it's likely that a program starting even today will
> find that useful 
> software is the gating factor.

That may be the case, depending on the hardware list.
(That is, one could possibly come up with a hardware
list such that the hardware itself would take but a
year or two, but would be useless without software for
the controllers and sensors that would take longer
than that to develop.)

> Line width of 15 nm, placement precision of 5.  So
> you can make 
> unwritten voids with 5 nm precision and some
> constraints on shape.

Some fairly major constraints on shape, namely that
it has to be parallel lines.  Not even crossed lines.

I tried that, when I was first getting into nanotech.
The people who came up with this told me they can not
do shapes.  I believe them, since they might otherwise
have had business (and therefore money) from me.

> What's the problem with small ebeam dots? 
> Throughput?

Getting anything else in close proximity to the dots.
A dot, by itself, isn't very interesting.

> Well, no surprise there!  No one is proposing to
> make complicated 
> eutactic mm^3 structures by anything other than
> exponential 
> manufacturing.

How about the ones that propose to use another
procedure to, say, cover a 4 inch (~100 millimeter
diameter circle) silicon wafer with assemblers, and
go exponential from there?  (Not by self-assembly,
but by top-down manufacture.)

> Eh?  I thought we were talking all along about the
> assemblers making the 
> assemblers.  At least I've been trying to.  It's not
> very hard, if you 
> pick the right chemical family and don't get
> sidetracked by biomimesis.

Well, you do have to start by having something else
make the first assemblers.  There are no assemblers
at this time.  That process will be able to output
assemblers at a certain rate.  This rate will not
necessarily increase as fast as the assemblers'
combined construction rate.  At a certain point, you
can maybe switch over to pure assemblers...but what is
that point?

> Why would assemblers building assemblers require
> lots of resources and 
> time?

How many atoms comprise an assembler?  How many atoms
per time unit can an assembler move?  Depending on
the architecture, the first may be large and the
second may be slow, which adds up to a lot of time to
build another assembler.  Also, does the assembler
waste resources while building other assemblers?  If
so, any waste would scale with the construction rate:
exponentially.

> Yes, deployment should be very rapid.  Starting with
> one Merkle-type 
> assembler and a lot of predesign, it should be
> possible to bootstrap to 
> a tabletop nanofactory in about a month.

That calculation is based on...?

>  >> most researchers are quite uninformed about the
>  >> goals or the
>  >> implications.
>  >
>  > This I'll agree with, if you add "long term" in
> front
>  > of "goals and implications".  But it's the same
> way
>  > that, say, those researching better ways of
> achieving
>  > LEO are uninformed as to the details of lunar
>  > colonization: the data's there, and has possibly
> come
>  > in front of their eyes more than once, but it
> makes
>  > little immediate difference to them, so they
> ignore it
>  > for now.  When it's closer to reality, expect
> more to
>  > start paying attention.
> 
> NASA's human spaceflight

I said "those researching better ways of achieving
LEO".  I should have specified that I meant those
seriously researching it, in ways that get any
results - which, unfortunately, excludes NASA
entirely.  I meant more like SpaceShipOne.


From gingell at gnat.com  Mon Jun 28 23:14:40 2004
From: gingell at gnat.com (Matthew Gingell)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:14:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Ethics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281047320.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281047320.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <16608.42592.234618.446631@nile.gnat.com>

Robert,

To whatever extent you are actually interested in an ethical question,
rather than indulging a very nasty personal fantasy, I think it would
serve you well to back off from the particular hypothetical which
started this fuss and try to raise the questions you want to discuss
in precise, value-free terms.

It seems to me you are asking two questions, along with their
combinations and variants:

1.) If it is immoral to take a life by deliberate positive action, is
    it any less immoral to allow a life to be lost by inaction?

2.) If the loss of more lives is worse than the loss of fewer lives,
    is the course of action resulting in fewer deaths, regardless of
    means, always preferable.
    
These are fun questions, the sorts of questions you might bring up
with your clever friends at a dinner party, but the way you raised the
them was the prose equivalent of taking a dump in the punch bowl. 

When you break taboos that way, whether in regard to the public
contemplation of genocide or the the proper place to dispose of feces,
you step out of the realm of abstract intellectual discussion and
plunge head first into screaming monkey affront at the violation of
consensual social reality.

It isn't useful. Please stop doing it.

Now leaving that aside, and taking my deep horror and furious
indignation at your unspeakable savagery as understood, it seems to me
that you are answering no the first question and yes to the second,
and you are puzzled that the implications are counterintuitive.

Let me suggest a different couple of hypotheticals: (I think due to
Peter Singer but I might be confused or misremember.)

For question 1.) 

 You can wade into a river a save a drowning child, but you will ruin
 your brand new $100 suede shows. Is it moral to keep walking to save
 your shoes?

 Somewhere in the world is an identical child will die of starvation,
 but for your $100 donation to a legitimate and well regarded charity.
 Is it moral to take your girlfriend out to dinner and a movie?

For question 2.)

 Three men go to a doctor. One is perfectly healthy, one has a failing
 heart, and one has a failing liver. They are otherwise identical in
 all interesting respects.

 If the doctor does nothing, two men will die. If the doctor kills the
 healthy man and uses him for spare parts, transplanting his heart and
 liver, one man will die. What's the moral course of action? [1]

So there you go. See what you think. Your answers ought to be concise
and principled, and ought to generalize cleanly to the burning of the
topless towers of Ilium / the violent liberation of the European
working man from the tyranny of the bourgeois banker.

Matt

1 - And, totally beside the point, if you didn't know which man you
    were, what would you want him to do?


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Jun 28 23:27:58 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:27:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <200406281800.i5SI0En00402@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406281800.i5SI0En00402@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40E0A97E.3040106@CRNano.org>

Eugen Leitl wrote in several messages:
 >Adrien Tymes wrote:
 >> One could possibly build MNT systems around a very
 >> very limited library of mechanosynthesis reactions.
 >
 > Indeed, but we don't even have that very limited mechanosynthesis
 > reaction.  It's all 95% vapor at this point.

What about Freitas and Merkle's work with dimer deposition?

> Still, I see no movement at all on open source nanotechnology. The open
> source hackers don't understand the science and the challenge, the people who
> do are too few, and they apparently don't have the skills, or the time.

What about Nano-Hive?  http://www.nano-hive.org/

> By the time we have to deal with systems taking mole number of atoms, we will
> have computers with mole number of switches. There are already commercial
> packages with handle mesoscale without involving full atomic detail. 
> 
> Imo, this is not something we should focus on right now.

If all we had to do was handle atoms, I'd agree.  But you can't do 
multi-level design that way.  And you can't learn to do design that way.

If I handed you a Merkle assembler with no software and no one trained 
to do nanoproduct design, it would be years before you could start 
replacing the oil infrastructure or building useful medical devices. 
That would be a massive humanitarian and environmental tragedy.  Plus, I 
think it would guarantee that weapon-building would be the first use to 
develop.

> Right now molecular manufacturing is languishing in a ghetto similiar to how
> cryobiologists are regarding cryonics. Unless there is a way to break out of
> that ghetto, the mainstream will completely envelop and encapsulate this,
> leaving even not memory behind.

It would take the mainstream several decades to catch up to even 
Nanosystems-level performance.  Long before then, someone in some 
military will have realized that they can build products decades ahead 
of the curve by pursuing this.

Why are we in that ghetto, anyway?  It's not because the science was 
bad.  It's because we tried to talk to the scientists.  And the 
scientists, being conservative skeptical stick-in-the-muds, said "This 
doesn't look like anything I recognize, so it must not be science."

No, it's not even that.  Drexler did talk to the scientists, starting 
with his 1981 PNAS paper.  But then he talked to the government.  And 
the government talked to the bureaucrats.  And the bureaucrats made a 
very sly decision: to define "nanotechnology" so as to achieve 
short-term success in several fields that were about to cross the 100-nm 
line.  And the bureaucrats funded the scientists.  And then the 
scientists turned against us, because they had funding to defend.

Drexler also talked to the public.  He spent about 400 words in Engines 
talking about gray goo, and about 1300 talking about oppressive 
governance.  But gray goo is unfortunately close to the archetype of 
"bug," making it quite scary (this was obvious only in hindsight); so 
the idea self-replicated, mutated, and took over the whole discussion.

So how do we climb out of that ghetto?  Not by doing good science, 
because the science has always been good.  Not by taking baby steps; 
that will take too long, and won't lead to policy discussion until right 
before the breakthrough.  Maybe just by starting new organizations with 
new people, new messages, and new methods until one of them turns out to 
be a good nucleus for sane-but-speculative interest in molecular 
manufacturing to coalesce around.  I'll keep trying with CRN; but it's 
been a year and a half, and if someone wants to create a new 
organization on a new plan, I think that'd be a great idea.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Jun 29 00:11:33 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:11:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert, please shut up!
In-Reply-To: <200406282209.i5SM90n24860@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406282209.i5SM90n24860@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40E0B3B5.9060805@CRNano.org>


Robert Bradbury wrote:
> In my reading of the messages so far,
> I think Steve may be the only person who really
> tried to look at the results/ethics of my suggestion
> and point out why it would not work (and therefore
> would be morally wrong).

I also pointed out why it wouldn't work: because it would create 
martyrs, and because a vanished symbol can be more powerful than a 
physical one.  At the time, that was my best contribution to the thread: 
to show that Robert had overlooked something so important and obvious 
that his error should discredit his opinion.

I also discussed it privately, trying to show Robert errors at a couple 
of different levels.

> I look at
> the value of a human with say an MD/PhD medical researcher
> in Western country and compare them with women ... 

And now, my best contribution is to resort to a very uncharacteristic 
level of public abuse, in hopes of shocking Robert enough to convince 
him he should SHUT UP until he learns how to communicate.

Robert, how abjectly ignorant and unskilled are you, not to know that 
rating women less than men is uncivil and is guaranteed to be 
counterproductive?  This was a very destructive thing for you to write. 
  And it did no good whatsoever.  Not even the smallest little bit of 
good.  We can argue back and forth about whether unpopular or disgusting 
ideas should be allowed on the list.  But there's no excuse for wanton 
destruction.

I know you're smarter than this on other topics.  You even express 
yourself well, on other topics.  I can't imagine why this topic 
short-circuits your brain to the extent that it obviously does.

In fact, maybe I can convince the list owners/moderators that if you 
doesn't know enough to take good advice and shut up, it would not be 
censorship for them to make that decision for you.

Distasteful posts are one thing, and uncivil posts are another.  You 
have been blatantly uncivil.  And preventing uncivil posts is not 
censorship.  The only question is whether there's anything worthwhile 
that might be lost if you weren't allowed to post this idea for a fifth 
time.  Since you didn't listen to my martyrdom criticism when I posted 
it after your third posting of the idea--you didn't even give me credit 
for having made it--I don't think there's any point in letting you post 
your idea yet again.

Chris



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Tue Jun 29 00:14:26 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:44:26 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy.com needs to be destroyed
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE70A4022@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

There's old crap at that address, exi should annihilate it. Nuf said.

Emlyn


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jun 29 02:17:04 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:17:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <000001c45d7f$2c2a0e80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>



> Chris Phoenix
...

