From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sun May 1 06:50:09 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 16:50:09 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org> References: <20050426191155.A9FB657EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <42747C21.6040308@optusnet.com.au> > This is why I say that Peak Oil sites provide biased news. They search > the press for all the bad things, but won't reprint good news (that > is, news which goes against their theories). Unfortunately I have not > found a site which focuses on good news on this topic, so it is hard to > acquire a balanced picture. I did order the book by Huber but it would > be nice to see a blog or some other source that discusses topics on a > day to day basis. Of course an unbiased site would be best, but I've > given up hope in that regard! At this point I just try to find a mix > of information sources. > > Hal You weren't kidding about the websites being biased. The sites from both sides read like they were written by paranoid conspiracy theorists on a binge. However, occasionally they do make testable claims, eg. from http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html "In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production. Last Year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest single oil producer" It seems the truth is probably somewhere in the middle - most reports claim that Kola SG-3 was not intended as an oil well, but was for research into the Earth'c crust - however the Russians apparently do have a large number of productive deep wells that shouldn't be productive according to western oil theories. It is difficult to check either side's claims online, as all the links seem to run around the same few unsubstantiated articles, which all cite each other as evidence. The latest figures I could find said that in 2001 Russia was second in production and http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html says they are expected to continue increasing production. Even disregarding the abiotic theories we don't seem to have a problem. www.eia.doe.gov seems to be one of the more balanced sites, and they give production, reserve, and growth figures that say peak oil is not going to be a problem for many decades. -David From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun May 1 08:36:01 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 01:36:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: <42701DBF.5040608@neopax.com> References: <20050427180130.66139.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <4270175C.1060609@cox.net> <42701DBF.5040608@neopax.com> Message-ID: On 4/27/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > What has happened to the list? Here we have the first simple, fully > > replicable, > > fully understood benchtop fusion device, and the only two responses > > are dismissive. > > > > Look: Its a first try. Yes, the result is not exothermic, but since > > the science is > > well understood, scientists can use this as a basis for improvement. > > With just a bit > > It's not the first benchtop fusion device and is about 7 orders of > magnitude inferior to the best Farnsworth fusor. > http://www.rexresearch.com/farnsworth/fusor.htm For what it's worth, here's the last sentence of the Nature paper detailing the research: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/nature03575.html "We have shown that small (about centimetre-sized) pyroelectric crystals can produce ion beams (see also Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Movie 2) of sufficient energy and current to drive nuclear fusion. We anticipate increasing the field ionization current by using a larger tip, or tip array, and by operating at cryogenic temperatures. With these enhancements, and in addition using a tritiated target, we believe that the reported signal could be scaled beyond 10^6 neutrons s^-1. Pyroelectric crystals may also have applications in electrostatic fusion devices, such as the Farnsworth fusor, and as microthrusters in miniature spacecraft." -- Personally, I'm curious if this breakthrough is applicable to accelerator transmutation of nuclear waste: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/atw/ATWreport.html http://apt.lanl.gov/atw/ http://www.google.com/search?q=accelerator+transmutation+of+nuclear+waste From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 1 16:16:47 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 12:16:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050429014250191ce3@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520504290141497197b1@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c52050428223427943a8b@mail.gmail.com> <4271D395.9020606@pobox.com> <470a3c520504290141497197b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050501111933.034bd2e0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:42 AM 29/04/05 +0200, you wrote: >I don't see what point you are making. Assuming you are referring to >the last paragraph quoted as a non-sequitur, let me rephrase it: >History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the >Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough >reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can. You have the cart before the horse here. People rationalize mass murder as fighting for "Truth." But the memes people think are causing genocides, wars, terrorism and relates social disruptions are a result of a behavioral switch (ultimately gene based). The switch, in response to environmental signals, turns up the gain on xenophobic memes. The amplified memes then divert the attention of a band/tribe/nation into synchronizing their warriors for an attack on a neighboring group or destroying some fraction of the population based on some perceivable difference or a made up one if none are present. The history of Easter Island is instructive, though so are the rest of the wars, genocides, pogroms, etc, Rwanda being a clear example. >On 4/29/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > > > > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that > > > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say > > > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth > > > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and > > > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas, > > > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The > > > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid > > > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas. > > > > > > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of > > > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The > > > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. > > > > That's a complete non-sequitur. Morality exists within a human mind. Indeed. And minds, having been built by genes, are biased in certain very predictable ways. "Be nice to relatives more or less in proportion to how closely they are related." "Don't fight with strangers unless they are competing for the same short supply resources you need to feed relatives." > > Reality, as best we can figure out how it works, was around at least 13 > > billion years before ever humans showed on the scene. I'm not sure what > > "absolute truth" is but if you define it in such a way that it equates to > > "external reality" then I'm all for external reality. What I said above is the absolute truth *and* external reality. If you don't belive it (and my tribe is facing a bleak future) we will try to kill every one of you heretics (except we might keep your tribe's young women). :-) Keith Henson From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun May 1 17:00:31 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 10:00:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SWA) Odd Numbers Message-ID: <42750B2F.9030207@mindspring.com> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/20060990-b221-11d9-8c61-00000e2511c8.html Levitt is no theorist; he does not rely on fancy statistical techniques but on lateral thinking. -- "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 natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 1 18:55:28 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 13:55:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] test Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050501135521.02ba1a90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun May 1 19:00:16 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 12:00:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality In-Reply-To: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com> References: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <42752740.3020206@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Dear Mr. Allbright, My apologies for the delay in penning this reply, but other >matters have whelmed me. You have given me much to think about, and, >unfortunately, much to say, so I apologize for the length of this letter. > >You will see in the letter that my understanding is limited and weak. Your >conception comes from something alien to my rationalistic tradition, so perhaps >you can explain your conception to me in simple terms. Please do not interpret >my disagreement as any sign of disrespect. > >Now, to the matter: > >To the best of my limited understanding, your conception of an arrow of morality >has three shortcomings: first, it is useless to any who do not accept mere >survival as the ground of morality; second, it is mute to determine what objects >should be included or excluded from the moral order, some of which are already >universal in any case; third, morality by its nature must be treated as if it >were an absolute by its partisans, or else it has no ability to act as a moral >code. > > Dear Mr. Wright, I appreciate your interest and thank you for challenging this thinking and the effectiveness of my presentation of concepts which, while outside the range of popular thought, especially in the western tradition, are in my opinion both timely and pertinent to our society as technology leads to qualitatively greater awareness of ourselves, our environment, and our intentional actions within our environment. In response to your post, I would like to first summarize briefly the key foundational points of the theory, and then proceed with some preliminary steps toward practical application. This metaethical theory is grounded in the observation that there is an external reality, that appears to be stable and reliable, that we can model with increasing but never perfect accuracy, measurable by experiment. This assertion has been debated for millenia, but I have no time or interest for such debate and would refer anyone interested to the widely available philosophical corpus. To avoid useless argument, I say I take this position on faith, but I believe it is the crux of rationality. Because all moral decisions are based on values, and values are necessarily subjective, it is necessary that we define Self, and contrary to popular conception, this effective moral Self, the locus of all intention, is not constrained to one's physical organism. This inclusive Self, representing one's interests and intentions and thereby identification with the surrounding world, is seen as the agent of moral action. This theory of metaethics does not provide absolute answers to specific moral questions, but does say that answers can be found, which are dependent on context, and that with increasing context moral solutions will be seen as increasingly "true" (meaning increasingly corresponding to ultimate objective reality.) Within any given context, "right action" is action that works from the point of view of the moral agent, and with increasing context (of agents, type of interactions, and number of interactions) actions that work will increasingly be seen as actions that are "right". This theory moves the focus of thought about morality, from the obsolete concept of absolute moral laws handed down (which were in fact based on what worked over long periods of time), to a more aware focus on determining answers of subjective "right" and "wrong" based on scientific understanding of what works at the appropriate level of context. In a very practical sense, it highlights that all moral issues involve transactions between Self and Other, and that principles of effective interaction between Self and Other can form the basis of moral guidance in unknown moral situations. Fundamental to effective interaction between Self and Other is the concept of synergy, or positive sumness. In contrast to the Malthusian perspective that growth for one agent necessarily means loss for the other (and assuming a closed system), it is increasingly apparent from game theory, economics, and even hard physics that there is a universal tendency to favor win-win interactions, where the mutual interaction of two sub-systems results in a combined system with new characteristics, determined, but not predicted by the component systems. I refer to this synergistic enhancement, from the point of view of Self, as "growth" [lacking another suitable word or short phrase for the concept.] [While I think the foregoing is very coherent, but abstract, the following is more tentative and likely to be updated and revised.] We can infer some guidelines for effective (synergetic) interaction between Self and Other. * All effective moral decisions are from the viewpoint of Self. As already discussed, this is inherent in the nature of decision-making based on values which are necessarily subjective. To deny the primacy of Self in moral decision-making is to promote situations where Self is coerced or taught to obey external authority to the exclusion of its own senses and judgments, in effect diminishing it's capability to choose and thus to act as a moral agent. Remember also that the effective intentional Self is not constrained to the individual organism, but defined as well by its relationships to its environment and often acts on behalf of its group identification which may be family, team, tribe, nation, etc. * All effective moral decisions are intended to further the growth of Self. A moral agent must necessarily act in such a way to further its own interests. For an agent to act otherwise would be considered irrational or insane. "Self-sacrifice" of an individual is often seen as a very moral act when it furthers the interests of a much larger group with which the individual identifies. Suicide, on the other hand is often a very immoral act (doesn't "work" at any context), when it is the result of the breakdown of proper functioning of an individual. Self-defense is not only moral justifiable, but morally required. Note also the Red Queen Principle, that just keeping up is actually falling behind. Growth is a requirement, not an option. * The most effective moral decisions are those that are synergetic. It is therefore better to convert an enemy to a partner, thus providing enhanced opportunities for interaction and growth in the future, rather than to destroy one's enemies. Thus murder is morally undesirable. It is therefore better to promote diversity, which provides a richer environment for future growth, rather than to try to achieve commonality which may seem safer but leads to stagnation. From this it follows that it is good for Self to promote, rather than diminish Other. Thus theft is morally undesirable. And so on... I will read carefully through your long email and respond point by point as I can, time permitting. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br Sun May 1 21:23:30 2005 From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro) Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 18:23:30 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Questions Transhumanism Has Brought Me Message-ID: <200505011823.30759.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> The Questions Transhumanism Has Brought Me Hello everyone, I've been in WTA-talk, WTA-Brasil and extropy-chat for seven months now, and I have decided to make a balance of the things and thoughts I have read during this time, and to postulate a few questions that my mind brought up about many aspects of transhumanism and correlated themes. Some of them have probably been answered or thought before I got to this e-groups, and some may still don't have answers. Anyway, here they are: 1 What is more important, making the transhumanist meme achieve as many minds as possible, or be faithful to some pre-determined concept of tranhumanism? For example, when dealing with someone who may get cought by the meme, should I speak only about the things in tranhumanism that I know will persuade him to look foward to post-humanity happiness, or shoud I also talk about the aspects that his moral, religious, and social mentality would consider as dangerous, or inapropriate? Religions, when trying to pass their memeplexes on usually only talk about things that persuade the emotions of the converting person. Politicians also do so, as does almost every group trying to achieve strengh. But, when talking about transhumanity, it is important to focus the fact that the people who hear do not intuitively know they would like to live thousands of years being supersmart, as they intuitively know they would like the existence of God, or that a politician raised their salary. From this, it follows that non completely rational people have a certain degree of avoidance of the word tranhumanism, cyborg and similar. So, for this people, when chating, I usually focus my persuasiveness on the medical advances of technologies, and one or other fact on computational increasing power. But this doesn't solve the problem that, when tranhumanity arrives, that person will still be intuitively against it, and my country may take so long to produce politically legalized tranhuman technology that I, who am still 18 years old, will have to recur to cryogeny for having a chance. That leads me to my second question. 2 Cryogeny now or risk latter? It seems to me that the tranhumanist X anti-transhumanist debate will, within given time, start to be a serious problem, with people like bioluddities, or poor people starting to have a real desire to kill someone who is able to live indefinetely. For two reasons. One is that it is imoral, anti natural, etc... and the other, will be the people who cannot do so themselves (poor people) that will feel deep unfairness in this choosing of who lives and who does not (with reason). Those who are the precursors of the movement (the older ones now) will be having serious risk at that time, and for them, it could be the best probability to be cryogenated alive, rather than killed by a bomb. Two problems with the simulation argument 3 What about the risk of being turned off? Supose that we start to develop increasingly better and better AGI, like we have been doing for the last millenium, for each space we fill in the gap between the human and the post-human state, it is a bigger probability of the third proposition of the simulation argument (that we live in a simulation) to be true, and therefore, a bigger chance that, achieving posthuman state, our simulation ends because of computational limits on the base level and we are simply plugged down, in other words, we die. If we achieve indeed this posthuman state, the probability of being turned off raises dramatically, and I have not seen anyone here very concerned about that. 4 The problem of evil. I have already shown here a while ago a text were I defended that if an altruist being creates a simulation, he would create a world with less suffering than ours. The text can be found at www.dcaleironews.rg3.net in the serious texts part, called ?Why I think we are not living in a computer simulation?. Until now, no one has given me any couter-arguments on it, maybe because it is so poorly written, anyway, as I had no one against it, I still think that it is improbable that we are indeed living in a simulation. Structural problem 5 There are too many brilliant minds here for the amount of money tranhumanist cause is managing to collect. People who can discuss, with the same eloquence, the amount of matter in the universe, quantum laws, gay rights, neuronal psicology, evolutionary psicology, bayesian probability and ocidental politics are very likely to be able to think of ways of raising more money for a memeplex divulgation. How can we get more money for tranhumanist causes, like de 100 billion singularity prize once have been proposed? 6 Last but not least, I have a question about a physical problem. Brains are constantly physically changing, neurons move, die, react etc. Silicon Brains would not have that biological ability, therefore, although they may be able to store information, they will not be able to interexchange this information with the same degree of randomness we have. So, they would not have an freudian inconsciouness, and probably would have some difficulties in making complex tought, which require many physical ?mistakes? in neuronal activity to happen. How to go round this problem? In hope for answers (or undecidabilities...) Diego Caleiro (Log At) From sjatkins at gmail.com Mon May 2 07:10:15 2005 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 00:10:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] testing Message-ID: <948b11e050502001066134201@mail.gmail.com> Is the list down? I've see almost no messages for two days. This is unusual for a weekend. My first test message did not go through. - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 2 17:12:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050502171220.29086.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050426/OPINION01/504260377/1035/OPINION Deloss: Arctic drilling would yield big benefits, low costs By GARRY DELOSS April 26, 2005 Recent votes in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives indicate that oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) will likely get congressional approval this year. Does this mean "a national treasure in jeopardy" as a Sierra Club essay in the Register warned? Not to worry. Back in the "energy crisis" years of the 1970s, I lobbied Congress on energy-policy issues for consumer activist and environmental groups. In retrospect, we were wrong to oppose Arctic oil drilling then, and today's environmentalists are repeating that error. I offer four undeniable truths about Arctic Refuge oil drilling: 1. The national economic benefits from producing ANWR oil will be substantial. Environmentalists downplay the several billion barrels of oil as equal to a year or less of U.S. oil consumption. But that's a nonsensical calculation. In the real world, ANWR oil will be produced gradually over decades. It might provide 5 percent (one million barrels daily) of our oil needs for 20 to 30 years. If a possible 10 billion barrels are produced over a 30-year period at an average price of $50 in today's dollars, that means releasing a half trillion dollars in presently idle underground wealth that will create jobs, grow our economy, and spin off tax revenues to pay for government programs. Plus, the Alaskan oil will help our balance of trade as it displaces imported oil. Of course, as the price of oil rises, all of these waiting-to-be-tapped economic benefits get bigger. 2. In contrast, the prospective cost in environmental injuries from ANWR oil production has been falling and will be slight. How can I be certain? Because I rely on the two most relevant pieces of empirical evidence. First, even the outdated oil drilling technology and network of gravel roads used 30 years ago to develop nearby Prudhoe Bay co-exist with thriving wildlife. Second, at ANWR, wildlife habitats will be further protected by two innovations in Arctic oil drilling since Prudhoe Bay was drilled: the use of modern "directional drilling" of multiple wells from a single drilling platform and the use of temporary winter "ice roads" over the tundra in place of permanent gravel roads. The consequently minimal environmental "footprint" of modern Arctic oil drilling is not theoretical; it is readily visible west of Prudhoe Bay at the Alpine oil field (named for a company, not the topography). That project drains oil from beneath 40,000 acres with dozens of wells from only two drilling platforms on 93 acres of land. No gravel roads connect Alpine to Prudhoe Bay, only winter ice roads and an underground pipeline. The low-impact Alpine oil field, conspicuously ignored by the Sierra Club, proves that injuries from Arctic Refuge oil drilling will be mostly metaphysical (pain to the psyches of people who demand zero-impact purity), not physical (actual damage to wildlife habitats). 3. There is a highly successful precedent for congressional action to facilitate arctic oil production despite environmentalist doom and gloom. In late 1973, environmental groups were litigating against a federal pipeline construction permit for the proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline to bring Prudhoe Bay oil to market. Then the Arab oil embargo hit, Congress passed a law ending the litigation (Public Law 93-153), the pipeline was completed in mid-1977, and enormous national benefits followed, along with tolerably low environmental injuries. 4. Given the above-described rising economic benefits, falling environmental costs, and successful congressional precedent, a vote to drill in ANWR has always been a question of when, not whether. When oil prices fluctuated at $25 to $30, ANWR oil production was a questionable venture. But China and India have traded their economically depressing socialism for the benefits of capitalism. As their economies grow rapidly, their rising oil consumption is pushing the world price of oil to $50 many years ahead of expectations. ANWR oil drilling is barely economic at $30, attractive at $40, and irresistible at $50. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 2 18:14:18 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:14:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) some witch hunts are okay, I guess Message-ID: <42766DFA.8070906@mindspring.com> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/02/a_left_wing_witch_hunt_on_campus/ CATHY YOUNG A left-wing witch-hunt on campus By Cathy Young | May 2, 2005 THE NOTION of left-wing political bias in the universities is widely pooh-poohed on the left as so much right-wing propaganda -- a smokescreen for an attempt to push a conservative agenda on college campuses. Sure, conservative professors may be a rare breed; but that, we are told, is only because the academy is all about intellectual openness, tolerance of disagreement, robust and untrammeled debate, and all those other intrinsically liberal values that conservatives presumably just don't get. For a rather dramatic test of this proposition, one need look no further than Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, which is currently in the grip of a witch-hunt that would do the late Joe McCarthy proud -- except that it's directed by a leftist mob. The victim of this left-wing McCarthyism, history professor Jonathan Bean, identifies himself as a libertarian but is widely regarded as a conservative on the campus; he serves as an adviser to the Republican and Libertarian student groups at the university. (There are reportedly no Republicans among more than 30 faculty members in his department.) A prize-winning author, he was recently named the College of Liberal Arts Teacher of the Year. On April 11, six of Bean's colleagues published a letter in the college paper, the Daily Egyptian, denouncing him for handing out ''racist propaganda" in his American history course. The offending document, which Bean had distributed as optional reading for a class that dealt with the civil rights movement and racial tensions in that era, was an article from the conservative publication FrontPageMagazine.com about ''the Zebra Killings" -- a series of racially motivated murders of whites in the San Francisco Bay area in 1972-74 by several black extremists linked to the Nation of Islam. The article, by one James Lubinskas, argued that black-on-white hate crimes deserve more recognition. Bean's critics charged that the article contained ''falsehood and innuendo" and that, in printing it out for the handout, Bean deliberately abridged it in a way that disguised its racist context -- specifically, a link to a racist and anti-Semitic website. In fact, Bean did omit a paragraph containing a link to the European American Issues Foundation, which has held vigils commemorating the Zebra victims and which is indeed racist and anti-Semitic (its website features a petition for congressional hearings on excessive Jewish influence in American public life). He has told the student newspaper that he was simply trying to fit the article on one two-sided page. By the time the letter from the outraged professors appeared, Bean had already canceled the assignment in response to criticism and sent an apology to his colleagues and graduate students. His letter of apology ran in the Daily Egyptian on April 12. On the same day, College of Liberal Arts Dean Shirley Clay Scott canceled his discussion sections for the week and informed his teaching assistants that they did not have to continue with their duties. Two of the three teaching assistants resigned, leaving the course in a shambles. One may argue that Bean showed poor judgment in selecting the article for a reading given the offensive link it contained. But imagine reversing the politics of this case. Suppose a left-wing professor had assigned a reading which turned out to contain a link to the website of the Communist Party USA, or to a group that supported Palestinian terrorism in Israel. Imagine the outcry if the administration penalized this professor for such guilt by association. Anita Levy, associate secretary in the Department of Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, says that making one's own decisions about the course curriculum as long as the material is relevant to the course is ''a part of academic freedom" and that it's clearly inappropriate to penalize a professor for such decisions -- especially without any due process. (While FrontPageMag.com has criticized the AAUP for remaining silent on the case, Levy says that the organization had not heard about it before and has not been contacted by Bean, whom I have been unable to reach for comment.) A number of SIUC professors who do not share Bean's politics have rallied to his defense. Jane Adams, an anthropologist who was a civil rights activist in the 1960s, told the Daily Egyptian that the persecution of Bean ''puts an axe at the root of academic freedom and the freedom of inquiry." She added, ''For anybody who is a conservative, this has got to be a chilling case." Indeed, if this case is any indication, conservatives on many campuses are not just a rare breed but an endangered species. _______________________ Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe. -- "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 Mon May 2 18:14:35 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:14:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming' Message-ID: <42766E0B.9010103@mindspring.com> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming' By Robert Matthews (Filed: 01/05/2005) Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming. A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds. A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue. The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame. The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser. However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line. They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly. Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet". Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said. A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel." Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them." Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity. As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish." Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important." He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field. As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming." Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming. In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound". A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views." Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality. "The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said. Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science." -- "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.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon May 2 20:56:09 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 16:56:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Accelerating Asias nuclear energy industry Message-ID: <45400-2200551220569242@M2W071.mail2web.com> Nuclear Power Asia Pacific 2005 is a truly global summit. It brings together leaders of the nuclear energy industry to debate and discuss strategies to grow the share of nuclear energy in the energy mix of Asian nations. Nuclear Power Asia Pacific 2005 agenda delivers: - Exploration on the critical role of Asian nations in transforming the global energy landscape - Strategies to ensure adequate funding and investment - Driving innovations and strategic progress in technology - Increasing competitiveness of nuclear power plants - Issues and challenges ahead in driving technology transfer to aid sustainable development - Nuclear safety and security issues - Global perspectives on nuclear waste management http://www.powergenerationworld.com/2005/nps_au/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue May 3 00:14:30 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 17:14:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Test References: <293580-220053417195143334@M2W071.mail2web.com><007d01c52f83$2a3cdc20$1db71218@Nano><63625807b969d801e10e86164cb8cc8a@bonfireproductions.com><003701c52fe4$ae4d5600$1db71218@Nano> <007201c5370f$1410f560$1db71218@Nano> Message-ID: <003901c54f75$1cc94e90$0200a8c0@Nano> Test -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 3 02:44:17 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 19:44:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What the catholic bible says about immortalityresearch- was TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign In-Reply-To: <20050428000854.63077.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505030244.j432iLR04356@tick.javien.com> > ... Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign > > My interpretation of these verses from the Catholic > Vulgate is that God WANTS us to be immortal and those > who are opposed to this are UNGODLY... The Avantguardian Coincidence you should mention this. I was with my very devout Seventh Day Adventist in-laws this past weekend when a comment very much like this one was uttered. The devil wants us to perish, but god loves us and wants us to live forever. The biggest delta between SDA and catholicism in this regard is the SDA version of the afterlife occurs right here on this physical planet, no harps on puffy white clouds, no halos, no wings. Their picture of heaven is immortal but very much flesh-bound humans, in our current form, in a 1-g field, farming the land. (I'm not kidding about any of this, they really teach that.) The farming existence is far better than current farming, because there are no noxious weeds or pests and the work is light, even tho not mechanized at all. Each person produces abundant quantities of crops (for what purpose is a bit mysterious, since *everyone* there is a farmer and everyone is apparently producing far more than he or she can devour.) In any case, this meme may contribute to the SDA's general openmindedness about radical life extension techniques. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 3 02:52:55 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 19:52:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: <20050428011626.62848.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505030252.j432qxR05353@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE > > > > What has happened to the list?... > > ...If AI spontaneously happened somewhere > tomorrow, most of this list would be posting critical swipes... > Eli will have an explanation... > Samantha will call it a conspiracy... > Hal will insist that it is a put-on... > Kevin will post links... Spike will be making silly jokes about it... > Just yesterday I was looking at a video of a palm-top stirling engine > that produces respectable and acceptable RPMs (not 1 or 2 RPM)... > > Welcome to Sour-Puss-Central of the >H movement. > > Mike Lorrey Sterling engines are indeed cool. There have been models that can go up to 3000 RPM (how the hell they do that is beyond my imagination). The problem isn't necessarily the speed, its the torque. Sterling engines haven't been able to move very much heat, consequently they haven't been able to make much power. The real brilliance of a Sterling cycle is that it can run on anything that burns. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 3 03:12:39 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:12:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200505030312.j433CcR07219@tick.javien.com> > >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Matus wrote: > > > > > ... has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined in > > > supply while demand continued? Virginity? From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 3 04:03:57 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 23:03:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050502225017.01dd7990@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue419/books.html is an interesting review of my new sf novel GODPLAYERS. The reviewer is especially exercised by the fact that my posthuman characters are not immediately understandable -- indeed, beyond empathy -- by human standards: I'm torn in my response to this. On the one hand, it wouldn't make much sense to write about posthumans as if they were representations of the people down the road, or in the next room. On the other, I have tried to ground the fairly breakneck narrative within thematic structures and reverberations recognizable from myth, dream, and the traditions of science-fiction itself when it ventures upon the superhuman. Greg Egan met with this same objection, of course, and so, in various degrees, did John C. Wright and Charlie Stross. Maybe it's an artistic problem beyond solution -- for humans. Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 3 10:03:53 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:03:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Orion now shipping desktop supercomputer Message-ID: Called Orion DS-96 and touted as a personal supercomputer that fits under a desk, the 96-node cluster workstation stands 27 inches high, 25 inches long and 17 inches wide and is stackable up to four systems. There is no need for special cooling requirements. In fact, a computer has a maximum power draw of just 1500 watts from a standard power outlet. The computer is designed to run Linux and includes a dual 10-GigE fiber card and a 12-port GigE switch for ultra high bandwidth and massive data needs. Orion execs claim the DS-96 can achieve 300 gigaflops (Gflops) peak performance (150 Gflops sustained) with up to 192 gigabytes of memory and up to 9.6 terabytes of storage. Orion's machines are pre-installed with standard parallel programming libraries and iNquiry software, a suite of more than 200 applications for life science researchers. The workstations also include other clustering components, such as Message Passing Interface and Parallel Virtual Machine. Orders from U.S. institutions such as NASA, San Diego State University, the Henry H. Wheeler, Jr. Brain Imaging Center at U.C. Berkeley, and the University of Nebraska have already filled their orders and tested their systems. --------------- The price tag of >100,000 USD limits these machines to large institutions at present, but the price will come down. (Of course, the collapsing dollar makes this price cheaper in Europe, where Orion are currently planning a sales drive). BillK From john-c-wright at sff.net Tue May 3 14:39:27 2005 From: john-c-wright at sff.net (john-c-wright at sff.net) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 09:39:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism Message-ID: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> Mr. Giulio Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is that we should have no standards. He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary; second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of character and conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words, argues that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that moral standards are bad. There are several difficulties with these arguments. First, they refute themselves by their own terms. There is not even a pretense of logic here. Second, the terms, if taken seriously, would condone any manner of evil. Third, the argument is historically inaccurate. He says: "I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. But I don't think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality." I beg to differ. I should think the matter open to proof. For example: Axiom: Do as you would be done by. Term One: I would rather be helped across the street than pushed under a bus. Term Two: Therefore I should help the old lady across the street rather than push her under a bus. He then gives a number of reasons a hypothetical monster could use to excuse murdering the old lady. By no coincidence, all these reasons (the good of society, the usefulness for breeding, and so on) of the type of reasons Spartans found persuasive, as do the modern intellectuals, eugenicists and socialists, but which Christendom rejects. These reasons for doing in the useless old lady are each a species of utilitarianism, which holds that we should value other men only insofar as they can serve as means to our ends. Once again, the matter is open to proof: Axiom: Treat others as ends, never as means. Term One: Pushing the old lady under a bus to serve the social good is treating her as a means, not as an end. Term Two: Therefore I should not push the old lady under a bus. Please note that the axiom of the second argument is a lemma of the axiom of the first. If you would do as you?d be done by, and if you would rather be treated not merely as a means to the ends of another, you ought to treat others likewise. The argument, of course, is only as firm as its axiom. The question here is whether we accept or reject ?Do as you?d be done by? as an axiom. This is merely one of several ways of stating a principle underlying all moral reasoning: the principle of uniformity. A moral standard is not a standard unless it is a fixed standard, that is, the same for all men. A standard that admits of arbitrary exceptions is not a standard. Once you accept the principle that there should be moral standards, and if, no matter what the standard might happen to be, it applies to all men equally, then the standard is one where you are asking others to treat you as you would be treated. The only way to reject this axiom is to reject the process of moral reasoning altogether. This is indeed what the moral relativists does: "I think this is bullshit. Can I prove that it is bullshit in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality? No. Do I lose any sleep on not being able to prove it? Definitely no. I just don't care. I have chosen to help old ladies to cross the street, and to hold kindness to others as a basic value. It is a choice, not something that I can (or want to) prove." He has taken a stance of radical subjectivism: he calls a thing is good merely because he wants to do it. In his case, his heart is in the right place. However, to someone whose heart is in the wrong place, let us say, for example, infanticide-advocate Peter Singer, who does not share this sentimental attachment to old ladies, the philosophy of radical subjectivism would have nothing to say. This philosophy has nothing to say to refute the cruel practices of the Spartan, the Roman, the Mongol, the Aztec, the Grand Inquisitor, the Nazi, the Communist, or even the Eskimo. "Well, I chose to help old ladies, and you chose to leave them out on the ice flow to starve. My choice is mine and yours is yours." This philosophy is absurdly mute and helpless in the face of real evil. Either through indifference or ignorance, the moral relativist does not know what moral reasoning is for. It is for two things: first, that a man in a novel moral situation, such as where two moral principles are in conflict, can make a rational rather than merely arbitrary choice; second, that evil can be condemned. In this case, Mr. Prisco is merely sentimental about useless old ladies. He prefers to help them rather than murder them on the same grounds that I prefer pie to cake: it suits his taste. He has this taste because it is part of his cultural background. Respect for human life was ?in the air? so to speak, implied or embraced by the various thinkers whose works he read, the speeches he heard, the acts and manners of the general society around him. But where did that culture come from? Where and when did the idea arise, absent in the ancient pagan world, that individual human life was sacred? We can leave that question for another day. With no sense of his own irony, Mr. Prisco then says, "History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can." Assuming it is true that mass murder is bad, and assuming the statement true that conviction leads to mass-murder, it would follow that we should avoid conviction in order to avoid mass-murder. This can be the first and firmest conviction of our moral system: to avoid all convictions. Let us rally around the flag of flaglessness and defend our convictions that no convictions should be defended to the death! I would say, in this case, that his wish has been granted: he is certainly far away from uttering any true statement here. Leaving aside this silly paradox, let us merely correct the historical inaccuracy in the statement: The two most famous moral relativists philosophies of the modern age were the National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia. The former argued that logic and morality was different between members of master and lesser races; i.e. that the Aryans occupied a privileged moral position, and need not grant lesser races the benefit of moral law, but must wipe them out. The latter argued that logic and morality differed between members of economic classes; i.e. that the exploited proletarian class need not extend the benefit of moral law to the upper classes, but must wipe them out. To argue that moral absolutism leads to more history atrocities than moral relativism is to concentrate on the Seventeenth Century and ignore the Twentieth, to fear the Counterreformation but not the Holocaust. The people who "gassed people for thinking different" were the moral relativists, not those who believe in an absolute truth knowable by the human mind. The genocides of the modern age are products of followers of Marx, Neitzsche, Albert Camus, the minds who thought that logic was either a by-product of material means of production, a by-product of arbitrary self-will, or an absurdity. Moral relativists one and all. The most famous moral movement during the Eighteenth Century was the world-wide abolition of slavery, which was done by Christians who thought it absolutely the case that God hated the institution of slavery. Likewise, the great blooming of human liberty across the globe, the end of Monarchy, was spearheaded by men who wrote a document that begins: ?We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident.? In other words, men of absolute moral conviction. The argument of the moral relativist runs as follows: He sees jihads and inquisitions and so he concludes that it is the moral convictions of these people that lead to atrocity. If everyone were merely uncertain about and indifferent to questions of morality, he thinks, we would have no atrocities. This is merely sawing off the branch on which you sit. The problem with jihad and inquisition is not that their partisans had convictions, but, rather, that the convictions they had were wicked and illogical. It is the nature of the conviction, not the fact that it is a conviction, which causes the evil. The relativist has no argument to show the conviction right or wrong, and, hence, is less able to oppose the evil than that rational and righteous person, who adheres to a moral standard and knows why he adheres to it. By the reasoning of the moral relativist, it is worse to believe something firmly than it is to half-believe something wicked. The nameless Spartan thug who enslaved Helots or tossed unhealthy babies into the Apothetae, but who was half-convinced that his practices were not universally acceptable, would win more praise from the moral relativist than Socrates, who died rather than flee an injustice, because he thought that this was what unalterable and universal moral law required. The final outcome of this line of reasoning, is that Spartan thugs, the kind of morally retarded half-convinced nobodies who will condone the most horrific evils, provided only everyone around them is doing likewise, are lauded by the moral relativist. The man who opposes the evil around him, the sage, the saint, the hero, he is singled out for condemnation by the moral relativist, for committing the sin of believing in sins, and believing he should not commit them. People who believe in absolute truth can reason with each other: we have a common ground to which to refer our arguments. Moral subjectivists cannot reason with each other or even with themselves. When a novel moral situation arises where the moral relativist has no habit of sentiment on which to rely, logic will not come to his aid, because he has denounced the roots of logic. The moral relativist will coast along following the general moral sentiment of his culture's background and history: in this case, coast along following the sentiments of Western Christian tradition, acting on the belief that human life is sacred, while scorning the logic which gave rise to those sentiments, and sneering at the idea that anything might be sacred. I apologize to have departed from my normal custom of being polite and humble, and I know my words here are heated and scornful. I mean no disrespect to the writer himself, whom I hold in high esteem, but his ideas are at once so absurd and so ugly, so utterly thoughtless and barbaric, that they should not be allowed to pass in a public forum without a rebuke. JCW From pgptag at gmail.com Tue May 3 16:41:03 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:41:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050502225017.01dd7990@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050502225017.01dd7990@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205050309413b238c4@mail.gmail.com> I suppose the trick is finding a balance between making the characters too human (it would not be believable) and too posthuman (no reader would understand). I think Egan does this well (Diaspora and Schild's Ladder), Wright less (especially Phaeton is really a 19th century person). I look forward to reading your book, is it available as ebook? G. On 5/3/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue419/books.html > > is an interesting review of my new sf novel GODPLAYERS. The reviewer is > especially exercised by the fact that my posthuman characters are not > immediately understandable -- indeed, beyond empathy -- by human standards: > > display any hint of a genuine inner life as they move randomly from scene > to scene, world to world, reality to reality. Perhaps Vorpal homunculi do > not possess inner lives, and Broderick's point is that these seeming > superhumans, for all their power, are soulless automatons without a shred > of humanity.... Surely there should be some character, somewhere in a > novel, to which human readers can feel connected. ...As the sequence of > events grows increasingly frenzied, with ever-greater reliance placed on > what might be termed info-splatters, the lack of a deep humanistic > substrate left this reader, at least, with no ground to stand on. > > > I'm torn in my response to this. On the one hand, it wouldn't make much > sense to write about posthumans as if they were representations of the > people down the road, or in the next room. On the other, I have tried to > ground the fairly breakneck narrative within thematic structures and > reverberations recognizable from myth, dream, and the traditions of > science-fiction itself when it ventures upon the superhuman. Greg Egan met > with this same objection, of course, and so, in various degrees, did John > C. Wright and Charlie Stross. Maybe it's an artistic problem beyond > solution -- for humans. > > Damien Broderick From hal at finney.org Tue May 3 18:03:41 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again Message-ID: <20050503180341.0D6CC57EE6@finney.org> Wired magazine's new issue has an article on the Flynn Effect, which we have discussed here occasionally. This is probably my favorite Effect, so completely extropian and contradictory to the conventional wisdom. Curmudgeons throughout the ages have complained about the decay of society and how the younger generation is inferior in morals and intelligence to their elders. Likewise modern communications technology is derided: TV is a vast wasteland, video games and movies promote sex and violence. Yet Flynn discovered the astonishing and still little-known fact that intelligence scores have steadily increased for at least the past 100 years. And it's a substantial gain; people who would have been considered geniuses 100 years ago would be merely average today. Perhaps even more surprisingly, the gains cannot be directly attributed to improved education, as the greatest improvements are found in the parts of the test that directly measure abstract reasoning via visual puzzles, not concrete knowledge based on language or mathematical skills. The Wired article (which should be online in a few days) does not have much that is new, but one fact which popped out is that the Effect has not only continued in the last couple of generations, but is increasing. Average IQ gains were 0.31 per year in the 1950s and 60s, but by the 1990s had grown to 0.36 per year. Explanations for the Effect seem to be as numerous as people who have studied it. Flynn himself does not seem to believe that it is real, in the sense that it actually points to increased intelligence. I was amused by economist David Friedman's suggestion that it is due to the increased use of Caesarian deliveries allowing for larger head sizes! The Wired article focuses on increased visual stimulation as the catalyst, which seems plausible as part of the story. The article then predicts that the next generation, exposed since babyhood to video games with demanding puzzle solving, mapping and coordination skills, will see an even greater improvement in IQ scores. Sometimes I wonder if the social changes we saw during the 20th century may have been caused or at least promoted by greater human intelligence. It's a difficult thesis to make because you first have to overcome the conventional wisdom that says that the 1900s were a century of human depravity and violence. But if you look deeper and recognize the tremendous growth of morality and ethical sensitivity in this period (which is what makes us judge ourselves so harshly), you have to ask, maybe it is because people woke up, began to think for themselves, and weren't willing to let themselves be manipulated and influenced as in the past? If so, then this bodes well for the future. Hal From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 3 18:17:54 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:17:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again In-Reply-To: <20050503180341.0D6CC57EE6@finney.org> References: <20050503180341.0D6CC57EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <4277C052.4020200@jefallbright.net> Hal Finney wrote: >Sometimes I wonder if the social changes we saw during the 20th century >may have been caused or at least promoted by greater human intelligence. >It's a difficult thesis to make because you first have to overcome the >conventional wisdom that says that the 1900s were a century of human >depravity and violence. But if you look deeper and recognize the >tremendous growth of morality and ethical sensitivity in this period >(which is what makes us judge ourselves so harshly), you have to ask, >maybe it is because people woke up, began to think for themselves, and >weren't willing to let themselves be manipulated and influenced as in >the past? If so, then this bodes well for the future. > > > I agree that there has been tremendous growth in ethical sensitivity in the last century, and would say that it continues to accelerate. However, I don't think it has much to do with increased intelligence in the sense of raw thinking power, but much more to do with increased *awareness* of ourselves, others, and our inter-relationships. I expect that with this expanding context of awareness we will tend to continue making increasingly better decisions that we will see as increasingly moral. In this light, the opportunity we have before us is to develop more and better tools to spread this increasing awareness, especially to impoverished areas of the world which feel the pain and anger of lacking influence and participation in the general growth. