[extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical

Brian Lee brian_a_lee at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 2 18:41:18 UTC 2004


>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
>To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
>Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:27:52 -0500
>
>Brian Lee wrote,
> > >You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC".
>
> > Ahh, but isn't the "best" PC one that is only $500?
>
>Maybe for most people, but not necessarily for everyone.
>
> > How would you propose creating the "best PC"? What is "best" anyway?
>
>You cannot define "best" without specifying "best for this specific
>purpose."  You choose price as your goal, and the market provides this.
>Other people may choose different goals, and the market may not provide
>this.
>
>Spike's best prime number crunching machine might be a giant array of
>arithmetic chips.  Natasha's best artwork machine may be a wall-sized
>graphical display with laserpointer cursors.  Anders' brain best
>neurosimulation machine might be a neural net with evolving nodes.
>Eliezer's best friendly AI machine might have Flare firmware in flash proms
>for self-editing hardware.  Nanogirl's best nanotech machine might be a
>holographic display with a 3-D object printer.  Steve Mann's best computer
>might be clothes made of flexible circuitry with wearable/detachable
>peripherals.  My best machine might be an integrated control structured
>database with security levels, tempest dampening, continuous biometric
>authentication and DNA encryption.  A blind person's computer might not 
>even
>have a visible screen.
>
>There is no single "best" PC for everybody.  Whatever the market converges
>toward will be the best market-price machine.  But it might not be best for
>any of our individual needs.  It is just too simplistic to assume that
>whatever the market chooses is the best answer for everybody.

The market doesn't "choose" anything. It reduces prices. It is 
understandable that there are many "best" computer systems. It's not like 
the market creates only 1 PC and everyone must use it. The market creates 
cheap grandma PCs ($400 and a printer guys), cheap graphics workstations, 
cheap supercomputers, etc etc. It lowers the prices of all the components so 
people can build their own (without windows if they so desire).

So there is nothing stopping you from buying your "best" PC, but you can 
thank the market system for it being as cheap as it is (or expensive 
depending on your perspective).

>I disagree.  Markets may work better than focused efforts by companies or
>governments, but I don't see this as automatically true.  Cosmetic surgery
>and massage are optimized in the market because many people want to pay for
>them.  Orphan drugs and life-extension drugs are not as popular, and are 
>not
>as optimized by the market.  The market is a popularity contest where the
>majority rules.  I don't see how currently unpopular goals such as
>life-extension or self-modification will be supported as efficiently as the
>popular choices.
>

Again, it's not like the market is some monolithic system that cranks out 
only aspirin for $.10. There are markets for life-extension processes. As 
this becomes more popular then more treatments will become available and 
then become less expensive.

I don't think HMOs will pay for these kind of elective procedures (is life 
extension elective? no one wants to die) because it would be highly 
unprofitable for them. HMOs are not a market. My exposure with HMOs was 
terrible that's why I switched to other healthcare plans (PPO/POS).

BAL

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech 
Hacks & Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list