> "If they developed a pill that would make you five years younger for 
> each pill you took, how many of them would you take? Chris


Well that depends on whether they could develop another
pill that was a perfect antidote for the -5 pill, a +5 pill.
Then one could grind the pills to a powder and rig it in
an inhaler, so as to act quickly.  I would devour 5 pills, 
taking me to age 17, then begin the copulation process, 
then alternate quickly: 12, 17, 12, 17...

{8^D   {8-]

spike











From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 29 02:31:59 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Ethics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281047320.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040629023159.45548.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>

> And again this argument may be somewhat utilitarian
> for most people but I AM FOREWARNING YOU.

     Actually it isn't all that utilitarian a thing to
do. After all the only thing that truly prevents my
alternative energy scenario from ending terrorism (by
depleting the warchest of the islamic jihad) is that
it would threaten the status quo (read oil barrons).
It would not threaten their lives just the same tired
old source of income that they and their families have
been milking for the past 100 years or so. Hell I have
had to change my vocation several times in my
relatively short life of 33 years. Even if the likes
of the Bush/Cheney oil mafia stopped making another
dime on oil this second, they would have enough money
to live comfortably for the rest of their lives. And
with intelligent reallocation of their assets and
investments, they could live as well or better than
ever before. So from a purely utilitarian point of
view, it is highly logical that the actual lives of
thousands of people, no matter how poor or uneducated,
are worth more then the "convenience" of a super rich
elite handful.
 
> I do have a reasonably good
> background
> however in bioethics and medical ethics.  

What ever happened to "do no harm"? Or is the
Hippocratic Oath something they don't teach in
biomedical ethics anymore?

> I probably need to go to a military or police
> academy
> to understand better what *is* and appropriate level
> of force in specific situations 

Actually I would say that is not the case. In fact
many soldiers and cops are very poor at making
decisions regarding what constitutes appropriate
force. Instead they just do what they are told by
their superiors. If you really want to know the
apporopriate use of military force, read Sun Tzu's
"The Art of War". It does a pretty good job of
logically explaining where, when, how, and why one
should and should not deploy military force.

> For myself -- I do not currently believe that
> everyone
> has the same fundamental right to life. 

This is your biggest problem. It is like a huge
festering sore on your moral character and it is why
you have inflammed and outraged so many list members.
It is not a rationally thought out position, instead
it is your starting premise. It is wrong.
 
> I perform a triage analysis on the current and
> future
> human race.

Your analogy of triage is flawed. Triage is the
allocation of scarce medical resources to those ill
and injured who are most likely to benefit from it.
You speak of taking action against one patient to
benefit another, this is not triage, this is a crime.
it is every bit as ghoulish as choosing to take an
unwilling victim's organs by force to benefit another
person.
     That aside, your analogy of triage is further
flawed because triage requires several things, the
most important of which is sufficent knowledge of the
biology behind life and death to make a valid
prognosis of a patient's fate with or without
treatment. In order to extend this idea to entire
societies, you would need a fundamental understanding
of how healthy societies function, what causes a
society to malfunction, and how much of an impact that
malfunction of the society will have on the future
viability of that society. If you had even a
rudimentary understanding of society, you would not
have made the sociopathic suggestions that you did.
      In order to make judgements about who has more
right to life, even in a strictly utilitarian sense,
between an uneducated Afghani woman and a Western
MD/PhD, requires complete and accurate knowledge of
future events. How do you know for example that the
MD/PhD won't harm people with his research?
Researchers can be biased and clinical trials can be
mistaken. Remember thalidomide? And how do you know
that the Afghani woman's child won't somehow find his
way to the west someday, become educated, and perhaps
cure cancer? If you kill her now, she will never have
the child. I say that EVERYONE has a fundamental right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until
they by their own actions cause revocation of those
rights.  

=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From sjatkins at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 04:46:13 2004
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:46:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Ethics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281047320.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406281047320.1901-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <948b11e04062821463a742c89@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:37:14 -0700 (PDT), Robert J. Bradbury
<bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> That stated, I will point out that in the past under
> various circumstances (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Abu Ghraib
> prison, the streets of LA and Seattle, etc.) excessive
> levels of force were used that at that time were viewed
> as appropriate but were later were generally viewed as
> inappropriate.  Presumably this deals with the evolution
> of ethics as humans evolve and become more "civilized".
> If the humans did indeed wipe out the neanderthals it
> was probably viewed as perfectly justified at the time.
> Presumably ethics must evolve again as we become transhumans.
>

Well, actually human beings do a great number of things that they
don't really consider justified at all.  They practice rationalization
to justify it at the time sort of.  But this is not really
justification.

But yes, it is true that sometimes one needs to make difficult
decisions to do the most good or least harm possible in a situation.
   
 
> Now, my background in bioethics leads to things like
> should deaf parents have the right to demand that
> geneticists select embryos or perform gene therapies
> upon their children so they are born deaf as well?
> Almost all hearing people would find that to be
> a repulsive suggestion.  But bioethicists have
> to think about it and justify why it should not
> be done.  In my reading of the messages so far,
> I think Steve may be the only person who really
> tried to look at the results/ethics of my suggestion
> and point out why it would not work (and therefore
> would be morally wrong).
>

I don't see that something being workable leads to it being morally
right.  I am not that much of a utilitarian.  And of course the
standard of what "working" consists of is not always so simple.

 
> In medicine people are taught about the necessity of
> "triage" -- saving as many lives as you can.  Now
> anyone who knows of my background knows that I place
> a tremendous value on human life (one doesn't spend
> over 90% of a small personal fortune trying to
> jump-start lifespan extension research and *not*
> care greatly for human life).  It also was not done
> in caring about only my own life because as I stated
> in the previous thread, I would be willing to sacrifice
> my life to murder someone like Sadaam if I thought it
> had a reasonable chance for success. 

This would be sacrificing your life far too cheaply.  The amount of
good you can do is much larger than the amount of good that may come
of some targeted assasination - especially as simply removing Sadaam
or any such figure doesn't remove the many factors that led to a
Sadaam.  These  factors may quite likely lead to as bad or worse after
such an intervention.


> I would do that
> based on the reasoning that an improved quality of life and/or
> the lives themselves of large numbers of innocent people would be
> one reasonably probable result.  

Thus far, removing Sadaam from power has not turned out quite that way.

> In fact I would say
> it ethically and morally wrong to allow Sadaam to remain
> in power (perhaps even alive) knowing the past crimes he
> has committed or authorized and the human lives it has cost.
>

 If you start thinking like that you will have no end of targets,
including perhaps some much closer to home.    I understand some of
the sentiment quite well.  Right now I am wrestling with how I can
stand to continue to work  in the above-ground economy when over half
of what I make is taken by the government and much of that is used for
purposes that range from pernicious to out and out atrocities.   I am
deeply sickened by much that is done in my name and with the product
of my efforts.

> Now, the time before last when I suggested an extreme
> solution, Anders strongly criticized me.  I believe
> the basis was the fundamental right that all humans
> have to life.  We know there are fundamental differences
> of opinion on this.  In the U.S. some states impose the
> death penalty for serious crimes.  

I think it is important for extropians to come to a good working idea
of the value of a human life.    Thanks for bringing it up.    A
possible position is that every single human being is a potential
immortal (ok, idefinitely long lived) capable in potential of
recovering from most errors and idiocies that plagued them in the
first several decades, capable in potential of endless growth in
ability and wisdom.   Using this notion it is a tragedy when this
potential is cut off in any way.   Whether it is by acts of violence,
or of punishment or by "natural caauses" it is the premature final
death of a potential immortal.

> In many, perhaps most, other
> countries it is not an acceptable form of punishment.  So one of
> the questions which comes up for debate in transhuman ethics
> is *when* lifespan extending technologies become available,
> do people imprisoned for life (without the possibility
> of parole) have a fundamental right of access to these
> technologies (the right to life).  If they do not one
> has effectively imposed the death penalty.  One could
> extend the same argument to a fundamental right of
> access to health care, to education, to cryonics, etc.
> (i.e. anything which improves the chances for an individual
> to survive).  We have recently seen efforts by France and
> Arizona to eliminate cryonic suspensions -- i.e. an
> indirect imposition of a death penalty on people who
> have committed no crime.
>

We must ground ourselves at each point in the way within the context
of what is possible at that point.    This side of sufficient
technology and means choices will be made as to who gets relatively
scarce means.  Whether those choices are by a market or otherwise
choices are made. However, this is an aside from the fundamental
question of just how important a human life is.

 
> For myself -- I do not currently believe that everyone
> has the same fundamental right to life.  That is because
> I perform a triage analysis on the current and future
> human race.  In effect (wanting the greatest number
> of people to survive now and in the future) I look at
> the value of a human with say an MD/PhD medical researcher
> in Western country and compare them with women with virtually
> no education (they cannot even write and are instilled
> with beliefs that they cannot leave their homes without
> the permission of their husbands).  The only conclusion
> I can reach is that the value of the researcher (from
> the transhumanist perspective of saving the greatest
> number of lives) is far greater than the value of the
> woman.  

I think this misses a step.  As potential immortals both persons have
equal value.   In the present context of scarce necessary means to
actuate immortality and no real access to backups and such, choices
will need to be made when the situation truly is either-or.    But we
must be careful to not get so caught up in the drama and angst of such
choices that it warps our perception of the true value of human
beings.


> Now you can argue that diminishing the woman's
> "right to life" is not a transhumanistic perspective.
> I would argue that diminishing the "right to life"
> of the MD/PhD by even a small amount is a much greater
> moral crime than reducing the "right to life" of
> the woman in Afghanistan by even a large amount.
> 

There is no need to diminish her right to life.  There is a need, for
now, to sometimes choose who gets the means to continue and enhance
their life when the means are limited.

> My conclusion -- transhumanistic ethics needs to seriously
> look at this whole "fundamental right to life" question.
> Because in triage situations you have to make decisions
> as to precisely who is worth saving.
>

I very much agree we need to look at the question or its root of the
value of human life.   It could form an important part of our ethics
and practice.  However, I very much disagree with the notion of who is
"worth saving".   I know what you mean but there is a razor's edge
between not being able to make decisions re current context and losing
side of the fundamental value of human life.
 
> Now of course many of you will perhaps argue, "but we
> aren't physicians or military planners -- we don't
> have to make triage based decisions that arise from
> huge accidents (e.g. 911) or military conflicts.
> Ca-ca.  One makes those decisions all the time.
> Reduce government support for health care to the
> point where people have to wait months for operations --
> people are going to die.  Fail to legislate cryonics as
> a right everyone should have -- people are going to die.
> Fail to provide sufficient education that people can uplift
> themselves in changing economic times -- people are going
> to die.  Allow financial institutions to behave in ways
> that destroy the savings of people so they can't afford
> to pay for medical care -- people are going to die.
> Insurance companies failing to pay for certain medical
> procedures -- people are going to die.  Fail to eliminate
> belief systems that can produce people willing to commit
> suicide bombings or kidnappings and public beheadings --
> people are going to die.  Fail to even write letters to
> your government condemning the situation in Sudan/Darfur --
> people are going to die.
> 

Yes.  Very much so!   