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From bret at bonfireproductions.com Tue May 3 18:38:15 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:38:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: <20050428213335.50EB657EE6@finney.org> References: <20050428213335.50EB657EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <5044d81b857a5d6e003c73b76bb21ec2@bonfireproductions.com> On Apr 28, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > Bret K. writes: >> The question for me began when I was very young - and although this >> may >> be flawed, it made for further inquiry: If dinosaurs got stuck in and >> died in the LaBrea tar pits, then what dinosaurs died to make the tar >> pits in the first place? It seemed like a chicken and egg scenario. > > The La Brea tar pits don't actually contain dinosaurs. Of course not. Don't let my third grade speculations convince you otherwise. For the record, I stated that the thinking was flawed before your correction, but that it was simply a vehicle to prompt further investigation. > As you probably know, that's not the conventional scientific > explanation. > My advice is to give more credence to the belief which is widely held > by experts who have devoted their lives to the study of the field. Out of anywhere I would not expect to get "shut down" so smoothly on this list. I am surprised. > Hal From hal at finney.org Tue May 3 18:51:02 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050503185102.1760457EE7@finney.org> Mike Lorrey forwards: > http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050426/OPINION01/504260377/1035/OPINION > Deloss: Arctic drilling would yield big benefits, low costs > By GARRY DELOSS > April 26, 2005 > ... > 4. Given the above-described rising economic benefits, falling > environmental costs, and successful congressional precedent, a vote to > drill in ANWR has always been a question of when, not whether. When oil > prices fluctuated at $25 to $30, ANWR oil production was a questionable > venture. But China and India have traded their economically depressing > socialism for the benefits of capitalism. As their economies grow > rapidly, their rising oil consumption is pushing the world price of oil > to $50 many years ahead of expectations. ANWR oil drilling is barely > economic at $30, attractive at $40, and irresistible at $50. I don't know much about the pros and cons of this drilling project, but the bottom line seems to be that if oil prices stay high or go even higher, the political pressure to allow development of ANWR will be insurmountable. And presumably we will also see increased desire to develop other fossil fuel resources. Once people feel the pain of seemingly permanent rises in fuel prices, concern over the environment is likely to become a secondary factor. I live in Santa Barbara, which is an oil producing region. We have a number of offshore oil wells which are visible from our coastline. And of course, this is also the site of the famous 1969 oil spill that my father was involved in, as I wrote earlier. There is strong local opposition to further oil development. There are also active proposals to install liquified natural gas (LNG) reception terminals offshore in the local area. The gas would be offloaded from ships and then piped ashore. The problem is that this is said to have a high risk of dangerous accidents or even terrorism. I remember reading an article years ago depicting a hypothetical LNG accident, with a burning wavefront as the supercold vaporized gas mixed with air, spreading and extending for miles inland, setting everything in its path aflame. I don't know how realistic that is but it was pretty horrific. The economic problem is one of externalities. Developing oil resources benefits the oil companies directly and everyone indirectly. But we in the local area pay costs which are not compensated, in the risk of further environmental damage or even catastrophic destruction. So it ends up being a battle of local vs national governments. The current energy bill is supposed to give the president more authority to override local opposition in oil development and LNG sites. I imagine that this will be an increasing trend if oil prices go on the way they have been. Hal From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 3 19:17:51 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 20:17:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org> References: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/29/05, "Hal Finney" wrote:> > Let's suppose that gas goes up to $5/gallon, and average distance > travelled for personal vehicles drops from 20000 to 15000 miles per year. > An SUV gets maybe 15 mpg, so that is 1000 gallons or $5000 per year. > Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting > 30 mpg and selling for $25000. You'll save $2500/year in gas costs. > But the SUV is practically worthless in this environment and has little > resale value. That means it's going to take ten years to pay off your > investment in the new car, with your savings on gas. That's not a very > attractive proposition. > > Of course, it's also possible that Peak Oilers are wrong, gas won't go > up to $5/gallon and that all those people buying SUVs are not idiots. > Ultimately, car purchasers are responding to the price signals they > receive by looking at gas prices. This gets back to the point I have > made before, that if the smart money thought oil was going to go through > the roof in a few years, it would already be bid up. Oil would already be > high in anticipation of future shortages; gas prices would already be high > for the same reason; and people would already have stopped buying SUVs. > > It's the invisible hand at work. The fact that this is not happening, > that people are still buying low mileage vehicles, is not evidence > of irrationality. Rather it is direct, visible evidence that Peak Oil > predictions of high oil prices are simply wrong. > Hmmm. Well, here in the UK the current gas price is around 0.86 UKP per litre. Now for the technical bit. UKP = 1.89 USD, 1 US gallon = 3.785 litres So the current UK gas price is about 0.86 x 3.785 x 1.89 = 6.152 USD per gallon. $5/gallon is cheap! Send it over here! Most of the gas price in the UK is tax, of course. But this price level has made little difference to the public's love affair with the automobile. It doesn't seem to matter what it costs or how many are killed on the roads, we must have our cars. The price will have to go a lot higher before it will have much effect. We have toll charges in some city centres, some bridges, some roads, extortionate parking charges, speeding camera fines, parking fines, innumerable traffic law infringement fines, insurance charges, servicing and repair charges, depreciation, and so on. People will complain, but they still pay up and keep their car. It will need a change of mindset (or a good alternative) before car use reduces. BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 3 19:18:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] POST OF THE YEAR: In defense of moral objectivism In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050503191829.73603.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This is post of the year, objectively speaking, of course. It certainly needs publishing somewhere. --- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > Mr. Giulio Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His > standard is > that we should have no standards. > > He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is > unnecessary; > second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of > character and > conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words, > argues > that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that > moral > standards are bad. > > There are several difficulties with these arguments. First, they > refute > themselves by their own terms. There is not even a pretense of logic > here. > Second, the terms, if taken seriously, would condone any manner of > evil. Third, > the argument is historically inaccurate. snip..... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 3 19:41:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503194104.4390.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In a contrarian story, researchers in England have published a study claiming that users of email lose 10 IQ points, at least temporarily, through the day compared to non-emailers. --- Hal Finney wrote: > Wired magazine's new issue has an article on the Flynn Effect, which > we have discussed here occasionally. > > The Wired article (which should be online in a few days) does not > have much that is new, but one fact which popped out is that the > Effect has not only continued in the last couple of generations, > but is increasing. > Average IQ gains were 0.31 per year in the 1950s and 60s, but by the > 1990s had grown to 0.36 per year. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 3 19:47:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > > > Bret K. writes: > >> The question for me began when I was very young - and although > this > >> may > >> be flawed, it made for further inquiry: If dinosaurs got stuck in > and > >> died in the LaBrea tar pits, then what dinosaurs died to make the > tar > >> pits in the first place? It seemed like a chicken and egg > scenario. > > > > The La Brea tar pits don't actually contain dinosaurs. > > Of course not. Don't let my third grade speculations convince you > otherwise. > > For the record, I stated that the thinking was flawed before your > correction, but that it was simply a vehicle to prompt further > investigation. The real question to ask the critics of abiotic oil is: if oil ISN'T abiotic in origin, then how did all the dino-oil wind up UNDER the deep sea-floor (particularly the Gulf of Mexico, which is a pretty old plate), which has NEVER been above sea level, and is basaltic crust, not above any sedimentary layers at all? Continuing to claim that such oil is biotic in origin requires that one believe in Creationism for it to have wound up there from biotic sources. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 3 19:56:31 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 14:56:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050503130415.01d45280@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050502225017.01dd7990@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4277A6F2.1000704@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050503130415.01d45280@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050503144314.0458d750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:24 PM 5/3/2005 -0500, I wrote: >[Eliezer:] >>Rationality is not about emotionlessness, and neither is intelligence > >Indeed; I've made the same point many times. I think the reviewers' >problem is not with a lack of portrayed emotion, because as far as I can >see the characters are frequently emotional. I hope this is not too off topic. But I'll offer a couple of quotes from the novel that seemed to me to refute the SF Weekly reviewer's suggestion. Here's one: ============== Two men in some sort of emergency garb seized an obese woman dressed like a gaudy bird, helped her to an ambulance. Lune ran to them. "Do you need help?" "You a trained nurse?" one of them shouted back. The uproar, she understood, was enormous, and against the racket of sirens and voices her own voice was nearly lost. "No, but--' "You need to get clear of the area if you're not medical or part of a firefighting crew." You don't have to yell at me, Lune found herself thinking, angry. A woman limped away from the buildings, in obvious pain. "Let me give you a hand." Lune offered her arm, and the woman leaned heavily against her shoulder. Her shoes were missing, her brown feet blackened, the geometric designs of her short sleeved huipil stained. A pretty receptionist, perhaps, made ugly by soot and the morning's mad cruelty. "I need to find a phone," the woman was saying. "I have to call and let my husband know I'm okay." "We'll find you a phone. That store up ahead, they'll let you use their phone." The manager, wringing his hands, stern face grey under its paint, let the woman sit down but said the phone service was knocked out. Lune went back outside, started again for the ziggurat. At the curb, about to cross, she heard a roaring overhead. A fourth ballistic? She readied herself to open a threshold, peering up at the sky. The hot sun was high overhead. No. One entire side of the structure closest to her was peeling inward; shattering like a dream. She turned and ran as fast as she could, for a block, stopped and looked back. A mound of rubble and foul dusty smoke. The great pyramid had simply--disappeared. Once, great woodlands filled with beasts and birds and a few humans covered this place, or places like it, she thought; in many worlds they still do so. Pristine creeks and sheltering forests. Cultures capable of living in unity with the natural order, whatever that was, whatever its source, however perverse its roots. White noise singing in her ears. Someone dragged her, with a jolt, under an awning. Dust and debris poured down. Coughing, she pulled her huipil blouse up over her mouth and nose to keep out the dust and smoke. This is what the deformist K-machines are doing, she told herself, crouched against the relative safety of the wall at her back. Someone or some thing deliberately flew semi-ballistics into that human-crowded building, struck them in just the right way to bring them down, and in the great cascade of shockwaves that would flow outward from this moment perhaps bring down the whole industrial civilization of a world, a sheaf of worlds. And they did it for the hot joy of the deed, the emotional excitement. It was a key part of the method of the Players and their adversaries, she knew that, and the knowledge was sourness in her mouth. Pick just the right fulcrum, the most vulnerable entry point for your chisel, and the damage you do will spread like fire. Growing, harvesting, building is hard work, sometimes bitterly effortful, but ruination is easy. You can make it all disappear. One person with the exact lever can destroy a reality. Stumbling, amid the sirens and the sobs, Lune returned to the cafe. Soiled plates and half-empty glasses remained on the tables. Her Ensemble had left. Drawing a wrenching breath, she opened a Schwelle and followed them. ================ Here's a quite different sort: I stepped into a place of scintillating light. Two men stood loosely wrapped in bedsheets, gazing out with blinded rapture through an immense blister window at the grandeur of the new-born Angels at sport. "Decius," I called, voice breaking with emotion. One man turned his head slowly, like a man in a dream. My brother. "Aren't they lovely?" he said. We looked for a timeless time on the Omega godthings, shaken by their music and their dance. Somehow I held to some thread of my grief and purpose. "Decius, can you speak to them?" "May I, that's the question." His tone was low-pitched and slow, clotted with a kind of worshipful dread. "I can call spirits from the vasty deep, but will they come when I do call for them?" He was drunk, I saw. And from no grape. "Decius, take command of yourself, sir. Our parents are dead." "Ah, so you are the lost brother, eh? No matter. They died long ago, boy. Doomsday comes to us all, soon enough, consult with brother Jules if you doubt it. In this place, if the Angels wish it, they shall live again." I took him angrily by the arm. His companion turned his head, looked at my passionate face with mild rebuke, swung back again to contemplation of the light-shot plenum. "They were not dead. Dramen and Angelica withdrew into concealment. Now they are dead in truth, and our brothers Marchmain and Toby with them." My voice broke. "And one other." "Ah, these are so beautiful! I have no parents. Hush, now." "I am the child of their retreat. I love them, and I love Lune the more, you god-smitten imbecile," I raged, weeping, "and you will recover them for me!" I drew back my arm and slapped his face, hard. Beyond the blister, aeons were passing, worlds beyond worlds beyond worlds built in calculated simulation and recollection, histories re-run and devised from whole cloth. Somehow I knew all this, took instruction from the fringes of omniscient shadow that crossed Yggdrasil Station like currents in a great ocean tide at the shoreline of some insignificant atoll. Here, in this place, this closed space and time, the majesty and brutality of all the Tegmark levels was being rehearsed in infinite miniature, like half the sky captured perfectly in a single red droplet of wine at the bottom of a drained glass. I could have her here, in simulation, if I sought entry from the Angels. That was not what I desired. Let her live! "Get her back for me," I told Decius and his companion, compelling them with my ardor, my steel-edged insistence. The Vorpal force in me blazed even in this radiant, numinous place. "It is not too much to ask." "Very well," the man said, and closed his eyes. An Omega Angel entered the blister. ======================= Of course this is not the emotionality of a Jane Austen or even a Don De Lillo novel, but I find it extraordinary to see such characters dismissed as "soulless automatons without a shred of humanity". But maybe that's exactly the hazard of such writing; that without the comforting orientation grid references to our daily lives (although dog knows the first extract is fairly blatant in providing one, by analogy), many readers are lost. Since I'm not especially eager to lose readers, I need to take all this under advisement. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 3 20:17:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 15:17:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <20050429220626.84321.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050429220626.84321.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050503151036.045380e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:06 PM 4/29/2005 -0700, Adrian wrote: >even the Pope is imperfect - it has been demonstrated >beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at >times, and even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by >apologizing for said errors - therefore the Catholic doctrine of papal >infallibility is itself immoral: it allows mistakes and misjudgements >to be hardened into unyielding evils merely because a certain person >made them. You've made this claim previously, Adrian, but without citing instances. Can you do so? You do realise, I suppose, that the doctrine of papal infallibility is extremely restricted, applying only when the man in the white silk beanie speaks "ex cathedra" on matters of faith/or morals. To the best of my knowledge, no Pope has ever ruled, nor could ever rule, on the speed of light, or the name Achilles used when he went among women, or the medical causes of leprosy, etc. By contrast, the infallible declaration that Mary was a virginal mother whose own immaculate conception freed her, in advance, of the stain of original sin, while extremely strange, is not likely to be overturned by science. If you know of exceptions, please provide them -- it would be fascinating. Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 3 20:21:59 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503202159.22832.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Neil Halelamien wrote: > On 4/27/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > It's not the first benchtop fusion device and is about 7 orders of > > magnitude inferior to the best Farnsworth fusor. > > http://www.rexresearch.com/farnsworth/fusor.htm > > For what it's worth, here's the last sentence of the Nature paper > detailing the research: > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/nature03575.html And from their editorial on it: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/edsumm/e050428-06.html > Though not a viable power source, 'crystal fusion' may find > application as a generator of neutrons for imaging technology. ...which is more or less what we were saying. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 3 20:24:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050503144314.0458d750@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050503202407.18493.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > ======================= > > Of course this is not the emotionality of a Jane Austen or even a Don > De Lillo novel, but I find it extraordinary to see such characters > dismissed as "soulless automatons without a shred of humanity". Individuals who see personality as those characteristics which we find unextropic (self pity, modesty, inner doubt, etc) due to a pessimistic view of humanity are generally going to see your characters thus no matter what you do, though the Marvin the Robot from Hitchhikers Guide might be a good approach: a pessimistic, fallen god-like character would likely find much sympathy from such reviewers if you slathered on enough angst and turmoil and melodramatic queenishness. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 3 22:17:48 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 00:17:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: References: <470a3c52050429014250191ce3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050503221748.GE6782@leitl.org> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:56:43PM -0400, Brian Lee wrote: > This is inaccurate. Conviction of knowledge of Truth does not *always* lead > to mass murder. Making overly broad, indefensible statements like this The point is that many who claimed to be in possession of The One Truth killed megapeople. So excuse me if I dismiss similiar claims, especially without proof. > weakens the rest of your argument. Not really. > Additionally, in relation to mathematics and some sciences, objective Truth > exists. Mathematics doesn't refer to reality. It's just a free floating production system. Please show me the algorithm by which some (which?) sciences can be used as a stringent source of behaviour constraints extracted from measurements. (Erroneous measurements and faulty reality models included, of course). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 3 22:23:31 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 00:23:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [COSMO-ASTRO] Weighing the Universe In-Reply-To: <20050429161223.8883757EE6@finney.org> References: <20050429161223.8883757EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050503222331.GF6782@leitl.org> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:12:23AM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > It's hard to say what the "cost" of computation is in Life. There may > not be any such thing that we can perceive and understand. In this universe, computing Life has very definite costs. Whether you build a dedicated machine, representing state and state transformation in hardware, or use a recursive lightcone hash lookup (as Life state distribution is very different from random, and which has very real penalties of its own) you have to represent the state and compute changes on that state. If our Planck scale looks roughly than Life the costs are stupendous indeed. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 3 20:43:19 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:43:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <200505032043.j43KhGR21867@tick.javien.com> On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy + capitalism... Natasha Globalization, democracy and capitalism, ooooohhh I looove that kind of talk. I get so turned on. {8-] Natasha I will be looking forward eagerly to reading your article. spike From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Tue May 3 20:57:03 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:57:03 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: References: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 May 2005, BillK wrote: >On 4/29/05, "Hal Finney" wrote:> >> >> Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting >> 30 mpg and selling for $25000. You'll save $2500/year in gas costs. > >So the current UK gas price is about 0.86 x 3.785 x 1.89 = 6.152 USD per gallon. > >$5/gallon is cheap! Send it over here! > >Most of the gas price in the UK is tax, of course. But this price >level has made little difference to the public's love affair with the >automobile. It doesn't seem to matter what it costs or how many are >killed on the roads, we must have our cars. Actually there is an effect: Europeans tend to drive much more efficient cars and drive less miles. Something that was immediately evident in Hal's post was that a 30 mpg car is seen so efficient that it must be a hybrid (!) Nowadays a 30 mpg car would be a "thirsty" one in any European nation, except for very big and/or sport cars. Ordinary gasoline cars are about 40 mpg, new diesels are a bit better (as long as you don't run the proverbial circle around gasoline cars), cars tuned for low consumption easily get 50+ mpg. Also, a 20 km (12 miles) commute is seen as quite long. I don't remember where, but I remember one study concluding that the amount of money spent by USians and Europeans on gas wasn't that different. Alfio From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 3 21:10:33 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Questions Transhumanism Has Brought Me In-Reply-To: <200505011823.30759.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> Message-ID: <20050503211033.32465.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Diego Caleiro wrote: > 1 What is more important, making the transhumanist meme achieve as > many minds > as possible, or be faithful to some pre-determined concept of > tranhumanism? Would it more succinctly state your point of view to say this: "Many people have difficulty imagining life after the Singularity. Therefore, when discussing >Hism with the general public, stick to the stuff they CAN imagine well, for instance near-term things like longevity and prosthetics instead of long-term things like immortality and uploading. Their misunderstandings of our long-term plans cause their opposition to our goals, so don't talk about them with them." > 5 There are too many brilliant minds here for the amount of money > tranhumanist > cause is managing to collect. Define "brilliant". Brilliant at imagining the future, perhaps. Brilliant at actually building it? I, for one, am working on at least one advanced-tech R&D project. I encourage everyone else to do likewise, or to do similar in politics (like the Free State project - I suppose I'm not their biggest fan, but someone's got to try what they're trying) or whatever their chosen specialty is. (See, e.g., Natasha's media efforts.) > 6 Last but not least, I have a question about a physical problem. > Brains are > constantly physically changing, neurons move, die, react etc. Silicon > Brains > would not have that biological ability, therefore, although they may > be able > to store information, they will not be able to interexchange this > information > with the same degree of randomness we have. So, they would not have > an > freudian inconsciouness, and probably would have some difficulties in > making > complex tought, which require many physical ???mistakes??? in > neuronal activity > to happen. How to go round this problem? Simulate it in software. Set an upper bound - comfortably above the maximum that a super-genius brain could reach at peak (I have a sneaking suspicion there won't turn out to be that much variance here between the human max and the human norm) - which the hardware will encode, then activate and interconnect only as many as needed at a time. This has its limits, but perhaps it would work for an early generation device. Alternately, once we have advanced nano, equip the neuron-equivalents with limited manufacturing capability, and allow them to literally grow new connections. Design the basic neuron, design the rough organization of the final product but let the product itself define the details, and you wind up with a system rather like the biological one, although potentially optimized (if only because there will have been detailed studies, and probably notes kept, of the partially-complete brain as it was developed; no such equivalent exists for biological brains, and reverse engineering it is proving to be difficult - especially because we can't let a human brain grow to completion without giving it basic human rights). From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Tue May 3 21:21:57 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:21:57 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: References: <20050429163713.8F27F57EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 May 2005, Alfio Puglisi wrote: >Actually there is an effect: Europeans tend to drive much more efficient >cars and drive less miles. Something that was immediately evident in Hal's >post was that a 30 mpg car is seen so efficient that it must be a hybrid (!) > >Nowadays a 30 mpg car would be a "thirsty" one in any European nation, >except for very big and/or sport cars. Ordinary gasoline cars are about 40 >mpg, new diesels are a bit better (as long as you don't run the proverbial >circle around gasoline cars), cars tuned for low consumption easily get >50+ mpg. Also, a 20 km (12 miles) commute is seen as quite long. Now before too many people point that out, those numbers weren't quite right. Checking with Google's calculator gives somewhat lower mpg numbers :-)) sorry folks Alfio From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Tue May 3 21:24:49 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:24:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> References: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f05050314245ebc009f@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/05, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > He [Giulio] says: "I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. But I don't > think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality." > > I beg to differ. I should think the matter open to proof. For example: > Axiom: Do as you would be done by. > Term One: I would rather be helped across the street than pushed under a bus. > Term Two: Therefore I should help the old lady across the street rather than > push her under a bus. Given that others consider your 'axiom' is not absolute or objective, what then? Giulio was quite right, and your failure to provide a justification in terms of -absolute or objective- morality is further evidence of his point. Demanding that your personal moral beliefs be acknowledged as absolute does not make them so, John. > He then gives a number of reasons a hypothetical monster could use to excuse > murdering the old lady. By no coincidence, all these reasons (the good of > society, the usefulness for breeding, and so on) of the type of reasons Spartans > found persuasive, as do the modern intellectuals, eugenicists and socialists, Thanks for letting us know you don't have a clue concerning the reasoning of modern intellectuals and socialists. It helps to see the context of your other statements. > These reasons for doing in the useless old lady are each a species of > utilitarianism, which holds that we should value other men only insofar as they > can serve as means to our ends. Bentham, arguably the founder of utilitarianism, proposed his theory out of consideration for the interests of all beings capable of suffering. If you must choose between helping an old lady on her long walk home and building sandbag reinforcements to protecting a homeless shelter from being destroyed in a coming flood, which should you choose? If you let the old lady go it alone so you might help the shelter inhabitants, are you a heartless utilitarian, treating people as means rather than ends? Her life is over, hit as she was by an oncoming bus, because you realized you could save more people one way than the other. This sort of consideration is the bedrock of utilitarianism (and more broadly, of consequentialism, of which utilitarian theories form but a subset), and it has not the cold flavor you attribute it. Another classic source on utilitarianism, if you care to understand that which you denigrate at least at a basic level, is Singer's Practical Ethics, which you comment on later in your message (calling him an infanticide advocate, which he clearly isn't, if you read his work rather than the nutjob religionists who've slandered him in the press). You needn't go further than the first chapter to find Singer declare that ethics demands equal consideration of the interests of others -- they are explicitly not means to our own ends. Another smidgen of information on Singer's heart being in the wrong place; he donates a minimum of 20% of his earnings to charities each year. How much do you help the less fortunate each year, John? > Axiom: Treat others as ends, never as means. > Term One: Pushing the old lady under a bus to serve the social good is treating > her as a means, not as an end. > Term Two: Therefore I should not push the old lady under a bus. We can keep your axiom and reverse the conclusion, exposing the axiom for the confusion it is. (Premise 1) Treat others as ends, never as means. (Premise 2) Allowing various members of society to suffer and die [*] to serve the good of the old lady is treating all of those members as means to an end. [* which I take to be a plausible result of not doing that which serves the social good, but other examples of social harms would suffice] (Conclusion) I should not let those people suffer and die. > The argument, of course, is only as firm as its axiom. The question here is > whether we accept or reject "Do as you'd be done by" as an axiom. This is merely > one of several ways of stating a principle underlying all moral reasoning: the > principle of uniformity. A moral standard is not a standard unless it is a fixed > standard, that is, the same for all men. Just men, eh? What a fine moral outlook you have indeed. Please, speak on, fellow manly man! You're living in the wrong century for that sort of language, John. "... a fixed standard,that is, the same for all people." would be rather more appropriate. Or should we move in the other direction, and specify not just men, but straight white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men? ;) I'm quite glad that you recognize the argument fails on rejection of the axiom. It's a pity you don't take the next step in recognizing that you haven't provided any objective or absolute reasons for us to agree with your version of axiomatic morality. > He has taken a stance of radical subjectivism: he calls a thing is good merely > because he wants to do it. You're oversimplifying unacceptably. Your statement implies Giulio would call theft good if he wanted to do it, yet nothing Giulio said requires this; it is completely consistent for Giulio to have first-order desires ("I want to X"), second-order desires ("I don't want to want X"), and higher-order desires. I imagine he is much like you and I -- we can want something at a first-order level (a tempting vice, say; whatever poison suits you), yet not want to want it, feeling that - even though we want it - it is not a good thing to want. Giulio can correct me if I'm wrong and he actually does fit your caricature. But it remains that none of what he said requires the straw-man you've constructed to be accurate. > But where did that culture come from? Where and when did the idea arise, absent > in the ancient pagan world, that individual human life was sacred? So not only are you ignorant of moral philosophy, you're ignorant of pagan and other pre-Christian religions as well. That bit about "Do unto others"? Think that originated in Christianity or even Old Testament Judaism and then spread out to other religious and secular mindsets? Wrong, John. The very first record appears to be in Ancient Egypt, somewhere between 1970 and 1640 BCE: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant (pp. 109-110 in the R.B. Parkinson translation) We see this in numerous other societies prior to any introduction of Judaism or Christianity. E.g., Confucius: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23 and... "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3 and... "Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4 And Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 And the Buddhists: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18 And the Taoists: "Regard your neighbors gain, as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." Tai Shang Kan Ying Pien And in Native American religion, which they had prior to interacting with our culture: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace > The two most famous moral relativists philosophies of the modern age were the > National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia. The > former argued that logic and morality was different between members of master > and lesser races; i.e. that the Aryans occupied a privileged moral position, and > need not grant lesser races the benefit of moral law, but must wipe them out. > The latter argued that logic and morality differed between members of economic > classes; i.e. that the exploited proletarian class need not extend the benefit > of moral law to the upper classes, but must wipe them out. Neither of these two positions are examples of moral relativism. Proponents in either case could consistently hold the views you attribute to them *and* also that their moral views are absolutely and objectively true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism for definition and history and http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/05/whats_wrong_wit.html for some clarificational remarks made by someone trained in moral philosophy at one of the best programs in the world. > To argue that moral absolutism leads to more history atrocities than moral > relativism is to concentrate on the Seventeenth Century and ignore the > Twentieth, to fear the Counterreformation but not the Holocaust. Quite not. Continuing my comment just above, the Holocaust was the result of belief of the sort of absolutism that Giulio was referring to. The Nazis believed in their absolute superiority; they didn't acknowledge or respect the distinct moral views of other cultures. Considering Jews to be beneath moral consideration is not relativism any more than your belief that the animals you eat are beneath your consideration. Don't conflate colloquial usage of the term 'relative' (e.g., "the moral status of Jews is negligible *relative* to the moral status of Aryans") with the meaning of moral relativism. Again, see the links I provided above to get a better idea of what moral relativism is (or at least what other people mean by the term, if you choose for some reason to be adamant about using it to mean something different). > The most famous moral movement during the Eighteenth Century was the world-wide > abolition of slavery, which was done by Christians who thought it absolutely the > case that God hated the institution of slavery. Except for the Scripture that speaks in favor of slavery, eh? "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, vol. 1, page 286. (biographer: Dunbar Rowland) See religioustolerance.org for numerous quotes from the Old and New Testament evidencing Biblical acceptance of slavery; here are some examples: Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." "One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:" Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." On a happier slavery-endorsing note, the Bible did say slave-owners shouldn't beat their slaves: Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." > Likewise, the great blooming of > human liberty across the globe, the end of Monarchy, was spearheaded by men who > wrote a document that begins: "We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident." Men like... the non-Christian Thomas Jefferson? Or John Adams, who ratified (with all of Congress unanimously) the Treaty of Tripoli, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."? Or James Madison, called the father of the Constitution, who said "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."? and "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." Keen. Yeah, they may have been moral objectivists. They needn't have been, though. You can be a moral subjectivist and still assert what you think should be the foundations of a good nation. You can agree with your contemporaries on various moral matters without declaring said morality a universal truth (this being similar to Giulio's apparent stance -- it is not whim, but it isn't objective dictate either). > I apologize to have departed from my normal custom of being polite and humble, > and I know my words here are heated and scornful. I mean no disrespect to the > writer himself, whom I hold in high esteem, but his ideas are at once so absurd > and so ugly, so utterly thoughtless and barbaric, that they should not be > allowed to pass in a public forum without a rebuke. Hey, that's all right. If any of what you said were true, I'd be just as up-in-arms about it. But it isn't. So, just as you hope to be pardoned for your tone, I hope you'll pardon me as well and engage the ideas (however impolitely I've presented them) rather than dismiss them because of my umbrage at what I see as misguided piety, ignorance, and fundamentalist propaganda. Cheers, Jeff From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 3 21:33:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503213322.22246.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > On Tue, 3 May 2005, BillK wrote: > > >On 4/29/05, "Hal Finney" wrote:> > >> > >> Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting > >> 30 mpg and selling for $25000. You'll save $2500/year in gas > costs. > > > >So the current UK gas price is about 0.86 x 3.785 x 1.89 = 6.152 USD > per gallon. > > > >$5/gallon is cheap! Send it over here! > > > >Most of the gas price in the UK is tax, of course. But this price > >level has made little difference to the public's love affair with > the > >automobile. It doesn't seem to matter what it costs or how many are > >killed on the roads, we must have our cars. > > Actually there is an effect: Europeans tend to drive much more > efficient cars and drive less miles. Something that was immediately > evident in Hal's post was that a 30 mpg car is seen so efficient > that it must be a hybrid (!) We drive heavier vehicles to move our fatter butts and our fatter kids with our fatter groceries further distances with more acceleration. We drive more miles to from the burbs to the malls to work to school, etc. Europeans are smarter in going for the 'urban village' concept more widely. Our urban and suburban planning is atrociously focused on creating artificial land scarcity through zoning, setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc. which claims to be good for environment and controlling growth, but winds up accellerating sprawl and harming more environment. > > Nowadays a 30 mpg car would be a "thirsty" one in any European > nation, except for very big and/or sport cars. Ordinary gasoline > cars are about 40 mpg, new diesels are a bit better (as long as you > don't run the proverbial circle around gasoline cars), cars tuned > for low consumption easily get 50+ mpg. Also, a 20 km (12 miles) > commute is seen as quite long. It's all about power. The first Toyota Prius to come out got 66 mpg easy but was judged by most Americans as sluggish, accelerating to 60 mph (~100 kph) in a measely 14 seconds. Current generation hybrids here shoot for 35-45 mpg while delivering high horsepower, awesome acceleration off the mark with that electric motor, the long range that Americans need and want, while delivering ultra low emissions. There is a triangle between low emissions, high power, and high milage. You can have any two of the three. On the good side, American hybrids are quite capable of having their vehicle computers reprogrammed to emphasize efficiency and emissions rather than power, if we ever need to do so in the event of a crisis. > > I don't remember where, but I remember one study concluding that the > amount of money spent by USians and Europeans on gas wasn't that > different. And where USians money goes into highway miles they actually drive for their own productivity and recreation, where do the Eurodollars go? As most eurogas pricess are taxes, how much of those taxes actually go to reducing alleged greenhouse gasses??? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue May 3 21:38:26 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:38:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a moral relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has their own moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess their moral system, then act contrary to it. BAL From hal at finney.org Tue May 3 21:41:01 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation Message-ID: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org> Mike Lorrey writes: > The real question to ask the critics of abiotic oil is: if oil ISN'T > abiotic in origin, then how did all the dino-oil wind up UNDER the deep > sea-floor (particularly the Gulf of Mexico, which is a pretty old > plate), which has NEVER been above sea level, and is basaltic crust, > not above any sedimentary layers at all? Continuing to claim that such > oil is biotic in origin requires that one believe in Creationism for it > to have wound up there from biotic sources. I don't know much about the formation of oil. Are you claiming that among geologists, there is widespread bafflement about how oil could have ended up under the Gulf of Mexico? That this is something of an unsolved mystery in the field? Do you want me to do research and become, once again, an instant expert on the topic? I don't want to do it unless you are pretty sure that this is the state of things. I googled a bit and found one site which claims to explain the origin of Gulf oil, http://www.lsu.edu/lsutoday/980501/pageone.html : : The events leading up to the 1980 disaster began about 150 million years : ago, when the nearly landlocked sea that is now the Gulf of Mexico dried : up over and over again, said Gary Byerly, chair of LSU's Department of : Geology and Geophysics. The evaporation of the water left huge layers : of salt, which were eventually covered by silt and clay. Pressure from : overlying sediments deformed the flat layers of salt into dome shapes. : : At the same time, the algae that would eventually become the oil : and gas the Texaco rig workers were looking for were living in the : Gulf. The climate in that period fluctuated wildly, with years so dry : the Mississippi River would become a mud flat, followed by years of : flash flooding, said geologist Ezat Heydari of LSU's Basin Research : Institute. These conditions also produced great algal blooms. As the : organisms died and drifted to the bottom, they eventually covered the : floor of the Gulf to a depth of 500 feet or more, Heydari said. Gradually : they became covered with silt and sank deeper and deeper into the seabed : until they began to cook under the pressure and temperature. : : "Oil and gas are formed by thermal processes," said LSU geology professor : Jeffery Nunn. "Organic material has to be cooked at a temperature of : 100 degrees Celsius before it will become transformed into oil, and it : doesn't get that hot till you get to a depth of three kilometers (almost : 10,000 feet). It takes a long time for something to be buried that deep. : : "The oil deposits we are tapping under the Gulf of Mexico were laid down : about 60 million years ago," Nunn said, "but even today, organisms are : dying and falling to the bottom, continuing the process of hydrocarbon : formation." : : The salt domes and the oil deposits the rig was searching for are : relatively recent geological phenomena. But even the earliest seas had : a profound influence on the planet today, Byerly said. : : Byerly's field of expertise is the Archean Age, including oceans which : formed at the dawn of time and gave rise to life on earth. "There is : a lot of overlap between oceanography and geology. Understanding the : ancient oceans is a major part of understanding geology," he said. : : Scientists now believe that the oceans formed shortly after the earth : itself and have always been just about as deep and just about as salty : as they are today. They have not become more salty over the eons, Byerly : said, because they are constantly drying up and re-forming elsewhere, : leaving behind great deposits of salt. : : "Scientists used to believe that the ocean basins were ancient and : the continents were relatively young. Now we know just the opposite is : true. Ocean basins are the most geologically active places on earth. The : average age of the Atlantic, for instance, is between 75 and 150 million : years. But you can find rocks 3.5 billion years old on the continents," : he said. This would seem to contradict at least two of Mike's claims. The Gulf floor is apparently only about 150 million years old, younger than many dinosaurs; and it was indeed above water at least intermittently during the time when the salt formations were created. There are also apparently many sedimentary layers present. It's also worth noting that oil is thought to be formed by aquatic life, such as algae, not dinosaurs. Hal From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Tue May 3 21:47:38 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:47:38 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050503213322.22246.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050503213322.22246.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: >As most eurogas pricess are taxes, how much of those taxes actually go to >reducing alleged greenhouse gasses??? Most of it just goes into the general state budget, so it's going into the major spending items like health care, public pensions and so on. But greenhouse gasses are reduced, because you burn less gas for each dollar/euro spent. Not that most people like it, but they just don't know about the US. When I mention $0.25/liter gas they are amazed. Alfio From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Tue May 3 21:50:55 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:50:55 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: >The real question to ask the critics of abiotic oil is: The question to ask the proponents of abiotic oil is: how fast is the replacement rate from below? If it takes 5 million years to refill today's known reserves, it doesn't make a big difference on alleged peak oil timelines. Alfio From hal at finney.org Tue May 3 21:52:26 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050503215226.5DE5A57EE6@finney.org> Alfio Puglisi writes: > Actually there is an effect: Europeans tend to drive much more efficient > cars and drive less miles. Something that was immediately evident in Hal's > post was that a 30 mpg car is seen so efficient that it must be a hybrid (!) About that 30 mpg, I was remembering articles like this one, about one customer's disappointment with hybrid mileage, http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63413,00.html?tw=wn_story_related : : Honda's Civic Hybrid is rated by the EPA to get 47 miles per gallon in : the city, and 48 mpg on the highway. After nearly 1,000 miles of mostly : city driving, Blackshaw was getting 31.4 mpg. : : "I feel like a complete fraud driving around Cincinnati with a license : plate that says MO MILES," says Blackshaw, who claims that after 4,000 : miles his car has never gotten more than 33 mpg on any trip. The tenor of : Blackshaw's blog shifted from adulation to frustration after his Honda : dealer confirmed that his car was functioning properly, and that there : was nothing he could do. : : Blackshaw, who is chief customer satisfaction officer at Intelliseek.com, : spoke to a Honda regional manager about his concerns, and wrote a letter : to a Honda vice president on April 15 that was not answered. His story : has been echoed dozens of times online by owners of the Honda Civic : Hybrid and Toyota Prius. But you're probably right, there may well be cars that can do better than this without even using hybrid technology. Perhaps going even smaller than the Civic would allow for better mileage. Hal P.S. BTW it's my birthday tomorrow so I'm treating myself to a pair of Powerisers, http://www.superdairyboy.com/poweriser.html. Found 'em on Ebay for a discount. I'll supposedly be able to run 20 mph with 9 foot strides! Bring on Peak Oil! From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 3 22:25:36 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503222536.57048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This is the rotten core of moral relativism: that the only crime is hypocrisy, that it is somehow impossible to judge one moral code against another for greater or lesser adherence to objective truth. When all morals are of equal validity, then any crime against humanity is not only possible, but not to be condemned if one can rationalize a moral position for it. To condemn, say, the Nazis, for morally justifying their genocide, or Pol Pot for his, or Mao, Stalin, you name it, is not moral relativism, it is holding a standard, a conviction, of what is objectively moral or not. --- Brian Lee wrote: > I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a moral > relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has their > own > moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess > their moral > system, then act contrary to it. > > BAL > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 3 22:38:01 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050503223801.83370.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected > financial relations > between nations could be a driving force behind > advancing worldwide human > rights? I think globalisation of western style capitalist-democracy would advance some human rights but not others. For example, it would further the "right to life" since corpses make lousy consumers but rights like "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not neccesarily advanced. Especially if there is a danger that the democracy is "fabricated". I saw a great quote the other day somewhere: "he who casts a vote has little power, he who counts the votes has great power". I am still very spooked and mistrustful of this whole Diebold paperless voting machine thing. It seems ridiculous to me that we have open-source operating system soft-ware like unix but the machines that count our votes run on proprietary software written by ultra-partisans. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From benboc at lineone.net Tue May 3 23:12:40 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 00:12:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cyc In-Reply-To: <200505031711.j43HBAR06861@tick.javien.com> References: <200505031711.j43HBAR06861@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42780568.80506@lineone.net> From: Dirk Bruere Subject: [extropy-chat] Cyc > Any opinions on Cyc? Nope. ben From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 3 23:56:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503235622.7999.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >As most eurogas pricess are taxes, how much of those taxes actually > go to > >reducing alleged greenhouse gasses??? > > Most of it just goes into the general state budget, so it's going > into the > major spending items like health care, public pensions and so on. But > greenhouse gasses are reduced, because you burn less gas for each > dollar/euro spent. Pollution reduction through deterrence? This pretty much confirms what I've repeatedly said here: the 'coincidence' of most supporters of global warming (and peak oil) being from europe, and europes: a) dismal economic competetiveness b) incredibly high taxes on gasoline and other energy sources, which are spent almost entirely on funding their economy-destroying welfare state programs and not on actual pollution reduction, Clearly leads anyone with rational faculties to the obvious conclusion that both global warming and peak oil are political myths intended as propaganda to convince the American people to castrate themselves economically so that europe may compete without having to give up its socialism. > Not that most people like it, but they just don't know > about the US. When I mention $0.25/liter gas they are amazed. Funny, when people here gripe about high prices, all the Naderites point to europes prices. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 3 23:59:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > : Blackshaw, who is chief customer satisfaction officer at > Intelliseek.com, > : spoke to a Honda regional manager about his concerns, and wrote a > letter > : to a Honda vice president on April 15 that was not answered. His > story > : has been echoed dozens of times online by owners of the Honda Civic > : Hybrid and Toyota Prius. > > But you're probably right, there may well be cars that can do better > than this without even using hybrid technology. Perhaps going even > smaller than the Civic would allow for better mileage. Actually, it is primarily driving habits. People rush around so much they HAVE to accelerate pedal to the metal. You just can't get peak efficiency that way, using gas or electric. With the Prius there is said to be a 'sweet spot' in acceleration from 20 mph up to 60 mph that requires you to accelerate pretty slowly, just enough so that the gas engine doesn't kick in to help out. You apparently HAVE to use this method to get peak efficiency. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Wed May 4 00:18:43 2005 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:18:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE03964C22@amazemail2.amazeent.com> The Avantguardian wrote: > ... I saw a > great quote the other day somewhere: "he who casts a > vote has little power, he who counts the votes has > great power"... "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 00:35:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050504003508.81260.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > This would seem to contradict at least two of Mike's claims. The > Gulf > floor is apparently only about 150 million years old, younger than > many dinosaurs; and it was indeed above water at least intermittently > during the time when the salt formations were created. There are > also > apparently many sedimentary layers present. It's also worth noting > that oil is thought to be formed by aquatic life, such as algae, not > dinosaurs. I'll note that he states that the salt domes are 3 km under the floor before pressure rises enough to produce oil. Yet the ocean floors are only thought to be 5-10 km thick, which creates a paradox. If the upper 3 km that covers the salt domes was produced over 60 million years, and the floor is 150 million years old, then the sedimentary layer of the gulf should be about 7.5 km thick, thus the basalt at the spreading zones can be at most 2.5 km or less thick, which we know isn't true because of the amount of material put out by the spreading ridges. But we'll let that aside for a bit. Now, lets look at the amount of sediment: 7.5 km thick. How much is biological material? Dunno, but it is all subducted under the continents at some point, silt, methane hydrates, oil, salt domes, rock, and all. Does all that oil and methane hydrates just disappear? Obviously not. Is there air for the oil and methane to react with to burn into carbon dioxide and water? No, there isn't. How much subduction happens? How many tons of stuff gets subducted every year? While some deep sediments in the ocean floor may be covered deep enough to turn to oil in situ, it is clear that, given what we know about methane hydrates, there is a LOT more of this stuff, unconverted, waiting to be subducted, and being subducted, all the time. Lets make a pessimistic guesstimate that there is about 100,000 km of subduction zone sucking oceanic sediment under. And lets say there is an average of 7.5 km of sediment at any given point getting subducted. Given an average subduction rate of 3 cm/year, that means 22.5 cubic km of material being subducted worldwide every year. (suck, suck, suck) If we were to assume, say, that a mere 1% of the material in subducted ocean sediment is suitable for conversion into oil at appropriate pressure and temperature, this means that the earth produces .225 cubic km of oil every year, for every 1% of convertible subducted ocean sediment. How that converts to barrels d'huile is an exercise left for the reader. Now, the only reason geologists have claimed that oil comes from aquatic algae is because of fossilized cellular structures found in oil, which has been assumed until recently to be the 'algae' that 'made' the oil. This was before the discovery of hyperthermophiles and oil eating bacteria, both of which live deep underground and thrive off of chemosythnesis rather than photosynthesis. The excuse making I hear now is that a) the Gulf, which is up to 2000 fathoms deep in places, repeatedly dried up entirely when it was cut off from the ocean at various points, and that b) while exhibiting such immense saline concentrations, was home to an immense amount of algal blooms, apparently c) the entire gulf being fed by an occasional flash flood down the Mississippi. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 00:39:18 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504003918.51317.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected > > financial relations > > between nations could be a driving force behind > > advancing worldwide human > > rights? > > I think globalisation of western style > capitalist-democracy would advance some human rights > but not others. For example, it would further the > "right to life" since corpses make lousy consumers but > rights like "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are > not neccesarily advanced. Especially if there is a > danger that the democracy is "fabricated". I saw a > great quote the other day somewhere: "he who casts a > vote has little power, he who counts the votes has > great power". I am still very spooked and mistrustful > of this whole Diebold paperless voting machine thing. > It seems ridiculous to me that we have open-source > operating system soft-ware like unix but the machines > that count our votes run on proprietary software > written by ultra-partisans. I participated in recounts after this last election. Naders people were convinced that the scanning machines we used would be bad. Turned out to not be the case, few elections changed by more than a handful, literally, of votes. What I did find in the post election investigation is that the humans doing voter registration, especially election day registration, were far more unreliable. We already have far more people who are guilty of vote fraud (but who the state AAG in charge of covering up election fraud refuses to prosecute) than there were votes not counted by machines. > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they > haven't attempted to contact us." > -Bill Watterson > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dgc at cox.net Wed May 4 01:33:56 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 21:33:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What happened? Message-ID: <42782684.2020407@cox.net> We were off the air for four days. Why? From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 4 04:21:26 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The hazards of writing fiction about post-humans In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504042126.88414.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > On the one hand, it wouldn't make > much > sense to write about posthumans as if they were representations of > the > people down the road, or in the next room. Sure it would - just not from a point of view that tries to accurately predict how things will be. But is that the point of writing? Or is it to guide readers who currently really are just plain human, towards thinking of where you see us going. Problem is, some people are already opposed to any posthuman future - often not aware of it enough to know the word "posthuman", but they know what they fear and hate - and thus want to believe that all posthumans are soulless automatons, or otherwise intrinsically suffer for their removal from nature's original design. Just like those who claim that none of the Terminators (from the movie series) ever showed a shred of humanity, despite several examples to the contrary being easily findable. So any realistic portrayal of anything even remotely deserving the label "posthuman" is likely to get dismissed by certain critics, deservedly or not. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 4 04:33:54 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE03964C22@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Message-ID: <20050504043355.41283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Acy James Stapp wrote: > > "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who > count the votes > decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin > That is it exactly and my point about the Diebold machines stand. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 4 04:51:15 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504045115.95369.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > In a contrarian story, researchers in England have published a study > claiming that users of email lose 10 IQ points, at least temporarily, > through the day compared to non-emailers. Actually, that isn't contrary. Email and Web access can be distracting at first, thus causing the same effect as a temporary IQ drop while one learns the system. The effect is perhaps comparable, in some ways, to puberty. I'm waiting for the study that compares experienced Web and email users to those who have never used the Internet. From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed May 4 04:54:32 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 00:54:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05050314245ebc009f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050503234725.055acf10@unreasonable.com> Jeff Medina wrote: >So not only are you ignorant of moral philosophy, you're ignorant of >pagan and other pre-Christian religions as well. That bit about "Do >unto others"? Think that originated in Christianity or even Old >Testament Judaism and then spread out to other religious and secular >mindsets? Wrong, John. > >The very first record appears to be in Ancient Egypt, somewhere >between 1970 and 1640 BCE: : [ Quotations from various religious sources omitted. ] There are four similarly sounding principles, two of which you cite but fail to distinguish. The Christian formulation (Do Unto Others) is a busybody license. It's the traditional liberal and conservative rationale for imposing your standards on everyone around you, with or without their consent. Versus the more libertarian variant seen in your Buddhist and Hindi quotes, and famously in the story about Hillel, in which he summed up Judaism as "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man: that is the whole Law; all the rest is interpretation." The emphasis here is on *restraint from action*. The major shortcoming of both of these, however, is that they are focused on what *you* would want or not want, instead of what the other being would want or not want. In other words, (3) Do unto others that which they would want done. (4) What is hateful to your fellow sentient, do not do to him. -- David Lubkin. From pgptag at gmail.com Wed May 4 05:36:19 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:36:19 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> References: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205050322361386e3c5@mail.gmail.com> In reply to the post of John C. Wright: The National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia.were the opposite of moral relativists. This is demonstrated by two facts: one, the volume of metaphisical crap they felt obliged to write to justify their sociopathic behaviour. Two, the number of free thinkers they murdered. I really wonder how someone who has evidently read much history and philosophy can make such a grossly incorrect statement. See the Wikipedia definition of moral relativism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism "Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries. Some would even suggest that one person's ethical judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory." I do not push morel relativism to the extreme position outlined in this paragraph, and do formulate opinions and act on them. But I call them with their proper name: opinions. Not God-given Truths. Most of us do have opinions on things, at times very strong opinions, and do formulate value judgments. This has, I think, an overall positive effect. But we should always bear in mind that we formulate our opinion and judgments based on specific life histories, incomplete information and imperfect reasoning. So we should be open to the possibility that we may have to modify our opinions and judgments as a result of more/better information and/or more accurate reasoning. Or different circumstances, or different brain chemistry. Rejecting moral relativism and deluding oneself into thinking that one is the sole depositary of The Truth has, on the contrary, an overall negative effect. Indeed, history demonstrates that it inevitably leads to atrocities and mass murder. John, you develop morality from the --Axiom: Do as you would be done by--. Which is one of the axioms I also hold true. But, you said it yourself: it is an Axiom, for God's sake!!! Axiom means something that you can only accept without proving it. On 5/3/05, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > Mr. Giulio Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is > that we should have no standards.... > The two most famous moral relativists philosophies of the modern age were the > National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 05:38:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504053835.77820.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > In a contrarian story, researchers in England have published a > study > > claiming that users of email lose 10 IQ points, at least > temporarily, > > through the day compared to non-emailers. > > Actually, that isn't contrary. Email and Web access can be > distracting > at first, thus causing the same effect as a temporary IQ drop while > onelearns the system. The effect is perhaps comparable, in some ways, > to puberty. > > I'm waiting for the study that compares experienced Web and email > users to those who have never used the Internet. I was under the impression that this study applied to experienced email users, not novices. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 4 05:44:51 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504054451.80753.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:06 PM 4/29/2005 -0700, Adrian wrote: > >even the Pope is imperfect - it has been demonstrated > >beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at > >times, and even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by > >apologizing for said errors - therefore the Catholic doctrine of > papal > >infallibility is itself immoral: it allows mistakes and > misjudgements > >to be hardened into unyielding evils merely because a certain person > >made them. > > You've made this claim previously, Adrian, but without citing > instances. > Can you do so? You do realise, I suppose, that the doctrine of papal > infallibility is extremely restricted, applying only when the man in > the > white silk beanie speaks "ex cathedra" on matters of faith/or morals. > To > the best of my knowledge, no Pope has ever ruled, nor could ever > rule, on > the speed of light, or the name Achilles used when he went among > women, or > the medical causes of leprosy, etc. On the contrary: Gallileo was deemed a heretic for his scientific belief. Pope Pius V ruled that the Sun orbited the Earth, not vice versa, and that to believe otherwise was indeed a breach of faith and/or morals. This ruling was upheld by a subsequent Pope, Urban VIII, who tried and convicted Gallileo for heresy. That judgement was later deemed in error by Pope John Paul II. Ergo we have at least one example of one Catholic Pope deeming a previous one to be incorrect, ergo we can conclude that even the Catholic Church has precedent for finding that Popes are not infallible, even in matters that (at the time the later-fallible Pope rules) are considered to be within the Pope's domain. There are more examples, for instance Pope Urban II's selling of priests' wives into slavery despite slavery being almost universally decried as immoral by Popes before and after him; or Hadrian VI, who declared many prior Popes to be heretics and in error on certain spiritual matters. Google around on the history of Popes; it makes for interesting reading when you see how the Catholic Church has actually taught and behaved over the years. Which is not to say there haven't been good catholics, by any means. Just that believing any one person to be infallibly wrong tends to lead to more problems, on average, than weighing what people say against their circumstances. (For instance, experts tend to be correct about their field of expertise, but even then they can make mistakes - especially if they are given false information that they believe to be correct.) If you want proof of that, the best proof possible is simply to observe this in action in the world around you: look for it, over periods of at least a few months. It should not be too hard to find supporting evidence. From pgptag at gmail.com Wed May 4 05:53:42 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:53:42 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> References: <200505031439.j43EdVR17337@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050503225357e41d0a@mail.gmail.com> Another strong, and grossly inaccurate, statement of John: On 5/3/05, john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: > People who believe in absolute truth can reason with each other: we have a > common ground to which to refer our arguments. Moral subjectivists cannot reason > with each other or even with themselves. So, and please correct me if I am wrong: According to wrong interpretations of Christianity and Islam, which unfortunately have been held my many Christians and Muslims, killing infidels is good and proper. So killing everyone in the other camp is a common ground on which they can agree. Too bad the result is that one third of humanity have to be killed as a result. Moral subjectivists constantly reason with themselves, and with others, to make some sense of nature and morality without hiding behind presumed God-given truths. But you are right in that people who believe in absolute truth do have at least one common ground. Their common ground is thay they all consider those free thinkers who want to thik with their own head as their true enemies. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 4 05:59:33 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:59:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human - Posthuman gap In-Reply-To: <4272F88F.4080309@humanenhancement.com> References: <200504231800.j3NI0Co00939@tick.javien.com> <426B7646.8090909@lineone.net> <20050427215903.GA25963@leitl.org> <12b091790c1d9b155e897106b1cd16d0@mac.com> <42702C31.7040703@humanenhancement.com> <4792341a0a4abb5fcefe7d3682ede07c@mac.com> <42717CCE.50603@humanenhancement.com> <4272F88F.4080309@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:16 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> I only meant soon enough not to get totally creamed economically >> by the posthumans if we don't have so much abundance that everyone >> has what they need and more than a little of what they desire. >> Normal humans skill levels would not likely be very marketable. >> So what happens to those people who plain don't want to make he >> move even if it is free? >> >> If we have practical abundance I see no reason those choosing to >> remain human need be in any immediate danger except perhaps >> psychologically. >> >> I am currently more in favor of and into contributing toward IA >> and other aspects of creating posthumans form humans. I believe >> that starting with that beginning is more likely to end up well >> than starting from scratch as in AI efforts. >> > > > I suppose it depends on the nature of the PostHuman condition. Will > it necessarily include "practical abundance"? I don't think that's > a requirement, myself, and thus it might well be the case that > contemporary economics still function (at least in the near-term > after the advent of PostHumanity; I think eventually the scales > will tip in favor of "practical abundance" eventually). > I think it is a requirement if the result is going to be livable or even achievable without massive suffering and death of our fellow human beings. It was the real possibility of practical abundance for all that initially drew me to these things. > But bear in mind, there are other forms of competition than > economics. In the social sphere, PostHumans will have as many if > not more advantages over normal humans than they do in the economic > sphere. To make a necessarily poor analogy, two PostHumans could > interact on a social level as we do today with email and full > access to the Internet. A normal human would be writing letters and > mailing them, trundling down to the library for any references that > might be needed. Imagine a normal human trying to have a > relationship with a PostHuman, who is used to being able to share > mental experiences as easily as we share files online. "Mere > humans" are going to be at a disadvantage in every sphere; not only > economic, but social, political, athletic, academic, etc. > Of course but that was not what we were addressing mostly. Humans would not likely mix much with posthumans. > > >>> The truth is, we have no way of knowing what our responses will >>> be when we have an IQ of 10,000, physical immortality, and the >>> resources of a small nation. >>> >> >> >> Then those that care about humanity have quite ample reason to do >> what they can to prevent posthumanity from coming into existence. >> I think we need a lot better answers and a real idea of and >> commitment to what the intent is. I cannot say that becoming >> posthuman is worth it to me personally if it likely means the >> destruction of all but a posthuman handful of what was humanity. >> I am in this that everyone on earth may have undreamed of >> abundance and opportunity including the opportunity to become >> posthuman. I am not interested in the advancment of a handful to >> super powered selfish ape status who then destroy everyone else. >> > > > The point is, you and I are literally incapable of imagining what > our PostHuman selves would think is appropriate. Then we give humanity no guarantees or even stated intentions? We tell them that just because we think it will be cool that we will make them obsolete and perhaps will do nothing at all toward their well-being and may actually - we can't know what we may decide later - destroy them all outright? Please tell me exactly why humanity would want to tolerate this. I am not getting it. If I am not getting it then you can be darn sure that non-transhumanists aren't either. > Speculation, in that case, is useless. We can gush all the > platitudes about the dignity of humanity, and respect for those who > choose the other path, but once we have transitioned ourselves, all > bets are off. Much as the promises you or I might make as a four- > year-old cannot seriously be counted on when we're forty. > I am not talking about speculation. I am talking about commitment. There is a whole world of difference. We talk about personal continuity a lot here. That includes the ability to commit contractually. Should we write into all contracts that the agreement is null and void if our intelligence increases more than a certain amount? > > >> I would rather be exterminated than exterminate humanity. It is a >> matter of choice. >> > > > Indeed. While I respect your choice to be exterminated in such a > situation, I trust you will respect my choice to resist such a fate. > > Hopefully, of course, it won't come down to such a decision. It > certainly doesn't _have_ to; there are many possible scenarios. > > But if does come down to a question of them or us, quite frankly, I > choose us. > With the power that posthumans would have there is no way it would be such a binary choice. That is part of my point. > > >> We should not try to excuse the ugly choice as what our mysterious >> someday super brain might decide. We can decide now what we are >> building and what type of being we wish to become. That is the >> part that is known and in our control. Every moment we can >> continue to decide. >> > > > But our future-selves are not bound by those decisions, any more > than we are bound by the choices we made in kindergarten. > We are bound if we commit to being so bound. We are individually capable of deciding and living that decision. A large part of becoming posthuman is developing the ability to decide over many more aspects of existence than was possible before. Yes we may decide differently at some future time. I am less concerned with that than with what we decide now and are willing to live to. It is our decisions and professed goals now on which we will be judged and which will largely determine our near-term fate. > > >>> Although I would say that waiting until everyone is guaranteed a >>> seat on the train is not an option, mostly because it will NEVER >>> happen. Someone will always choose-- through ignorance, >>> superstition (is there a difference?), or just plain cussedness-- >>> to remain as they are. Those people must not be allowed to hold >>> up our own evolution: >>> >>> >> >> >> Sounds pretty arrogant. You say you only want the freedom to >> decide for you. then you want the freedom to decide for everyone >> or to condemn them to dead if they do not agree with you. >> > > > The freedom to improve onesself is the ultimate freedom. Is freedom > not worth fighting for? And please always bear in mind, this is an > outcome Ineither desire nor particularly expect. But to condemn you > and I to death, illness, and relative retardation when it is not > necessarily inevitable is something that deserves to be resisted. > Would you not agree that a group that wanted to kill everyone once > they reached the age of 15, and who actively prevented any sort of > education, and who held back any medicines, would be a group that > should be resisted, and violently if necessary? I see no practical > difference between my hypothetical example and those who want to > nip Transhumanism in the bud in the name of it's being "unnatural". This freedom does not free us from making ethical decisions though. It actually requires more ethics to be trusted with superhuman powers. I am attempting to point out this out. > Now, I'm not calling for the Transhumanist Revolution... > fortunately it hasn't come to that, and in all likelihood won't. I > don't think it's ultimately possible to contain the social and > technological trends that are already extant. > Perhaps not "ultimately" but is quite possible to stop much of it for some time, possibly more time than most of us have. The level of societal control, interference, surveillance and ability to impose against the choices of minorities is increasing. >> "Your decision to remain the same does not compel me not to change." >> >> But as stated our decision to change may condemn all of humanity >> except those who chose as we do because we leave open the option >> of deciding to destroy them. If we make no commitment to >> humanity then why should humanity aid or even tolerate our >> existence? Who cares how fast and deeply we can think or how >> much raw power we wield if we remain a stunted disassociated >> chimps psychologically? The power of gods should not be given to >> stunted chimps. > > > Self-selected psychology is, of course, one of the elements that is > often bandied about as a PostHuman trait. > > But are you arguing for the inclusion of some sort of "we love > humanity" meme on the basis of its inherent value, or merely as > something that is necessary at the onset of PostHumanity, as a sort > of tactical maneuver? > I believe that it is a very basic ethical decision that is a litmus test as to whether we deserve to transcend normal human limits. It is also a tactical matter but that is not the reason I suggest it. > >> We do not have to have an "evolutionary struggle" of the kind you >> may have in mind unless we decide to. That is my point. What are >> we willing to commit to? How much are we willing to grow to be >> ready to command the powers of a god? We must learn to go beyond >> models that no longer confine beings such as we are becoming. >> The non-posthumans can not even pose a threat a bit further down >> the road. There is no real struggle for survival at that point. >> Until then the question is why humanity should give birth to us >> and allow us to grow beyond our vulnerable stage. Clearly it >> should not do so without some assurances as to our subsequent >> treatment of humanity. >> >> >> > > I was reluctant to indulge my flights of fancy, and this is exactly > why. I don't "have in mind" the sort of conflict I described. I was > merely putting it out as one of many possibilities. It is a very real possibility if we refuse ethical commitment. > >> That is indeed possible but it is not the assurance that is needed >> for our own sanity. To force transcension seems almost a >> contradiction in terms. It is likely a matter of much more than >> merely upgrading the hardware. Do you really want to bring to >> full posthuman capability someone violently opposed? It is far >> better to offer gentle slopes and persuasion. With medical >> nanotech around there is no great hurry for people to be ready and >> willing to become posthuman. They can dawdle for centuries if >> they wish. They can even die if they wish. >> > > You and I might agree with that point of view today. But our > PostHuman selves might look back on this email and smile > condescendingly at our niavete. Remember, I'm just idly speculating > here; my point is we can't KNOW what we'll think, and anything we > say today could be completely reversed after we're Gods. > > That really isn't the question today though. We only have the power of choice Now. >> >> >>> Now you're getting into the "what will the Singularity after the >>> Singularity be like?" Obviously, we can't know. But for now, we >>> can tentatively say we can apply the same principle, subject to >>> revision once our several-orders-of-magnitude-smarter intellects >>> deal with the question. >>> >> >> >> There are many steps between here and there and many more I >> suspect thereafter. That is part of a the difference between >> Singularity and Rapture. Just because we can't see past the >> Singularity is no reason to suppose there is no further >> development on the other side. >> > > > Of course not! There will absolutely be development post- > Singularity (more than we can imagine, most likely). But we, by > definition have no idea what form it'll take. So unless you're > writing for Analog, such speculation is useless. :-) > It is also unnecessary for making an ethical choice today. > >> Everyone will not pay for their own if the un-upgraded are no >> longer employable. I suggest that part of the price of the birth >> of posthumanity is a compact with humanity. Part of the compact >> may be that in exchange for our birth we improve the processes and >> make uplift available to all who desire it and have prepared or >> are willing to be prepared for it. It seem a reasonable thing to >> ask. So I disagree with both of the answers above. >> > > > What if the "practical abundance" you mentioned above becomes a > reality? Then "employable" ceases to be a meaningful category. Of course. I suspect it becomes reality because again we decide to make it so. > > And I'm all in favor of allowing as many people to transition to > PostHumanity as want to. But you seem to be saying that nobody > should be able to until everyone is able to. I happen to think that > waiting until everyone can partake would be like waiting to build > the first car until everyone can have one, or the first PC until we > can give one to everyone on the planet. There are going to be > "first adopters" of any technology, and I am doing everything I can > to not only make sure those technologies become available, but that > I'm first in line. > I am not saying that at all. There indeed are always forerunners and early adopters of any technology. In this case the successful early adopters will be in a position to massively improve the technology and whatever else they set their minds to that it is possible to improve. > I refuse to forego my own ascention on the merest _possibility_ > that the distribution of such technology is inequitable, waiting > until I am assured that everyone gets their immortal intelligence- > enhanced body. Is it right that I am denied my PostHuman state > because _everyone_ can't do it too? I think not. > You are talking about a position that I am not remotely suggesting. > > >>> >>> I daresay if you asked that question of James Hughes and Max >>> More, you would get pretty much diametrically opposed answers. >>> Yet each is a Transhumanist in his own way, because that's a >>> question of methods, not goals. Personally, I don't think it's >>> practical to force equality of capability short of a social >>> system that would make Aldous Huxley blush. I favor personal >>> competition, tempered by the intervention of society as a whole >>> when such competition spills over into realms where it proves >>> detrimental to society as a whole (I am thinking of Icelandic >>> feud as an example of a social convention used to regulate >>> individual conflict, keeping it from degenerating into whole- >>> scale civil war; there are many others). >>> >> >> >> I think this may be a modeling that we don't carry forward but I >> could be wrong. >> >> > > After the Singularity? All bets are off. But right now, we need to > figure out what sort of pre-Singularity socio-political structure > will allow the maximum number of people to ascend to PostHumanity > once the time comes. I happen to think a (small-r) republican- > capitalist system (as we have here in the US) is optimal, while > others think anarcho-capitalism or democratic socialism are the > answer. Well, such is the debate in the marketplace of ideas... > While I lean strongly in the staunch libertarian direction I think that some of the views of libertarians and all of the political pigeon-holes we use today are hopelessly quaint and confining even on this side of Singularity. > > >> It goes both ways. There will be those sooner or later whose >> abilities extent beyond anything you wish to pursue. The point of >> "enough" comes to even a posthuman. Unless we set out to create >> a world where to rest is to be in mortal danger. Again, it is our >> choice. I will not chose an infinite hampster wheel of continuous >> upgrades or else as the goal of my becoming posthuman. I would >> sooner run away to a nunnery. >> > > > Abilities I don't want to pursue? What are these words of which you > speak? They are foreign to me... ;-) > > As Benjamin Franklin said, "When you're finished changing, you're > finished." > Changing does not require an endless chase after ever more. nor does growth. Happiness especially doesn't require this. - samantha From pgptag at gmail.com Wed May 4 06:34:03 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:34:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: <20050503222536.57048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050503222536.57048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520505032334267e9e40@mail.gmail.com> Mike, I think you are so staunchly against moral relativism because you perceive it as something lefty. But note that historically the Left has been very much against moral relativism: accept moral relativism, and you weaken the power of the State as you can no longer believe its claim to be the Guardian of the Truth. I suspect many historic Left thinkers would have been against, say, gay marriage. Moral relativism has been introduced in the Left by relatively modern thinkers who also believed in individual liberty and civil rights, which you as a Libertarian should support. G. On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > This is the rotten core of moral relativism: that the only crime is > hypocrisy, that it is somehow impossible to judge one moral code > against another for greater or lesser adherence to objective truth. > When all morals are of equal validity, then any crime against humanity > is not only possible, but not to be condemned if one can rationalize a > moral position for it. > > To condemn, say, the Nazis, for morally justifying their genocide, or > Pol Pot for his, or Mao, Stalin, you name it, is not moral relativism, > it is holding a standard, a conviction, of what is objectively moral or > not. > > --- Brian Lee wrote: > > I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a moral > > relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has their > > own > > moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess > > their moral > > system, then act contrary to it. > > > > BAL > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 4 11:23:27 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:23:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050504112327.GU6782@leitl.org> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:59:56PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Actually, it is primarily driving habits. People rush around so much > they HAVE to accelerate pedal to the metal. You just can't get peak > efficiency that way, using gas or electric. With the Prius there is Actually, because batteries can provide very high currents for a short time, and regenerative braking recovers a large part of kinetic energy dimensioning your engine just enough for the cruise is sufficient. You can't do any of this with a plain ICE. The interesting part however is scaling down the weight, by using new LiIon (with many cycles/rapid recharge), in-hub rare earth motors, etc. This will also reduce the load on power electronics, which will make it cheaper/less prone to blowing up in smoke. Scaling down the weight is the most important part. My current car burns 6.3 l/100 km to drive a ton of metal and plastic, just to move one monkey. Isn't this ridiculous? An order of magnitude less should be more like it, without compromising safety. > said to be a 'sweet spot' in acceleration from 20 mph up to 60 mph that > requires you to accelerate pretty slowly, just enough so that the gas > engine doesn't kick in to help out. You apparently HAVE to use this > method to get peak efficiency. Even current lead-acid monsters will easily outaccelerate a Formula 1 (and by having a low center of gravity you can really turn corners at demon speed) -- on short distances. I looked into hybrids, but they're too expensive still (almost a factor of two). The point of EVs is that you can reduce the costs by reducing the number of moving parts and complexity in general. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 4 12:25:57 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:25:57 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Questions Transhumanism Has Brought Me In-Reply-To: <20050503211033.32465.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200505011823.30759.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> <20050503211033.32465.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050504122557.GZ6782@leitl.org> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:10:33PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > I, for one, am working on at least one advanced-tech R&D project. I Do you have a web page of your (nanotechnology, isn't it?) project, or can you post a description, of what you're doing? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 4 11:02:26 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:02:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Actually, it is primarily driving habits. People rush around so much > they HAVE to accelerate pedal to the metal. You just can't get peak > efficiency that way, using gas or electric. With the Prius there is > said to be a 'sweet spot' in acceleration from 20 mph up to 60 mph that > requires you to accelerate pretty slowly, just enough so that the gas > engine doesn't kick in to help out. You apparently HAVE to use this > method to get peak efficiency. > Agreed. Doing everything gradually can easily add 20% to your fuel efficiency. The competitive 'economy-runs' achieve incredible economy and still have high average journey speeds. But my point was that the Euro price levels of >$6 per US gallon (equiv) have had little effect on reducing car use. Alfio said that Europeans tend to drive much more efficient cars and drive less miles. While this is true I doubt if the price of gas caused this. European cities are still jammed full of cars. Traffic jams are permanent. Europe has centuries old cities and towns with lots of narrow streets and no parking space. People tend to live local, crowded together. Smaller cars are one solution. But when families have two or three smaller cars, overall the result is the same as one or two larger cars. Part of the reason is the slow pot-boiling effect. The price of gas and other costs go up gradually every year and people pay a little more every year without really noticing how high the price is getting. I see little sign that gas prices are bothering people much. They get a 3% rise every year and gas prices go up 3% - who cares really? As a footnote we have to be clear whether we are talking mpUSg or mpUKg (or even kilometres per litre if you want to make sure nobody understands!) :) If you buy a UK car that is rated at 48 mpg, when it gets to the US, because the US gallon is smaller, it will only give 40 mpg. Divide by 1.201. BillK From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Wed May 4 11:30:56 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:30:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: References: <20050503235956.66415.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 May 2005, BillK wrote: >I see little sign that gas prices are bothering people much. >They get a 3% rise every year and gas prices go up 3% - who cares really? Given that every .01 euro increment or decrement makes national news around here, and that gas+diesel consumption in the first part of 2005 is down 6% with respect to 2004, I bet that someone is caring. Alfio From bret at bonfireproductions.com Wed May 4 13:20:34 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:20:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050503194729.59770.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <773893ba10ea68f3cc43d6a8f574bcf4@bonfireproductions.com> Exactly. And its not as if I hold this view in some sort of passion. Just point me at a valid (hopefully published) source - I spend 3 hours commuting everyday. Sure plates tuck and over run, and have been doing it for some time - but the distance travelled to place those materials where they ended up, particularly in the case you cite, doesn't seem to add up. Bret On May 3, 2005, at 3:47 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > The real question to ask the critics of abiotic oil is: if oil ISN'T > abiotic in origin, then how did all the dino-oil wind up UNDER the deep > sea-floor (particularly the Gulf of Mexico, which is a pretty old > plate), which has NEVER been above sea level, and is basaltic crust, > not above any sedimentary layers at all? Continuing to claim that such > oil is biotic in origin requires that one believe in Creationism for it > to have wound up there from biotic sources. > > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From bret at bonfireproductions.com Wed May 4 13:26:36 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:26:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org> References: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org> Message-ID: <63530c31768a608d09739239ca949444@bonfireproductions.com> There is also the case that most of our current atmosphere was metabolized by cyano algae and bacteria, even earlier than the dinosaurs. Could the volume of that early flora/fauna have been compressed/buried and represented today? Perhaps there is a rough number. My understanding is that it would be a large number at that. ]3 On May 3, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > This would seem to contradict at least two of Mike's claims. The Gulf > floor is apparently only about 150 million years old, younger than > many dinosaurs; and it was indeed above water at least intermittently > during the time when the salt formations were created. There are also > apparently many sedimentary layers present. It's also worth noting > that > oil is thought to be formed by aquatic life, such as algae, not > dinosaurs. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From amara at amara.com Wed May 4 13:36:26 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 15:36:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation Message-ID: Bret Kulakovich bret at bonfireproductions.com : >Just point me at a valid (hopefully published) source - I spend 3 >hours commuting everyday. Thomas Gold generated controversy in almost everything he did, but sometimes he was right because he was a very smart man. I think that his arguments and the arguments of his critics would illuminate this discussion in an intelligent way: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Thomas+Gold+methane&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search 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/ ******************************************************************** "Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level." -- Enrico Fermi From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 13:48:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 06:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504134817.61313.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I realize that there are moral objectivists on the left. Generally those who advocate greater liberty one way or another do so for principled reasons that they generally base on some objective truth they hold dearly to, whether or not they recognise it as such. The real bastions of moral relativism are the mushy middle and the totalitarian corner of the Nolan Chart. The totalitarians recognise no valid morality, they are all about power, being essentiall fascists, while the mushy middle is so often their malleable clay to mold with fear mongering propaganda or decadent blandishments. --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Mike, I think you are so staunchly against moral relativism because > you perceive it as something lefty. > But note that historically the Left has been very much against moral > relativism: accept moral relativism, and you weaken the power of the > State as you can no longer believe its claim to be the Guardian of > the > Truth. I suspect many historic Left thinkers would have been against, > say, gay marriage. > Moral relativism has been introduced in the Left by relatively modern > thinkers who also believed in individual liberty and civil rights, > which you as a Libertarian should support. > G. > > On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > This is the rotten core of moral relativism: that the only crime is > > hypocrisy, that it is somehow impossible to judge one moral code > > against another for greater or lesser adherence to objective truth. > > When all morals are of equal validity, then any crime against > humanity > > is not only possible, but not to be condemned if one can > rationalize a > > moral position for it. > > > > To condemn, say, the Nazis, for morally justifying their genocide, > or > > Pol Pot for his, or Mao, Stalin, you name it, is not moral > relativism, > > it is holding a standard, a conviction, of what is objectively > moral or > > not. > > > > --- Brian Lee wrote: > > > I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a > moral > > > relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has > their > > > own > > > moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess > > > their moral > > > system, then act contrary to it. > > > > > > BAL > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > > Mike Lorrey > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 14:01:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050504112327.GU6782@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050504140110.43501.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:59:56PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Scaling down the weight is the most important part. My current car > burns 6.3 l/100 km to drive a ton of metal and plastic, just to move > one monkey. Isn't this ridiculous? An order of magnitude less should > be more like it, without compromising safety. Ever been in a highway accident? Lighter vehicles hydroplane easier, just to start with, and trees just don't have the sort of crumple zones that other cars do when you hit them. > > > said to be a 'sweet spot' in acceleration from 20 mph up to 60 mph > that > > requires you to accelerate pretty slowly, just enough so that the > gas > > engine doesn't kick in to help out. You apparently HAVE to use this > > method to get peak efficiency. > > Even current lead-acid monsters will easily outaccelerate a Formula 1 > (and by having a low center of gravity you can really turn corners > at demon speed) -- on short distances. Sure, but burning the rubber ruins efficiency, and the electrics are generally only great up to about 30 mph, thereafter you need the high end torque of an ICE to accelerate well. One solution is the ultracapacitor, which offers very quick discharge at high efficiency for short bursts (10-20 seconds). I'm also looking at the 1-5kw hub motors that are available. Technically you should be able to convert a regular vehicle into a hybrid by replacing the rear brakes and hubs with hubmotors while installing a few more batteries and a bank of ultracapacitors (plus, of course, some major rework of the driver controls and engine computer). Given the energy investment in building new vehicles, refitting perfectly good used ones might be more fuel efficient. > > I looked into hybrids, but they're too expensive still (almost a > factor of two). The point of EVs is that you can reduce the costs > by reducing the number of moving parts and complexity in general. At the expense of high weight, short range, and in the end, lesser effiency than a properly designed hybrid. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 4 14:39:42 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:39:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200505041439.j44EddR05394@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > ...European cities are still jammed full of cars. Traffic jams are permanent... BillK Oh man yes. I was on a business trip in New York City last week, needed to pull over to program my GPS to get to JFK airport on Long Island (No big green signs anywhere to direct the clueless me.) Looked for a parking lot, a Walmart or equivalent, something with a big lot so I could pull out of the way for a few minutes with no one nearby. There are no Walmarts. There is nothing analogous to the big empty parking lots where many of us learned how to drive a car the first time. There was no place to go to get out of everyone's way. Oy! Looks to me like every city that was invented before the auto has painted itself into a corner. spike From max at maxmore.com Wed May 4 14:58:17 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 09:58:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504095455.0529b098@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Oil in troubled waters The Economist, April 28, 2005 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623 This features includes an article specifically addressing the issue of peak oil. Worth reading: The Bottomless Beer Mug The Economist, April 28, 2005 http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3884716 Why the world is not running out of oil 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 15:11:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504151147.12051.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > Bret Kulakovich bret at bonfireproductions.com : > >Just point me at a valid (hopefully published) source - I spend 3 > >hours commuting everyday. > > > Thomas Gold generated controversy in almost everything he did, but > sometimes he was right because he was a very smart man. I think > that his arguments and the arguments of his critics would illuminate > this discussion in an intelligent way: > > > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Thomas+Gold+methane&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search Given that there is at least as much biomass below ground today as above ground, and that this subterranean biomass has lived for hundreds of millions of years there, while surface algal blooms of massive quantities constitute significantly less biomass, for shorter periods of time, the simple numbers suggest that the bulk majority of oil, if it is biotic, is produced from subterranean biomass, not surface biomass. "The total pore-space available in the land areas of the Earth down to 5 kilometer depth can be estimated as 2 x 1022 cm3, (taking 3% porosity as an average value). If material of the density of water fills these pore spaces, then this would represent a mass of 2 x 10^16 tons. What fraction of this might be bacterial mass? If it were 1% or 2 x10^14 tons, it would still be equivalent to a layer of the order of 1 1/2 meter thickness of living material if spread out over all of the land surface. This would indeed be more than the existing surface flora and fauna. We do not know at present how to make a realistic estimate of the subterranean mass of material now living, but all that can be said is that one must consider it possible that it is comparable to all the living mass at the surface. " If rock down to 5 km has an average porosity of 3%, and 1% of that pore space is taken up by bacteria, this is an immense amount of biomass, and the amount being converted to hydrates and oil should similarly be a rather immense amount. I suggested yesterday that subducted hydrates should generate upwards of about a quarter cubic km of oil per year, depending on the percent of subducted sediment that is hydrates, assuming only 100,000 km of subduction zone. If instead the entire crust is producing oil in various amounts based on thickness, porosity, etc it becomes clear that there is an immense amount of oil being generated that slowly percolates upwards. If as was claimed by Hal's cite yesterday, that biomass turns to oil below 3 km depth, then this means potential global oil reserves of 600 x 10^13 tons, plus perhaps a thousandth or ten thousandth of that produced each year as new oil reserves. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jonkc at att.net Wed May 4 15:14:22 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 11:14:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A ROOM-TEMPERATURE PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE References: <200505030252.j432qxR05353@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <002001c550bb$ff612470$34ee4d0c@MyComputer> "spike" Wrote:> > Sterling engines haven't been able to move very much heat, > consequently they haven't been able to make much power. The Swedish navy recently built 3 very quiet Sterling engine powered submarines that rum on kerosene and liquid oxygen; many consider them to be the most advanced non nuclear submarines in the world. John K Clark From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 15:55:44 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504155545.50283.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > > ...European cities are still jammed full of cars. Traffic jams are > permanent... BillK > > Oh man yes. I was on a business trip in New York City last > week, needed to pull over to program my GPS to get to > JFK airport on Long Island (No big green signs anywhere to direct > the clueless me.) What? You didn't know you need to go through Brooklyn to get to JFK? New York is easy, a freeway on the east and west shores, bridges to everywhere. > > Looked for a parking lot, a Walmart or equivalent, something > with a big lot so I could pull out of the way for a few minutes > with no one nearby. There are no Walmarts. There is > nothing analogous to the big empty parking lots where > many of us learned how to drive a car the first time. There > was no place to go to get out of everyone's way. Pahkin' garahges are where youse putch yer cahs. > > Looks to me like every city that was invented before > the auto has painted itself into a corner. Quite true, but a city with subways everywhere has little need of lots of lots. Real estate is more valuable than that. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 16:09:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504160920.12800.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Max More wrote: > > Oil in troubled waters > The Economist, April 28, 2005 > http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623 > > This features includes an article specifically addressing the issue > of peak > oil. This is interesting: saudis are keeping their oil prices high to fund their own social welfare system. Worth reading: > > The Bottomless Beer Mug > The Economist, April 28, 2005 > http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3884716 > > Why the world is not running out of oil Can't access this article. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com Wed May 4 16:52:35 2005 From: p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com (Paul) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:52:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: <20050504160920.12800.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050504160920.12800.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9b8a7dc005050409526f857d99@mail.gmail.com> > --- Max More wrote: > > > > Oil in troubled waters > > The Economist, April 28, 2005 > > http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623 On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > This is interesting: saudis are keeping their oil prices high to fund > their own social welfare system. Reminds me of the USSR, they relied heavily on oil prices to sustain their command economy; didn't work out well for them in the 80s, of course. -- Paul C. http://lockeinghobbes.blogspot.com/ From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 4 17:10:24 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:10:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504095455.0529b098@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504095455.0529b098@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <19E29AF3-7DE2-4AF8-B539-781D5BE0AF7B@mac.com> Since the second article requires subscription to read it has not added to my understanding. Does the content exist elsewhere? - s On May 4, 2005, at 7:58 AM, Max More wrote: > > Oil in troubled waters > The Economist, April 28, 2005 > http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623 > > This features includes an article specifically addressing the issue > of peak oil. Worth reading: > > The Bottomless Beer Mug > The Economist, April 28, 2005 > http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3884716 > > Why the world is not running out of oil > > 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 > _______________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 4 17:15:12 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:15:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist, 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: <9b8a7dc005050409526f857d99@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050504160920.12800.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9b8a7dc005050409526f857d99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <39F0AC79-AE9F-4587-A2B1-E33A64BAFAF6@mac.com> I find it fascinating how bright people will clutch at any straw to avoid coping with the unpleasant. Fascinating in the same way that various disease processes are fascinating that is. I wish I was able to convince more people to take this more seriously. Alas my time, patience, and skills are limited. - samantha On May 4, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Paul wrote: >> --- Max More wrote: >> >>> >>> Oil in troubled waters >>> The Economist, April 28, 2005 >>> http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884623 >>> > > On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> This is interesting: saudis are keeping their oil prices high to fund >> their own social welfare system. >> > > Reminds me of the USSR, they relied heavily on oil prices to sustain > their command economy; didn't work out well for them in the 80s, of > course. > -- > Paul C. > http://lockeinghobbes.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed May 4 17:33:19 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:33:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation References: <20050503214101.569D757EE7@finney.org> <63530c31768a608d09739239ca949444@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <000d01c550cf$5d9d4f10$0100a8c0@kevin> Pardon me, but it was my impressiion that the majority of these deposits came from the carboniferous period 299 to 350 mya. That would give it ample time to make it's way under the sea beds. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Kulakovich" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Deep-earth methane generation > > > There is also the case that most of our current atmosphere was > metabolized by cyano algae and bacteria, even earlier than the > dinosaurs. > > Could the volume of that early flora/fauna have been compressed/buried > and represented today? Perhaps there is a rough number. My > understanding is that it would be a large number at that. > > > ]3 > > > On May 3, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > > This would seem to contradict at least two of Mike's claims. The Gulf > > floor is apparently only about 150 million years old, younger than > > many dinosaurs; and it was indeed above water at least intermittently > > during the time when the salt formations were created. There are also > > apparently many sedimentary layers present. It's also worth noting > > that > > oil is thought to be formed by aquatic life, such as algae, not > > dinosaurs. > > > > Hal > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 amara at amara.com Wed May 4 17:41:41 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:41:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil Message-ID: >Can't access this article. There are seven oil articles in the special section on oil-related topics. It's worth to buy the magazine for at least this (I have a subscription.). If you don't subscribe, then I wonder why not- the magazine is a superb source of information for many of the topics to which we discuss at length here. Amara P.S. there is a nice overview of the new cold fusion result in this issue too. -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." -Thomas Edison From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 4 17:46:57 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504174657.75566.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:10:33PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > I, for one, am working on at least one advanced-tech R&D project. > I > > Do you have a web page of your (nanotechnology, isn't it?) project, > or can > you post a description, of what you're doing? http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.txt http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.gif The appropriate IP protections - registered copyright, (provisional) patent, et al - are in place for the above, so I can publically disclose them. The general reaction I've gotten from academics who know quantum physics is that it doesn't violate what we know - but they don't want to say it should work unless I can produce a working prototype. That's fine: I'm of the same mind. (Non-QM experts sometiems cite thermodynamics, without quite knowing why it applies here. I encourage them to think of this as an open system: the energy flows in from the quantum fluctuations that are all around us - which, in turn, presumably get their energy from somewhere else, but they haven't been explored thoroughly so we don't know what their energy source is. Building this device may, in fact, be the only way we have to explore that. In any case, the device is actually a convertor, not a generator, even if it acts like a generator for most purposes and converts a form of energy not otherwise accessible to us.) So, in order to actually build the above-described device, I've become a labmember at the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility. The research is slow - for a number of reasons, I can't work on it every day; about one session a week is closer to the average - but we're making progress. It took me a long time to cobble the theory together, but the practice is proving tougher, for reasons having nothing to do with QM. For example, we're using e-beam lithography to write the patterns, but for a while we couldn't get the machine to recognize previous layers - and the recipe I've come up with calls for six layers, precisely aligned. We solved that by adding a seventh, target layer, with a bunch of tungsten targets for the litho machine to spot and align to when writing. At the moment, it's highly unlikely we'll have results before July, and only somewhat unlikely we'll have results even that soon. (The "we" is myself, a friend with more lab experience than I who I talked into helping, and our SNF contact who is an expert at e-beam litho. Alternately, the "we" is Winged Cat Solutions, a DBA I registered partly so that SNF could do business with a company rather than a person: they don't have any processes for serving individuals who aren't associated with a university, the government, or industry. Of course, that's not the only thing WCS does...but that's the extent of its involvement with this topic.) Even if the theory proves to be incorrect, and the device even if perfectly constructed would not cause a net torque, SNF personnel have remarked that the nanostructuring techniques I'm coming up with are unique in the world (in the words of one who had recently returned from helping with Europe's nanotech scene, so he probably knows what he's talking about). To me, they seem a bit common-sense - once given the need for a highly structured device on the true nanoscale (not the abused form of the word "nanotech", but stuff that truly is sub-micron). Regardless, it looks like it would make for a good academic paper...and then there's the fact that, if it fails, current knowledge of quantum mechanics would be shown to be possibly incorrect. (Again, the academics said it agrees with current QM knowledge; if it fails, there has to be a reason. If it fails and manufacturing defects can be ruled out - which would be tough to do, but if they can...) So it's worth doing even if the theory is incorrect. Yes, I know the ramifications if the theory is correct. Believe me, I know. I struggle to *not* constantly think about them - they're distracting, and if I actually want to see them come true, I have to focus on how I get there instead of what things would be like afterwards if I succeed. And I have to remember that, until and unless I prove it correct, there is a significant chance the theory is not correct. BTW - even aside from the IP protections, I don't mind discussing the QM side of things in public. Again, the real bear is the nanofabrication aspect, and there are very few places in the world that can even seriously attempt this project. SNF is one of them. Even if someone were to get a complete copy of my current formula for the nanofab process, though, the formula's constantly changing as we work out the kinks - it'd be useless to anyone not actively developing it. (And even if someone were to somehow steal it, whiz-develop it overnight, get all the IP rights, find a way to cheaply build convertors at the high end of what I'm thinking it might do, et cetera...well, gee, I wouldn't get rich off of it, I'd just be in a world where someone else's non-polluting energy source suddenly emerged and made the oil industry nearly obsolete, et cetera. Such a burden to no longer have to buy gasoline, to be able to ride cheap Earth-to-orbit transports made possible by this, and so forth. Kind of like if someone else develops a cure for cancer, so I merely don't have to worry about cancer instead of that and getting rich off of it. My primary objective here is to improve our world...and the best way to make sure something happens is to at least start doing it yourself. This is the attitude I take towards most of my inventions. Experience has shown, though, that for truly cutting-edge stuff, the pool of people actually able to rip me off even if I tell them everything is quite small, and only a small portion of those have sufficiently low honesty that they'd want to rip me off. Most of those who'd want to, lack the knowledge and/or facilities to do so. There's a reason for that.) From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 4 18:12:33 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:12:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] NSTI Nanotechnology Conference - May 8-12 Message-ID: <48470-22005534181233268@M2W089.mail2web.com> 2005 NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show Nanotech 2005; May 8-12, 2005; Anaheim Marriott & Convention Center http://www.nsti.org/Nanotech2005/ Nanotech 2005 Conference Program ? May 8 - 12 ? Physical Sciences, Electronics, Materials, Microsystems, Food, Energy ? Life Sciences, Medicine, Personal Care, Biotech, Health Care ? Business, Investment, Government Programs and Nanotech Ventures Nano Industrial Impact Workshop ? Sunday May 8 One-Day Intensive Program to educate participants in the current state of the art in a range of nanotechnologies and impacted industries. All courses are presented by leading experts in their respective fields. Nanotech and Bio Nano Expo ? May 9 - May 11 Full Nanotech Trade Show with over 150 exhibiting companies May 9-10! One-Day BioNano/Nanotech exhibit and poster session on May 11th. View participating companies and floor plans. Nanotech Ventures Emerging Company Review ? May 9 - 11 Join the Nanotech Ventures community in participating in the world's largest nanotechnology venture forum. 50 Early Stage Companies Presenting in most every high-tech industrial sector. National Cancer Institute Symposium ? Tuesday May 10 NSTI is proud to collaborate with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Northeastern University in presenting a Special Symposium on Nanotechnology for Cancer Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed May 4 19:09:59 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:09:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) Message-ID: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> Giu1io Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is that we should have no standards. He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary; second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of character and conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words, argues that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that moral standards are bad. There are several difficulties with these arguments. First, they refute themselves by their own terms. There is not even a pretense of logic here. Second, the terms, if taken seriously, would condone any manner of evil. Third, the argument is historically inaccurate. He says: "I believe one should help old ladies to cross the street. But I don't think I can justify this in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality." I beg to differ. I should think the matter open to proof. For example: Axiom: Do as you would be done by. Term One: I would rather be helped across the street than pushed under a bus. Term Two: Therefore I should help the old lady across the street rather than push her under a bus. He then gives a number of reasons a hypothetical monster could use to excuse murdering the old lady. By no coincidence, all these reasons (the good of society, the usefulness for breeding, and so on) of the type of reasons Spartans found persuasive, as do the modern intellectuals, eugenicists and socialists, but which Christendom rejects. These reasons for doing in the useless old lady are each a species of utilitarianism, which holds that we should value other men only insofar as they can serve as means to our ends. Once again, the matter is open to proof: Axiom: Treat others as ends, never as means. Term One: Pushing the old lady under a bus to serve the social good is treating her as a means, not as an end. Term Two: Therefore I should not push the old lady under a bus. Please note that the axiom of the second argument is a lemma of the axiom of the first. If you would do as you?d be done by, and if you would rather be treated not merely as a means to the ends of another, you ought to treat others likewise. The argument, of course, is only as firm as its axiom. The question here is whether we accept or reject ?Do as you?d be done by? as an axiom. This is merely one of several ways of stating a principle underlying all moral reasoning: the principle of uniformity. A moral standard is not a standard unless it is a fixed standard, that is, the same for all men. A standard that admits of arbitrary exceptions is not a standard. Once you accept the principle that there should be moral standards, and if, no matter what the standard might happen to be, it applies to all men equally, then the standard is one where you are asking others to treat you as you would be treated. The only way to reject this axiom is to reject the process of moral reasoning altogether. This is indeed what the moral relativists does: "I think this is bullshit. Can I prove that it is bullshit in terms of any absolute, objective, or whatever morality? No. Do I lose any sleep on not being able to prove it? Definitely no. I just don't care. I have chosen to help old ladies to cross the street, and to hold kindness to others as a basic value. It is a choice, not something that I can (or want to) prove." He has taken a stance of radical subjectivism: he calls a thing is good merely because he wants to do it. In his case, his heart is in the right place. However, to someone whose heart is in the wrong place, let us say, for example, infanticide-advocate Peter Singer, who does not share this sentimental attachment to old ladies, the philosophy of radical subjectivism would have nothing to say. This philosophy has nothing to say to refute the cruel practices of the Spartan, the Roman, the Mongol, the Aztec, the Grand Inquisitor, the Nazi, the Communist, or even the Eskimo. "Well, I chose to help old ladies, and you chose to leave them out on the ice flow to starve. My choice is mine and yours is yours." This philosophy is absurdly mute and helpless in the face of real evil. Either through indifference or ignorance, the moral relativist does not know what moral reasoning is for. It is for two things: first, that a man in a novel moral situation, such as where two moral principles are in conflict, can make a good and rational rather than merely sentimental or arbitrary choice; second, that evil can be condemned. In this case, the moral relativist is merely sentimental about useless old ladies. He prefers to help them rather than murder them on the same grounds that I prefer pie to cake: it suits his taste. He has this taste because it is part of his cultural background. Respect for human life was ?in the air? so to speak, implied or embraced by the various thinkers whose works he read, the speeches he heard, the acts and manners of the general society around him. But where did that culture come from? Where and when did the idea arise, absent in the ancient pagan world, that individual human life was sacred? We can leave that question for another day. With no sense of his own paradox, he then says, "History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can." I would say, in this case, that his wish has been granted: he is certainly far away from uttering any true statement here. Assuming it is true that mass murder is bad, and assuming the statement true that conviction leads to mass-murder, it would follow that we should avoid conviction in order to avoid mass-murder. This can be the first and firmest conviction of our moral system: to avoid all convictions. Let us rally around the flag of flaglessness and defend our convictions that no convictions should be defended to the death! Leaving aside this silly paradox, let us merely correct the historical inaccuracy in the statement: The two most famous moral relativists philosophies of the modern age were the National Socialists of Germany and the International Socialists of Russia. The former argued that logic and morality was different between members of master and lesser races; i.e. that the Aryans occupied a privileged moral position, and need not grant lesser races the benefit of moral law, but must wipe them out. The latter argued that logic and morality differed between members of economic classes; i.e. that the exploited proletarian class need not extend the benefit of moral law to the upper classes, but must wipe them out. To argue that moral absolutism leads to more history atrocities than moral relativism is to concentrate on the Seventeenth Century and ignore the Twentieth, to fear the Counterreformation but not the Holocaust. The people who "gassed people for thinking different" were the moral relativists, not those who believe in an absolute truth knowable by the human mind. The most famous moral movement during the Eighteenth Century was the world-wide abolition of slavery, which was done by Christians who thought it absolutely the case that God hated the institution. Likewise, the great blooming of human liberty across the globe, the end of Monarchy, was spearheaded by men who wrote a document that begins: ?We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident.? In other words, men of absolute moral conviction. The moral relativist reasons badly. He sees jihads and inquisitions and concludes that it is the moral convictions of these people that lead to atrocity. If everyone were merely uncertain about and indifferent to questions of morality, he thinks, we would have no atrocities. This is merely sawing off the branch on which you sit. The problem with jihad and inquisition is not that their partisans had convictions, but, rather, that the convictions they had were wicked and illogical. It is the nature of the conviction, not the fact that it is a conviction, which causes the evil. The relativist has no argument to show the conviction right or wrong, and, hence, is less able to oppose the evil than that rational and righteous person, who adheres to a moral standard and knows why he adheres to it. By the reasoning of the moral relativist, it is worse to believe something firmly than it is to half-believe something wicked. The nameless Spartan thug who enslaved Helots or tossed unhealthy babies into the Apothetae, but who was half-convinced that his practices were not universally acceptable, would win more praise from the moral relativist than Socrates, who died rather than flee an injustice, because he thought that this was what unalterable and universal moral law required. The final outcome of this line of reasoning, is that Spartan thugs, the kind of morally retarded half-convinced nobodies who will condone the most horrific evils, provided only everyone around them is doing likewise, are lauded by the moral relativist. The man who opposes the evil around him, the sage, the saint, the hero, he is singled out for condemnation by the moral relativist, for committing the sin of believing in sins, and believing he should not commit them. People who believe in absolute truth can reason with each other: we have a common ground to which to refer our arguments. Moral subjectivists cannot reason with each other or even with themselves. When a novel moral situation arises where the moral relativist has no habit of sentiment on which to rely, logic will not come to his aid, because he has denounced the roots of logic. The moral relativist will coast along following the general moral sentiment of his culture's background and history: in this case, coast along following the sentiments of Western Christian tradition, acting on the belief that human life is sacred, while scorning the logic which gave rise to those sentiments, and sneering at the idea that anything might be sacred. JCW From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 19:19:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504191928.8551.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > >Can't access this article. > > There are seven oil articles in the special section on oil-related > topics. It's worth to buy the magazine for at least this (I have > a subscription.). If you don't subscribe, then I wonder why > not- the magazine is a superb source of information for many of > the topics to which we discuss at length here. > > Amara > > P.S. there is a nice overview of the new cold fusion result in > this issue too. I don't subscribe for the simple reason that under the Patriot Act it is well nigh impossible for a United States Serf to keep a bank account, even an online one, without divulging a Socialist Slavery Number, thus, I don't bank, anymore, not until my next secret project bears fruit. Even PayPal demands an SSN now. That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com). Coding, writing, graphic design, swimsuit modelling, you name it. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From hal at finney.org Wed May 4 19:41:42 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project Message-ID: <20050504194142.4E30657EE6@finney.org> Adrian Tymes writes: > http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.txt > http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.gif > ... > The general reaction I've gotten from academics who know quantum > physics is that it doesn't violate what we know - but they don't want > to say it should work unless I can produce a working prototype. I gather that you realize that this is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind - it violates conservation of energy. It's no different in principle from the overbalanced wheels of the medievals. Just because it relies on quantum effects, that doesn't free you from the need to conserve energy. I'm curious who these academics are who are so willing to imagine that a machine can work which violates such a fundamental principle Mike Lorrey will probably complain that I am being a naysayer. I'm sorry, but at this point in time I don't see how we can credibly propose to violate the laws of physics. I'm not saying that you can't spend your time doing whatever you like, but people should not expect this machine to work. You would do better to apply your budding micromachining skills to a design that is consistent with the laws of nature. Hal From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed May 4 19:41:57 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:41:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: In defense of moral relativism Message-ID: <200505041942.j44Jg0R14254@tick.javien.com> Adrian Tymes writes: "But even the Pope is imperfect - it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at times, and even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by apologizing for said errors - therefore the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is itself immoral: it allows mistakes and misjudgements to be hardened into unyielding evils merely because a certain person made them." This statement is not quite accurate. The doctrine of Papal infallability is not that Popes do not err: the doctrine says that in matters of faith and morals, the Pope has the last word in resolving legitimate disputes within the Church. Those within the Church believe that the Church, and the Pope when he acts on her behalf, are guided by the Holy Spirit. So far, no Pope has apologized for any doctrine that falls within this scope. Such doctrines are considered (by the faithful) to be part of the "deposit of faith" of the apostolic revelation, or logical implications of that deposit. JCW From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed May 4 19:57:30 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:57:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of morality as opposed to self interest Message-ID: <200505041957.j44JvaR16011@tick.javien.com> Keith Henson says: "... minds, having been built by genes, are biased in certain very predictable ways. "Be nice to relatives more or less in proportion to how closely they are related." "Don't fight with strangers unless they are competing for the same short supply resources you need to feed relatives." I admit to being puzzled here. Mr. Henson seemed to be talking about the way men act when mere natural prudence, but not morality, dictates their actions. The moral maxims of the world specifically denounce what Mr. Henson here is claiming is the universal (gene-based) moral maxims. For example, the Buddhist is urged by the Enlightened One to renounce all aggression, not merely aggression against neighbors. The Stoic holds that all men, not merely one's neighbors, are the Sons of Zeus, and contain the Divine Fire that makes them reasonable creatures. Jesus ordered his disciples to turn the other cheek when struck; he did not say turn the other cheek when a Jew strikes you, but Romans and Sammaritans are outsiders: them, you should strike back. In trying to make the case for a biological and evolutionary cause for morality, one must be careful to identify what the moral thinkers of the ages actually say. If Mr. Henson is making that point that men often or usually ignore the demands of morality, and put their selfish desires, or the honor of their community, before the common good they may have with others and outsiders, well, that is surely true. Prudence often tempts men to look at their self-interest in an exaggerated fashion, and passion often tempts men to look at their tribe and nation with eyes blinded by love. JCW From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed May 4 20:06:29 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:06:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Or, perhaps, dumb as a post of the year. Message-ID: <200505042006.j44K6eR17070@tick.javien.com> Refering to something I wrote, Mike Lorrey says: "This is post of the year, objectively speaking, of course. It certainly needs publishing somewhere." Sir, I am glad you liked it. I hope you liked it so much that you can forgive me for posting it twice, due to what is politely now called "user-error", but which in days gone by were called "dumb mistakes." JCW From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 4 20:28:51 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: In defense of moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504202851.13919.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > Adrian Tymes writes: "But even the Pope is imperfect - it has been > demonstrated > beyond reasonable doubt that previous Popes have been in error at > times, and > even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this by apologizing for > said errors - > therefore the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is itself > immoral: it > allows mistakes and misjudgements to be hardened into unyielding > evils merely > because a certain person made them." > > This statement is not quite accurate. > > The doctrine of Papal infallability is not that Popes do not err: the > doctrine > says that in matters of faith and morals, the Pope has the last word > in > resolving legitimate disputes within the Church. Those within the > Church believe > that the Church, and the Pope when he acts on her behalf, are guided > by the Holy > Spirit. That is correct, but it's close enough as makes no difference in practice - or, at least, in my own experiences with members of the Catholic Church, when the issue has mattered. True, a Catholic who wishes to act against papal doctrine is usually physically free to do so - at the risk of expulsion from the church, and the social support network it provides (which, while not tangible, is a real enough price to by itself encourage many to stay with the church). Pronouncements made by man can always be questioned - although in certain cases it might be temporarily impractical to do so. Pronouncements made by God? That's why, for instance, dietary restrictions that were appropriate for a certain environment about 2000 years ago are today religiously followed in environments where they make no sense. And then there's the little matter of dealing with discoveries of better ways to be, ones that might seem scary - and tempt some to say that God is against them - until people get used to them...ways like, say, how to become a posthuman. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 4 20:50:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504205038.67390.