> So I would argue that there are very few people in the world
> that believe in an absolute inviolate "right to life" and
> would suggest that those who claim they believe that have
> not really examined reality around them closely enough to
> do a very good job of turning such beliefs into reality.
>

This is true.  Very few really grasp the open-ended potential of
sentient beings.   Most see only the limited perspective of the meat
itself and what they know of the person's thoughts, deeds and words.  
This is incredibly small compared to extropian notions of what is
possible for each person.  Most of us also still think in terms of a
limited lifetime of fundamentally programmed once (probably very
badly) meat bots that are mostly not helpful to our fine ambitions.  
We forget that on the dark days we will see ourselves as we see "them"
 and that many of "them" see us much the same.
 
> Now, with regard to what I viewed as the original problem --
> irrational beliefs based on the devaluation of the lives
> of non-believers that are so strong that "talking" to
> those believers will simply not work -- I have refined
> my thoughts.  One solution *might* be a targeted
> bombing of "holy sites" at times when they are least
> occupied.  

This would be incredibly small of you and not in the least in keeping
with your professed ideals.  Do you honestly reduce all of the rich
complexity tied up in spirituality and often adhering to some religion
or other to just some intolerant and perhaps violent believers?   Do
you believe that destroying such holy sites that many of the peoples
highest aspirations are currently tied to will make them better
people?   Is it not more likely that such an act would be seen as an
act against their highest apsirations, on all they consider sacred, on
their very nature as a people?   Is anything more likely to inflame
unbridled violence and fight to the death type impulses?    There is
nothing in the above that shows the least bit of understanding or
compassion for the people whose lives and identity would be effected. 
  And it is ridiculous to assume that the people you presumably
consider "more worth" would have their potential further actualized or
their safety increased by inflaming hundreds of millions of religious
people.

>But this may have the consequence of making
> people even angrier and more supportive of radical
> Islam or Judaism.  Right now I think my best suggestion
> would be to take out the satellites that focus on
> inflaming radical positions (e.g. Aljazeera) and
> replace them with satellites that carry everything
> from education in reading writing and arithmetic,
> to religious TV from more moderate clerics to
> debates among biological, medical and religious
> ethicists from various religions to lessons on
> the history of democracy.  Follow that up with
> free satellite dishes and TVs to educational
> institutions and then you might begin to get somewhere.
>

Do you think that you stop the people from screaming to one another
what has been done?   What triage goals are actually acheived by
throwing much of the human population into such anger, fear and
fight-for-your life response?    Jurusalem being nuked would effect
peoples of no less than three western religions.  And for what?  What
huge and obvious gain is on the other side of the scales to justify
inflaming the world?  I have not seen you make the case for any such
great gain being the inescapable or even likely consequence of such an
action.   Thus I see no reason to believe your suggestion qualifies as
remotely utilitarian, much less humane.
 
> Just to pour some gas on the fire (yes some of you
> are thinking that I've done enough damage already)
> it occurs to me that a "state" conducting the best
> triage (i.e. saving the greatest number of current
> and future human lives) would be fairly socialistic
> (in the purest sense).  

What for?   It is not at all obvious that centralized bureaucracies
are going to make the best decisions about triage or much of anything
else.

> On the other hand a state
> that is extremely libertarian is probably conducting
> some form of negative triage.  One is probably sacrificing
> current lives for a less regulated future environment --
> in that case one seems to be placing no discounting
> of the value of future lives relative to the value
> of current lives.  Or one is placing a value on
> "freedom" over that of human life.  (But that
> is the state motto of New Hampshire... :-?)
> 

Without freedom how exactly will we invent and market those incredible
technologies that allow us reach our potential even if most do not
understand them or approve of them or of us?

- samantha


From sjatkins at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 04:58:49 2004
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:58:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
References: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
	<40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <948b11e040628215862c60f47@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:50:59 -0400, Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at crnano.org> wrote:
> 
> I've found that when I talk about life extension, or even health
> extension, people start reacting weirdly; they worry about Alzheimers,
> or the meaning of life, or social justice, or boredom...
> 
> I think I've come up with a way to introduce the topic without
> triggering all that.
> 
> "If they developed a pill that would make you five years younger for
> each pill you took, how many of them would you take?"
>

I would take 2 first to see if they worked as advertised and without
bad effect.   If they had already been well-vetted I would skip this
step.  Eventually I would take enough to have a 25 year old body.  
Presumably this treatment does not wipe out 5 years of knowledge for
each 5 years of age it rolls back!
 
> "Five years" short-circuits the bogus philosophy.
> "Younger" short-circuits the medical worries.
> "A pill" makes it sound simple and cheap, mitigating worries about
> social justice.
> "They developed" may bypass skepticism by invoking R&D.
> "How many" makes it clear that the user has a practical, straightforward
> choice that will have a large but comprehensible effect on his life, and
> further distances the question from practical worries.
> 

I like it!


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jun 29 05:07:57 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:07:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] literally at hand
In-Reply-To: <40E0B3B5.9060805@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <000001c45d97$0b0c0b00$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, called the transfer of power
more than a simple exchange of "a piece of paper."

"Today, the hopes and dreams of millions of Iraqis are closer to
becoming an everyday reality -- a free, democratic government is
literally at hand," Hastert said.


I get so tired of hearing literally this and literally
that and literally the other thing.  I have half a mind 
to call up this Hastert character and ask him: If this free 
democratic government is LITERALLY and NOT FIGURATIVELY 
at hand, then show me this literal HAND!  I want to see 
the actual hand that this is literally at.  Oy vey.

Henceforth whenever I hear someone say literally anything, 
I shall ask to literally see the whatever the thing is.

}8-[  

I am not very popular.

{8^D

spike



ps: To everything there is a time, there is a season, a time to 
every purpose under heaven.  After we have a major blowup on 
extropians, let us take the time to get over it, to have some fun.  
I've been missing that here.  We cannot solve all this world's 
problems.

Good luck, Iraqis.  This is your big chance.  {8-]

s



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 06:20:16 2004
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:50:16 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] A new life/health extension meme...
In-Reply-To: <948b11e040628215862c60f47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200406281428.i5SESan12391@tick.javien.com>
	<40E03E63.1020607@CRNano.org>
	<948b11e040628215862c60f47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc040628232023bd9b05@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:58:49 -0700, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:50:59 -0400, Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at crnano.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've found that when I talk about life extension, or even health
> > extension, people start reacting weirdly; they worry about Alzheimers,
> > or the meaning of life, or social justice, or boredom...
> >
> > I think I've come up with a way to introduce the topic without
> > triggering all that.
> >
> > "If they developed a pill that would make you five years younger for
> > each pill you took, how many of them would you take?"
> >
> 
> I would take 2 first to see if they worked as advertised and without
> bad effect.   If they had already been well-vetted I would skip this
> step.  Eventually I would take enough to have a 25 year old body.
> Presumably this treatment does not wipe out 5 years of knowledge for
> each 5 years of age it rolls back!

Well, uh, yeah it does. But there are always side effects. On the
brighter side, it gives you a really valid reason to blog!

-- 
Emlyn


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 29 06:34:44 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] literally at hand
In-Reply-To: <000001c45d97$0b0c0b00$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040629063444.19992.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> "Today, the hopes and dreams of millions of Iraqis
> are closer to
> becoming an everyday reality -- a free, democratic
> government is
> literally at hand," Hastert said.
> 
> 
> I get so tired of hearing literally this and
> literally
> that and literally the other thing.  I have half a
> mind 
> to call up this Hastert character and ask him: If
> this free 
> democratic government is LITERALLY and NOT
> FIGURATIVELY 
> at hand, then show me this literal HAND!  I want to
> see 
> the actual hand that this is literally at.  Oy vey.

For a moment, I thought the Iraqis had chopped off
Saddam's hands or something.  Theft (on a grand scale)
is among his lesser crimes, after all.


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Jun 29 06:39:01 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:39:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <200406282209.i5SM90n24860@tick.javien.com>
References: <200406282209.i5SM90n24860@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40E10E85.3090709@CRNano.org>

Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
 > Chris Phoenix wrote:
 >> If we want the private sector to stay clueless, and
 >> the President's
 >> Technology Council to stay misinformed, while we
 >> wait and see which
 >> government catches on first and spends a billion to
 >> develop a
 >> nanofactory, then our current strategy is very
 >> effective.
 >
> One can't get 100% odds on these things, but I
> suspect the odds favor the American government doing
> this first, given what they're already funding.  But
> this will be once someone comes up with a solid way to
> make a nanofactory for US$1,000,000,000.00 or so,
> having formed the proposal enough that one could make
> useful budgetary projections.

Then the first step would be to spend US$1,000,000 on a crash project to 
form that proposal.  Maybe we've done that... but there's no evidence 
that we've had much reason to think it worth doing.  Especially with a 
bunch of big-name scientists running around telling everyone that MNT is 
about trying to pick up peas with boxing gloves.

> What all needs to be done to write "useful" CAD
> software?  As had been pointed out, efforts towards
> this are being made; I'd view these as components,
> while the rest of the components (and assembly into
> the final software package) would wait for the actual
> hardware.

I'm thinking about product design and manufacturing control.  These are 
not even beginning to be studied.  Maybe we can't write the final 
version of the software yet--but we can certainly write the first draft.

 >> * Similar end result: If *any* technology is able to
 >> achieve the MNT end
 >> result in the next few years, then we have to
 >> consider that the end
 >> result is imminent.
 >
> Logic error: just because something could happen
> doesn't mean it automatically will happen.  Certain
> techs could lead to MNT in the next few years.
> Doesn't mean they will, and while we can alter the
> odds somewhat, nothing we can do will give them 100%
> or 0% success rates.

I said "have to consider that," not "know that."  And "imminent" in this 
case meant "soon enough that we may not be ready," which goes beyond 
"next few years."

If we can identify, with our pitifully small amount of MNT research, a 
technology that can achieve it in only a few years, then anyone who's 
been actually working on it will very likely use that technology or 
another even easier one to achieve MNT sometime in the next five years. 
  I have to consider that imminent.

> Part of the crash project would be to discuss, as in
> iron out and nail down, the details of the technology.
> In fact, that'd possibly be the most important part.

Yep.  And who's doing that?  I can count them on one hand: Drexler, 
Merkle, Freitas, Phoenix.  JoSH Hall did some work years ago.  AFAIK, we 
have no one working on computer architectures.  No one working on 
product design (though I'm planning to).  Freitas has mainly 
concentrated on nanomedicine, Drexler on small nanosystems.

> #1: Start with two probes, rigged to be able to hold
> and release atoms.  .... then the manipulator releases
> its atom with a pulse of electricity, freeing it to
> latch onto the product.  

I'm suspecting that just releasing atoms near the product, even with 
sub-angstrom precision, would not be enough to make them bind where you 
want them.  And the idea of "holding" an atom is pretty questionable, 
except at very low temperature.

> #2: Take single atom thin layers of material, possibly
> created by deposition on an evaporatable substrate.
> Press these layers onto the product being made, and
> fire laser pulses at the substrate to knock off single
> atoms in the desired position.  

Laser beams are a lot wider than atoms.  I guess you could do it with 
ebeams, but I'm not sure they're down to atomic precision yet.  And this 
still sounds like a way to deposit amorphous unbonded stuff, rather than 
eutactic molecules.

 >> [Is nano-anarchy survivable?]
> .... if a general purpose molecular
> assembler and replicator capable of doing everything
> described in Nanosystems were to be developed this
> year and appear, without any legislative controls that
> do not apply to most types of physical property, for
> sale at under $100/gram at retail hardware stores ....
 > [plus software]
> 
> Long winded, but before I explain my reasoning behind
> that conclusion, does that meet your definition of
> nano-anarchy?

Yes.

If you're going to argue that people will be able to get out into space, 
I tentatively agree that that's plausible and would increase the chances 
that at least a few humans will survive.  Wouldn't guarantee it, since 
the people on earth would likely be paranoid and it's hard for a 
spacecraft to outrun a laser.

But my definition of "survivable" doesn't include the death of 95% of 
the human race.

> You mean oppression by those using nanotechnology
> against those who don't?  I'd agree there's a
> significant danger that that will happen, somewhere.
> I wouldn't agree that it's likely that fate would
> befall a large fraction of humanity, whether in the
> industrialized nations that could produce MNT (since
> the oppressed would also know how, and soon enough
> gain their own)

Not if the oppression were severe enough!  That's why I said the slope 
is near-vertical.  We Americans don't have any concept how bad 
oppression can get.  It's quite common for new regimes to simply kill 
intellectuals en masse.  And nano-enabled oppression could be a lot 
worse than Stalin (killed millions of his own people) or Mao (Cultural 
Revolution).  I don't think "the oppressed" would have much chance of 
"gaining their own" if they were chemically lobotomized, or denied 
access to electricity, chemistry, and biology.

 > We're just talking the about availability of MNT
 > here, not the intelligence to effectively clamp down
 > on its use.

Destruction doesn't take a lot of intelligence.  An unintelligent 
paranoid person in charge of MNT could easily wipe out the world's 
ability to bootstrap to MNT, if he didn't care how much infrastructure 
he destroyed.

> I'm thinking that practical efforts, in today's
> political climate, would wind up being closer to the
> stem cell funding ban than to the ABM treaty.

Then we need better policymaking.

> Besides, the ABM treaty was a deal between the only
> two significant sources of nuclear weapons at the
> time.  There are how many labs researching nanotech
> these days?  And not all of them will respond to
> international treaties - indeed, a few of them are
> probably acting in deliberate defiance of local laws.

I'm not arguing that anti-nano treaties are a good thing.  Just that 
agreements on how to guide/limit R&D&deployment *can* be a good thing.

 >> Someone got their stories *really* mixed up, to the
 >> point of
 >> irresponsibility or even lying.

> No, the sources you gave are consistent with what I
> heard.  They weren't talking about the rat story, just
> the fish.  From:
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/acs-ob031904.php
> What they don't say is how this "exposure" happened:
> direct injection into the fish throats.  I recall
> hearing concerns that the injection completely
> blocked the throat; correlating to the description
> above, it sounds like they were concerned the
> buckyballs weren't the only thing in that injection,
> or that the balls formed a semi-solid despite the low
> dose and water solubility.

The research writeup is at: 
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/7021/7021.html

"I exposed fish in groups of either three larger fish (control and 0.5 
ppm nC60) or four smaller fish (1 ppm nC60) per 10-L aquarium containing 
7 L exposure water. To avoid aggressive interactions, I used smaller 
fish in the 1-ppm exposure aquaria to allow more space for individual 
fish. For aquaria with three fish, the fish were physically separated 
from one another with glass dividers. Vigorous aeration assured that 
water flowed freely between all three compartments.

Water quality. A 30% water volume change and redosing was performed 
after 24 hr. At that point, it was apparent that the water was visibly 
more clear in the aquaria dosed with nC60 and H2O2 than in the control 
aquaria."

That makes it pretty clear that the buckyballs were in the water, not 
injected into the fish throats.  There's something very fishy here, and 
it's not the carp.

 >> what,
 >> she shouldn't have talked to colleagues?  Or they
 >> should have kept the
 >> press out of the meeting?
 >
> The latter, if either.  It was the press that altered
> the details so that what they said failed to match
> reality, no?  

Um, no.  The articles I saw looked pretty reasonable.  They said the 
buckyballs had significant effects, but they also quoted the researcher 
as saying this should stimulate more studies, not a ban.  I don't 
remember any glaring factual errors.  Read the original scientific 
article, and see who's failing to match reality.

> Oh, they realize that.  That's why the study was done
> in the first place.  But there's a wide difference
> between identifying and dealing rationally with
> dangers, and slapping on the Precautionary Principle
> to ban an entire industry.

I think the only people calling for that are a few extremists.

 >> And the most likely and appropriate response to the
 >> initial studies is... more studies.  Not a big risk.
> 
> Ah...that's different from what I thought you were
> arguing for.  Yes, more studies are a good idea.  I
> thought you were arguing for passing laws right now to
> ban certain activities or the like.

No!  Passing laws right now?  When we don't even know what outcomes are 
stable?  Bleah...

> Only 32%, and I'd say you're being generous with the
> chance of arms race and unstable arms race.  (Who
> would we have an arms race with, for starters?  The
> whole world's playing technological catch up to the US
> military as it is.)

If we don't start targeted work on molecular manufacturing in the next 
five years, I think any of half a dozen countries starting today could 
give us a run for our money.  If they started when Nanosystems came out, 
we may already be behind.  We lead in high-tech conventional weaponry 
and manufacturing capacity.  These will not matter much in a nanofactory 
world.

> And an unstable arms race would
> not necessarily invoke WWIII.

Um, by definition...

Well, OK, WWIII has lots of connotations that may not apply.  And in 
fact I don't know how a nano-enabled war would play out.  We need to 
know more about what kinds of products (weapons) can be quickly 
designed, built, and deployed.  But it may be that the easiest way to 
hurt the other side will be to kill large numbers of their civilians.

> And given the US
> tendency towards smart weapons, if WWIII does seem
> imminent, what's the chance one side or the other will
> simply assassinate the leaders to encourage regime
> change (and suceed at it), thereby making total
> casualties under 1,000?  And, and, and...

The leaders would be very well protected.

 >> So I'm
 >> predicting at least 3 million statistical deaths
 >> from just one tiny
 >> consequence of molecular manufacturing.
> 
> Balanced against how many lives saved due to improved
> medicine?  And lost from other consequences?

War will be more or less orthogonal to medicine.  (Hasn't always been... 
different this time...)  I'm not saying molecular manufacturing is bad. 
  I'm saying that it could lead to avoidable disasters.

> I question the applicability of the numbers.  They
> only seem to capture a tiny portion of the big
> picture.  But it is the big picture that matters: will
> a certain action cause more deaths than its absence?

1) My calculation was an example of how to calculate a piece of 
nano-risk, not an overview of nano-risk.  Obviously a single scenario 
considered in isolation is not a basis for policy.

2) Three million was the minimum; a nano-war could just as easily kill 
half a billion people.  I hope that's not a tiny portion of the big picture!

 > ... immediate studies are good.

Glad you agree.  Now... why is no one doing them, and how can we change 
that?

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From samantha at objectent.com  Tue Jun 29 07:56:44 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:56:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52040628000427c63e24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
	<470a3c52040628000427c63e24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DCF52882-C9A1-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Jun 28, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> I agree with Natasha that the best thing to do for those who felt
> outraged by Robert's original post would have been boycotting Robert
> by just not responding to his thread. I also agree that the beauty of
> this list is directed by the flow of ideas, and I am against
> censorship on this list. If you don't like something, just ignore it.

If you don't like people responding honestly to what they see as vile 
and monstrous suggestions then please take your own advice and ignore 
their responses.



-s

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do 
nothing.  - Edmund Burke

perhaps we could also say,

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to 
consider opposing it 'too controversial' ." 



From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 08:45:13 2004
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:45:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
In-Reply-To: <DCF52882-C9A1-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
	<470a3c52040628000427c63e24@mail.gmail.com>
	<DCF52882-C9A1-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5204062901457c8a0e76@mail.gmail.com>

Matter of fact, I agree with your assessment of the post that started
this thread (vile and monstrous suggestions). But I still don't like
censorship unless in very, very extreme cases. Also, I think the best
way to express your complete disagreement with some ideas is to ignore
them.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:56:44 -0700, Samantha Atkins
<samantha at objectent.com> wrote:

> If you don't like people responding honestly to what they see as vile
> and monstrous suggestions then please take your own advice and ignore
> their responses.
> 
> -s


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 08:51:59 2004
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:21:59 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5204062901457c8a0e76@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
	<470a3c52040628000427c63e24@mail.gmail.com>
	<DCF52882-C9A1-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<470a3c5204062901457c8a0e76@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc040629015138fe8d28@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:45:13 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Matter of fact, I agree with your assessment of the post that started
> this thread (vile and monstrous suggestions). But I still don't like
> censorship unless in very, very extreme cases. Also, I think the best
> way to express your complete disagreement with some ideas is to ignore
> them.
> 
> 
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:56:44 -0700, Samantha Atkins
> <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> 
> > If you don't like people responding honestly to what they see as vile
> > and monstrous suggestions then please take your own advice and ignore
> > their responses.
> >
> > -s
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

I think the best thing with Robert's recent threads is to post a
message saying "I don't support these statements", and leave it at
that. Go on record as against them, then don't engage further.

-- 
Emlyn


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 29 10:19:50 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:19:50 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <40E0A97E.3040106@CRNano.org>
References: <200406281800.i5SI0En00402@tick.javien.com>
	<40E0A97E.3040106@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040629101949.GA12847@leitl.org>

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 07:27:58PM -0400, Chris Phoenix wrote:

> > Indeed, but we don't even have that very limited mechanosynthesis
> > reaction.  It's all 95% vapor at this point.
> 
> What about Freitas and Merkle's work with dimer deposition?

This is why I wrote 95%, and not 99%. Notice that this work lacks empiric
validation.

Right now I would focus on functionalized SWNT tips, both computationally and
in the lab. This paper can't be used for graphenes, and these are the ticket
if you want to validate.

There's no increased reactivity at the tip with diamond, there is with CNTS.
So you can use that for site-directed functionalization.
 
> What about Nano-Hive?  http://www.nano-hive.org/

There's also http://www.nanoathome.org which is unfortunately just blahblah.
There's furthermore http://www.fungible.com/fungimol/ which has not been
updated in a while.

Nano-Hive looks the most interesting right now -- there are still almost no users,
though. Thanks for reminding me about that project.

Is anyone here willing to contribute/cooperate on that? For real, I mean?
 
> >Imo, this is not something we should focus on right now.
> 
> If all we had to do was handle atoms, I'd agree.  But you can't do 
> multi-level design that way.  And you can't learn to do design that way.

I disagree. Our bottleneck is inability to build stuff. If you can prototype,
and build large computers cheaply, this results in instant design
capabilities.

If there's a simulation box with a living system 10^6 atoms large I can
manipulate in realtime and instantly see the results of my interaction, which
can record macros, and has a simple command line with a scripting language,
that's about all you are going to need. Especially if you can test prototypes
with a ~hour turnaround time in the real world.
 
> If I handed you a Merkle assembler with no software and no one trained 
> to do nanoproduct design, it would be years before you could start 
> replacing the oil infrastructure or building useful medical devices. 

Stuff and nonsense. A crude doped diamond cell only has a 1 d structure
(depth). It is trivial to write a control instruction stream for that, though I
won't guarantee I'd be the right man for the task (I could pick several
candidates who'd be far better at this, though).