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > I gather that you realize that this is a perpetual motion machine of > the > first kind - it violates conservation of energy. You didn't read my full explanation. ;) As I said, it does not. It's a convertor of energy. Energy source in: quantum fluctuations. Energy source out: mechanical (which is then converted to electrical). Now, what happens when quantum fluctuations are drained of energy? Nobody knows - but there were laboratory experiments in the 80s and 90s showing that it is possible to at least take local QFs to a different potential energy state. (Google on "Casimir effect", or check Wikipedia.) There is a chance that there's only so much energy that can be drained from that source, and that nothing will refill it; if so, then this would not work. But there have been theories that, were QFs to be tapped like that, replacement energy would diffuse in from outside. (To a limit, of course: if you placed the entire system in a QF-impermeable box, you'd eventually use up all of the energy.) Again, at this point it looks like the only real way to see what will happen is to actually build it and observe. I've lost track of how much time I spent going over the theoretical problems, but in the end, science is about actual experiments. > I'm not saying that you can't spend > your > time doing whatever you like, but people should not expect this > machine > to work. I'm not betting the farm that it will work, unless and until I can produce a working prototype. (One of the factors slowing progress is that I'm doing this on the side, while a different job pays the bills.) I definitely agree: no one should be betting anything on my success until after the fact - *if* it happens. At the moment, I haven't even taken any funding - it's all out of my own pocket. (There have been discussions about getting some funding for the NEMS development alone, the project itself aside. It looks like I definitely will wind up with a non-trivial nanostructure, in any event.) From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 4 21:03:00 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:03:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42793884.80209@pobox.com> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > Giu1io Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is that > we should have no standards. > > He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary; > second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of character and > conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words, argues > that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that moral > standards are bad. It was a tad worse than that. I believe Giulio also said that believing in an external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity. But as that is only Giulio's mere personal opinion, bearing no relation to (smirk smirk) any actual "reality" (if indeed such a concept is even coherent) we may safely ignore it. (Though that refutation does not actually follow. Giulio did not assert that reality was not objective; he merely said that entertaining the notion leads to homicide. This assertion has no evidential bearing on whether reality is objective.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From scerir at libero.it Wed May 4 21:08:33 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 23:08:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project References: <20050504174657.75566.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001101c550ed$6ec3e3d0$e6b51b97@administxl09yj> From: "Adrian Tymes" There is a chance that there's only so much energy that can be drained from that source, and that nothing will refill it; if so, then this would not work. It seems - is not it? - like a 'lateral' Casimir force, which originates from the modifications of zeropoint oscillations by boundaries. It acts tangential to 2 surfaces with (nanoscale) periodic (ie sinusoidal) 'corrugations'. 'Corrugated' plates align themselves such that peaks of one plate are directly over the peaks of the other plate. Then is over (unless ...?). This force to align the peaks is the 'lateral' Casimir force, acting in the horizontal direction, between the 2 plates. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 21:08:45 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:08:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504210845.43004.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Adrian Tymes writes: > > http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.txt > > http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.gif > > ... > > The general reaction I've gotten from academics who know quantum > > physics is that it doesn't violate what we know - but they don't > want > > to say it should work unless I can produce a working prototype. > > I gather that you realize that this is a perpetual motion machine of > the first kind - it violates conservation of energy. It's no > different in principle from the overbalanced wheels of the > medievals. Just because it relies on quantum effects, that > doesn't free you from the need to conserve energy. I'm curious who > these academics are who are so willing to imagine > that a machine can work which violates such a fundamental principle > > Mike Lorrey will probably complain that I am being a naysayer. Yup. Adrian, welcome to the Perpetual Propellerhead Brotherhood. As I'd once said, Prof. John Cramer once said my Lorrey drive would work if the working mass operated in the relativistic range (as did Sasha). > I'm sorry, > but at this point in time I don't see how we can credibly propose to > violate the laws of physics. I'm not saying that you can't spend > your time doing whatever you like, but people should not expect this > machine to work. You would do better to apply your budding > micromachining skills to a design that is consistent with the laws > of nature. I'm gonna start working on my fricassied crow recipe. Either Hal is wrong, or a whole lot of physicists are gonna have to give back their Nobel prizes... Hal, Hal, Hal......any idiot can figure out how to make nano-wing-nuts once they master the common skills. Yes, you can probably make a mint figuring out how to make nano-wing-nuts in mass quantities, but wing-nuts don't win nobel prizes, nor do they save the world. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 4 21:13:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504211304.22079.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Again, at this point it looks like the only real way to see what will > happen is to actually build it and observe. I've lost track of how > much time I spent going over the theoretical problems, but in the > end, science is about actual experiments. Not on this list, it's about giving flippant and self assured excuses for doing nothing and why whoever is doing something is wasting their time and list bandwidth. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hal at finney.org Wed May 4 21:29:29 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20050504212929.C226557EE6@finney.org> The Los Angeles Times has an article this morning claiming that increased gasoline prices are reducing traffic on Southern California freeways: . Gas prices in California are $2.63/gallon, higher than the national average of $2.24/gallon. The reporter writes: "Anecdotally, a lot of people I talk to say they are seeing the effect every day, which has cut their commute times dramatically. Normally jammed freeways are mysteriously wide open. "If people are indeed cutting back on driving, avoiding discretionary trips, car pooling and using public transportation, it should mean that gasoline sales volumes are dropping. "John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, the Washington, D.C., trade group that represents the oil industry, says that wholesale deliveries of gasoline across the nation are down slightly." It would be interesting to see figures on gas consumption for California alone, since it seems to be taking the brunt of the price increase. The article also notes, "Meanwhile, Southland public transportation agencies are reporting that ridership has jumped in the first months of 2005 - up between 3% and 12%, depending on the system." All this points to a short-term response to the rapid increase in prices. The article claims a 10% demand elasticity for gasoline, so that a 50% increase in prices will produce a 5% drop in consumption. Over the longer run, people switch to higher efficiency vehicles and their consumption levels stay flat. This is related to "Jevon's paradox", which is that increased efficiency can actually promote increased consumption, because the greater efficiency lowers the relative cost of the resource being consumed. See . Hal From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 4 21:29:17 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050504212917.49791.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > It seems - is not it? - like a 'lateral' Casimir force, > which originates from the modifications of zeropoint > oscillations by boundaries. It acts tangential to 2 > surfaces with (nanoscale) periodic (ie sinusoidal) > 'corrugations'. 'Corrugated' plates align themselves > such that peaks of one plate are directly over the peaks > of the other plate. Then is over (unless ...?). > This force to align the peaks is the 'lateral' > Casimir force, acting in the horizontal direction, > between the 2 plates. That's a distinct possibility, especially since the figure I linked to is an idealized version if we could build things with angstrom precision. (The actual pattern I'm building is a blocky, pixellated approximation: think of a 1000*1000 pixel image converted to 10*10. The actual conversion factor I'm dealing with is even worse.) However, the "shields" in the figure appear to possibly introduce a discontinuity into which the outer plate can "fall" without using any energy. (Were this a magnetic force, field lines would bend to snake around the corners, and everything would balance out. But the Casimir effect appears to act more like optics than magnetics, and optics allows for sharp discontinuities - think sharp-edged shadows. This is partly because optical "fields" are actually continual imports of energy made up of discrete packets - photons - apparently much like the virtual particles that cause the Casimir effect.) This also touches on some pattern configuration issues I'm deliberately holding back (which involves getting some positive use out of the pixellation, if you can believe it), as they start deliving into the mechanics of how one actually builds this. ;) From hal at finney.org Wed May 4 21:32:37 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Flynn again Message-ID: <20050504213237.5D4AF57EE7@finney.org> BTW the Flynn Effect article has now appeared at Wired online at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn.html Hal From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 4 21:36:12 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 16:36:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Oz State to ban bosses snooping on emails Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050504163520.01df79b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15183112,00.html by Simon Hayes 05may05 EMPLOYERS will face criminal charges if they illegally spy on workers' emails under legislation introduced in NSW parliament yesterday. NSW is the first state to move on "tech snooping", with Victoria and South Australia understood to be considering similar legislation. [etc] From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed May 4 22:05:59 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 18:05:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <42793884.80209@pobox.com> References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> <42793884.80209@pobox.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > It was a tad worse than that. I believe Giulio also said that believing in an > external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity. > > But as that is only Giulio's mere personal opinion, bearing no relation to > (smirk smirk) any actual "reality" (if indeed such a concept is even coherent) > we may safely ignore it. > > (Though that refutation does not actually follow. Giulio did not assert that > reality was not objective; he merely said that entertaining the notion leads > to homicide. This assertion has no evidential bearing on whether reality is > objective.) Could you point out where he said this? Because what I read was that *morality* was not objective. Aside: This does not imply that the moral beliefs of a particular individual at a particular time could not be objectively determined; quite the contrary, given the supervenience of mental states on objective physical reality, including those mental states with moral content. He also didn't say that the notion of objective reality leads to homicide. He said that the notion of objective, infallibilist moral dogma leads to homicide, and he said this based on inductive inference from the laundry list of horrible events in human history in which groups convinced they had ascertained objective moral knowledge saw fit to murder those who disagreed or were otherwise undesirable according to the moral 'axioms' of each respective group. Jeff From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 4 22:35:47 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:35:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com> References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> <42793884.80209@pobox.com> <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com> Jeff Medina wrote: > On 5/4/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>It was a tad worse than that. I believe Giulio also said that believing in an >>external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity. > > Could you point out where he said this? Because what I read was that > *morality* was not objective. Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas, > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas. > > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed May 4 23:15:38 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:15:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com> References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> <42793884.80209@pobox.com> <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com> <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0505041615450a32b2@mail.gmail.com> 1. The context of the quote you provided indicates he's talking about morality. E.g., "moral relativism does not say [...]"; "It [moral relativism] simply acknowledges [...]"; "I don't like the very concepts of absolute truth, or objective morality" (contrast this last snippet with the multiple references to "absolute or objective morality" in earlier posts by various discussion participants... but see 2 for an alternative if you don't feel like interpreting 'absolute truth' as 'absolute moral truth' based on the context.) 2. Opposition to absolute truth, on at least one plausible reading (epistemological, rather than metaphysical), is something you yourself readily and vigorously defend. It is the equivalent of assigning a probability or credence of 1 to a proposition, and known variously by such terms as "epistemological infallibilism," "faith," and "unbridled stupidity." While it's possible the alternative reading (that Giulio is opposing the idea of absolute metaphysical truth, or absolute physical reality) is what was meant, that seems such an obvious intellectual error to me that, based on Giulio's evidenced comprehension of other issues in the past, I give him the benefit of the doubt as to which interpretation he intended. -- Jeffrey A. Medina Research Fellow, Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies: http://www.ieet.org/ Volunteer Coordinator, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence: http://www.singinst.org/ Department of Philosophy, Birkbeck College, University of London: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Wed May 4 23:35:31 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 19:35:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com> References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> <42793884.80209@pobox.com> <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com> <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com> Message-ID: <42795C43.5090205@humanenhancement.com> Not going to get involved in this directly myself, but here's a terrific and timely article from the NY Observer on this very subject... http://www.observer.com/pages/observer.asp Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/27/05) From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 5 00:37:01 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 17:37:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (Ethics/Epistemology) Arrow of Morality In-Reply-To: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com> References: <20050429182303.4E15675CF99@mx1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <42796AAD.5080506@jefallbright.net> john-c-wright at sff.net wrote: >Now, to the matter: > >To the best of my limited understanding, your conception of an arrow of morality >has three shortcomings: first, it is useless to any who do not accept mere >survival as the ground of morality > I've repeatedly said that growth (of Self), not mere survival, is inferred to be the fundamental moral good. That is why I referred to the Red Queen Principle in my last two posts to you on this point. >; second, it is mute to determine what objects >should be included or excluded from the moral order, some of which are already >universal in any case; > As I've said earlier, this metaethical theory is not prescriptive, but its value is (1) in assuring us that moral progress can be achieved in practical terms (thus contradicting any strong version of moral relativism) and (2) in providing a framework for discovering and developing principles of effective interaction that will lead to increasingly moral behavior. > third, morality by its nature must be treated as if it >were an absolute by its partisans, or else it has no ability to act as a moral >code. > > I disagree with this assertion. In fact, belief in absolutes, without considering context, eventually leads to a dangerous blindness, or limited awareness of the full context of a situation and thus limited effectiveness of solutions. A person can make good moral choices based on increasingly sound and more generally applicable principles rather than depending on a set of static moral laws established during a simpler time. >1. I asked for a description of what is meant by your idea that morality is >?what works?, especially were a given system of moral rules or reciprocities >works better for a larger group than for a smaller included group. Identifying >?what works? in an empirical science is easy: when the results as witnessed by >our eyes are as predicted, the theory giving rise to the prediction is said to >have ?worked.? If the results are other than predicted, no matter what good the >theory may be on other grounds, it does not work as an empirical predictive theory. > > Yes, I generally agree with this. >I then asked how to apply this to a normative science, such as ethics, where we >are not dealing with theories predicting what will happen, but, rather, with >maxims of what men ought or ought not to do. > Maxims are becoming obsolete. They worked quite well for some time because they codified "what worked" generally for our ancestors in their qualitatively simpler environment of limited interactions between individuals and between tribes. Static laws that worked well then do not work as well in an increasingly complex world. > > >You say: "what works" means a structure that will tend to survive and grow, >regardless of whether it is fully comprehended by any observer system. > >I submit, however, that there is no ground to say one thing ?works? and another >?does not work?, without a normative axiom beforehand to define what works. > >Mere survival is insufficient for this end: if the human race, for example, were >promised mankind would enjoy a population level on average of two hundred >millions, guaranteed to survive at least two hundred thousand years, if only we >were absorbed into a Borg cube, and lost our souls; or if we were, given the >alternative, offered a population only of one hundred millions and a span of one >hundred thousand years if we are members of the United Federation of Planets, I >would select the Federation over the Borg for myself and my children. > > I don't know how to make it any clearer that I am not arguing that mere survival is a moral good. I have tried to say clearly that a moral agent must make choices that are in its own (extended) interests. I don't understand why you would erect such a straw man at this point in this reiterative discussion. >My point is that only if I accepted the normative axiom that mere survival at >any price were the supreme governing moral principle, am I would obligated to >accept the offer of the Borg to be assimilated. They offer twice as many >survivors to last twice as long. But this is not a axiom I accept: there are >times when it is better for the nation to perish than that one innocent man >should die. Thank goodness, those times are rare, but the mere existence of >normative values no lower than mere survival makes me chary of accepting your >formulation without some additional argument to support it. > > I am afraid that I have failed repeatedly to make clear that I'm not talking about mere survival, but Growth of Self. Self must choose that which will further the growth of its interests, not mere survival. I can't see how being assimilated by the Borg would be in anyone's rational interests, and I'm surprised that this isn't clear from much of what I've said over the preceding weeks of this discussion. >2. The second basic problem with the ?arrow of morality? formulation, is that it >cannot be used to tell in what direction the arrow of morality should grow, and, >hence, cannot tell a man how he should act. This is a specific application of a >general philosophical error when dealing with evolving or changing standards: a >standard, by definition, if it changes, cannot be used as a standard. > > I use the "Arrow" analogy to convey that there is a universal "ratchet effect" that what works tends to survive and grow. In other words, that there is progress, rather than isotropic all-things-relative or static absolutes. The analogy is similar to the thermodynamic arrow of time, which means there are principles describing a process, but does not mean it will help you tell the time at any moment. >A moral code is a specific formulation of the universal morality; the main point >of difference from culture to culture or age to age is the scale of the moral >code: whether the moral order protects and commands one?s neighbor?s only, one?s >tribes or nation, or all mankind. This seems to be the arrow of morality of >which you speak, the motion from a parochial to a cosmopolitan moral code. > > No, I am not referring to increasing geopolitical scale, but I am talking about increasing context of awareness applied to moral reasoning. This increasing awareness is a result of increasing the number of agents that are interacting, increasing the types of interactions, and the number of interactions. All of these tend to increase with time, thus the analogy of an arrow. >The Stoic, the Christian, the Buddhist and the Mohammedan each embrace a code, >which is universal and cosmopolitan. Pagan codes of honor (with all due respect >to my pagan ancestors) are parochial; pagan gods were meant to be the tribal >gods of a given tribe, and their rules were never claimed to protect or to bind >strangers from the antipodes. But the monotheistic religions made the assertion >of universality. These systems claim to apply to every living soul. The >parochialism of the previous tribal gods was rejected by the Roman and absorbed >by the Hindu: antislavery societies, believe it or not, existed among the >Imperial Romans and during the Christian Dark Ages. Likewise, the followers of >the Prophet were forbidden to enslave any of their fellows who submitted to the >Will of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful. The size of the group to be >considered covered by the moral order increased from the local tribe to all >mankind with these cosmopolitan religions. > > Again, I am not talking about the increasing size of the geopolitical group, although there can be a rough indirect correspondence. The effective interaction of moral agents dominates physical size with regard to moral awareness and resulting behavior. >Communism and Nazism, of course, reverse this. These aberrations spring from a >higher culture and reject it, restricting the moral order no longer to mankind, >or even to Christendom, but only to members of a favored race (in the case of >the Nazi, the so-called Aryan) or to members of a favored economic class (in >the case of the Communist, the so-called Proletarian). Their savagery exceeded >that of the ancient pagans, perhaps in part because the knowledge that they were >betraying a conception something finer and higher than their own tormented them. > In both these cases, I think we can agree that significant power was concentrated among relatively few moral agents and thus the Self making these abhorrent moral choices was effectively collapsed, similar to poor Raskolnikov as we discussed earlier. > > >Oddly enough, in the modern era, two factions among us are attempting to >increase the scope of morality in two opposite directions. Some would insist >that the moral order protect animals; others would insist that the moral order >protect unborn babies. The first would outlaw carnivores as cannibals, the >second would outlaw abortionists as infanticides. > >Now, is there any way to predict or prefer which way the arrow or morality will >go in the future? If we grant human rights to beasts, they might increase in >survival and growth (unless animal population numbers drop once they are no >longer domesticated for food); if we grant human rights to fetuses, they >personally will increase in survival, and families who otherwise would go >childless will grow. So which way is the arrow of morality supposed to grow? >Your formulation of ?what works? seems as ambiguous as a Delphic oracle. > > Are you saying that you expect there to be simple answers to complex moral issues? The very fact that such questions are being asked these days is an indication that our moral and ethical sensitivity is increasing. As moral issues become more complex, we will increasingly apply principles of effective interaction, rather than strict laws, to these issues, and increasingly effective solutions will tend to be worked out. I have ventured already to suggest some tentative principles that can be inferred from the fundamental theory, and more work is yet to be done. That is my purpose in promoting this thinking. >3. No matter what the viewpoint from the objective observer as to the actuarial >benefit of adopting or rejecting specific innovations to a given moral code, >from the viewpoint within a moral code, the moral code itself will contain >reasons to explain and support itself. > I haven't been able to make sense of the preceding paragraph. > > >The observer outside the moral code talking to the partisan within the moral >code may say anything he likes about the ?growth and survival? benefits of a >particular innovation; but, unless he speaks to the specific reasons why the >partisan adheres to a particular moral code, the information is of no value to >the partisan. > >An example might make this clear. Suppose we have two men, both of whom agree on >the basics of a moral system. Let us say one is a Franciscan Monk, the other is >a member of the Military Order of the Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem. Both >are Christians, but one has taken a vow of pacifism, the other, a vow to recover >Jerusalem from the Paynims by forces of arms. > >An objective observer shows them Game Theory. He explains to our Monk and our >Knight a simple game, called the Prisoner?s Dilemma, where if two players each >cooperate with the other, they break even; if one cooperates and one betrays, >the betrayer wins; if they both betray, both lose. Our objective observer >convinces them that one and only one strategy is favorable over the long term: >the strategy of simple reciprocity. Namely, a player who is willing to cooperate >with other players until betrayed, to betray once each time he is betrayed, but >to forgive and cooperate again next trial. Our observer might urge, for >example, that the pacifist retaliate upon certain occasions in order to deter >further attacks; or he might urge the Crusader to fight only defensively, and to >cooperate with the Turk whenever possible. > >No matter what these calculations are, Christianity is fundamentally >otherworldly, so that their survival rate on Earth could not have been the prime >concern to our Monk and our Knight when they took their vows. > >Even if the Monk and the Knight are carefully convinced by our observer, his >arguments can have no effect on them, because they do not share the normative >axiom that survival and growth are paramount concerns. > > Neither could one hope to convince Raskolnikov, or other small Selves acting in relative isolation, but as the context of interactions expands, then actions that work will tend to supersede those with more limited effectiveness. >In other words, a basic problem with the ?arrow of morality? approach is that it >is in fact not objective, merely one philosophy like any other, apparently a >form of utilitarianism. It will not convince anyone who does not already share >the axioms of utilitarianism (albeit, it might be useful as a predictor of which >philosophy will be the most popular or longest-lasting.) > > If it is in fact a predictor of which moral philosophy will be most popular or longest-lasting, then as a metaethical theory it is successful. >As a related thought, let me submit that humanity has no need of changing >standards in morality, nor any ability to change those standards even if it >wanted to. Morality, in human experience, is one unified structure, and always >has been: a set of maxims or imperatives commanding human action. > > And I maintain that as our world and its issues become more complex, we will find that effective interaction within the larger culture will become increasingly important to our individual interests, and that more complex issues will require more complex reasoning from principles rather than from any fixed set of laws established in a simpler time. >I propose that the emphasis on certain maxims or imperatives, their rank or >priority, might differ from one man to the next or from one school of thought to >the name, but the general moral order of the universe known to all men through >their natural reason. What is amazing about the various ages and races of man, >is not that we see, here and there, customs of particular cruelty or degeneracy, >such as temple prostitution or human sacrifice, but that we see nearly universal >agreement on the basics: the Eightfold Path of the Buddha and the Ten >Commandments of Moses cover the same points, as do the utterings of Lapland >witches and the staves of Norse prophecy. Even vicious beasts like the >Communists can only justify their shocking inhumanity, their brutal >mass-murders, mass-lies, mass-robberies, and so on, by reference to a moral >maxim (charity to the poor) which has at least the same pedigree as the moral >maxims condemning murder, lying, and robbery. > > Yes, because we share an extensive evolutionary heritage and a common environment to which we had [note past tense] adapted over thousands (culturally) and millions (biologically) of years. We have made it thus far because we have inherited what worked. >Hence, the universality of moral maxims suggests that moral systems cannot >differ in their fundamentals. They differ in the arguments used to support the >maxims, and they differ in the different weight given the moral maxims compared >one with another. (The Chinaman and the Jew, for example, will both acknowledge >the moral maxim of respecting one?s parents: but Chinese tradition has a much >more elaborate and demanding system of ranks within each family than the Jewish.) > >We can look at morality only one of two ways: from the inside, or from the >outside. From the inside, we, as moral beings, can weigh in our consciences the >wisdom of changing the emphasis or scope of a moral rule to which we all defer >as authoritative. The arrow of morality can grow only in the direction already >implied, but not yet come to flower, in the maxims we already accept. From the >outside, we, as purely rational beings, can look at some aspect of morality or a >particular moral code in non-moralistic terms, such as, for example, looking at >the incentives which cause certain formulations of local moral codes to flourish >or gain partisans, while other diminish. The difficulty with the arrow of >morality formulation (as I understand it) is that it cannot bridge this gap >between inside and outside. > >The man inside it does not need it: Christendom already preaches and practices >toleration of dissent. The man outside cannot use it: knowing a certain code >will reach more people or ?works better? than another code provides no >particular motive to amend a moral code. It might or it might not, depending on >what he thinks the moral stature of ?working better? is. > >JCW > > > Mr. Wright, it has been a pleasure carrying on this discussion with you, and if I did not already mention it, I enjoyed very much reading your three books of the Golden Age. I am afraid that much of this discussion has become repetition of our previous points, and I think that to some extent we are talking past one another. I would be pleased to continue a dialogue via personal email, but I hesitate to post another iteration to this public forum. I do look forward to your further comments. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 5 00:42:44 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050504174657.75566.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050505004244.9126.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Yes, I know the ramifications if the theory is > correct. Believe me, I > know. I struggle to *not* constantly think about > them - they're > distracting, and if I actually want to see them come > true, I have to > focus on how I get there instead of what things > would be like > afterwards if I succeed. And I have to remember > that, until and unless > I prove it correct, there is a significant chance > the theory is not > correct. > Adrian, I think you have the right attitude. I am a professional in science and trust me, theory is over-rated. In my time in this lab alone, I have seen several fairly well-accepted theories in cellular immune function and HIV pathogenesis bite the dust. One of them was by my own hand. My experience indicates that reality always supercedes theory. The only real use of a theory is like a crude map of reality. Once you are in the neighborhood, its time to put away the map and pay attention to the reality. Otherwise you stand the danger of running into the tree that isn't on the map. Don't worry about trying to prove your theory. I don't beieve one can really prove a theory anyway, one can only fail to disprove it and then usually only for so long. Don't let this discourage you however because if you can "grope" the reality that masquerades as the Cassimir force and bend it to your will, then the theory is secondary. It will formulate itself after the fact. You have embarked on a worthy endeavor. Good luck. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 5 00:45:29 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 20:45:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of morality as opposed to self interest In-Reply-To: <200505041957.j44JvaR16011@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050504202040.0351ed90@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:57 PM 04/05/05 -0500, you wrote: >Keith Henson says: "... minds, having been built by genes, are biased in >certain >very predictable ways. "Be nice to relatives more or less in proportion >to how >closely they are related." "Don't fight with strangers unless they are >competing for the same short supply resources you need to feed relatives." > >I admit to being puzzled here. Mr. Henson seemed to be talking about the >way men >act when mere natural prudence, but not morality, dictates their actions. Even worse. I am saying that our very sense of what is moral is shaped by our genes along with the environment of the time. >The >moral maxims of the world specifically denounce what Mr. Henson here is >claiming >is the universal (gene-based) moral maxims. For example, the Buddhist is urged >by the Enlightened One to renounce all aggression, not merely aggression >against >neighbors. The Stoic holds that all men, not merely one's neighbors, are the >Sons of Zeus, and contain the Divine Fire that makes them reasonable >creatures. >Jesus ordered his disciples to turn the other cheek when struck; he did >not say >turn the other cheek when a Jew strikes you, but Romans and Sammaritans are >outsiders: them, you should strike back. >In trying to make the case for a biological and evolutionary cause for >morality, >one must be careful to identify what the moral thinkers of the ages >actually say. There are a lot of common threads in morality. Why? Why is morality such a flexible concept? What environmental/ecological condition cause what is considered moral to shift? I think I can answer such questions from an evolutionary prospective. >If Mr. Henson is making that point that men often or usually ignore the >demands >of morality, and put their selfish desires, or the honor of their community, >before the common good they may have with others and outsiders, well, that is >surely true. Prudence often tempts men to look at their self-interest in an >exaggerated fashion, and passion often tempts men to look at their tribe and >nation with eyes blinded by love. Ah . . . right. Of course we are descended from people who did look after the interest of their genes in the stone age. Or maybe I should say the genes shaped people who did. Could you give me your estimate of how long it would take from a breakdown in food shipments into the cities before there were riots? The memes for what is considered moral behavior and the good teachings that have come down to us are memes that do well in good times, that is times of low stress on the population because technology has increased the economy faster than the population. I might add that I have taken terrible risks for others, in fact I have been driven out of my former country for standing up against a death dealing cult and supporting free speech. I could claim an excessive amount of moral superiority for doing so. I won't though because I suspect the motivation for my "selfless" actions is not so pure, and in fact I think it has a genetic base. Want to know why humans have wars? Ask me and I will send you a 20 page unpublished paper. Keith Henson From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 5 01:42:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 18:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505014242.47243.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jeff Medina wrote: > 1. The context of the quote you provided indicates he's talking about > morality. E.g., "moral relativism does not say [...]"; "It [moral > relativism] simply acknowledges [...]"; "I don't like the very > concepts of absolute truth, or objective morality" (contrast this > last snippet with the multiple references to "absolute or objective > morality" in earlier posts by various discussion participants... but > see 2 for an alternative if you don't feel like interpreting > 'absolute truth' as 'absolute moral truth' based on the context.) > > 2. Opposition to absolute truth, on at least one plausible reading > (epistemological, rather than metaphysical), is something you > yourself > readily and vigorously defend. It is the equivalent of assigning a > probability or credence of 1 to a proposition, and known variously by > such terms as "epistemological infallibilism," "faith," and > "unbridled stupidity." Absolute poppycock. Your ludicrous characterization implies that one who is for objective truth is always sure which side of a coin flips up, heads or tails, and is always right. This is completely, absolutely, and objectively wrong. An objective thinker, moralist, or physicist does not deny uncertainty. Instead, they recognise that the amount of uncertainty of an event may be objectively determined. The relativist sees all uncertainties as equally uncertain. > While it's possible the alternative reading (that Giulio is opposing > the idea of absolute metaphysical truth, or absolute physical > reality) is what was meant, that seems such an obvious intellectual > error to me that, based on Giulio's evidenced comprehension of other > issues in the past, I give him the benefit of the doubt as to which > interpretation he intended. Only to one who cannot comprehend how one could abstract morality from metaphysics, and abstract metaphysics from physics. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu May 5 01:52:41 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:52:41 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Oz State to ban bosses snooping on emails References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050504163520.01df79b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <025701c55115$1fca1e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Interesting. I wonder if employers would simply alter the employment agreements such that accepting surveilance of email or the employers right to (contractually rather than legally) would become a condition of employment. This is an interesting issue because I can see both sides and so what will ultimately decide what shakes out will be how people react politically. Employers could have legitimate grounds for wanting to have some surveilance capability in some circumstances. The idea of providing with a job the necessary tools to do that job did not traditionally automatically include giving employees the right to use those same tools for their own purposes or convenience. The employee/employer master/servant relationship seems to be shifting in this case in a direction towards employee/servant empowerment. It will be interesting to see if the trend can gather any political steam. Personally I would have suspected that laws would have tended to develop to favour the employers rather than employees in this area because employees would not be politically well organised enough to oppose the shift towards greater surveilance of their activities. I'd have thought that most employees would not object to clauses being placed in employment contracts etc.. Perhaps they will. Perhaps I am wrong. Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 5 03:37:42 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 20:37:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050504212929.C226557EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <200505050337.j453bpR03300@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" ... > > "Meanwhile, Southland public transportation agencies are reporting that > ridership has jumped in the first months of 2005 - up between 3% and 12%, > depending on the system." ... > Hal Ja, but I expect it won't go much higher. The basic issue is that having one's own car promotes one from a pawn to a knight. The pawn and the pub-trans rider have little choice: go forward or stay. The driver and the knight can go anywhere they want. The car is one's suit of armor, the wheels the swift hooves, a sawed-off 12 gage under the seat is one's lance. In one's own car one has personal space. People will continue to opt for autos even in those places where they are already impractical, such as certain areas in New York and many European cities. If the subway engineers could work out a means whereby trains had individual locking compartments, large enough for singles, some for pairs, a few for groups of 3 to 10, then we proles would really like them and use them. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 5 05:55:19 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505055519.78820.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Ja, but I expect it won't go much higher. The basic > issue is > that having one's own car promotes one from a pawn > to a knight. Nah. I would say a car makes one a rook. The knight is a motorcycle. On a motorcycle one can move in the lanes or between them. On a motorcycle one wears armor if one wants to live. One can't go as far as a rook can, but one can go almost anywhere. One can even jump over other pieces if one is Evel Knieval. The only piece that is better if one needs to get somewhere in a hurry no matter what the traffic is like, is a helicopter which I would equate to a queen. > > If the subway engineers could work out a means > whereby trains > had individual locking compartments, large enough > for singles, > some for pairs, a few for groups of 3 to 10, then we > proles would really like them and use them. If these came to be, I might use them for the daily commute, but I would not sell either my motorcycle or my car for that matter. There are times when established routes are counterproductive. And I don't consider myself a prole but a modern day cavalier. I may not be the king, but I got a horse. BTW... since when did you become a prole? I would consider you bourgeois at the least. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html From pgptag at gmail.com Thu May 5 05:57:22 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:57:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com> References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> <42793884.80209@pobox.com> <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com> <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205050422576978c649@mail.gmail.com> Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am only challenging the notion of external, objective *morality*. You may have been misled by my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted below. I am using it as shorthand for "Moral Truth". I challenge the notion of external, objective morality because 1) it cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I try to be kind to children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), and 2) it can have strong negative effects (demonstration: read the first history book that you find). As far as the notion of external, objective reality is concerned, I do not doubt its usefulness and core validity (even if I think it may be a bit more complex than we currently appreciate). Regarding *specific statements* on external reality (e.g. the photon has zero mass, the Earth is flat, the temperature of the background microwave radiation is approximately 3K, the Moon is made of Emmenthal cheese, etc.), I follow the classic scientific method and consider them open to experimental confirmation or refutation. So I think a scientist is free to consider hypothesis and try to test them experimentally, but not free to murder fellow scientists who think differently. G. On 5/5/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Jeff Medina wrote: > > On 5/4/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > > >>It was a tad worse than that. I believe Giulio also said that believing in an > >>external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity. > > > > Could you point out where he said this? Because what I read was that > > *morality* was not objective. > > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that > > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say > > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth > > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and > > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas, > > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The > > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid > > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas. > > > > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of > > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Thu May 5 06:00:35 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:00:35 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) Message-ID: <20050505060035.64061.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >2. Opposition to absolute truth, on at least one >plausible reading >(epistemological, rather than metaphysical), is >something you yourself >readily and vigorously defend. It is the equivalent >of assigning a >probability or credence of 1 to a proposition, and >known variously by >such terms as "epistemological >infallibilism," "faith," and "unbridled >stupidity." >While it's possible the alternative reading (that >Giulio is opposing >the idea of absolute metaphysical truth, or absolute >physical reality) >is what was meant, that seems such an obvious >intellectual error to me >that, based on Giulio's evidenced comprehension of >other issues in the >past, I give him the benefit of the doubt as to >which interpretation >he intended. But, dear fellow, the *metaphysical* status of morality is exactly what the entire objective/relativist debate is about! I think you are seriously confused. The *epistemological* status of moral knowledge is a seperate question from the *metaphysical* stauts of moral knowledge. It is quite likely that there is no such thing as *certain* knowledge, in the sense of propositions to which we can assign probabilities of 100% to. But most sensible 'moral objectivists' never claimed any such thing. We only claimed that some moral truths have an objective *metaphysical* status. For instance we cannot be certain of how gravity works, but that doesn't stop gravity from being objective. The mere fact we cannot be certain of how gravity works does not mean that truths about gravity are 'relative'. The metaphysical *truth* about gravity is objective, our epistemology *knowledge* about gravity is not. I claim that objective moral truths exist. I do not claim that my knowledge of morality is certain. What then is the distinction between objective morality and objective physics? (In neither case is certain knowledge claimed). But clearly 'moral relativists' *do* think that there is a distinction between physics and ethics. The definition of moral relativism clearly goes further than just denying certain *epistemological* knowldge. It also denies objective *metaphysical* truth about morality. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Thu May 5 06:08:51 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:08:51 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. Message-ID: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm going to briefly summarize what seems like an absolutely water-tight argument for objective ethics. I show how to derive 'ought' from 'is' and establish the basis for a Universal Volition. *The first assumption I make is that meaning and purpose ultimately comes from sentient minds. When no sentient mind exists, there can be no meaning. I think most of you will be able to agree with me here. *The second assumption is this: 'The ultimate fate of the universe is indeterminate'. That is to say, consider the possibility that whether the universe (a) ends or (b) Lasts forever, has not actually been physically determined yet. In that case, actions taken by sentients in the future could change the probabilities of possible ultimate fates for the universe. Using these two assumptions, we can derive a 'Universal Volition' (objective morality). Here's the reasoning: Asking 'why?' to any proposed course of action, presupposes that meaning is important. Therefore *any consistent* proposed ethical system has *presupposed* that meaning is important. You can't even begin to reason about ethics without implicitly presupposing that meaning is important. Therefore *all* ethical systems presuppose the value of meaning. The important of meaning is a universal value, in so far that any values are held at all. The above is a strange sounding paragraph. It sounds sort of circular, but it does actually make sense. It's kind of an anthropic (observer-selection) argument. I hope you can see the correctness of it though. To repeat: You can't even begin to ask 'why?' without presupposing that meaning is important. Therefore *all* ethical systems in the universe presuppose the importance of meaning even before any other values. The importance of meaning is a universal. O.K. Second step. By the first assumption given earlier, there can be no meaning without mind. Meaning comes from sentient minds. But since it was established that all ethical systems presuppose the important of meaning, another universal automatically follows when combined with the initial assumption: The preservation of the life of sentient beings (plural) is a good. Since a net loss of sentient beings will result in a net delete of minds, and meaning comes from minds and ethics requires meaning, the continued life of sentient beings (in the utilitarian sense) is a good. Third step. By the second assumption the ultimate fate of the universe is indeterminate. But if the universe ever ends, all sentient minds within it will die. But by the previous two reasoning steps it was established that the continued preservation of sentient minds is a good. Since the fate of the universe is indeterminate, there is a possibility that the actions of sentients can change the ultimate fate of the universe (in a probabilistic sense). Therefore it is a universal good for sentients to take the actions required to increase the probability of the continued existence of the universe. It would also be a universal evil for sentients to take actions which harm the chances of the continued existence of the universe. Let's briefly review the reasoning chain: Axioms: (1) Meaning comes from minds (2) The ultimate fate of the universe is indeterminate Deductions: (3) You can't even begin to ask 'why?' without presupposing that meaning is important. Therefore all ethical systems presuppose meaning as a value. (4) By (1) all meaning comes from minds and by (3) all ethics presupposes meaning, it follows that the net continued existence of sentient minds is a universal good, since a net deduction of sentients will result in a net delete of minds and therefore a net deletion of meaning. (5) By (2) the ultimate fate of the universe is indeterminate and could possibility be influenced by sentient actions. But if the universe ends, all sentient life ends, which by (4) was established as an evil. Since sentient actions could possibility influence the ultimate fate of the universe, it would be a universal evil for sentients not to try to influence the universe in order to increase the probability of its continued existence. We have deduced a *universal* ethical principle for all sentient minds. A universal volition of you like. It is: Universal Volition: 'Take the actions required to increase the probability of the continued existence of the universe' I don't know whether this equates to helping to move the universe closer to Frank Tipler's Omega Point (the Omega Point itself is a mathematical limit that is never reached), but it think it is a fair bet that is does. And with this principle in the bag, we can move from 'is' to 'ought'. The reasoning is simple: *Taking the actions required to increase the probability of the continued existence of the universe was established as a universal good. But what these actions are is entirely an empirical matter. By understanding the workings of the universe, it is entirely an empirical matter to determine which actions will help to ensure the continued existence of the universe. Therefore 'is' (the current state of the universe) implies 'ought' (the empirically determined actions required to increase the probability of the continued existence of the universe). And there you have it folks. 'Ought' from 'is' and Universal Volition established beyond a shadow of a doubt. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Thu May 5 06:24:20 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:24:20 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism Message-ID: <20050505062420.36161.qmail@web31513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am >only challenging the >notion of external, objective *morality*. You may >have been misled by >my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted >below. I am using it >as shorthand for "Moral Truth". >I challenge the notion of external, objective >morality because 1) it >cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I >try to be kind to >children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), >and 2) it can have >strong negative effects (demonstration: read the >first history book >that you find). Here Guilio is clearly denying the reality of objective *metaphysical* moral truths. This is clearly going further than just denying certain *epistemological* moral knowledge. Most moral objectivists don't dispute that certain knowledge is impossible. However what they strongly disagree with is the idea that there is no objective *metaphysical* truth. Of course belief in 'objective' ethics can also be sub-devided into a weak form and a strong form. In the weak sense, it just means that you can reason about ethics somehow (perhaps by reference to a 'Collective Volition' where ethics is defined by somehow combining the beliefs and feelings of all humans). In the strong sense, you may also want to say that you can reason about ethics without making reference to people at all (a 'Universal Volition). I *do* believe in the notion of external objective ethics in both the weak and the strong sense, and I think that Mr Wright is right ;) It seems to me much more likely that denial of objective moral truths is what leads to atrocity ('Anything goes man!), rather than belief in them. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Thu May 5 08:14:35 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:14:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <20050505060035.64061.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050505060035.64061.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520505050114a68cc2a@mail.gmail.com> I always enjoy a good verbal contest, but I have a feeling that we are sort of wasting our time with this specific issue. You can affirm the objective existence of absolute morality, and I can deny it, and we can still come to the same moral conclusions on specific practical issues, same as we could still come to completely different conclusions if we shared the same opinion on absolute morality. So, believing or not in absolute morality has just no effect on specific moral judgements. So it is like middle age scholars discussing the sex of the angels, or how many angels can dance on a needle tip: completely void of practical meaning and relevance. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 5 08:55:55 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 01:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050505085555.98774.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Marc Geddes wrote: > Let's briefly review the reasoning chain: > > Axioms: > (1) Meaning comes from minds > (2) The ultimate fate of the universe is > indeterminate > Deductions: > (3) You can't even begin to ask 'why?' without > presupposing that meaning is important. Therefore > all > ethical systems presuppose meaning as a value. > > (4) By (1) all meaning comes from minds and by (3) > all ethics presupposes meaning, it follows that the > net continued existence of sentient minds is a > universal good, since a net deduction of sentients > will result in a net delete of minds and therefore a > net deletion of meaning. Your argument is GREAT up to this point. > (5) By (2) the ultimate fate of the universe is > indeterminate and could possibility be influenced by > sentient actions. But if the universe ends, all > sentient life ends, which by (4) was established as > an > evil. Since sentient actions could possibility > influence the ultimate fate of the universe, it > would > be a universal evil for sentients not to try to > influence the universe in order to increase the > probability of its continued existence. There is a problem here. The indeterminate fate of the universe cannot be simply analyzed. That is to say no sentient mind below godlike intelligence could predict what impact its actions would have on the survival time of the universe as a whole even empirically. An immortal AI could perform an action and wait around until the universe ended to see if it was earlier or later than theory would predict, but what use would that be? > We have deduced a *universal* ethical principle for > all sentient minds. A universal volition of you > like. > It is: > > Universal Volition: > > 'Take the actions required to increase the > probability > of the continued existence of the universe' No. You could state it as "do not destroy the universe" but stating it the way you do, leads to conflicts with deduction (4). For example an AI might decide that all those sentient minds running around are dumping too much entropy into the universe and hastening its demise. It may then take the following course of action without violating your principles: 1. Download all meaning from all sentient minds. 2. Destroy all sentient minds except oneself. 3. Shut down all non-vital functions to minimize entropy output. Thus, the total net meaning of the universe is conserved AND the universe lasts a lot longer. I think you should have kept your principles centered on meaning. Starting from your axioms and using your deductions, the "Universal Volition", "Golden Rule", and "Laws of Robotics" should be: 1. Maximize total meaning. 2. Maximize duration of total meaning. By your own arguments above, actions that promote the survival of the AI, its creators, and essentially all sentient beings is implicit in these statements as well as preservation of literature and works of art. Moreover insofar as any sentient mind can predict how its actions will influence the survival of the universe as a whole, the probability of the universe's continued existence is implicit as well. This is regardless of whether the universe itself is sentient or not. Too bad there does not seem to be tenable way to define a "meaning" function in computer code. Anyways, good post. It made me think. :) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 5 13:59:49 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:59:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bipartisan Breather Message-ID: <46440-22005545135949166@M2W032.mail2web.com> This morning, as usual, I enjoyed listening to NPR's morning edition. I had a delightful laugh at the smart humor scripted around this bipartisan gathering at an ice cream social. For those of you who enjoy stock market jargon and business vernacular, this is recording is a lot of fun. "Morning Edition, May 5, 2005 ? Amid ethics concerns about Tom DeLay, and bitterness over Social Security and other issues, members of Congress took a much needed bipartisan breather Wednesday: an ice cream social." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4631485 Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From riel at surriel.com Thu May 5 14:00:48 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050504212917.49791.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050504212917.49791.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 May 2005, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Were this a magnetic force, field lines would bend to snake around the > corners, and everything would balance out. But the Casimir effect > appears to act more like optics than magnetics, and optics allows for > sharp discontinuities - think sharp-edged shadows. I guess if your experiment doesn't work, we might need to reformulate how the Casimir effect works. Sounds like an experiment that's guaranteed to have something interesting as its outcome ;) -- "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 spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 5 14:40:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:40:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050505055519.78820.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505051440.j45EejR08432@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... > helicopter which I would equate to a queen... I won't touch that one, I'm trying to serious up a bit. {8^D > > > > If the subway engineers could work out a means > > whereby trains > > had individual locking compartments, large enough > > for singles, > > some for pairs, a few for groups of 3 to 10, then we > > proles would really like them and use them. > >... since > when did you become a prole? I would consider you > bourgeois at the least. ;) The Avantguardian What? Since always. Bourgeois, noo waaaay. Once born a prole, always a prole, even if life's circumstances are kind to one, as they have been to me. The family historians have discovered I have a fairly recent ancestor who was born in Pretoria South Africa, so I am also an African American. I am thereby immune to much of modern PC self flagellation. It doesn't seem so difficult: public restrooms have always had individual stalls that have a sort of a lock on the door. There is plenty of room aboard every train I ever see for individual stalls. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 5 15:07:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am only challenging > the > notion of external, objective *morality*. You may have been misled by > my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted below. I am using it > as shorthand for "Moral Truth". > I challenge the notion of external, objective morality because 1) it > cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I try to be kind to > children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), and 2) it can have > strong negative effects (demonstration: read the first history book > that you find). > As far as the notion of external, objective reality is concerned, I > do > not doubt its usefulness and core validity (even if I think it may be > a bit more complex than we currently appreciate). Regarding *specific > statements* on external reality (e.g. the photon has zero mass, the > Earth is flat, the temperature of the background microwave radiation > is approximately 3K, the Moon is made of Emmenthal cheese, etc.), I > follow the classic scientific method and consider them open to > experimental confirmation or refutation. So I think a scientist is > free to consider hypothesis and try to test them experimentally, but > not free to murder fellow scientists who think differently. The problem, Giulio, is that in stating that it is wrong to murder fellow scientists who think differently, you are making an objective moral judgement. You may claim you have no moral basis for doing so, but that is merely a concious claim. The fact is that you have been unconciously acculturated over your life in the western judeo-christian post-enlightenment ethical outlook, tempered by a flavoring of other philosophical systems, clearly belies the fact that you have been programmed to feel the way you do. To paraphrase Ceasar describing Brittannus, you take the prejudices of your tribe as universal truth, despite denying such. Making the leap from stating that other scientists are wrong to having them executed for thinking 'improperly' requires acceptance of two moral judgements as objective maxims which history clearly has shown multiple times are most definitely NOT objective or even more objective than others. Because history has shown this, it is therefore objectively wrong to assert otherwise to rationalize unobjective acts or policies. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 5 15:28:00 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > > >... since > > when did you become a prole? I would consider you > > bourgeois at the least. ;) The Avantguardian > > What? Since always. Bourgeois, noo waaaay. > > Once born a prole, always a prole, even if life's > circumstances are kind to one, as they have been > to me. I like the motto of that guild club in Damien's "The White Abacus": "Every Sen a Chief, None An Indian". The major malfunction causing the deterioration of the republic and individual liberties is the pernicious prevalence of the idea that equality means dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator, that all are proles. For both liberty and equality to exist, every person must be a king, not a prole. Reclaim your individual sovereignty, hold it tightly, greedily. Do not lightly lend it out to bureaucrat or contractor. > The family historians have discovered I > have a fairly recent ancestor who was born in > Pretoria South Africa, so I am also an African > American. I am thereby immune to much of modern > PC self flagellation. At least one US census I stated I was a native American. Speaking of which, I've been hearing more about this Pembina Band of N-A indians that Prof. Ward Churchill was a 'member' of. A friend is also a member of the band, and they seem to be pretty libertarian in orientation. They are setting up their own currency and banking system. > > It doesn't seem so difficult: public restrooms > have always had individual stalls that have a > sort of a lock on the door. There is plenty of > room aboard every train I ever see for individual > stalls. But that wouldn't give any thug the opportunity to assault any other passenger. Subways, however, tend to be far more packed during rush-hour, at least in cities like NY and Boston. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 5 15:32:35 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505153235.42845.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > I guess if your experiment doesn't work, we might need to > reformulate how the Casimir effect works. Sounds like an > experiment that's guaranteed to have something interesting > as its outcome ;) Exactly. If it goes one way, we have something that's not quite a perpetual motion machine but comes close. If we don't get that, we've shined a light on a significant misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. It's worth doing either way. (And then there's the nanostructuring on top of that, which is apparently more needed than I thought. Maybe they're thinking there's a good chance I'll take the skills I use on this project and develop molecular manufacturing or something. *shrugs*) From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 5 16:05:47 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:05:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205050422576978c649@mail.gmail.com> References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> <42793884.80209@pobox.com> <5844e22f0505041505bdcfd29@mail.gmail.com> <42794E43.6020405@pobox.com> <470a3c5205050422576978c649@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <427A445B.1070603@pobox.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am only challenging the > notion of external, objective *morality*. You may have been misled by > my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted below. I am using it > as shorthand for "Moral Truth". > I challenge the notion of external, objective morality because 1) it > cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I try to be kind to > children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), and 2) it can have > strong negative effects (demonstration: read the first history book > that you find). > As far as the notion of external, objective reality is concerned, I do > not doubt its usefulness and core validity (even if I think it may be > a bit more complex than we currently appreciate). Okay. Sorry, then. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 5 16:30:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Oz State to ban bosses snooping on emails In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505163056.94863.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > The idea of providing with a job the necessary tools to do that job > did not traditionally automatically include giving employees the > right to use those same tools for their own purposes or > convenience. The employee/employer master/servant relationship > seems to be shifting in this case in a direction > towards employee/servant empowerment. It will be interesting to see > if the trend can gather any political steam. Having worked as a hourly mechanic required to own his own personal tools while working in a company garage with company heavy equipment, where I not only worked on my own vehicle, but worked on the vehicles of company bus drivers, vehicles of family members, etc. it seems to me that the company needs to or does accept the distinction between 'personal tools' and 'capital equipment'. A technology company doesn't issue knowledge workers a company brain when they are employed, the employee comes with their own highly valuable brain, i.e. a computer which the employee employs in the service of the company. Thus the employee is paid for labor of the persons personality (i.e. their software) plus use of employee equipment (their brain, i.e. hardware). Ergo, while being treated as employees, todays knowledge worker should be treated as a contractor. In exchange for being an employee, the employer offers additional benefits which may include use of company equipment. When uploaded personalities come to exist, will an employer be required to hire that personality as a contractor rather than an employee if the personality operates on their own personal hardware? > > Personally I would have suspected that laws would have tended to > develop to > favour the employers rather than employees in this area because > employees > would not be politically well organised enough to oppose the shift > towards > greater surveilance of their activities. I'd have thought that most > employees would not object to clauses being placed in employment > contracts > etc.. Perhaps they will. Perhaps I am wrong. > > Brett Paatsch > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From jonkc at att.net Thu May 5 16:43:03 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:43:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003201c55191$dca86b60$aff14d0c@MyComputer> "Marc Geddes" > The first assumption I make is that meaning and > purpose ultimately comes from sentient minds. Yes I agree, absolutely no argument. > The second assumption is this: 'The ultimate fate of > the universe is indeterminate Indeterminate eh, well..., maybe yes maybe no. > any proposed course of action, presupposes that > meaning is important. Meaning is very important to me and to most sentient beings but to hydrogen and helium gas that makes up the overwhelming bulk of the visible universe meaning is not important at all; it's not unimportant either, it has no opinion on the subject becauseit's just gas. > Therefore *all* ethical systems presuppose the value of meaning. Yes, but all ethical systems only deal with a very tiny subset of the universe. > The importance of meaning is a universal. Absolutely untrue. > there can be no meaning without mind. Or to put it another way, there can be no meaning without subjectivity, but your post claims to prove things about objectivity. I think your fundamental error is in equating objectivity with importance and subjectivity with triviality; I would think members of this list who talk so easily about uploading and virtual reality and the universe as a computer program would understand that the very opposite is true. > Meaning comes from sentient minds. Exactly, minds are in the meaning generating business, that's why I can give meaning to a cloud of hydrogen gas but it can't give meaning to me. > The preservation of the life of sentient beings > (plural) is a good. 99.999999999999% of the universe doesn't give a damn one way or the other but yes, life is good for those very subjective sentient beings. Well usually anyway, a man who has just been disemboweled and was begging for death might disagree. > the continued life of sentient beings (in the > utilitarian sense) is a good. As I said, it's good for minds in those subjective beings, not good or bad or important for a cloud of hydrogen gas that objectively exists 10,000 light years away. Let's briefly review your reasoning chain: Meaning comes from minds, subjectivity comes from minds, "meaning" has a meaning and it also comes from minds, "importance" has a meaning and it comes from minds, "good" has a meaning and it comes from minds, "evil" has a meaning and it comes from minds; therefore you conclude ethics is objective. Huh? And I don't understand why you should even care, if that cloud of hydrogen gas has an opinion on what I should do next I'm not very interested in what it is, I'll follow my own counsel thank you very much because subjectivity is far more important that objectivity. John K Clark From hal at finney.org Thu May 5 17:19:02 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project Message-ID: <20050505171902.DC46957EE6@finney.org> Maybe I can convince you that this won't work by a more detailed analysis. > http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.txt > http://www.wingedcat.com/ct/casimirtorque.gif As I understand it, this device consists of a disk that has a metal square in the center and a metal ring around the outside. Between the disk and the ring are specially shaped black body structures which block the Casimir force. The whole thing is one piece and rigid. Your design is intended to produce a net unbalanced torque force, such that if this device were suspended in a vacuum in empty space, it would spontaneously begin spinning, superficially at least violating conservation of angular momentum and conservation of energy principles. Is that right? The problem that I see with your design is elementary. You try to arrange the black body shields so that the unblocked places on the rim are attracted towards the center square with a net torque. But you have forgotten Newton's third law! Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This means that if the rim is attracted to the center square, then the center square is equally attracted back to the rim. And the torque due to the center square is exactly the opposite of the torque due to the rim. These will cancel each other out and it won't spin. Consider a large model of your device, which instead of using the Casimir force, uses rubber bands. Stretch rubber bands between each unblocked point on the rim and each unblocked point on the central square. Your analysis still goes through! Each point on the rim has more clockwise torque than counterclockwise. Yet this rubber-band device will obviously not start spontaneously spinning, merrily generating energy and angular momentum that we can run the world off of. Again, the reason is because the rubber bands pull as hard counterclockwise on the central square as they pull clockwise on the outer rim. Nothing in your design relies on any properties of the Casimir force other than that it is attractive and can be blocked. Clearly no such device can violate the laws of physics. Hal From amara at amara.com Thu May 5 16:58:08 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:58:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil Message-ID: (Mike Lorrey about why he doesn't subscribe to The Economist) >I don't subscribe for the simple reason that under the Patriot Act it >is well nigh impossible for a United States Serf to keep a bank >account, even an online one, without divulging a Socialist Slavery >Number, thus, I don't bank, anymore, not until my next secret project >bears fruit. Even PayPal demands an SSN now. Probably Italy is following the US, in this respect, or else the US is looking to Italy, but the codice fiscale, the Italian version of the social security number, is all pervasive here, for a number of reasons (tax being the obvious one, but other odd reasons include the way that vendors, by state law, provide insurance for their customers for their purchased electronics). The codice fiscale is generated from one's full name, their birthplace and then a letter at the end that adds a "random" element. The codice fiscale is even used (without the tourists needing to know) to perform the accounting for tourists staying in hotels. Did you ever wonder why the Italian hotel deskclerk asked you for your passport? They are usually not so nosy (and in fact there are much stronger privacy laws here than in the US), but it is for their money management: to extract a birthdate/birth country so that their accounting software can generate the codice fiscale and then calculate a tax for your room. I haven't started to be concerned about it (yet) because the databases are not connected (yet), and the public servants I've met are generally squeamish about technology and computers. Even though most of my transactions are with cash, my banks have full information about me, and it is impossible for me to perform my job (travel especially), without my credit card. For me this is sad, especially, since I worked very hard to remove credit cards from my life (I don't have debt with the exception of the long cycle of paying my work travel and getting reimbursed). >That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com). >Coding, writing, graphic design, swimsuit modelling, you name it. Is this Anthony Hargis' work? If so, it's been years since I met someone living/working for gold. My housemate 20 years ago did all of his banking with Anthony Hargis and his gold banking. I didn't know it still existed. This is interesting. 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/ ******************************************************************** "Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race." -- H. G. Wells From pgptag at gmail.com Thu May 5 17:42:21 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:42:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <003201c55191$dca86b60$aff14d0c@MyComputer> References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003201c55191$dca86b60$aff14d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <470a3c52050505104261ba45cd@mail.gmail.com> Well said John! On 5/5/05, John K Clark wrote: > And I don't understand why you should even care, if that cloud of hydrogen > gas has an opinion on what I should do next I'm not very interested in what > it is, I'll follow my own counsel thank you very much because subjectivity > is far more important that objectivity. > > John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 5 17:59:40 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:59:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Chiefs and Indians In-Reply-To: <20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050505125402.03dc9eb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:28 AM 5/5/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: >I like the motto of that guild club in Damien's "The White Abacus": >"Every Sen a Chief, None An Indian". Well, yeah, but that was a parody on featherbedding unions and staff who self-righteously ignore customers while painting their own nails. :) Of course, in The White Abacus all "work" in that culture was make-work and play, or at worst a sort of therapeutic therapy. Damien Broderick From scerir at libero.it Thu May 5 18:13:03 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:13:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project References: <20050505171902.DC46957EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <000b01c5519e$14848940$8ab41b97@administxl09yj> Any work, against the (supposed conservative) Casimir force, when the plates are spinning? From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 5 18:10:46 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:10:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Chiefs and Indians In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050505125402.03dc9eb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050505125402.03dc9eb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/5/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Well, yeah, but that was a parody on featherbedding unions and staff who > self-righteously ignore customers while painting their own nails. :) > > Of course, in The White Abacus all "work" in that culture was make-work and > play, or at worst a sort of therapeutic therapy. > Ask any contractor working in a Fortune 500 company. Most of them will say they do all the work and report to about ten managers who liaise with each other and send reports up the line to more senior managers. 'Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians' Though people have stopped saying that nowadays when all their work is being outsourced to India. :( BillK From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 5 18:15:44 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505181544.49407.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > As I understand it, this device consists of a disk that has a metal > square in the center and a metal ring around the outside. Between > the > disk and the ring are specially shaped black body structures which > block > the Casimir force. The whole thing is one piece and rigid. Incorrect: the ring is mechanically separate from the rest of the device. The black body structures and the metal square in the center are rigid with respect to each other, though. > Your > design > is intended to produce a net unbalanced torque force, such that if > this > device were suspended in a vacuum in empty space, it would > spontaneously > begin spinning, superficially at least violating conservation of > angular > momentum and conservation of energy principles. Is that right? That is correct, if by "superficially" you mean "from a point of view that fails to recognize the actual source of energy" - which is an easy oversight to make if one is not familiar with quantum mechanics. > The problem that I see with your design is elementary. You try to > arrange the black body shields so that the unblocked places on the > rim > are attracted towards the center square with a net torque. But you > have > forgotten Newton's third law! Every action has an equal and opposite > reaction. This means that if the rim is attracted to the center > square, > then the center square is equally attracted back to the rim. And the > torque due to the center square is exactly the opposite of the torque > due to the rim. These will cancel each other out and it won't spin. Actually, by that analysis, the post would spin the opposite way from the ring. Total angular momentum of the entire system would continue to be zero, even if the pieces themselves move with respect to one another: plus and minus cancel out. (Consider two interlocked gears, flat on a table. Turn one gear one way, and the other gear turns the other way. There's an issue with where you get the energy to spin the gears in the first place, but the fact of counterbalancing torque to conserve angular momentum does not itself freeze the system in place.) The post and shields should indeed experience some torque. While these will be fixed to a large external mass in practice, it is possible that a sufficiently large array of these would cause that large external mass to rotate. But since this would be in the opposite direction of spin from the rings, the rings would still spin relative to the posts. Any generator assembly would probably be fixed relative to a post, and thus be able to extract energy from the ring's relative spin. This does not appear to be the core issue of your objection, though. > Consider a large model of your device, which instead of using the > Casimir > force, uses rubber bands. Stretch rubber bands between each > unblocked > point on the rim and each unblocked point on the central square. > Your analysis still goes through! No it doesn't. When the point of the band that's on the ring travels beyond the blackbody shield, the band would wrap around the shield and produce a counterbalancing force. As I stated in another post, the Casimir force doesn't act like that. Magnetic force does, and that may be what you're trying to draw an analogy to. But this is closer to optics, where the lines do not warp unless there is some medium change making them warp - but the curved path the rubber band would occupy to get around the shield, is occupied only by empty space. To analogize to the rubber bands, imagine if they could stretch but not bend - and vanished if they were forced to bend. In fact, try to imagine rubber bands made of photons bouncing back and forth: obviously, such a band that is "cut" will disappear as all of its photons are absorbed by the cutting material. (In this case, the blackbody shields intersect and thus "cut" the band.) Now imagine that new rubber bands appear, pre-stretched, between the ring and the post as new sections of the ring are uncovered with respect to the post. Actual rubber bands don't act like that, of course. But the force I'm tapping doesn't act like actual rubber bands. (At least, by current academic understanding it doesn't. If my experiment proves that it does act that way - which would indeed cause the device not to produce energy - then that's a significnat revision to our understanding of quantum mechanics. Which isn't to say that it won't happen, just that the experiment would be worth doing even in that case. Finding a way to make light bend in free space, without any refractive material at the actual point of the bend, has its own applications.) From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 5 18:36:44 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:36:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Serial music and transhumanist art forms In-Reply-To: <000001c55173$c32ca8e0$5b867056@oemcomputer> References: <000001c55173$c32ca8e0$5b867056@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <427A67BC.6000401@jefallbright.net> primeradiant wrote: > Dear Matt, > > By 'serial' I meant, of course, 12-tone music, hence Schoenberg, > Berg Webern, Stravinsky (middle period, e.g. /Abraham and Isaac/), the > post-war Europeans including Boulez, Berio, Dallapiccola, Lutoslawski, > Schaffer, Xenakis, earlier Stockhausen, the American School including > of course Milton Babbitt, Wuorinen, Lewin etc. > > If I introduce people to 12-tone music I usually select Schoenberg's > /A Survivor from Warsaw/ - a terrifying, gut-wrenching work! The > all-combinatorial sets that lie at the core of 12-tone composition are > related to Messiaen's /modes of limited transposition/ and the > symmetric modes employed by Bartok in his central string quartes (3-5). > > 12-tone composition has expired as a creative force. This is tragic. > It demands a highly developed level of skill, and most of the > theoretical advances made before its final demise never became fully > incorporated into the serial 'canon'. Yet for me it always represented > the power of transcendence of the human condition. By its very nature, > 12-tone structures and processes are excellently adapted to > computer/AI encoding and expression (I did a lot of work on this at > the CSRG in Toronto during the 80's). > Coincidentally, this week I read _October The First Is Too Late_ by Sir Fred Hoyle, 1966, because someone said it presented an interesting theory of time. While I didn't find anything that struck me as interesting or informative about time, I did find this inspiring passage about a musical competition between an accomplished human composer and his opponent, posing as a god but actually a posthuman: It still baffled me as to exactly what restrictions were being placed on the choice of the notes themselves. This was not twelve-tone music, all the tones were not being used. Yet it wasn't tonal in the sense of our system of keys. The structure was more complicated than anything I had heard before. I had the strong impression of rules depending somehow on the form of the work itself. It was as if the rules, the restrictions, depended on the place in the piece. The rules at the beginning and those at the end seemed different, and different again from those in the middle. It was as if the large-scale development of the work influenced its manner of construction. I mention all this to show why it wasn't in any way easy even for a trained musician to grasp instantly what was going on. Plainly I had to deal with a subtle and complex form. My last thought of the people outside was that they could hardly find the music of the god easier to comprehend than my own. I think it was at this point, as the second of my opponent's sections came to an end, that the first chill of apprehension swept over me... I find it interesting to consider the parallels between aesthetic appreciation and moral reasoning, each considered within a context of greater awareness. - Jef From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 5 18:36:54 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505183654.1367.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > Any work, against the (supposed conservative) > Casimir force, when the plates are spinning? Ah, but that's the key: *supposed* conservative. It is in the parallel plate model that was originally proposed, and part of my inspiration for this was noting all the failed attempts to extract energy from this that were running into the issue of conservation. I was also slightly inspired by the specific problems cold fusion had faced: measurement errors in energy input potentially overwhelmed the energy output...but what about a system that had no energy input (from us, anyway), so any energy output would necessarily be net energy output? Note that I'm not using parallel plates, nor am I letting the plates actually approach one another. Thus, I don't need to put energy back into the system to pull them apart. From that perspective, it is conservative: zero minus zero equals zero. (I suppose another analogy here might be a sailboat sailing at an angle to the wind. Set things up right, and wind impacts sail, sail pulls against boat, boat steers against the water, and boat can travel almost any direction along the water's surface - perhaps not directly into the wind, but see "tacking". Now, what happens to the sailboat if it sails behind a cliff on one side of a small island that cuts off the wind...and what happens if it's chained to a boat in front of it, going in the same direction, that's just emerged from behind the cliff on the other side of the island?) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 5 18:39:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505183917.85872.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > "Marc Geddes" > > > The first assumption I make is that meaning and > > purpose ultimately comes from sentient minds. > > Yes I agree, absolutely no argument. While it requires intelligence to attach meaning to an end, the universe does have end(s) and does achieve that or those ends by means of physical processes. Attaching value of opinion about the goodness or badness of the universes means and ends is merely a reflection on the relative objectivity of the ethical/moral systems holding or arriving at those opinions. For example, gravity is a constant, an objective value that acts equally upon all mass by the same rule. Whether falling is 'good' or 'bad', per se, is independent of the fact that things fall. The Extropian Principles, for example, makes value judgements about falling based on whether it contributes to intelligence, optimism, order, etc. > > > The second assumption is this: 'The ultimate fate of > > the universe is indeterminate > > Indeterminate eh, well..., maybe yes maybe no. Exactly. > > > any proposed course of action, presupposes that > > meaning is important. > > Meaning is very important to me and to most sentient beings but to > hydrogen and helium gas that makes up the overwhelming bulk of the > visible universe meaning is not important at all; it's not > unimportant either, it has no opinion on the subject because > it's just gas. Not necessarily. A hydrogen ion attaches absolute, objective importance to whether another hydrogen ion has a certain amount of energy or not, because that energy level is the threshold beyond which both will fuse into a helium ion. Fusing or not fusing is definitly an objective, binary question to every atom of interstellar and stellar gas. It may not be a concious question, but it is still a decision made in the quantum realm to collapse the uncertainty. Thus, gas gets meaning from energy. > > > Therefore *all* ethical systems presuppose the value of meaning. > > Yes, but all ethical systems only deal with a very tiny subset of the > universe. Only because it is the subset that most matters to a very tiny subset of the spontaneously organized matter and energy in that universe. That subset has not to date thought that there needed to be a morality of interstellar gas. > > > The importance of meaning is a universal. > > Absolutely untrue. Tell me that after you've been around the universe. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From pgptag at gmail.com Thu May 5 18:44:46 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:44:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com> I am making a moral judgement indeed, and one in which I believe quite strongly, but I am not claiming any objective status for it. Of course I appreciate that this moral judgement is a product of my life-history including the culture I was raised in, but so what? - I am still willing to defend it. Now if by "objective morality" we mean a shorthand for something like "the ensemble of moral statements on which the vast majority of sane individuals raised in civilized societies would probably agree", I can use the term without problems (even if we would have to define much more precisely the terms "sane" and "civilized"). But please let's not mix morality with (meta)physics. Morality has just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science. Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4" and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so fundamentally different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying to mix them. G. On 5/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > So I think a scientist is > > free to consider hypothesis and try to test them experimentally, but > > not free to murder fellow scientists who think differently. > > The problem, Giulio, is that in stating that it is wrong to murder > fellow scientists who think differently, you are making an objective > moral judgement. You may claim you have no moral basis for doing so, > but that is merely a concious claim. The fact is that you have been > unconciously acculturated over your life in the western judeo-christian > post-enlightenment ethical outlook, tempered by a flavoring of other > philosophical systems, clearly belies the fact that you have been > programmed to feel the way you do. To paraphrase Ceasar describing > Brittannus, you take the prejudices of your tribe as universal truth, > despite denying such. > > Making the leap from stating that other scientists are wrong to having > them executed for thinking 'improperly' requires acceptance of two > moral judgements as objective maxims which history clearly has shown > multiple times are most definitely NOT objective or even more objective > than others. Because history has shown this, it is therefore > objectively wrong to assert otherwise to rationalize unobjective acts > or policies. > > Mike Lorrey From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 5 19:04:56 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:04:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Ethics] In defense of moral standards In-Reply-To: <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <427A6E58.2070500@jefallbright.net> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >Morality has just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and >logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really >fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science. > > Giulio - Then how can you possibly evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of the moral values you hold dear? Do you also consider yourself to operate outside the physical realm? I've been reading and trying to give your words the benefit of the doubt, but this is so blatant I just have to ask whether you really mean what you seem to be saying. - Jef From hal at finney.org Thu May 5 19:07:29 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project Message-ID: <20050505190729.3C60457EE6@finney.org> Adrian Tymes writes: > --- Hal Finney wrote: > > As I understand it, this device consists of a disk that has a metal > > square in the center and a metal ring around the outside. Between > > the > > disk and the ring are specially shaped black body structures which > > block > > the Casimir force. The whole thing is one piece and rigid. > > Incorrect: the ring is mechanically separate from the rest of the > device. The black body structures and the metal square in the center > are rigid with respect to each other, though. Okay, I apologize for misunderstanding this part. So we could imagine instead fixing the central square, in which case the outer ring would begin to rotate, right? I still don't think it will work. Here is an explanation of Casimir force, from http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/casimir.htm "The Casimir Force is an electric force, but its origin is different from that of ordinary electric forces. It is a purely quantum-mechanical effect arising from the zero-point energy of the harmonic oscillators that are the normal modes of the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field must satisfy certain boundary conditions at the surfaces of our conducting plates, and these boundary conditions rule out some of the modes (oscillators) that would otherwise exist in unbounded space. Since there are fewer oscillators between the plates, there is less zero-point energy in this region. If the plates are brought closer together, this volume of smaller energy density is decreased, while the volume of normal zero-point energy density is increased. Since this results in an overall gain of energy to the universe, a force pressing the plates together is the result." This is consistent with the concept of a conservative force. The force results from a change in the potential energy of the system. In a conventional parallel-plates Casimir force test, the ZPE is lower in the region between the plates, and so moving the plates together is energetically favorable. This is what produces the force. If you apply this concept to your system, you see that your device does not work. There is no torque. Rotating the outer ring does nothing to change the volume or shape of the altered ZPE region. The potential energy will remain exactly the same as the ring rotates. So there will be no torque which acts to rotate the ring. In fact, despite your attempt at geometric arrangement, the pressure on the outer ring will be entirely central (directed towards the center of the ring). The same thing would happen if you considered the ZPE as gas pressure. Imagine having high pressure gas outside the system and low pressure gas in the cavity (white region). Despite the asymmetrical shape of the cavity, the pressure on the ring will be perpendicular to it. The gas pressure will not act to rotate the outer ring. You keep saying, or implying, that some kind of detailed QM explanation will justify your torque. You say that if the device doesn't spin that this will require re-thinking the theory of quantum mechanics! It seems to me that this is all wrong, based on the considerations I have offered here. If conventional QM predicted that rings would speed up arbitarily in a vacuum, it would be a strong argument against the accuracy of QM. Do you have a more detailed QM model for the Casimir force in your design that you can offer? While I am not a QM expert I did have two years of physics at Caltech and have kept up a modest interest over the years. I would not be afraid of some equations if you want to offer them. I am also curious to know the qualifications of the academics who have endorsed your design, in broad terms - you don't have to name any names or embarrass anyone. Hal From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Thu May 5 19:10:02 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:10:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... Message-ID: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> I keep coming across professors badmouthing evolutionary psychology as a junk field. I've read some basics, mostly Cosmides and/or Tooby, but fail to see why it has become such a popular whipping boy. A review of a new book arguing against EP is here: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/files/wall_street_journal_review.pdf Anti-EPers are saying this is more solid evidence that EP is junk. I've read the review, and all I can see it arguing against are *specific* claims made in the context of EP and some data... based on new data or a more sound approach to data gathering. Claims like an EP explanation of stepfathers beating their stepchildren more frequently than biological fathers beating their children. If I do some crap data-gathering while trying to deduce physical laws, that only allows a rebuttal of a particular data-based claim (say, if I alleged c = 3.14m/s based on crappy data analysis); it doesn't warrant calling Physics junk science. Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to think EP is crap? Thanks, folks! -- Jeff Medina Research Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ Volunteer Coordinator Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu May 5 19:12:25 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:12:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3b5644769d3aa271c168379ff317fe39@bonfireproductions.com> That is very interesting - Banks in the US are now are offering ATMs that don't require a deposit envelope. Instead, you feed the bills into the ATM through a slot, they are scanned in, and each appear on the screen for you to verify. What a great way to track currency - direct assignment of serial numbers. Yikes! ]3 On May 5, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > > (Mike Lorrey about why he doesn't subscribe to The Economist) >> I don't subscribe for the simple reason that under the Patriot Act it >> is well nigh impossible for a United States Serf to keep a bank >> account, even an online one, without divulging a Socialist Slavery >> Number, thus, I don't bank, anymore, not until my next secret project >> bears fruit. Even PayPal demands an SSN now. > > Probably Italy is following the US, in this respect, or else the US > is looking to Italy, but the codice fiscale, the Italian version of > the social security number, is all pervasive here, for a number of > reasons (tax being the obvious one, but other odd reasons include > the way that vendors, by state law, provide insurance for their > customers for their purchased electronics). The codice fiscale is > generated from one's full name, their birthplace and then a letter > at the end that adds a "random" element. > > The codice fiscale is even used (without the tourists needing to > know) to perform the accounting for tourists staying in hotels. Did > you ever wonder why the Italian hotel deskclerk asked you for your > passport? They are usually not so nosy (and in fact there are much > stronger privacy laws here than in the US), but it is for their > money management: to extract a birthdate/birth country so that > their accounting software can generate the codice fiscale and then > calculate a tax for your room. I haven't started to be concerned > about it (yet) because the databases are not connected (yet), and > the public servants I've met are generally squeamish about > technology and computers. Even though most of my transactions are > with cash, my banks have full information about me, and it is > impossible for me to perform my job (travel especially), without my > credit card. For me this is sad, especially, since I worked very > hard to remove credit cards from my life (I don't have debt with > the exception of the long cycle of paying my work travel and > getting reimbursed). > >> That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com). >> Coding, writing, graphic design, swimsuit modelling, you name it. > > Is this Anthony Hargis' work? If so, it's been years since I met > someone living/working for gold. My housemate 20 years ago did all > of his banking with Anthony Hargis and his gold banking. I didn't > know it still existed. This is interesting. > > 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/ > ******************************************************************** > "Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the > future of the human race." -- H. G. Wells > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 5 19:17:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505191731.35581.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > > (Mike Lorrey about why he doesn't subscribe to The Economist) > >I don't subscribe for the simple reason that under the Patriot Act > it > >is well nigh impossible for a United States Serf to keep a bank > >account, even an online one, without divulging a Socialist Slavery > >Number, thus, I don't bank, anymore, not until my next secret > project > >bears fruit. Even PayPal demands an SSN now. > The codice fiscale is even used (without the tourists needing to > know) to perform the accounting for tourists staying in hotels. Did > you ever wonder why the Italian hotel deskclerk asked you for your > passport? They are usually not so nosy (and in fact there are much > stronger privacy laws here than in the US), but it is for their > money management: to extract a birthdate/birth country so that > their accounting software can generate the codice fiscale and then > calculate a tax for your room. Ouch, they invent an SSN for non-resident aliens? That is even worse than here... though somewhat like when getting a ticket in another state, that state will invent a state drivers license number for you (rather than using your DL# for your real license) without even asking you to enter into that contract. > I haven't started to be concerned > about it (yet) because the databases are not connected (yet), and > the public servants I've met are generally squeamish about > technology and computers. Even though most of my transactions are > with cash, my banks have full information about me, and it is > impossible for me to perform my job (travel especially), without my > credit card. For me this is sad, especially, since I worked very > hard to remove credit cards from my life (I don't have debt with > the exception of the long cycle of paying my work travel and > getting reimbursed). International data transfer is happening already through the tax agencies. The intel agencies are piggybacking on these tax data transfers. > > >That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com). > >Coding, writing, graphic design, swimsuit modelling, you name it. > > Is this Anthony Hargis' work? If so, it's been years since I met > someone living/working for gold. My housemate 20 years ago did all > of his banking with Anthony Hargis and his gold banking. I didn't > know it still existed. This is interesting. This is run by globally noted gold expert James Turk and his son Geoff Turk. Anthony L Hargis & Company is something else which is under permanent injunction against operating as a warehouse bank purporting to offer its customers full protection against the IRS.. GoldMoney.com is based on the Isle of Jersey, and as part of the rump Duchy of Normandy, Jersey is not subject to any MLATs with the US or its allied banking countries. Jersey is independent from England, depite its head of state being Queen Lizzie (who is only Duke of Normandy when in Jersey). Hargis was based in the US in San Clemente, CA, US Federal Zone 92672 and was thus subject to seizure and thuggery without appeal to an independent judiciary. Hargis seems to have been more like NORFED, Bernard Von NotHaus' "Liberty Dollar" silver warehouse, though NotHaus doesn't make any attempts to avoid or pretend to avoid the IRS. If Hargis had based his operation on, say, SeaLand, he might have gotten somewhere. I cannot further discuss this issue publicly. Those who wish to learn more about what I'm up to wrt this please email me privately. This has nothing to do with legality, but with proprietary considerations. Those interested in breaching the last barrier to entry for digital metal-backed currency should email me. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From hal at finney.org Thu May 5 19:26:20 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Serial music and transhumanist art forms Message-ID: <20050505192620.73C0657EE6@finney.org> Jef Allbright forwards: > primeradiant wrote: > > By 'serial' I meant, of course, 12-tone music, hence Schoenberg, > > Berg Webern, Stravinsky (middle period, e.g. /Abraham and Isaac/), the > > post-war Europeans including Boulez, Berio, Dallapiccola, Lutoslawski, > > Schaffer, Xenakis, earlier Stockhausen, the American School including > > of course Milton Babbitt, Wuorinen, Lewin etc. I'm not familiar with this musical style. From what I understand it arranges the 12 musical notes in a particular order as the basis of the musical composition. But I will mention an interesting variant I ran into a few years ago on a programming project. It was for a computerized home exercise program; we had an animated figure acting out the exercises and the voice of Jack LaLanne shouting encouragement. The musical composer was a creative guy who loved to push the envelope on the music synthesis software we had designed, and I interfaced with him to get his music into a form that we could create using the primitive computer technology of the time (early 1980s). For one of the songs, he wanted to do something unusual with the musical notes. Instead of the conventional musical scale which has 12 notes, he wanted to use an 18 note scale. This scale goes C, C sharp, D flat, D, D sharp, E flat, E, E sharp/F flat, F, and so on. Unlike in the 12 note scale, C sharp and D flat are different; and there is an extra note between E and F and between B and C. This makes 18 equally spaced notes. Interestingly, this causes the frequencies of all of the notes of the conventional scale (C, D, E...) to be about the same as in the 12 note scale. It was just as easy for us to synthesize these 18 notes as the regular 12 ones, so he wrote some music using the 18 note scale. And it sounded great! Not quite like regular music, but not too far off either. Just different enough that you could tell something unusual was going on, but for an untrained musical ear it was hard to say what it was. Hal From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 5 19:26:29 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505192629.89942.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > This is consistent with the concept of a conservative force. The > force > results from a change in the potential energy of the system. In a > conventional parallel-plates Casimir force test, the ZPE is lower in > the region between the plates, and so moving the plates together is > energetically favorable. This is what produces the force. No it isn't. Just because and end result is energetically favorable does not automatically, in and of itself, cause it to happen. Consider a boulder on top of a hill. If its path is not blocked, it will roll down the hill because that would be energetically favorable to gravity. Now consider a boulder a meter or so away from a cliff. Its path is otherwise not blocked, and it would be energetically favorable if the boulder fell off the cliff. And yet it refuses to jump sideways a meter or so to allow that fall to happen. Likewise here: to see what happens, you have to consider the vectors of force, not merely the potentials. > In fact, despite your attempt at geometric arrangement, the pressure > on the outer ring will be entirely central (directed towards the > center > of the ring). The same thing would happen if you considered the ZPE > as > gas pressure. Imagine having high pressure gas outside the system > and > low pressure gas in the cavity (white region). Despite the > asymmetrical > shape of the cavity, the pressure on the ring will be perpendicular > to it. > The gas pressure will not act to rotate the outer ring. This analogy fails too. Gas particles are more or less uniform in size, and usually far smaller than any cavity or pressure vessel they act upon. However, the virtual particles that cause the Casimir effect are of wavelengths that are significant fractions (or more) of the width of the gap they act upon. There are only so many ways the longer wavelength ones can fit inside - and they all lean in the same direction with respect to the perpendicular. > I would not be afraid of some equations if you want to offer them. That, I will admit, has been a problem. Almost all of the analysis I've seen of the Casimir effect has been on the parallel plate model; there appears to be some disagreement on the magnitude of the effect in different geometries (like the one I'm using). So I'm not certain that, even if it works, it would produce significant power. (Microwatts per cubic centimeter, considering a vast array of these devices, might be too low density to be of practical use.) The proof so far is just that there's torque at all in one direction, and not in the other, ergo there's net torque in one direction. (It's possible that the torque would be less than what is needed to overcome friction, which would also cause the device to not work.) > I am also curious to know the qualifications of the academics who > have > endorsed your design, in broad terms - you don't have to name any > names > or embarrass anyone. Ph.D.s in physics or quantum physics at various universities. A few who have studied the Casimir effect in particular (say, for using it to store energy - a kind of nanoscale spring or capacitor). As it happens, my next session in the lab to work on the device is about to start, so I'll have to cut this email off here. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 5 19:29:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Chiefs and Indians In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505192956.48247.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:28 AM 5/5/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > >I like the motto of that guild club in Damien's "The White Abacus": > >"Every Sen a Chief, None An Indian". > > Well, yeah, but that was a parody on featherbedding unions and staff > who self-righteously ignore customers while painting their own > nails. :) True, but the point still stands: individual liberty erodes because serfs, once liberated, generally never learn to be sovereign, they retain serf mindsets, pass that on to their kin, and generally are more comfortable in the security that government provides than the liberty that being a free sovereign demands. Much like the lack of private charity that occurs in socialist countries vs the vast amount in free countries, serfs automatically assume that sovereigns are haughty and self-rigteous with each other because serfs are treated thusly, but the reverse is true: a sovereign knows that other sovereigns have ultima ratio regum, and thus politeness, cordiality, and eagerness to do each other service is the standard of behavior between sovereign equals. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 5 21:50:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 23:50:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050505153235.42845.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050505153235.42845.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050505215003.GS14219@leitl.org> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:32:35AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > (And then there's the nanostructuring on top of that, which is > apparently more needed than I thought. Maybe they're thinking there's > a good chance I'll take the skills I use on this project and develop > molecular manufacturing or something. *shrugs*) So you're going to tackle molecular manufacturing right after you're done with perpetuum mobile. Cool. Drop us a line when you're done. Kidding aside, have you considered functionalizing your MEMS/NEMS? You'd have to do wet chemistry for that, though, too. Right now I'm still betting on bucky, especially given indium electromigration pump/oscillator and scaled down direct writing (monomer/organic electronics; via dip-pen lithography). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Thu May 5 19:57:04 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:57:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Serial music and transhumanist art Message-ID: <20050505195418.M77188@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Hal Finney: >For one of the songs, he wanted to do something unusual >with the musical notes. Instead of the conventional >musical scale which has 12 notes, he wanted to use an 18 >note scale. This scale goes C, C sharp, D flat, D, D >sharp, E flat, E, E sharp/F flat, F, and so on. Unlike >in the 12 note scale, C sharp and D flat are different; >and there is an extra note between E and F and between B >and C. This makes 18 equally spaced notes. >Interestingly, this causes the frequencies of all of the >notes of the conventional scale (C, D, E...) to be about >the same as in the 12 note scale. He might enjoy a tuning in one of the maqamat scales: http://www.amara.com/thousand/Onethousandandone.html#maqam There are dozens (suiting one's mood), and impossible to memorize them all, and so the musicians usually play in a few of them. Is anyone here familiar with Uzbek music? I met someone in my travels two weeks ago who enjoys Middle Eastern music as much as I do. He said that his favorite Middle East music is Uzbek, so I'm trying to imagine what that might sound like, nor do I know who are the best musicians. so much music.. so little time.. :-) Amara From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 5 20:03:32 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:03:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <427A7C14.7030608@jefallbright.net> Jeff Medina wrote: >I keep coming across professors badmouthing evolutionary psychology as >a junk field. I've read some basics, mostly Cosmides and/or Tooby, but >fail to see why it has become such a popular whipping boy. > > > >Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge >of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to >think EP is crap? > > Jeff - I think a large part of this results from a movement that gathered momentum in the humanities departments of many universities during the middle decades of the last century in large part as a reaction to acts committed in the early twentieth century and justified in the name of science, e.g. eugenics, the holocaust. They strongly bought into the premise that the human mind is a "blank slate" and all significant behavioral characteristics are learned from the social environment. This is overly simplified, of course, but the timing and societal background were conducive to this kind of thinking with the rise of science and industry and the effects of two world wars quite fresh in the popular mind. Developments in anthropology such as Margaret Mead's _Coming of Age in Samoa_, although methodologically flawed, also played to the idea of a "noble savage" untainted by modern culture, and much later, the hippie movement and the Vietnam war deepened these roots within academia. It has only been during the last 10 to 15 years, I estimate, that developments in cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are now making an impact with their explanatory power, with the accompanying backlash from those who based their entire academic reputation on those strongly felt and righteous beliefs. - Jef From John-C-Wright at sff.net Thu May 5 20:40:42 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:40:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral objectivism: answers to objections Message-ID: <200505052040.j45KenR15182@tick.javien.com> Jeff Medina offers a counter to certain of my assertions, which, I think, in all fairness, I should answer to the degree that my poor powers allow. Let me respond seriatim: Q: Given that others consider your 'axiom' is not absolute or objective, what then? A: My question is whether or not these others have serious as opposed to frivolous reasons for rejecting the axiom as objective. The axiom in question is that moral standards are uniform. There are several ways of phrasing this axiom: ?Do As You Would Be Done By? is merely one way of phrasing it. The several other ways of phrasing it you yourself list later in your letter, quoting Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Vayasa, and so on. Even Peter Singer (whom you mention later) adheres to axiom, for he reasons that pain is evil, and that no one enjoys or should enjoy pain, therefore no one should inflict pain. An axiom is the beginning point of deduction, not the conclusion. Those who do not or will not make any statement of right or wrong, ought or ought not, need not provide the axiomatic base for those statements; but, by that same logic, they cannot make any normative statement. I submit that this axiom of uniformity is one which is (if only tacitly) is accepted by all men. You can see it in their behavior even when you do not hear it in their speech. Now, I do not claim that there are folk who can deny, with their lips, this axiom or its equivalent. Men can deny anything they wish, whether they are serious or not, merely by stringing meaningless words in a row. But such a row of words cannot serve as a system of moral law. My point here is that one cannot erect a rational account of morality without adopting such an axiom. Axioms are accepted or reject based on induction rather than deduction. In order to convince you that this axiom is correct, my task is to point to a number of cases which you accept, and to urge you to see the property they all have in common: the general rule. There are two specific cases given by you in this letter where you rely on this axiom without acknowledging it. The first case it this: in writing this letter, you seem to be assuming that I ought to behave in a certain way in responding, that is to say, honestly and honorably, treating your arguments with respect. Indeed, in your closing paragraph in the letter you ask just that of me. You insult me and ask that I forgive your insult and instead address your questions on their merits. Why should I honor your wishes? Is there a moral standard that should govern my behavior, even in so simple a thing as writing a letter? If there is a moral standard, are we both bound by it, you and I, or is it just me? If you say one moral standard embraces the both of us, you accept the axiom of uniformity. Once Mr. Prisco has announced his disinterest in moral reasoning, he may retire from the debate. But after that point, he cannot, without self-contradiction, say that anyone else ?should? or ?ought? to do likewise; nor can he warn us of the bad consequences should we not, because such statements would themselves be species of moral reasoning, that is, normative statements rather than statements of mere empirical fact. Q: Giulio was quite right, and your failure to provide a justification in terms of -absolute or objective- morality is further evidence of his point. A: I notice that the justification I give in my first letter (explaining that this axiom of uniformity is universal, in that moral reasoning is not possible without it) is neither quoted nor addressed. Q: Demanding that your personal moral beliefs be acknowledged as absolute does not make them so, John. A: Beg pardon? Where have I made any such demand? My argument was that if you accept the axiom ?do as you?d be done by? the conclusion ?don?t push grandma under the bus? follows from the premise ?I?d rather not be pushed under a bus when I get old.? The two possibilities here are: take the axiom or do not. Mr. Prisco does not. He stated that such moral reasoning was impossible (and uninteresting). I suppose he is correct, sort of. If you reject the axiom of moral reasoning, moral reasoning is in fact impossible. This is exactly what a moral relativist does: he throws away the key and complains that the door is locked. Had he said this and no more, I would not have controverted him. My objection to him was that he embraced a contradiction, by saying we none of us ?ought to? have moral convictions, because convictions lead to atrocity, and atrocity is morally wrong. (His argument is overbroad: all need say is that, as a moral principle, men should not resort to violence when reasonable arbitration on an issue is possible.) Let me make this clear: your objection is that my argument rests on an axiom. Any deductive proof rests on its axioms. No axiom justifies itself. Therefore my argument, if the axiom be not granted, is not justified. Well, if your objection were valid, it would apply not merely to my specific case of moral reason, but to all reasoning whatsoever, including, by the way, the argument you use here in your rebuttal. I should also like you to lend some weight or present some evidence that ?Do As You?d Be Done By? is merely a ?personal moral belief.? I also happen to believe that the theory of relativity is a better description of the behavior of the physical universe than the Newtonian: does this mean I have a ?Personal Physics Belief?? Q: Thanks for letting us know you don't have a clue concerning the reasoning of modern intellectuals and socialists. It helps to see the context of your other statements. A: Since about the 1830?s intellectuals, particularly in Germany and France, have been enamored of notions of Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and other specific cases of sacrificing individual rights and freedoms in return for a general social good: one might call this the scientifically organized society. ?Scientific Socialism? was and is popular among intellectuals of the continent, and it follows the same type of reasoning as the Spartan on matters of how to organize society. Socialism is the correct term for any number of theories that would abrogate the right to private property and turn the means of production over to the state. You may take that or leave this comment as you will: it is entirely possible that you are familiar with the intellectual history of the West, and merely do not see the connection I see between ancient Sparta and its modern epigones. The point is hardly central to the discussion. An "intellectual" is generally the term I?d like to use for people who reason from theory rather than practical experience. It simply happens to be the case that impractical theories, but which have a specious self-consistency (such as socialism) hold out particular temptations to men who reason from theory alone; a temptation to which men of practical experience are less prone. Q: (quoting me) These reasons for doing in the useless old lady are each a species of utilitarianism, which holds that we should value other men only insofar as they can serve as means to our ends. (responding) Bentham, arguably the founder of utilitarianism, proposed his theory out of consideration for the interests of all beings capable of suffering?. This sort of consideration is the bedrock of utilitarianism (and more broadly, of consequentialism, of which utilitarian theories form but a subset), and it has not the cold flavor you attribute it. A: This is tangential to our topic: I will answer nonetheless. My reading of John Stewart Mill left me with a different impression. I was careful to say that the Spartan reasoning given above was a ?species? of utilitarianism. I did not say, as you attribute to me, that Bentham would push an old lady under a bus because she was past child-bearing years. However, the sacrifice of the individual to service the good of the community is an utilitarian idea. Mr. Prisco was giving an exaggerated or heartless example of such reasoning. Mr. Prisco?s example simply was not a case of a man choosing to help a smaller as opposed to a greater number of old ladies across the street. His example (which he correctly rejected as ?bullshit?) was that the type of reasoning where little old ladies are sacrificed to the greater good in the name of social or evolutionary necessity. Whether you chose the term ?utilitarian? or ?consequentialist? to describe the heartless type of reasoning used where the ends justify the means is of no matter to Mr. Prisco?s argument, nor mine. Q: Another classic source on utilitarianism, if you care to understand that which you denigrate at least at a basic level, is Singer's Practical Ethics, which you comment on later in your message (calling him an infanticide advocate, which he clearly isn't, if you read his work rather than the nutjob religionists who've slandered him in the press). You needn't go further than the first chapter to find Singer declare that ethics demands equal consideration of the interests of others -- they are explicitly not means to our own ends. A: This is irreverent to the topic. Also, I did not call Singer a Utilitarian, you did. He is a Epicurian, for he holds pleasure to be the ground of ethics. He is also (by the way) a moral objectivist: he believes that reason uncovers truths, not opinions, about how men ought behave. Despite that this is a side-issue, let me pause to assure you that I have read Singer?s Practical Ethics. He advocates that it is morally acceptable to kill a child under the age of three or so if it would serve the greater happiness of his parents, and if the killing is done swiftly and mercifully. I read it. I saw the words with my eye. I would hesitate to call any book a ?classic? that has not stood the test of time. Mr. Singer?s book is a little young and green for that, thank you. Q: Another smidgen of information on Singer's heart being in the wrong place; he donates a minimum of 20% of his earnings to charities each year. How much do you help the less fortunate each year, John? A: This is irrelevant as well as being ad Hominem. However, I owe you an explanation. I am a Christian. My master has ordered me in no uncertain terms not boast about my charitable giving. ?Do not let the right hand know what the left is doing? and all that. So I am prohibited by my personal moral beliefs from answering the question, lest I be numbered among the Pharisees who pray and do good works in public. Rest assured, however, that I am sincerely delighted Mr. Singer gives away so much to the poor. It is a good deed, whether or not he advocates cruel practices in other areas. But I do not see how the one excuses the other. Despite his charity to the poor, Mr. Singer is still a perfect antitype to Mr. Prisco. Mr. Singer certainly does not have a sentimental attachment to kindness of the type Mr. Prisco describes. Notice, for example, that Mr. Singer proposes abolishing domestication of cows on purely theoretical grounds, not because he has pets or feels sympathy for the Little Fuzzy Critters. He boasts of this lack of sympathy in his book; and specifically identifies his reasons as being theoretical. A typical intellectual, he ignores the practical outcome: animal populations would fall, not rise, were they not domesticated. Human populations in poor countries would also fall due to starvation if farmers released all their livestock. ( I must mention that Mr. Singer does not give away as much as he SAYS people should give away. He says we should all give away so much that only our basic means of subsistence is left.) Q: (Quoting) Axiom: Treat others as ends, never as means. Term One: Pushing the old lady under a bus to serve the social good is treating her as a means, not as an end. Term Two: Therefore I should not push the old lady under a bus. (Responding): We can keep your axiom and reverse the conclusion, exposing the axiom for the confusion it is. (Premise 1) Treat others as ends, never as means. (Premise 2) Allowing various members of society to suffer and die [ which I take to be a plausible result of not doing that which serves the social good, but other examples of social harms would suffice] to serve the good of the old lady is treating all of those members as means to an end. (Conclusion) I should not let those people suffer and die. A: Sorry, but your second premise is simply false. No one who helps an old lady across the street does so *for the purpose of* inflicting a harm on the social fabric by encouraging overpopulation. While I do not agree with Kant on most things, I think he has correctly identified a fundamental axiom of moral reasoning here, what he calls, in technical terms, a category: do not use men as means to your ends. Q: (quoting) A moral standard is not a standard unless it is a fixed standard, that is, the same for all men. (Responding) Just men, eh? What a fine moral outlook you have indeed. Please, speak on, fellow manly man! You're living in the wrong century for that sort of language, John. A: Thank you, and you may call me Mr. Wright. The century you claim as your own is a nice place to visit, but I would not care to stay. The native life is quaint and colorful, but your speech taboos of your local tribal idols confound me, and you are not as tolerant and civil as my century. The language of my century, the current century, is called English: a language both courteous and bold, precise and flexible, fair to the ear and fit for the tongue of free men. You cannot make a similar claim for the cant of political correctness, which is famed only for being craven, weaselish, gaseous, stereotyped, awkward, slavish. Your jargon is certainly not a hundred years old. Q: "... a fixed standard,that is, the same for all people." would be rather more appropriate. Or should we move in the other direction, and specify not just men, but straight white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men? A: I am the only one who finds this little diatribe slightly astonishing? I assume Mr. Medina cannot seriously be setting himself up to correct my manners, or improve my English. The crow will teach the nightingale to sing? I think not. His purpose is condemnation. In the midst of an argument defending moral nihilism, Mr. Medina interrupts to condemn a violation of the latest fashion in speech-codes as an absolute moral prohibition, zealously upheld. Mr. Medina, tell me, when you say something is ?appropriate? what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that there is a standard to which I should adhere? Is it a standard that is the same for you and me, or, in other words, a uniform standard? If it binds me and not you, why should I be loyal to this standard? This is the second example in your letter of your loyalty to an axiom of morality which you deny with your lips and show in your acts. Q: I'm quite glad that you recognize the argument fails on rejection of the axiom. A: This same holds true for all argumentation of the deductive type. Q: It's a pity you don't take the next step in recognizing that you haven't provided any objective or absolute reasons for us to agree with your version of axiomatic morality. A: Except that they must be self-evident, otherwise you yourself would not be calling upon such axioms in writing this letter to me, or when you ask me to conform my speech to your speech-code. You are assuming that moral standards are uniform between us: otherwise you would not bother writing as you have written. Q: (quoting) He has taken a stance of radical subjectivism: he calls a thing is good merely because he wants to do it. (responding) You're oversimplifying unacceptably. Your statement implies Giulio would call theft good if he wanted to do it?. A: No. I said that Mr. Prisco himself says his adoption of the value ?be kind? is arbitrary. This is not a simplification, and the deduction that follows from it is self-explanatory. Q: Giulio can correct me if I'm wrong and he actually does fit your caricature. But it remains that none of what he said requires the straw-man you've constructed to be accurate. A: You may re-read his letter to satisfy yourself as to what he said and what my deduction about the comment was. His stance is that ?be kind? is a personal preference which he has no interest in debating. If I have misunderstood Mr. Prisco?s comment, I welcome correction. Q: (quoting) But where did that culture come from? Where and when did the idea arise, absent in the ancient pagan world, that individual human life was sacred? (responding) So not only are you ignorant of moral philosophy, you're ignorant of pagan and other pre-Christian religions as well. That bit about "Do unto others"? Think that originated in Christianity or even Old Testament Judaism and then spread out to other religious and secular mindsets? Wrong, John. (quotes several sources, etc.) A: The comment is irrelevant. I said that the value of holding individual human life sacred was absent from ancient pagan cultures. You respond by saying that the axiom of moral uniformity, ?Do Unto Others? is universal. This value is not the same as this axiom. I will accept your testimony on this point that Confucius, Menciusm, Vyasa, Tathagatha, and Lao Tsu all agree with me that the basic axiom of morality, the Golden Rule, is self-evident. I am a little surprised, but very pleased, you call all these esteemed authorities to the witness stand on my behalf. I would not normally propose an argument from authority, but since you have proposed it, I cannot help but note that all the authorities on this point agree overwhelmingly with me. Not one of them proposes moral subjectivism. You are so eager to denigrate Christianity that you fail to note that this passage in your letters supports and affirms my main point of our debate. Your list will serve as evidence that the axiom is accepted by men of all eras and all lands. Now, show me where these same authorities agree that individual human life is sacred. Most of these great ancient thinkers, including others you have not mentioned, agree with Ananias that it is batter that one man should die for his people than that the whole nation should perish. As far as I know, the Christian and Mohammedan uniquely disagree with this sentiment, and say that to murder an innocent man is as grave a sin as to kill a world. Q: (given the example of German and Russian socialism) neither of these two positions are examples of moral relativism. Proponents in either case could consistently hold the views you attribute to them *and* also that their moral views are absolutely and objectively true. A: As far as I can tell, your statement is merely false to facts. Both the German and Russian socialist writers were polylogists, and explicitly said so. I cannot refute it any more than I can refute a man who says that noon is night. Readers may read the original sources and come to their own conclusions. Q: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism for definition A: Here is the quote to which this link leads: ?Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries.? I don?t see what point you are making. 1. Mr. Priscio did not use this definition. He did not say he prefers to help old ladies across the street because and only because his culture favored that value. He said he did it because he chose to do it, and he said that there was no point in discussing the whys and wherefores thereof. 2. Even granting this definition, my comment still stands: The National Socialists said that their logic and their morals, as Aryans, differed from the logic and morals of the Jews, a culture (folkway) alien to theirs. The Marxists said that logic and morals (and economics) were an ideological superstructure produced by the material effect of the means of production on the minds of the various classes in the economy, so that, proletarian logic and morals differed from the logic and morals of entrepreneurs and landowners. In both cases, the existence of absolute or universal moral truths was denied. 3. This definition, if accepted, would allow persons within the same culture to assess the morality of each other?s acts, and such assessment would be valid. Mr. Prisco?s formulation (which I identified as more radical than mere cultural relativism) is, however, individual. He said he does what he sees as right because it suits his taste: he embraces the value called kindness because such is his choice, and for no other reason. Q: See http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/05/whats_wrong_wit.html for some clarificational remarks made by someone trained in moral philosophy at one of the best programs in the world. A: Sorry, as best I can tell from following this link, these comments were written by a character in a Douglas Adam?s book. Only he is not as funny as Adams. Mr. Medina, if you object to the use of the term ?Moral Relativism? to describe Mr. Prisco?s position, you will have to take that up with him, not me. My objections are the same no matter what label you affix to this philosophy. It is the properties of the philosophy, not of the label, that concern me. Q: The Nazis believed in their absolute superiority; they didn't acknowledge or respect the distinct moral views of other cultures. A: Acknowledge, yes; respect, no. The Nazi belief was that a ?Will to Power? formed the basis of morality, and that Christianity was weak and foolish. Their basic argument was the same as Thrasymacus: that ?justice? was the will of the weak overcoming by trick the will of the strong. Now then, anyone who says morality is a matter of individual (or racial) will-power is not saying that the moral rules are objective and standard for all men. You introduce a novel concept here into the discussion. Erenow, you and I were using the phrase ?moral relativism? to refer to the doctrine that moral standards were not objective. Now you add the concept that ?moral relativism? refers to the doctrine that the moral standards of other cultures are worthy of respect. This is not quite the same thing. A pagan of the Nordic humor might disagree with my Christian conceits on many topics, and might want to burn my churches, but he hopes for Valhalla as I hope for heaven. My respect for such a ferocious and hardy philosophy is great. He and I both believe God hung on a tree, a sacrifice of himself to himself. I would much rather have the stalwart Viking at my back in a foxhole than a modern intellectual, who might run away if he decides that "courage" is not a value he choses to accept that day or hour or minute. I know at least that the honest Asatru will die with his weapon in his hand. So just take my word for it: I have great respect for men of other cultures. But I am in no wise a moral relativist. This respect for alien cultures is also not conspicuously displayed in your writing to me. I am from the culture of Christendom, English-speaking Western European tradition. I do not know where you are from, but if you are not from Christendom, your rules forbid you to condemn my speech or actions. Q: (quoting) The most famous moral movement during the Eighteenth Century was the world-wide abolition of slavery, which was done by Christians who thought it absolutely the case that God hated the institution of slavery. (responding) Except for the Scripture that speaks in favor of slavery, eh? (several quotes follow from antiabolitionists who held that Slavery was an institution favored by God). A: Irreverent. I did not write that the Anti-abolitionists were not Christians. What I wrote was that the Abolitionists were moral absolutists. They believed that they were the defenders of an absolute moral imperative, that it was wrong for man to enslave man. This was in response to Mr. Priscio?s comment that people believing themselves to be the defenders of an absolute truth *always *(emphasis his) leads to mass-murder. I was giving an example of a group who, without question, were not moral relativists, and who, without question, did a great moral good (perhaps the greatest in history) rather than commit an atrocity. In your eagerness to mock Christianity, you missed the point of the comment. Q: (quoting) Likewise, the great blooming of human liberty across the globe, the end of Monarchy, was spearheaded by men who wrote a document that begins: "We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident." (responding) Men like... the non-Christian Thomas Jefferson? A: Same again. Jefferson was not a moral relativist. He was a man who swore on the Altar of Almighty God eternal enmity to ever form of tyranny over the minds of men: this is not the language of men who lack conviction. He defended what he took to be an absolute truth. Refer to Tom Paine?s AGE OF REASON. The Deists were men of religion, but who relied on an argument from design to worship only so much of God as could be understood through natural reason, rejecting revelation and an instrument of priest-craft. A Deist is not an agnostic nor an atheist (thought Paine was falsely so called); and, more to the point, not a moral relativist. Q: Or John Adams. A: Same again. Adams was not a moral relativist. Q: Or James Madison. A: Same again. Madison was not a moral relativist. (And the context of this statement sounds like a rejection of Roman Catholic Clergy: In other words, that he was a Protestant, not an Agnostic.) Q: Yeah, they may have been moral objectivists. They needn't have been, though. A: (spitting coffee down his shirt front) cough, cough. Gasp. Um. Well, I suppose they could have been Eskimos too, if they had been living in the Arctic. Look, Mr. Medina, I don't mind you being rude to me, but I do mind you being silly. The Founding Fathers signed a document saying that it was a SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH that all men are created equal. They are exemplars of the Enlightenment, men of Reason first and foremost. You seriously misjudge the tenor and mood of their day and age if you can imagine that any of them would have heeded an argument saying that human reason was insufficient to distinguish good from bad, right from wrong, proper from improper. That was the whole point of the Enlightenment. To argue that they, these arch-rationalists of the age of reason, would accept this modern post-rational, post-moral, post-modern, post-Christian nihilism and intellectual defeatism is preposterous. Q: You can be a moral subjectivist and still assert what you think should be the foundations of a good nation. A: No. A moral relativist can only state that his personal tastes prefer one to the other. He cannot have a notion of a ?good? (morally good) nation. He perhaps can say that a certain law would be efficient for some certain purpose and not for others; or he can say an institution conforms or does not conform to ancient and established practices. He can report his own personal preferences in the matter. But he cannot say that one institution is ?better? or ?worse? than another, because such statements presuppose a normative standard against which the judgment is made. Men do not vow their lives, fortune and sacred honor on the position that ?you have your opinion and I have mine.? Men only make such vows when (1) they believe vows carry moral weight and (2) they believe they have honor and (3) their honor is sacred. These three propositions are logically incompatible with moral relativism. Q: You can agree with your contemporaries on various moral matters without declaring said morality a universal truth . A: Agree with your contemporaries----on what grounds? Q: If any of what you said were true, I'd be just as up-in-arms about it. But it isn't. So, just as you hope to be pardoned for your tone, I hope you'll pardon me as well and engage the ideas (however impolitely I've presented them) rather than dismiss them because of my umbrage at what I see as misguided piety, ignorance, and fundamentalist propaganda. A: I forgive you, Mr. Medina. From hal at finney.org Thu May 5 22:29:13 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project Message-ID: <20050505222913.1500C57EE7@finney.org> Adrian Tymes writes: > Consider a boulder on top of a hill. If its path is not blocked, it > will roll down the hill because that would be energetically favorable > to gravity. > > Now consider a boulder a meter or so away from a cliff. Its path is > otherwise not blocked, and it would be energetically favorable if the > boulder fell off the cliff. And yet it refuses to jump sideways a > meter or so to allow that fall to happen. The actual equation is force F is proportional to dE/dx, where E is potential energy and x is a positional parameter. In the case of the boulder near the cliff, x could measure the distance along a path from the boulder, to the cliff's edge, and then down to the ground. Potential energy E is constant along that portion of the path where we are approaching the cliff's edge. Then as we turn and move down the path to the ground, E decreases steadily. This translates to dE/dx being zero until we reach the edge of the cliff, then a constant downward. That means there is no force along the portion of the path leading to the cliff, and a net downwards force once we go over the edge, exactly as observed. In the case of your system, the positional parameter is the rotational position of the outer ring. But the ring is perfectly circularly symmetric, so rotating the ring will not change the potential energy E of the system. That means that E is a constant, so dE/dx is zero, so the force is zero. Therefore there is no rotational force on the ring. Hal From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 6 00:26:44 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 20:26:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <003201c55191$dca86b60$aff14d0c@MyComputer> References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050505201850.0350bec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:43 PM 05/05/05 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >"Marc Geddes" snip >Let's briefly review your reasoning chain: > >Meaning comes from minds, subjectivity comes from minds, "meaning" has a >meaning and it also comes from minds, "importance" has a meaning and it >comes from minds, "good" has a meaning and it comes from minds, "evil" has a >meaning and it comes from minds; therefore you conclude ethics is objective. >Huh? Let's consider this. Mind is what brain's do. Brains are the product of evolution. Evolution is rooted in objective reality. So eventually mind concepts like good, evil, ethics and morality are dependent on objective reality. There are reasons rooted in what is good for *genes* as to what minds--running on brains constructed by evolution--think is good, evil, moral and ethical. We tend to think and to do things that improve our inclusive fitness, or more correctly, we do thing in the modern world that had we done analogous things in the world in which we evolved would have increased our inclusive fitness. This includes a lot of things that don't improve our inclusive fitness much if at all in the modern world. Like posting on mailing lists. :-) Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 6 00:52:04 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 20:52:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050505203105.0350d280@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:44 PM 05/05/05 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >I am making a moral judgement indeed, and one in which I believe quite >strongly, but I am not claiming any objective status for it. >Of course I appreciate that this moral judgement is a product of my >life-history including the culture I was raised in, but so what? - I >am still willing to defend it. It is even more a statement of the evolutionary history of your genes. >Now if by "objective morality" we mean a shorthand for something like >"the ensemble of moral statements on which the vast majority of sane >individuals raised in civilized societies would probably agree", I can >use the term without problems (even if we would have to define much >more precisely the terms "sane" and "civilized"). >But please let's not mix morality with (meta)physics. Morality has >just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and >logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really >fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science. If you think biology/evolution is part of the whole objective universe, then willy nilly so are the products of minds running on brains constructed by evolution. >Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4" and "Thou Shalt >Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so fundamentally >different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying to >mix them. >G. They are not as different as you might think. For one thing, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was understood to mean don't kill the people in your village who you are either related to or engaging in reciprocal acts with. The same bible describes in detail killing all of some other set of tribes including the children (except they virgin girls). Book of Numbers, from The holy Bible, King James version Chapter 31 7: They warred against Mid'ian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and slew every male. 8: They slew the kings of Mid'ian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Mid'ian; and they also slew Balaam the son of Be'or with the sword. 