Nanomedical devices are another kettle of fish entirely. I would start by
building realtime simulators with computational cells optimized to implement
the required physics directly. I can write you the spec sheet for that cell
in an afternoon, and there are many people who can layout the logics, though
not in 3d (we could use a silicon compiler which can do 3d logic layout).

> That would be a massive humanitarian and environmental tragedy.  Plus, I 

I think we'll be good and ready by the time we have the fabbing capabilities
you describe.

> think it would guarantee that weapon-building would be the first use to 
> develop.

Gray goo is difficult to develop for the same reason medical devices are
difficult to develop. It's not trivial to navigate the environment to munch
up cellulose, lignin and proteins for fuel and building blocks.
 
> It would take the mainstream several decades to catch up to even 
> Nanosystems-level performance.  Long before then, someone in some 
> military will have realized that they can build products decades ahead 
> of the curve by pursuing this.
> 
> Why are we in that ghetto, anyway?  It's not because the science was 
> bad.  It's because we tried to talk to the scientists.  And the 
> scientists, being conservative skeptical stick-in-the-muds, said "This 
> doesn't look like anything I recognize, so it must not be science."

Engines of creation is not science. Nanosystems is not science, as long as
you can't demonstrate that mechanosynthesis is solid.

It would have been a good idea to start with
http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DimerTool.htm & Co first.
 
> No, it's not even that.  Drexler did talk to the scientists, starting 
> with his 1981 PNAS paper.  But then he talked to the government.  And 

Drexler didn't invent nanotechnology. I've ran into plenty of (pretty
hare-brained) designs when mining the local military university library as
teenager in early 1980s.
http://www.imm.org/PNAS.html is not a milestone paper for the time.

However, the focus on mechanochemistry and machine-phase systems in general
is dead on and rock-solid. 

> the government talked to the bureaucrats.  And the bureaucrats made a 
> very sly decision: to define "nanotechnology" so as to achieve 
> short-term success in several fields that were about to cross the 100-nm 
> line.  And the bureaucrats funded the scientists.  And then the 
> scientists turned against us, because they had funding to defend.

I wasn't there, so I don't know whether this depiction is accurate.
 
> Drexler also talked to the public.  He spent about 400 words in Engines 

A complete waste of time. The general public doesn't fund directly, and
completely lacks background of telling science from fairy tales. If you want
funding and control, the only way is to play the machine.

It sucks to be too early, though. Always has, probably always will.

> talking about gray goo, and about 1300 talking about oppressive 
> governance.  But gray goo is unfortunately close to the archetype of 
> "bug," making it quite scary (this was obvious only in hindsight); so 

TEOTWAWKI is always scary, regardless of means of implementation.

> the idea self-replicated, mutated, and took over the whole discussion.

This is what happens when one paints fanciful scenarios to the public.
 
> So how do we climb out of that ghetto?  Not by doing good science, 
> because the science has always been good.  Not by taking baby steps; 

I disagree. Nanosystems was the first high-profile publication. It is weak on
the mechanosynthetic angle, and completely lacks good solid empirical
research.

If (some) people have stopped treating the Drexler/Merkle/Freitas approach as
wacko it's because of a number of recent *practical* landmark papers (some of which are on
http://moleculardevices.org/ ), and that you can get good funding that way.

> that will take too long, and won't lead to policy discussion until right 
> before the breakthrough.  Maybe just by starting new organizations with 
> new people, new messages, and new methods until one of them turns out to 
> be a good nucleus for sane-but-speculative interest in molecular 
> manufacturing to coalesce around.  I'll keep trying with CRN; but it's 
> been a year and a half, and if someone wants to create a new 
> organization on a new plan, I think that'd be a great idea.

I've stopped in believing that online people are good for anything, but I
suggest interested parties here join http://www.nano-hive.org and start
with installing or building that package, and contribute to the forum (damn,
what is it with that phpBB fad? It fucking sucks for communication).

I'm not holding my breath, though.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040629/f8ae5e80/attachment.bin>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Jun 29 14:11:10 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:11:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI:  Robert Bradbury has Resigned from Board
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040629070530.02e9eab0@mail.earthlink.net>

Friends,

Robert Bradbury has resigned from the Board of Extropy Institute.

In deference to Robert, I am letting you know that he has unsubscribed from 
this list.  At Robert's request, please do not send him private messages.

Thank you,

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040629/083a4a09/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Jun 29 14:01:56 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:01:56 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI:  Robert Bradbury has Resigned from Board
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040629070530.02e9eab0@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <004601c45de1$a3a104c0$852c2dcb@homepc>

I will miss Robert posts during his absence. I hope he chooses to post again soon.

Brett Paatsch
[another work in progress]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040630/7bd47969/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 29 14:26:48 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:26:48 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040628162926.53146.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040628155439.GE12847@leitl.org>
	<20040628162926.53146.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040629142647.GH12847@leitl.org>

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:29:26AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> <nods>  Just saying you might want to pick a more
> descriptive term, is all.  Say, "solid model CAD"
> versus "molecular CAD".

You'll lose the scientists if you talk CAD. Molecular structure editor and
vizualization package would be more like it.

http://jmol.sourceforge.net/demo/nanotech/
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd/
http://pymol.sourceforge.net/
http://starship.python.net/crew/hinsen/MMTK/

All these are great packages, and can be used as a point of departure for a
molecular CAD. 
 
> > If people are building standards, it costs you very,
> > very little to make your
> > voice heard. And it reflects quite some of the glory
> > of the finished product.
> 
> Ah, but as you said, they're getting shunned for
> lack of participation.  Which can make some

No one gets shunned -- don't you listen? MNT people don't participate there.
They're completely invisible. No one knows they're there.

> machine-phase people think their careers (or
> reputations - sometimes the same thing in this field)

Which reputation? Mainstream literature carefully avoids even using the name
Drexler in print. The conspicuous absence is quite obvious.

On a lark, I've just searched a decade's worth of Science magazine, and found
16 hits on "Drexler", of which 4 are irrelevant. Still, 12 citations/decade
is more than I expected.

> might be a bit at risk if their names were attached to
> this.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I wish any of the usual suspects from
http://discuss.foresight.org/critmail/sci_nano/ would crop up on
http://dirac.cnrs-orleans.fr/fsatom_wiki/MolecularMechanicsOpenStandards
 
> > > And we need tools to perform those validations.
> > 
> > I mentioned these tools. Why hasn't any
> > nanotechnology enthusiast picked up a
> > package like Gamess?
> 
> Because they're busier hacking on the hardware.

Nope. Of the usual suspects, only Zyvex does that. As far as I know (which
isn't much) nobody else is actively working on the Drexler/Merkle/Freitas
approach to molecular nanotechnology.

> 
> > > Creating the tools seems to be a bigger problem
> > than
> > > using them to create the library once they exist.
> > > (Not to mention, the details of the tools will
> > tend to
> > > shed light on the proper format of the library.)
> > 
> > The details of the tools only matter if your physics
> > is wrong.
> 
> Actually, they matter even if your physics are right.
> What's the architecture of your tool?  How does it

I'm all gung-ho for holistic design, but you're getting this ass-backwards.
You can worry about the geometry if your reacting moieties do the dance.
Whether continuous or cyclic deposition, patron-belt or retracting tooltips,
IT DOESN'T MATTER AT THIS STAGE.

> conceptually break things down?  What things are
> typically handled automatically by the tool, versus
> what things need to be specified by the user (and thus
> in the data files)?

You have a library of deposition and abstraction reactions. You have the
trajectory, the steric constraints and the control signals and the logic
generating said signals (which is sequential with some local feedback for
extra precision).

This is the hard part. How to paint 3d stuff and generate instruction streams
from your description if screamingly trivial in comparison.
 
> I emphasize *format* here.  True, data can be
> tranlsated from format to format, so long as all the

Where are nano people discussing formats on CML, mmCIF, fricken OpenBabel of
all things? Where are they?

> data each format uses is there - but part of the
> problem is determining exactly what data is needed in
> the first place.  I don't mean the general type of

You're wrong.

> data, I mean specifications like you'd see out of IEEE
> or the like.  And even if you have them today, there's
> a good enough chance they'll be at least slightly
> incorrect that to make the library today is to risk

We're not talking about a software library. We're talking about a reaction
library, which is a set of educts, products, and the moeities trajectory and
tool constraints. Which is very unlike shared object.

> having to entirely remake the library when the tool
> (and its data format) comes along anyway...so why
> bother?  (At least, this is how a lot of machine-phase
> people think, if they seriously consider the problem
> in the first place.)

Excuse me, but if this is an accurate description of what "machine-phase
people" do, then they fully deserve to languish in obscurity.

(However, I don't think this description is entirely accurate).
 
> Machine-phase people are often attracted to the
> machine phase because they want to get cracking on
> what's actually there, and leave theory to other

There's almost nothing there as far as doing chemistry by manipulative
proximal probe is concerned. Because it is extremely demanding
instrumentally. Plus, very few people are seeing the point.

In comparison, computers are cheap. But nano geeks obviously don't grok
Gaussian and Gamess.

> people.  (I may be overusing this analogy, but it's
> like the difference between the rocketry crews in
> Mojave and those who hunt for dark matter.  Both tasks
> have their importance, but they'll attract different
> kinds of people.)

I'm not seeing many people doing theoretical work, and I'm seeing about
nobody hanging out in the metaphorical Mojave space port.
 
> Yes.  It's not an easy problem, but again, it looks
> like the surest solution would be to come up with a
> working assembler.  If this software problem really is

You will not get a working assembler in the lab, and you will not get a
working assembler in the virtual drydock, as long as you keep ignoring the
physics of the device.

Actually because I have to explain the painfully obvious demonstrates how far
we have yet to go. This is not at all good.

> so huge, and if it looks like it won't seriously be
> addressed until the hardware problem is almost dealt
> with, then deal with the hardware problem, no?
> 
> Now, granted, that solution has major implications of
> its own...but I'm no so sure that we aren't that far
> away from being able to create the hardware of an
> assembler *if we ignore the software issues for the
> moment*.  The assembler might be nearly useless
> without good software, true - but if creating it, even
> in its useless state, seems to be a prerequisite to
> getting the software problem addressed, then...

Look: http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd/imd/

You can apply forces in realtime to a running simulation of a large web
biomolecule and watch it in 3d. The package is very well supported, supports 3d graphics
acceleration, and scales from single PCs to very large clusters.

There's a psfgen plugin, and VMD comes with Python built-in. You can pull in
most of MMTK with a finite amount of work. You can export any format you like
by calling an OpenBabel binary externally.

>90% of your NanoCAD functionality is there. Not done by machine-phase
people. Not used by machine-phase people. Probably not even known by
machine-phase people, I'd hazard.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040629/b2c162a9/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 29 15:48:17 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040629142647.GH12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040629154817.13729.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

We seem to be talking past each other.  I don't know
how to phrase it to get my point across, and I saw
nothing in your post that convinced me of your point
of view.

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> You have a library of deposition and abstraction
> reactions. You have the
> trajectory, the steric constraints and the control
> signals and the logic
> generating said signals (which is sequential with
> some local feedback for
> extra precision).
> 
> This is the hard part. How to paint 3d stuff and
> generate instruction streams
> from your description if screamingly trivial in
> comparison.

Hmm.  Consider the architectures I posted in response
to Chris's post.  Would you consider either of them
to use an extremely constrained (and thus relatively
easy to create) library, in this sense?

> Where are nano people discussing formats on CML,
> mmCIF, fricken OpenBabel of
> all things? Where are they?

At the moment?  Elsewhere, discussing GDS, EBMT, and
the like.  (It's not their fault they don't congregate
where you already are.  If you would preach new
formats, you must come to them.)

> We're not talking about a software library. We're
> talking about a reaction
> library, which is a set of educts, products, and the
> moeities trajectory and
> tool constraints. Which is very unlike shared
> object.

And more like part of a specification written in
English, right?  If so, then we agree here.  I'm just
pointing out the level of detail needed.

> There's almost nothing there as far as doing
> chemistry by manipulative
> proximal probe is concerned. Because it is extremely
> demanding
> instrumentally. Plus, very few people are seeing the
> point.
> 
> In comparison, computers are cheap. But nano geeks
> obviously don't grok
> Gaussian and Gamess.

Yep.  Because, as you said, there's almost nothing
there yet as far as the things they pay attention to.
However, "extremely demanding instrumentally" is
something we could in theory fix, by coming up with a
new instrument that can do this relatively easier.
And once someone does fix it, more of the people you
want will start paying attention.

You know they aren't paying attention.  I'm trying to
explain why, and how that cause (lack of hardware) can
be taken care of so the undesirable effect (them not
paying attention) will start to go away.


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 29 16:37:38 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:37:38 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040629154817.13729.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040629142647.GH12847@leitl.org>
	<20040629154817.13729.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040629163738.GN12847@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:48:17AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> We seem to be talking past each other.  I don't know

Obviously.

> how to phrase it to get my point across, and I saw
> nothing in your post that convinced me of your point
> of view.

Only fair, as I've seen none in yours.
 
> Hmm.  Consider the architectures I posted in response
> to Chris's post.  Would you consider either of them

I've skimmed them (because that's a lot of text, and I get a lot of email). I
will look at them again.

> to use an extremely constrained (and thus relatively
> easy to create) library, in this sense?
> 
> > Where are nano people discussing formats on CML,
> > mmCIF, fricken OpenBabel of
> > all things? Where are they?
> 
> At the moment?  Elsewhere, discussing GDS, EBMT, and

What, Geriatric Depression Scale? Ah, it's a CAD format. I already told you
why hacking a CAD format to describe molecular systems (for which already
very good standard formats exist) is a really stupid idea.

I presume you also don't mean the European Group for Blood and Marrow 
Transplantation or Example-Based Machine Translation.

I can't find anything relevant on Google in the first few pages of hits. 
Which should tell you something. In comparison, try plugging CML or 
mmCIF into Google. Yes, you can feel lucky. The web is lousy with them.

> the like.  (It's not their fault they don't congregate
> where you already are.  If you would preach new

Where *do* they congregate? On Foresight meetings? There is absolutely no
online culture whatsoever? I *could* have missed that. URLs? 

> formats, you must come to them.)

These are NOT NEW formats (with the possible exception of CML which is
rapidly turning industry standard as we speak). There is absolutely no excuse for anyone
even vaguely interested in doing chemistry with computers, or even describing
structures to be ignorant of these formats.

If you're a nanotechnology person, I strongly suggest you spend an hour on
the web.
 
> > We're not talking about a software library. We're
> > talking about a reaction
> > library, which is a set of educts, products, and the
> > moeities trajectory and
> > tool constraints. Which is very unlike shared
> > object.
> 
> And more like part of a specification written in
> English, right?  If so, then we agree here.  I'm just

Not at all. It's a bunch of coordinates and geometry/dynamics descriptions,
described in standard formats. It will require added semantics to get the
geometry and dynamics constraints in, which is why it should be an extendable 
CML format. You can wrap it in a true language, if that's insufficient.

> pointing out the level of detail needed.
> 
> > There's almost nothing there as far as doing
> > chemistry by manipulative
> > proximal probe is concerned. Because it is extremely
> > demanding
> > instrumentally. Plus, very few people are seeing the
> > point.
> > 
> > In comparison, computers are cheap. But nano geeks
> > obviously don't grok
> > Gaussian and Gamess.
> 
> Yep.  Because, as you said, there's almost nothing
> there yet as far as the things they pay attention to.

Who are those mysterious "they", then? We know what the holy Trinity is, and
what they do where -- but where is everybody else? Peter McCluskey, Markus
Krummenacker, Tihamer Toth-Fejel, Will Ware, (we know where Chris Phoenix
is)? There must be new players, as well.

So give me the skinny, because I haven't been keeping current.

> However, "extremely demanding instrumentally" is
> something we could in theory fix, by coming up with a
> new instrument that can do this relatively easier.

Have you worked with a proximal probe? Do you realize what functionalizing a
proximal probe tip means, how do you characterize this, and how do you initiate a
reaction, and then measure what has actually happened? Let's start with those
dimers here: http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DimerTool.htm

How should that instrument look like? How do you expect to obtain it in near
future, which environment and which expertise is required to operate this?

> And once someone does fix it, more of the people you
> want will start paying attention.
> 
> You know they aren't paying attention.  I'm trying to
> explain why, and how that cause (lack of hardware) can
> be taken care of so the undesirable effect (them not
> paying attention) will start to go away.

I'm very unconvinced. (Also I have to run now, sorry).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040629/3ef7fee4/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 29 16:55:35 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <40E10E85.3090709@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040629165535.24020.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>  > Chris Phoenix wrote:
>  >> * Similar end result: If *any* technology is
> able to
>  >> achieve the MNT end
>  >> result in the next few years, then we have to
>  >> consider that the end
>  >> result is imminent.
>  >
> > Logic error: just because something could happen
> > doesn't mean it automatically will happen. 
> 
> I said "have to consider that," not "know that." 

Ah.  Fair enough, though for that meaning you should
have used "may be imminent", or even "is probably
imminent", not "is imminent".

> If we can identify, with our pitifully small amount
> of MNT research, a 
> technology that can achieve it in only a few years,
> then anyone who's 
> been actually working on it will very likely use
> that technology or 
> another even easier one to achieve MNT sometime in
> the next five years. 

I would disagree with the odds.  Eugene's got a
point: there are far fewer nano practitioners looking
at MNT than there could be, even those who might be
sitting on tech that could turn into MNT if they just
considered it.  There's a chance that they will, of
course - human inspiration is notoriously random, if
somewhat guidable - but not a good one as it is.  Even
when you consider the large number of them.

> > Part of the crash project would be to discuss, as
> in
> > iron out and nail down, the details of the
> technology.
> > In fact, that'd possibly be the most important
> part.
> 
> Yep.  And who's doing that?  I can count them on one
> hand: Drexler, 
> Merkle, Freitas, Phoenix.

Not what I meant by "details".  I meant as in, "how
exactly does it work and how is it made" - and once
you've solved that, you have a formula that you can
go ahead and implement.  (In fact, most scientists
wouldn't say you know this information is correct
until you've tested it by making some samples - i.e.,
until you've actually made and assembler.)

> > #1: Start with two probes, rigged to be able to
> hold
> > and release atoms.  .... then the manipulator
> releases
> > its atom with a pulse of electricity, freeing it
> to
> > latch onto the product.  
> 
> I'm suspecting that just releasing atoms near the
> product, even with 
> sub-angstrom precision, would not be enough to make
> them bind where you 
> want them.

Umm...one hydrogen atom is about an angstrom wide.
And most of the atoms one would use to build things
are larger.  Therefore if you release with
sub-angstrom precision, the atom is already where you
want it - and, if properly excited, ready to bind
there - when you release it.

> And the idea of "holding" an atom is
> pretty questionable, 
> except at very low temperature.

Atoms can bind to one another at room temperature at
higher.  I didn't mean "perfectly hold in place".
Granted, some solution would need to be implemented to
control for thermal noise, and perhaps that might make
this architecture unusable for large structures
(thermal noise shaking the structure too much from
stage to insertion point), but for a few nm^3 it
should be tolerable, no?

> > #2: Take single atom thin layers of material,
> possibly
> > created by deposition on an evaporatable
> substrate.
> > Press these layers onto the product being made,
> and
> > fire laser pulses at the substrate to knock off
> single
> > atoms in the desired position.  
> 
> Laser beams are a lot wider than atoms.  I guess you
> could do it with 
> ebeams, but I'm not sure they're down to atomic
> precision yet.

As I said, this is intended as a way to get those
single dots people can make - which are likely to get
down to atomic precision soon - to be useful for
building real stuff, rather than just tricks to show
off.

> And this 
> still sounds like a way to deposit amorphous
> unbonded stuff, rather than 
> eutactic molecules.

Maybe if one could get the layer really close - see
the above bit about sub-angstrom precision - but,
yeah, I can see some problems with this.

>  >> [Is nano-anarchy survivable?]
> > .... if a general purpose molecular
> > assembler and replicator capable of doing
> everything
> > described in Nanosystems were to be developed this
> > year and appear, without any legislative controls
> that
> > do not apply to most types of physical property,
> for
> > sale at under $100/gram at retail hardware stores
> ....
>  > [plus software]
> > 
> > Long winded, but before I explain my reasoning
> behind
> > that conclusion, does that meet your definition of
> > nano-anarchy?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> If you're going to argue that people will be able to
> get out into space, 
> I tentatively agree that that's plausible and would
> increase the chances 
> that at least a few humans will survive.  Wouldn't
> guarantee it, since 
> the people on earth would likely be paranoid and
> it's hard for a 
> spacecraft to outrun a laser.

Dark side of the moon, or orbit so high that even the
best in-atmosphere laser becomes too diffuse to do
more than power the solar panels by the time it gets
that high.  Besides, it's more a backup in case
something gets out of control on Earth, at which time
those on Earth would be too busy to care about those
above.

> But my definition of "survivable" doesn't include
> the death of 95% of 
> the human race.

My real argument goes to history.  Namely, we've had
technology nearly this disruptive before.  Nuclear
tech, for example, or bio good enough to make weapons.
See what happened then.  Even given the greater
disruptive potential of nano, I would place >50% odds
on history following roughly the same course: study
and study and study to explore the real possibilites,
and any would-be world conqueror or destroyer who
tries to exploit w/out study finds they simply can't
make it work and thus becomes irrelevant.

> > You mean oppression by those using nanotechnology
> > against those who don't?  I'd agree there's a
> > significant danger that that will happen,
> somewhere.
> > I wouldn't agree that it's likely that fate would
> > befall a large fraction of humanity, whether in
> the
> > industrialized nations that could produce MNT
> (since
> > the oppressed would also know how, and soon enough
> > gain their own)
> 
> Not if the oppression were severe enough!

Yeah, right.  Anyone who tries that loses the ability
to come up with new nano, because they have to oppress
the free thinkers who would otherwise perform that
function, and soon gets wiped out or made irrelevant
by the remaining ones coming up with new nano.  Look
to history for a wealth of examples.  I see no
relevant difference for nano.

> > We're just talking the about availability of MNT
> > here, not the intelligence to effectively clamp
> down
> > on its use.
> 
> Destruction doesn't take a lot of intelligence.  An
> unintelligent 
> paranoid person in charge of MNT

would get little effective done, and be mocked and
ignored by the intelligent practitioners.  Look at
the unintelligent paranoid people "in charge of"
biotech in the US: despite their efforts to stop it,
it marches on, both within and beyond the US's
borders.  Ditto for the government people "in charge
of" stopping narcotics production.

Seriously, look to history.  There's all kinds of
maybes in the nano-enabled future, but if you
seriously look at what's happened before, you'll see
some of the same patterns.  I, for one, would rather
not repeat other peoples' mistakes if possible.

> Then we need better policymaking.

Oh, agreed.  I'd say that's a prerequisite to acting
on the studies.  But that's going to take a while to
implement - I'd say at least 5 to 10 years, minimum,
and that's assuming a large, dedicated effort towards
that end - so action right now would very likely take
place in the harmful policy environment.

> That makes it pretty clear that the buckyballs were
> in the water, not 
> injected into the fish throats.

I don't see that as ruling it out.  They still said
nothing about the specific exposure mechanism.  But
you could be right; my information could be wrong.

> No!  Passing laws right now?  When we don't even
> know what outcomes are 
> stable?  Bleah...

You see why I was objecting to it.

> > And given the US
> > tendency towards smart weapons, if WWIII does seem
> > imminent, what's the chance one side or the other
> will
> > simply assassinate the leaders to encourage regime
> > change (and suceed at it), thereby making total
> > casualties under 1,000?  And, and, and...
> 
> The leaders would be very well protected.

They usually are.  Which is why the US had to develop
weapons specifically to take them out, instead of just
using the same weapons it already had.

> > ... immediate studies are good.
> 
> Glad you agree.  Now... why is no one doing them,
> and how can we change 
> that?

The easiest way?  Start by doing them yourself, which
I think you already are, and start finding ways to get
grants for them.  If scientists smell funding, they
may copy the kinds of studies you do - and, of course,
you know the types of studies you want.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 29 17:14:57 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040629163738.GN12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040629171457.72076.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > > Where are nano people discussing formats on CML,
> > > mmCIF, fricken OpenBabel of
> > > all things? Where are they?
> > 
> > At the moment?  Elsewhere, discussing GDS, EBMT,
> and
> 
> What, Geriatric Depression Scale? Ah, it's a CAD
> format. I already told you
> why hacking a CAD format to describe molecular
> systems (for which already
> very good standard formats exist) is a really stupid
> idea.

You asked where they were.  I didn't say they were
doing things you'd consider smart.

> I can't find anything relevant on Google in the
> first few pages of hits. 
> Which should tell you something.

Only that the acronym "GDS" is used for many other
things.  Try "GDS nanotechnology format" for the GDS
that is a file format used in nanotech.

> > the like.  (It's not their fault they don't
> congregate
> > where you already are.  If you would preach new
> 
> Where *do* they congregate? On Foresight meetings?
> There is absolutely no
> online culture whatsoever? I *could* have missed
> that. URLs? 

The online culture is there, but it's waaay dispersed.
To be honest, I'm having a hard time finding central
points of online congregation myself.

> > formats, you must come to them.)
> 
> These are NOT NEW formats

They are to the people you'd be introducing them to.

> If you're a nanotechnology person, I strongly
> suggest you spend an hour on
> the web.

I've spent far longer than that, but looking at things
directly relevant to my projects.  Right now, I'm only
theorizing about MNT; that which I attempt in the lab
is far nearer-term.  (Then again, if I had a possible
way to achieve MNT in the lab, I might bounce it by
this list and a few other places first.)

> > > We're not talking about a software library.
> We're
> > > talking about a reaction
> > > library, which is a set of educts, products, and
> the
> > > moeities trajectory and
> > > tool constraints. Which is very unlike shared
> > > object.
> > 
> > And more like part of a specification written in
> > English, right?  If so, then we agree here.  I'm
> just
> 
> Not at all. It's a bunch of coordinates and
> geometry/dynamics descriptions,
> described in standard formats.

Actually, that is a subset of what I meant.  We're
apparently in agreement here.


> > > In comparison, computers are cheap. But nano
> geeks
> > > obviously don't grok
> > > Gaussian and Gamess.
> > 
> > Yep.  Because, as you said, there's almost nothing
> > there yet as far as the things they pay attention
> to.
> 
> Who are those mysterious "they", then?

The "nano geeks" you mentioned.  There are far too
many to list - even if I could honestly claim to know
of most of them, which I can't.

> > However, "extremely demanding instrumentally" is
> > something we could in theory fix, by coming up
> with a
> > new instrument that can do this relatively easier.
> 
> Have you worked with a proximal probe? Do you
> realize what functionalizing a
> proximal probe tip means, how do you characterize
> this, and how do you initiate a
> reaction, and then measure what has actually
> happened? Let's start with those
> dimers here:
> http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DimerTool.htm
> 
> How should that instrument look like? How do you
> expect to obtain it in near
> future, which environment and which expertise is
> required to operate this?

I said "in theory".  That means I don't (yet) have a
rock-solid idea for how to achieve this, but I
suspect someone could come up with one.  You ask the
right questions.

I'll have to think about it, but...those tool tips
are mostly diamond, with a few atoms added in, right?
I wonder...in theory, could one bombard a diamond
chip with one or two atoms of the right type?  It
might take several tries to get them to embed juuust
right, and even then future replications might be
hit-or-miss, but once one has a few successes, one has
(in theory) an easier way to build them.  Just an
idea off the top of my head.

> (Also I have to run now,
> sorry).

No problem.  I have things to do too.  (I've probably
spent too much time on this thread over the past few
days as it is.)


From alito at organicrobot.com  Tue Jun 29 17:56:59 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:56:59 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech educations
In-Reply-To: <20040629163738.GN12847@leitl.org>
References: <20040629142647.GH12847@leitl.org>
	<20040629154817.13729.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040629163738.GN12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <1088531819.1270.10.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 18:37 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> Who are those mysterious "they", then? We know what the holy Trinity is, and
> what they do where -- but where is everybody else? Peter McCluskey, Markus
> Krummenacker, Tihamer Toth-Fejel, Will Ware, (we know where Chris Phoenix
> is)? There must be new players, as well.
> 
That was what i was thinking as i was reading the nanocad archives.
Peter McCluskey and Markus Krummenacker seem to be acting together at
Molecubotics http://www.molecubotics.com/, and they seem to be in good
company.  Toth-Fejel just recently published that paper on self-rep
through CAs
(http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/pdf/883Toth-Fejel.pdf which i still haven't read)
but google isn't gossiping to me about anything else.  tricky to tell
what will ware's been doing wrt nanotech lately

alejandro




From megaquark at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 29 20:49:25 2004
From: megaquark at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:49:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Length of a day on Saturn
Message-ID: <BAY9-DAV25U5ZImwlcv00023d68@hotmail.com>

I was just reading that the length of day measured by Cassini is about 6 minutes slower than Voyager observed in 1980-81. I also read that measurements by France in 1997 were different than both of these measurements. What the article did not say was what those measurements were and what mission/study they were a part of. Does anyone here know this or know where I can get that information? G**gle keeps giving me links to the current article and other information that isn't very helpful.

Thanks!
Kevin Freels
"This town needs an enema!" - The Joker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040629/edae7ff7/attachment.html>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 29 20:59:28 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:59:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] CONNECT:  Any transhumanists in Ottawa?
Message-ID: <246250-220046229205928561@M2W043.mail2web.com>

the lovely Elaine Walker is asking if we have any extropic transhumanist
friends in Ottawa.  Any leads?

Thanks,

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From megao at sasktel.net  Tue Jun 29 20:53:07 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:53:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in Ottawa?
References: <246250-220046229205928561@M2W043.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <40E1D6B2.19F1D949@sasktel.net>

Not meant to insult, but we Canadians sometimes wonder if there are any
humans in Ottawa, period, never mind ones wishing to improve their
physio-bio-geno state of affairs.

Seriously though, I'd like to know as well.
The need to build a functional medical delevery system from a
bureaucatic and dysfunctional one is a job for persons of a transhumanistic
viewpoint.
I'll be listening with great interest in the answer to your question.

BTW we in Canada just had our national election yesterday, so this would be
the time to bring new blood in the form of  transhumans into the Ottawa
scene.

Morris Johnson
306-447-4944

"natashavita at earthlink.net" wrote:

> the lovely Elaine Walker is asking if we have any extropic transhumanist
> friends in Ottawa.  Any leads?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Natasha
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 30 03:31:19 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:31:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Length of a day on Saturn
In-Reply-To: <BAY9-DAV25U5ZImwlcv00023d68@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000601c45e52$b58d92e0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

I was just reading that the length of day measured by Cassini is about 6
minutes slower than Voyager observed in 1980-81... Does anyone here know
this or know where I can get that information?
 
 <http://spaceflightnow.com/cassini/040628radio.html>
http://spaceflightnow.com/cassini/040628radio.html
 
 
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040629/49be8fa6/attachment.html>

From samantha at objectent.com  Wed Jun 30 05:19:45 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:19:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] BM's comments
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc040629015138fe8d28@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406271528490.8825-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20040627223439.02e73d40@mail.earthlink.net>
	<470a3c52040628000427c63e24@mail.gmail.com>
	<DCF52882-C9A1-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<470a3c5204062901457c8a0e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc040629015138fe8d28@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <197C5C9E-CA55-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

I disagree with just ignoring such things, especially when said by 
someone in a position of some authority.  For a fuller treatment of why 
I disagree I defer to Eliezer's very fine explanation of why just 
ignoring it isn't enough.

- s

On Jun 29, 2004, at 1:51 AM, Emlyn ORegan wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:45:13 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Matter of fact, I agree with your assessment of the post that started
>> this thread (vile and monstrous suggestions). But I still don't like
>> censorship unless in very, very extreme cases. Also, I think the best
>> way to express your complete disagreement with some ideas is to ignore
>> them.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:56:44 -0700, Samantha Atkins
>> <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't like people responding honestly to what they see as vile
>>> and monstrous suggestions then please take your own advice and ignore
>>> their responses.
>>>
>>> -s
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>
> I think the best thing with Robert's recent threads is to post a
> message saying "I don't support these statements", and leave it at
> that. Go on record as against them, then don't engage further.
>
> -- 
> Emlyn
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From samantha at objectent.com  Wed Jun 30 05:22:25 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:22:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI:  Robert Bradbury has Resigned from Board
In-Reply-To: <004601c45de1$a3a104c0$852c2dcb@homepc>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040629070530.02e9eab0@mail.earthlink.net>
	<004601c45de1$a3a104c0$852c2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <78A33830-CA55-11D8-8420-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

As will I.  I value so much that he does despite occasionally being 
dismayed and disheartened by a few things he writes.   I will miss him.

-s

On Jun 29, 2004, at 7:01 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> I will miss Robert posts during his?absence. I hope he chooses to 
> post?again soon.
> ?
> Brett Paatsch
> [another work in progress]
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 708 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040629/55b6d40a/attachment.bin>

From amara at amara.com  Wed Jun 30 14:26:41 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:26:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Length of a day on Saturn
Message-ID: <p05100300bd087cfb39f7@[150.146.134.133]>

(Spike: it is the radio emissions that appear to have changed in period.)

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-04/20040628-pr-a.cfm

"The rotational modulation of radio emissions from distant
astronomical objects has long been used to provide very accurate
measurements of their rotation period," said Dr. Don Gurnett,
principal investigator for the Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science
instrument, University of Iowa, Iowa City. "The technique is
particularly useful for the giant gas planets, such as Jupiter and
Saturn, which have no surfaces and are covered by clouds that make
direct visual measurements impossible."

[...]

Gurnett said, "Although Saturn's radio rotation period has clearly
shifted substantially since the Voyager measurements, I don't think
any of us could conceive of any process that would cause the rotation
of the entire planet to actually slow down. So it appears that there
is some kind of slippage between the deep interior of the planet and
the magnetic field, which controls the charged particles responsible
for the radio emission." He suggests the solution may be tied to the
fact that Saturn's rotational axis is nearly identical to its magnetic
axis. Jupiter, with a more substantial difference between its magnetic
axis and its rotational axis, shows no comparable irregularities in
its radio rotation period.

"This finding is very significant. It demonstrates that the idea of a
rigidly rotating magnetic field is wrong," said Dr. Alex Dessler, a
senior research scientist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. In
that way, the magnetic fields of gas giant planets may resemble that
of the Sun. The Sun's magnetic field does not rotate uniformly.
Instead, its rotation period varies with latitude. "Saturn's magnetic
field has more in common with the Sun than the Earth. The measurement
can be interpreted as showing that the part of Saturn's magnetic field
that controls the radio emissions has moved to a higher latitude
during the last two decades," said Dressler.

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Roma, ITALIA
Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it


From dwish at indco.net  Wed Jun 30 20:02:36 2004
From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:02:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in AR?
In-Reply-To: <20040629163738.GN12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <200406301901.i5UJ1sJc025463@br549.indconet.com>


Are there any transhumanists in this group from Arkansas?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.713 / Virus Database: 469 - Release Date: 6/30/2004
 



From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun 30 20:20:05 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:20:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in GA?
In-Reply-To: <200406301901.i5UJ1sJc025463@br549.indconet.com>
References: <200406301901.i5UJ1sJc025463@br549.indconet.com>
Message-ID: <40E32075.1030905@pobox.com>

Long as we're all asking, I'll ask whether there are any transhumanists in 
Georgia, especially the Atlanta area, who haven't already shown up for a 
Transhuman Atlanta dinner.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 30 20:27:54 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:27:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in GA?
Message-ID: <105630-220046330202754376@M2W032.mail2web.com>


From: Eliezer Yudkowsky 

>Long as we're all asking, I'll ask whether there are any transhumanists in 
>Georgia, especially the Atlanta area, who haven't already shown up for a 
>Transhuman Atlanta dinner.

Yes!  You have extropes Ralph Merkle and Carol Shaw. 

Natasha



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Wed Jun 30 20:39:26 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:39:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in GA?
Message-ID: <BAY17-F280vT1ICDz1j0000a367@hotmail.com>

I'm the only person I know of in the Atlanta area. I've always seen the 
transhumanism meetup empty for the Atlanta region so I sort of lost hope. 
(Atlanta's not much for culture.)

BAL

>From: Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in GA?
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:20:05 -0400
>
>Long as we're all asking, I'll ask whether there are any transhumanists in 
>Georgia, especially the Atlanta area, who haven't already shown up for a 
>Transhuman Atlanta dinner.
>
>--
>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
>Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From vanmojo at msn.com  Wed Jun 30 21:30:18 2004
From: vanmojo at msn.com (Michael Howell)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:30:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in AR?
Message-ID: <BAY3-F19Xee4fDGCl9F0006a248@hotmail.com>





>Are there any transhumanists in this group from Arkansas?

   Yeah, I live in Arkansas. We're not all uncultured rednecks.

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




From benboc at lineone.net  Wed Jun 30 22:38:32 2004
From: benboc at lineone.net (Ben Cunningham)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:38:32 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Nanogirl News - DNA Horoscope ?!?!
References: <200406282208.i5SM8un24852@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <008901c45ef3$11eb1760$c2cce150@ibm300mx>

"Indian doctor duo make DNA horoscopes at birth.  doctor duo from Trivandrum
have developed a technique to map the DNA sequencing of human beings so as
to predict their future tendencies and also help fight diseases. Ajit Kumar
and Arun Kumar, both genetic experts from the city's main state-run
hospitals, have developed the "Nano Geneseq Chip", which analyses the entire
future genetic proposition of a human at birth itself. In layman terms the
computer can, to almost 100 percent accuracy, predict how a child will
grow-right from its height, color and other physical attributes to his
eating habits and even romantic tendencies. Named 'NANOGENESEQ', the chip
analyses the DNA samples of newborns, taken either from blood, spinal cord
or saliva, effectively making a 'genetic horoscope' of the baby. (WebIndia
6/23/04) http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=41431&cat=India"


*Ahem*
How did this one slip in? Is it April Fools day, and nobody told me?

ben



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Jun 30 23:54:03 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:54:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Linux in City of Turku (+ Re: Maybe a
 little too much computing)
Message-ID: <40E3529B.C0FAC549@mindspring.com>

Paul W Harrison
interEnglish (Finland)
University of London External Programme


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Peterson" <scottp4 at mindspring.com> [quoting article]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:18 AM
> At Greenwich Country Day, a prestigious Connecticut private school,
> computers have all but replaced pencil and paper. Typing instruction
starts
> in second grade, and laptops are mandatory by seventh. Essays are typed,
> and often class notes are, too.
>
> "As an adult in today's work world, you don't write anything," said Carol
> Maoz, head of the upper school (grades 7-9), adding she couldn't think of
> an occasion students would write out a longhand essay. "You type
> everything. There really is no need for proper handwriting...."

Interesting. Though longhand certainly hasn't been phased out here in the
school system (and I would imagine this is a highly singular type of
situation in the United States), it is common for post-secondary students to
bring their laptops to lectures. Exams are still customarily written in
longhand. I imagine this is still the status quo in North America as well.

Evidently the much vaunted but for the most part unsuccessful 'paperless
office' idea has actually been recently realized in a City Council here in
the region (City of Kaarina), however, where Council meetings are undertaken
completely by laptop computer -- no papers, to my knowledge, are
distributed, with everyone hooked up to both the municipal organization's
Intranet and the Internet. Formerly, masses of documents, memos, resolutions
in printed format was the norm. Reductions in printing costs have reportedly
been considerable with the new electronic medium.

Several people have inquired about the results of the planned transition
from Microsoft systems to Linux on the part of the Turku (Finland's old
capital) city administration. Even though Turku estimated a few years back
that its Windows costs were set to rise by 1 million euros, or by 2 million
euros (figures which are roughly the same in US $) if hardware and training
costs are included, a final decision mostly against Linux* was arrived at
after Microsoft warned that "many local jobs would be on the line and lost"
by transferring all administrative office systems away from Windows. In the
previous and current election year here, any perception that local
politicians and city administrators could be jeopardizing workplaces has
been taken very seriously indeed. This was concurrent with fears that
professional user support for Linux would be strongly lacking.

A highly interesting 'Report on the suitability of the OpenOffice.org office
suite and the Linux operation system as the workstation standard of the City
of Turku' which details the practical problems (where they exist) of putting
an entire city administration on Linux is found in PDF format at:
< http://www.turku.fi/tieto/liite44.rtf >

In the concluding summary (unfortunately undated, but estimatedly completed
two years ago), the 20-member work group concluded:

'This report is based on a problem-oriented approach, using Microsoft Office
as the measuring stick. MS Office is a good product and full of useful
features, but for a municipality it is too expensive.

'The problems discussed in this report are marginal from the average user's
viewpoint, in other words, they occur rarely, if ever, in normal use.
Generally speaking, we can say that the reliability and performance of the
tested product [Linux Red Hat]are sufficient. It is worth noting, however,
that the product is continuously developing, and after a year or so, it will
be more usable....'

* The actual decision was actually a compromise, maintaining Windows as the
operating system at least for a few years. However, Linux at least scored a
coup in the City choosing Open Office, based on Linux. Also, a decision in
principle was reached that Turku will favor an open source code in its
program acquisitions in the future: i.e., Linux whenever technically and
economically practicable. Matti Mehtala, Microsoft Finland's CEO, fired off
a critique of the City's decision even though it was supportive of the MS
operating mode. "The real expenses of these competing systems have not been
compared by open competition for bids," he complained.

Although Turku "chickened out" by now using XP Professional at its actual
OS, those interested in the struggle between open and closed source systems
may find the success of Linux in Munich Germany in this respect more
heartening: see "Linux took on Microsoft and won big in Munich",
USAToday.com at

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-07-14-linux-tech_x.htm


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From dwish at indco.net  Fri Jun 18 18:16:47 2004
From: dwish at indco.net (Dustin Wish with INDCO Networks)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:16:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in AR?
In-Reply-To: <20040701101726.GM12847@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <200407011716.i61HGaJc023786@br549.indconet.com>


OK,

You might be a redneck cyberbilly if:

1) You use cloning to reproduce your favorite coon hunting dog.

2) You use nanotechnology to "upgrade" yur still's whiskey.

3) If you create a nanobot to self assemble trailer parks

4) If you believe the CDROM in your PC has a duel use as a cup holder.

And last but not least:


The top reason you may be a redneck cyberbilly,

5) You think cloning is making it with your sister.


OK...laughing now. Michael it is very nice to talk with. I was hoping to
start working towards a conference type meeting in Arkansas for AI,
Robotics, and transhumanist topics. UA in Fayetteville does have an AI
division within their CompSci dept which I was hoping to get a few speakers
from. I live in Batesville currently, but would like to contact others
within my home state here to broaden communication and efforts to advance
transhumanist ideas and maybe gain a few speaker contacts.

I know others in the world make fun of the rural Americans such as those in
Arkansas, but they are really the ones that need the education and
understanding on topics we discuss in online forums such as this one. In a
free market all is fair to battle. Rural farmers know this well. In a global
economic model those with an advantage use it. Catfish farmers in Arkansas
have been screaming about the Vietnamese dumping their fish on the open
market cheaper than the US raised fish. To compete against the bottom dollar
prices fish farmers should be looking into genetically modifying the fish
varieties they stock to produce larger and disease resistant fish stocks
that can reproduce and live in smaller ponds. 

I am sure Tyson Foods is looking to genetics to produce better chickens as
the largest producer of poultry in the world (an Arkansas company) and how
Walmart the largest retailer in the world (an Arkansas company) can benefit
from this new technology we push to develop. AI data mining technology could
aid Walmart in inventory management and purchase habit understanding. 

To close I believe people in the rural markets need the education the most
so no one gets left behind as we move forward. Education is what the slave
owners in the South used to keep the slaves controlled. But as a
worker/slave in the IT field in Arkansas it seems an educated slave has to
work harder than an uneducated one...lol. 


Dustin Wish
System Engineer & Programmer
INDCO Networks
Pres. OSSRI
********************************************************
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead
 where there is no path and leave a trail."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
***********************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:17 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Any transhumanists in AR?

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 06:44:52PM -0700, Spike wrote:

> >    Yeah, I live in Arkansas. We're not all uncultured rednecks.
> 
> Understatement.  I have never met an uncultured redneck 
> transhumanist.

What of hyperwhiskey-jar swiggin' cyberbillies, though?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net