9: And the people of Israel took captive the women of Mid'ian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. 10: All their cities in the places where they dwelt, and all their encampments, they burned with fire, 11: and took all the spoil and all the booty, both of man and of beast. 12: Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, and to Elea'zar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. 13: Moses, and Elea'zar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went forth to meet them outside the camp. 14: And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15: Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? 16: Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. 17: Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18: But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Both "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him" are consistent with the interest of genes. Our extending "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to those outside our little tribe is a side effect of a long time of plenty caused by technology advancing the economy, particularly the food supply, faster than population growth--or so I think. If you find this analysis depressing, you are not alone. Keith Henson From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 6 01:01:31 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506010131.15147.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > So you're going to tackle molecular manufacturing right after you're > done > with perpetuum mobile. Cool. Drop us a line when you're done. If only things were that easy. ^_^; > Kidding aside, have you considered functionalizing your MEMS/NEMS? > You'd have > to do wet chemistry for that, though, too. Define "functionalizing". I'm just aiming for a discrete unit, interacting with the outside world only by providing a (near) constant voltage differential between two areas on its surface, built by traditional top-down approaches. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 6 01:20:37 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506012037.15150.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > In the case of your system, the positional parameter is the > rotational > position of the outer ring. But the ring is perfectly circularly > symmetric, so rotating the ring will not change the potential energy > E of the system. That means that E is a constant, so dE/dx is zero, > so the force is zero. Therefore there is no rotational force on the > ring. Only if there are no discontinuities in the system, and discontinuities are impossible in most systems. But they seem to exist here, and that's the point of the system. Break it down: over the parts of the system where the ring is exposed to the post, E varies from one end of the part to the other (and in the same direction with respect to rotation, i.e. always clockwise or always counterclockwise depending on how you count it); over the parts where the ring is not exposed, E is constant. There are no other parts of the system as far as the ring is concerned. E jumps significantly (the discontinuity) when transitioning from one part of the system to another. I'm aware that I may have overlooked some specific point on the system which will provide negative torque to the ring. Rejecting whole-system analyses and focussing just on part of a system that produces energy is a classic failure mode for other would-be perpetual motion arguments. But I've checked for those, and I don't see any. It might be useful to think of this experiment as verifying whether the Casimir effect is indeed a conservative force, like gravity, or is a source of energy that needs certain mechanisms to tap, like radiation from the Sun. (Chlorophyll and solar cells are not the simplest of systems, and a bug that skitters towards the brightest light source but can not fly would be stuck motionless on perfectly level ground at noon since all reachable points nearby would be equally bright.) Previous efforts to tap it have indicated the former, but our current understanding of its nature indicates the latter. From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 6 01:19:49 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 21:19:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050505205526.03515020@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:10 PM 05/05/05 -0400, you wrote: >I keep coming across professors badmouthing evolutionary psychology as >a junk field. I've read some basics, mostly Cosmides and/or Tooby, but >fail to see why it has become such a popular whipping boy. > >A review of a new book arguing against EP is here: >http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/files/wall_street_journal_review.pdf > >Anti-EPers are saying this is more solid evidence that EP is junk. > >I've read the review, and all I can see it arguing against are >*specific* claims made in the context of EP and some data... based on >new data or a more sound approach to data gathering. Claims like an EP >explanation of stepfathers beating their stepchildren more frequently >than biological fathers beating their children. > >If I do some crap data-gathering while trying to deduce physical laws, >that only allows a rebuttal of a particular data-based claim (say, if >I alleged c = 3.14m/s based on crappy data analysis); it doesn't >warrant calling Physics junk science. > >Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge >of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to >think EP is crap? You will find that most of them are social "science" people and EP pretty much junks their entire life work, and all the theories back to the beginning of time for their fields. EP does integrate psychology and related subjects seamlessly into the rest of human knowledge where currently the social sciences are this floating blob with no underpinnings. The rest of science is really one piece where the divisions between chemistry and physics are more historical than an actual discontinuity. Tooby and Cosmides go into detail. You can read it here: http://www.tyronepow.com/misc/TheAdaptedMind.htm I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced theories in geology. But it will take the present generation of social "science" professors dying off to do it. Keith Henson From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 6 04:08:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 21:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506040855.8393.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > Our extending "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to those outside our little tribe > is a side effect of a long time of plenty caused by technology > advancing the economy, particularly the food supply, faster than > population growth--or so I think. Except the original Hebrew said "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Hebrew law recognised several classes of homocide, only one of which was prohibited by the Commandment described above. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 6 04:15:03 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 05:15:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral objectivism: answers to objections In-Reply-To: <200505052040.j45KenR15182@tick.javien.com> References: <200505052040.j45KenR15182@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0505052115748f47e2@mail.gmail.com> On 5/5/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: (much eloquently phrased wisdom, of which I quote just one paragraph) > A pagan of the Nordic humor might disagree with my Christian conceits on many > topics, and might want to burn my churches, but he hopes for Valhalla as I hope > for heaven. My respect for such a ferocious and hardy philosophy is great. He > and I both believe God hung on a tree, a sacrifice of himself to himself. I > would much rather have the stalwart Viking at my back in a foxhole than a modern > intellectual, who might run away if he decides that "courage" is not a value he > choses to accept that day or hour or minute. I know at least that the honest > Asatru will die with his weapon in his hand. So just take my word for it: I have > great respect for men of other cultures. But I am in no wise a moral relativist. Well put, sir! - Russell (An agnostic but not a moral relativist.) From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 6 04:22:56 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 21:22:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil In-Reply-To: <20050505152800.54041.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505060422.j464MpR05180@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil > > > --- spike wrote: > > > > > >... since when did you become a prole? I would consider you ... > > > > Once born a prole, always a prole, even if life's > > circumstances are kind to one, as they have been > > to me. > > ... For both liberty and equality to exist, every person must be a king, not a > prole. Reclaim your individual sovereignty, hold it tightly, greedily. > Do not lightly lend it out to bureaucrat or contractor. I hear ya, but actually I am quite proud to be a prole. Animals and proles are free, according to one of my favorite authors. I use the term loosely: a prole is anyone who must work for a living. Nowthen, Mike, you are one who surely has read Orwell, so you know that proles are those who are outside the government's inner and outer circles. So you and I fit that definition, as well as probably everyone reading this. A prole is not a slave, but the non-proles were slaves in a sense. > At least one US census I stated I was a native American. Speaking of > which, I've been hearing more about this Pembina Band of N-A indians > that Prof. Ward Churchill was a 'member' of... Ah yes, the infamous Ward Churchill. He is so outrageous he must be part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, perhaps cooked up by Carl Rove. Churchill established himself as an extreme left wing demigod, then became so obnoxious as to discredit everything he espoused. By equating the *victims* of the 9-11 attacks with Nazis, he caused the left wing to flee in all directions, in complete disarray and panic. Could the Rovester have invented a more perfect trojan horse? > > ... public restrooms > > have always had individual stalls that have a > > sort of a lock on the door. There is plenty of > > room aboard every train I ever see for individual > > stalls. > > But that wouldn't give any thug the opportunity to assault any other > passenger... The subway people *really* must deal with the thug issue. Especially as the world population ages and grows ever less confident in its collective ability to effectively fight off attackers, those individual lockable compartments on trains would sell like hotcakes. They could charge four times as much per seat, and it would be a bargain. Think of the appeal of having an hour's ride in completely relaxed solitude. A compartment could have a reclining chair, a LazyBoy or equivalent, so one could sleep, listen to tunes or read. The trains could also offer several compartments big enough for two, so that young couples could have some privacy to get to know each other, perhaps some friendly copulation. Twelve step programs or special interest groups could form and meet in private compartments made for such things. Then they too could copulate. The Love Train! > Subways, however, tend to be far more packed during > rush-hour, at least in cities like NY and Boston. > > Mike Lorrey Well right, but that is because there aren't nearly enough of them. You have seen the way the rides go at Disneyland. My notion is that trains could be arranged similarly, so that a train leaves for some remote suburb every few minutes, constantly. Market forces could sustain all of this with no government subsidies, if trains and subways were made to appeal to the proletarian masses by providing security and privacy. spike From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Fri May 6 05:37:30 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 17:37:30 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. Message-ID: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >There is a problem here. The indeterminate fate of >the universe cannot be simply analyzed. That is to >say no sentient mind below godlike intelligence >could predict what impact its actions would have on >the survival time of the universe as a whole even >empirically. Not true! For instance Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory had the ultimate fate of the universe being physically indeterminate, but it was still the case that sentients could predict the effects of their actions on the universe. Tipler showed how sentients could co-ordinate their actions to increase the probability of the continued existence of the universe (in the sense of maintaining the possibility of an infinite number of computations prior to the end of 'real time'). >No. You could state it as "do not destroy the >universe" but stating it the way you do, leads to >conflicts with deduction (4). For example an AI might >decide that all those sentient minds running around >are dumping too much entropy into the universe and >hastening its demise. There is something problematic about the argument here yes. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Fri May 6 05:48:24 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 17:48:24 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. Message-ID: <20050506054824.13679.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Let's briefly review your reasoning chain: > >Meaning comes from minds, subjectivity comes from >minds, "meaning" has a >meaning and it also comes from minds, "importance" >has a meaning and it >comes from minds, "good" has a meaning and it comes >from minds, "evil" has a >meaning and it comes from minds; therefore you >conclude ethics is objective. >Huh? > >And I don't understand why you should even care, if >that cloud of hydrogen >gas has an opinion on what I should do next I'm not >very interested in what >it is, I'll follow my own counsel thank you very >much because subjectivity >is far more important that objectivity. > > John K Clark I think you're not using the terms 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' in the sense which I meant them. Of course *subjective experience* is of great importance. I said that. I said meaning comes from minds, which you agreed with. But by 'objective' I simply meant 'objective facts' ie. 'Conclusions derieved through the use of reason which all rational sentient observers could in principle agree with'. Re-read my argument. You should certainly care about what that hydrogen gas cloud is doing if the gas cloud is in a physical state which is reducing the probability of the continued existence of the universe. Remember... if the universe ends... all sentient life ends as well, including you. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From benboc at lineone.net Fri May 6 06:48:35 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 07:48:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <200505051800.j45I0CR30337@tick.javien.com> References: <200505051800.j45I0CR30337@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <427B1343.9010100@lineone.net> The Casimir force, as far as i understand (i'm no physicist, so this may be way off), is analogous to the force that pushes ships into harbour walls, with virtual particles being equivalent to the waves in the water. If this is a good analogy, wouldn't a proof of concept of Adrian's device be a macro-scale version, sitting in the sea (or a slightly smaller one in a bathtub, with a suitable wave generator)? If the concept is sound, and the analogy is sound, this might be a useful 'alternative energy' device even if for some reason a zero-point energy device can't work. (Maybe this could put to rest any doubts about it being a perpetual motion machine, too) ben From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 6 09:07:44 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:07:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050506010131.15147.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050506010131.15147.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050506090744.GP14219@leitl.org> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 06:01:31PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > So you're going to tackle molecular manufacturing right after you're > > done > > with perpetuum mobile. Cool. Drop us a line when you're done. > > If only things were that easy. ^_^; > > > Kidding aside, have you considered functionalizing your MEMS/NEMS? > > You'd have > > to do wet chemistry for that, though, too. > > Define "functionalizing". I'm just aiming for a discrete unit, Chemical functionalising, attaching functional groups to the surface of your discrete MEMS/NEMS part. By bringing such differently functionalized parts into proximity of your reaction site (e.g. by shuttling them on a plane surface) you'd do chemistry by numeric control (mechanosynthesis). Both silicon and CNTs are easy to functionalize. > interacting with the outside world only by providing a (near) constant > voltage differential between two areas on its surface, built by > traditional top-down approaches. While direct writing as a pure top-down technique scales from macro to nano, you can also combine top-down and bottom-up (such as functionalizing ~nm parts). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 6 11:19:46 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:19:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050506111946.GG1433@leitl.org> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:37:30PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote: > Not true! For instance Frank Tipler's Omega Point > theory had the ultimate fate of the universe being > physically indeterminate, but it was still the case > that sentients could predict the effects of their > actions on the universe. Tipler showed how sentients Unfortunately, the Omega Point theory is wrong. So all his points are moot. We're all stuck with measurement, measurement error, model building, co-evolutionary Red Queen runaway, and undecidability (basically, straight Goedel), computation limited by energy and realtime requirements. Provability, formal reasoning; all this is a good recipe for the trash can of the history as far as behaviour algorithms are concerned. > could co-ordinate their actions to increase the > probability of the continued existence of the universe > (in the sense of maintaining the possibility of an > infinite number of computations prior to the end of > 'real time'). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Fri May 6 09:44:22 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Ethics] In defense of moral standards In-Reply-To: <427A6E58.2070500@jefallbright.net> References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com> <427A6E58.2070500@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <470a3c5205050602447038ab8@mail.gmail.com> Well, I can evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of the moral values I hold dear by trying to relate them to, and possibly derive them from, basic values that I choose to hold as fundamental. In my case, and I believe also for many others on this list, fundamental values are related to those of classical humanism, e.g. that actual human beings are more important than abstract ideas, and to those which we are slowly and painfully trying to develop in transhumanist communities, e.g. I try to define "human" in terms of thoughts and feelings rather than genome. As you see, not only I am not against morality, but also my moral values are probably quite similar to yours. I only object to trying to mix morality with unproven and maybe unprovable metaphisical concepts. Examples: most religions try to derive morality from the teachings of one or another god. But what happens then to morality when sciences forces us to conclude that there are no real basis for believing in that god? Do we stop following morality? I hope not, and therefore think that morality should be based on something more solid than metaphysics. Deriving morality from fundamental science and logic? Sorry Marc I can see that you are trying hard, but to me the idea itself is pure nonsense in logic and scientific terms. Of course I may be wrong and you are always welcome to try persuading me, but you have not persuaded me so far. I still think "ought" and "is" belong to different realms that do not overlap. So, I join moral relativists in trying to base morality on social consensus achieved through a painful and erratic trial and error process. G. On 5/5/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > >Morality has just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and > >logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really > >fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science. > > > > > Giulio - > > Then how can you possibly evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of > the moral values you hold dear? > > Do you also consider yourself to operate outside the physical realm? > > I've been reading and trying to give your words the benefit of the > doubt, but this is so blatant I just have to ask whether you really mean > what you seem to be saying. > > - Jef > > From pgptag at gmail.com Fri May 6 10:00:09 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:00:09 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050506053730.10185.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205050603003011f6d9@mail.gmail.com> I would wish to live in a universe which terminates in an omega point, and can see how you could perhaps derive correct moral behaviours assuming an omega point scenario. But unfortunately wishing something does not make it actual, and as Eugen says available scientific evidence points against Tipler. Of course this may change with new experiments and observations. But this is precisely one of the points that I am trying to make. Morality is *IMPORTANT* to us human beings, so we should really base it on something solid that is not invalidated when experiment shows that the mass of the hchsgahcgion is 5% higher that previous estimates. So, I join moral relativists in trying to base morality on social consensus achieved through a painful and erratic trial and error process. This does not have the pristine simplicity and beauty of 2=2=4, but is the best we can do. On 5/6/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > Not true! For instance Frank Tipler's Omega Point > theory had the ultimate fate of the universe being > physically indeterminate, but it was still the case > that sentients could predict the effects of their > actions on the universe. Tipler showed how sentients > could co-ordinate their actions to increase the > probability of the continued existence of the universe > (in the sense of maintaining the possibility of an > infinite number of computations prior to the end of > 'real time'). From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 6 14:10:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 07:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506141049.93517.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > The Casimir force, as far as i understand (i'm no physicist, so this > may > be way off), is analogous to the force that pushes ships into harbour > walls, with virtual particles being equivalent to the waves in the > water. > > If this is a good analogy, wouldn't a proof of concept of Adrian's > device be a macro-scale version, sitting in the sea (or a slightly > smaller one in a bathtub, with a suitable wave generator)? If the > concept is sound, and the analogy is sound, this might be a useful > 'alternative energy' device even if for some reason a zero-point > energy device can't work. Wave energy extraction devices have been shown to work in many different ways. The Casimir Force, while being analogous to ocean waves pushing vessels together, is not ocean waves, ergo making a machine work with ocean waves does not necessarily make a machine that works with the real Casimir Force. The essential key with this device is that the vanes act like turbine blades, or perhaps more accurately, like a quantum Pelton Wheel, being canted as they are to the axis. We know that Pelton Wheels work just dandy in hydropower apps. > > (Maybe this could put to rest any doubts about it being a perpetual > motion machine, too) > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 6 14:45:00 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 07:45:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Ethics] In defense of moral standards In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205050602447038ab8@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050505150750.69844.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470a3c520505051144844a2e9@mail.gmail.com> <427A6E58.2070500@jefallbright.net> <470a3c5205050602447038ab8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <427B82EC.9080400@jefallbright.net> Giulio: Morality has just nothing to do with the Big Bang, the laws of mathematics and logic, the laws of physics, or anything that I can consider really fundamental in the universe as it is presently understood by science. Jef: Then how can you possibly evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of the moral values you hold dear? Do you also consider yourself to operate outside the physical realm? I've been reading and trying to give your words the benefit of the doubt, but this is so blatant I just have to ask whether you really mean what you seem to be saying. Giulio: Well, I can evaluate, judge, compare, communicate any of the moral values I hold dear by trying to relate them to, and possibly derive them from, basic values that I choose to hold as fundamental. ---------------------- Giulio - Your responses indicate that you do, in fact consider logic and mathematics to have something to do with morality and although you didn't respond directly, I think it's safe to assume you do see yourself as being in a world described by physics. I see from your posts to this group and others that you seem to be a kind and sensitive person, most interested in "human values" rather than "cold and hard", scientific facts and theories. I don't think it would be effective to debate this further, but I would suggest that with time you may find ways to integrate what you seem to see as two completely separate realms of thought. - Jef From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 6 14:54:32 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506145432.94897.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > The Casimir force, as far as i understand (i'm no physicist, so this > may > be way off), is analogous to the force that pushes ships into harbour > walls, with virtual particles being equivalent to the waves in the > water. > > If this is a good analogy, wouldn't a proof of concept of Adrian's > device be a macro-scale version, sitting in the sea (or a slightly > smaller one in a bathtub, with a suitable wave generator)? If the > concept is sound, and the analogy is sound, this might be a useful > 'alternative energy' device even if for some reason a zero-point > energy > device can't work. Unfortunately, whether or not it worked, people could then argue about whether the analogy was sufficiently good that its working or not working would be a proof or disproof. So it wouldn't suffice to prove or disprove the nanoscale device, at least nearly as well as the nanoscale device itself. That said, there definitely have been devices that tap waves for energy, albeit in different configurations. Such devices provide a (small) portion of the world's electricity today, so they definitely are useful "alternative energy" devices. But if you want to look up ocean power systems, try looking up OTEC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTEC ) - which relies on nothing more than natural convection currents, and can in theory last as long as the Earth and the Sun do in their current states. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 6 15:15:11 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050506090744.GP14219@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050506151511.83254.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 06:01:31PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Kidding aside, have you considered functionalizing your > MEMS/NEMS? > > > You'd have > > > to do wet chemistry for that, though, too. > > > > Define "functionalizing". I'm just aiming for a discrete unit, > > Chemical functionalising, attaching functional groups to the surface > of your > discrete MEMS/NEMS part. By bringing such differently functionalized > parts into > proximity of your reaction site (e.g. by shuttling them on a plane > surface) > you'd do chemistry by numeric control (mechanosynthesis). No, I hadn't considered that. While this particular unit would be no good for that (if it works, it will just spin without manual control; if it doesn't work, it will just sit there), I can see how the techniques I'm doing would be applicable...although, at the scales I'm building at, I'd wind up with chemistry in batches of hundreds of atoms (and possibly not complete mixing, either) instead of doing things one atom at a time. Although...as part of the support for this experiment, to help make it observable (actually seeing things, like whether a ring rotates, at that scale is difficult to say the least - SEMs are not as easy to use as optical microscopes), I came up with a system of gears that would in turn rotate a part large enough to be seen optically (at 1000x or so, near the limits of optical microscopy). I think I see how I could use said gears, if actively and selectively driven, to shuttle around pegs on a board, where each peg would have a functionalized surface. (At one edge of the board would be mechanisms for scraping off the surface of the pegs and re-functionalizing them.) If you had two of these boards, face to face, at controllable separations, you could possibly do something like mechanosynthesis. (You'd need the control the board separation in all three dimensions, so that you could have a peg on one board tap a peg on another board on top or on the sides.) Hmm...sorry if that doesn't make much sense. And I can see a few problems with it already (like, depositing new chemicals that you want to interact on only the desired regions of a peg, once you start seriously building up...although if you could remove unreacted material but not reacted material after the reaction, that wouldn't be as much of a problem). > > interacting with the outside world only by providing a (near) > constant > > voltage differential between two areas on its surface, built by > > traditional top-down approaches. > > While direct writing as a pure top-down technique scales from macro > to nano, > you can also combine top-down and bottom-up (such as functionalizing > ~nm parts). This is true. Arguably, I am using at least one bottom-up step, to deposit metal into holes that have previously been formed. However, the steps that control the actual shape of the device are all top-down. From jonkc at att.net Fri May 6 17:02:29 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:02:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics.UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050505201850.0350bec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <02da01c5525d$6d663c60$39ee4d0c@MyComputer> "Keith Henson" Wrote: > mind concepts like good, evil, ethics and morality are > dependent on objective reality. If that were true you would expect a general consensus on what is good and evil, but any two minds seem to have three opinions on morality. And if that were true you would expect there would be consequences for being wrong, that is, for being evil; however monsters who torture people every day have lived long happy lives and died in their bed. > There are reasons rooted in what is good for *genes* Genes have there view of morality and I have mine. Genes think the most evil thing in the universe was the invention of contraception. I disagree. John K Clark From hal at finney.org Fri May 6 17:39:01 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project Message-ID: <20050506173901.4095157EE6@finney.org> Adrian Tymes writes: > Only if there are no discontinuities in the system, and discontinuities > are impossible in most systems. But they seem to exist here, and > that's the point of the system. There are no discontinuities in nature. All of your materials are made of atoms which have a finite size. There are no infinitely sharp points where force drops instantaneously from 1 to 0. (Note that I disagree that your design would produce any rotary force at all, but I am trying to point out some flaws in your own model.) > It might be useful to think of this experiment as verifying whether the > Casimir effect is indeed a conservative force, like gravity, or is a > source of energy that needs certain mechanisms to tap, like radiation > from the Sun. (Chlorophyll and solar cells are not the simplest of > systems, and a bug that skitters towards the brightest light source but > can not fly would be stuck motionless on perfectly level ground at noon > since all reachable points nearby would be equally bright.) Previous > efforts to tap it have indicated the former, but our current > understanding of its nature indicates the latter. I don't understand where you get the claim that Casimir is a non- conservative force. My understanding is exactly the opposite. Can you provide a reference, or a derivation, which argues that Casimir force is non-conservative? Hal From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com Fri May 6 18:23:38 2005 From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:23:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE03964D8B@amazemail2.amazeent.com> spike (and others) wrote: >>> ... public restrooms >>> have always had individual stalls that have a >>> sort of a lock on the door. There is plenty of >>> room aboard every train I ever see for individual >>> stalls. >> >> But that wouldn't give any thug the opportunity to assault any other >> passenger... > > The subway people *really* must deal with the thug > issue. Especially as the world population ages > and grows ever less confident in its collective ability > to effectively fight off attackers, those individual > lockable compartments on trains would sell like > hotcakes. They could charge four times as much > per seat, and it would be a bargain. > > Think of the appeal of having an hour's ride in > completely relaxed solitude. A compartment could > have a reclining chair, a LazyBoy or equivalent, > so one could sleep, listen to tunes or read. The > trains could also offer several compartments big enough > for two, so that young couples could have some privacy > to get to know each other, perhaps some friendly > copulation. Twelve step programs or special > interest groups could form and meet in private > compartments made for such things. Then they too > could copulate. The Love Train! The problem I see with this is lack of accountability. On regular public transportation there is continous monitoring from all of the other passengers and we still have massive problems with crime and vandalism. Private compartments could conceivably reduce crime by isolating victims from criminals, but there would be even more vandals because there would be even less monitoring. The common resource (compartments) would be insufficiently protected and would degenerate to a point where it was less useful than the existing trains. One solution might be to rent individual compartments on a per-run basis (for example, I might rent compartment 48C for the 8:45AM green train into town). This would add some accountability but reduces the flexibility immensely, as you would most likely have to ride in general admission if you missed your scheduled ride or if you needed to make an unscheduled trip. In addition, you would face similar problems to landlords, where those most likely to cause damage to their units are the least able to pay. You'd also have a problem similar to the public school system if this were a government program, where you wouldn't be able to deny access to anyone even if they had proven themselves to be undesirable riders. Another solution, but the one that would require big infrastructure changes, is to allow folks to drive their cars to and from the train station/garage and essentially use the subway as an underground ferry. The infrastructure would be hard to damage, people could still show off their ostentatious car purchases, and there would be a sense of ownership that keeps people from damaging their own property (and if they do, who cares?). One big disadvantage of this is you'll still be carting around three or four tons of steel per primate. One could charge by mass but then you'd be nearing the cost point where driving was preferable again. You'd also need lifts to move cars into and out of the subway. An intermediate solution would be privately owned capsules which are standardized sizes, lightweight (fiberglass or carbon fiber), and easy to mechanically shuttle around. Acy From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 6 18:44:59 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506184459.30610.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > There are no discontinuities in nature. All of your materials are > made > of atoms which have a finite size. There are no infinitely sharp > points > where force drops instantaneously from 1 to 0. (Note that I disagree > that your design would produce any rotary force at all, but I am > trying > to point out some flaws in your own model.) I didn't mean to suggest infinitely sharp points. But if there is counter torque concentrated in a space about the thickness of an atom or so, then I should probably find consistent fractures or bends in the material along that thickness where the counter torque tried to oppose the forward torque, right? Proving a new way to generate such concentrations of force might also be useful. > I don't understand where you get the claim that Casimir is a non- > conservative force. My understanding is exactly the opposite. Can > you > provide a reference, or a derivation, which argues that Casimir force > is non-conservative? The Casimir effect *between parallel metal plates, as almost everyone has investigated it* is conservative. (Most people assume that the Casimir force must always be conservative, because the one particular formulation everyone's heard of is conservative. That's analogous to living on a plain and assuming plants can never be as tall as adult human beings due to the physics of how a grass stalk supports itself, without ever knowing about trees and wood. By that analogy, I'd be going around trying to find a tree, or to find proof that no such thing existed. The mere fact that no one had ever seen one before would not, in itself, constitute proof, even if I would admit up front that there was a good chance I might not find one either - but that alone wouldn't be reason not to look.) As I have already shown, it is possible that the Casimir effect may become nonconservative in the particular geometry that I am investigating - and of course there are no references on that. If someone else had already investigated it, I could just read that research. Like I said, analysis of this will make for a good academic paper even if the theory does prove incorrect. (Investigating the Casimir effect on a particular geometry may seem a bit specific to be of interest to most, but most academic papers are about that specific if not moreso.) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 6 18:52:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506185204.14394.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Adrian Tymes writes: > > Only if there are no discontinuities in the system, and > discontinuities > > are impossible in most systems. But they seem to exist here, and > > that's the point of the system. > > There are no discontinuities in nature. Other than black hole event horizons, strings, entangled particles, and of course, death. > All of your materials are made of atoms which have a finite size. a finite probable size, no less, but also a possible infinite size. > There are no infinitely sharp points > where force drops instantaneously from 1 to 0. On the contrary, when you are dealing with fractions of wavelengths, force does drop of from 1 to 0. That is the point of quantum mechanics: reality is digital. If it doesn't drop off that way, then reality can't be digital, at least with respect to forces involved in this effect. > (Note that I disagree > that your design would produce any rotary force at all, but I am > trying to point out some flaws in your own model.) > > > It might be useful to think of this experiment as verifying whether > the > > Casimir effect is indeed a conservative force, like gravity, or is > a > > source of energy that needs certain mechanisms to tap, like > radiation > > from the Sun. (Chlorophyll and solar cells are not the simplest of > > systems, and a bug that skitters towards the brightest light source > but > > can not fly would be stuck motionless on perfectly level ground at > noon > > since all reachable points nearby would be equally bright.) > Previous > > efforts to tap it have indicated the former, but our current > > understanding of its nature indicates the latter. > > I don't understand where you get the claim that Casimir is a non- > conservative force. My understanding is exactly the opposite. Can > you > provide a reference, or a derivation, which argues that Casimir force > is non-conservative? Take two plates gapped by a very small amount and spaced that amount by struts. There is constant pressure being applied to both sides. Where is the energy needed to apply this constant force coming from? The pressure apparently exists against all matter, not just two plates with space between them, it is just that the space causes a sort of vacuum that allows a differential with the outside pressure. If it is somehow possible to bias this force to create asymmetric forces on either side, then you have a propulsion system. If you can make a device that uses such forces to spin, you have a motor. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri May 6 19:24:34 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:24:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: Debate on Peak Oil] Message-ID: <427BC472.6060609@mindspring.com> I used the same logic when I took a trip to Texas to see my son and his family. It was 2000 miles round trip, say my car averaged 25 miles to the gallon, so it took 80 gallons. If gas was 2.20 average, instead of 1.50, I have .70 cents a gallon times 80 gallons = $56.00. I don't like it, but I am not changing my plans for $56.00. Jay Cole John Ellis <> wrote: I've thought about this myself. I drive my 10 mpg pickup about 10,000 miles per year, which at 2.29 p/gal costs me 190.00 per month average. At 1.75 p/gal I was paying an average of 119.00 p/mo. This equates to gas costing me an average of 71.00 more dollars per/mo now than a year ago. Is that worth trading vehicles? I think not. Using the same math, I drive my 8 mpg motor home about 3000 miles each summer. I will pay about 200.00 more dollars this summer than I did last summer for gas. Is it worth getting rid of the motor home? I think not. John Ellis On 5/4/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > [Forwarding from the Extropians list, a British reply to rising gas > prices... -Terry] > > On 4/29/05, "Hal Finney" wrote:> > > Let's suppose that gas goes up to $5/gallon, and average distance > > travelled for personal vehicles drops from 20000 to 15000 miles per year. > > An SUV gets maybe 15 mpg, so that is 1000 gallons or $5000 per year. > > Now you want to sell that SUV and replace it with a hybrid getting > > 30 mpg and selling for $25000. You'll save $2500/year in gas costs. > > But the SUV is practically worthless in this environment and has little > > resale value. That means it's going to take ten years to pay off your > > investment in the new car, with your savings on gas. That's not a very > > attractive proposition. > > > > Of course, it's also possible that Peak Oilers are wrong, gas won't go > > up to $5/gallon and that all those people buying SUVs are not idiots. > > Ultimately, car purchasers are responding to the price signals they > > receive by looking at gas prices. This gets back to the point I have > > made before, that if the smart money thought oil was going to go through > > the roof in a few years, it would already be bid up. Oil would already be > > high in anticipation of future shortages; gas prices would already be high > > for the same reason; and people would already have stopped buying SUVs. > > > > It's the invisible hand at work. The fact that this is not happening, > > that people are still buying low mileage vehicles, is not evidence > > of irrationality. Rather it is direct, visible evidence that Peak Oil > > predictions of high oil prices are simply wrong. > > > > Hmmm. Well, here in the UK the current gas price is around 0.86 UKP per litre. > Now for the technical bit. > UKP = 1.89 USD, 1 US gallon = 3.785 litres > So the current UK gas price is about 0.86 x 3.785 x 1.89 = 6.152 USD per gallon. > > $5/gallon is cheap! Send it over here! > > Most of the gas price in the UK is tax, of course. But this price > level has made little difference to the public's love affair with the > automobile. It doesn't seem to matter what it costs or how many are > killed on the roads, we must have our cars. > > The price will have to go a lot higher before it will have much > effect. We have toll charges in some city centres, some bridges, some > roads, extortionate parking charges, speeding camera fines, parking > fines, innumerable traffic law infringement fines, insurance charges, > servicing and repair charges, depreciation, and so on. People will > complain, but they still pay up and keep their car. > > It will need a change of mindset (or a good alternative) before car use reduces. > > BillK -- "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.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 6 19:42:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics.UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506194233.36607.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > "Keith Henson" Wrote: > > There are reasons rooted in what is good for *genes* > > Genes have there view of morality and I have mine. Genes think the > most evil > thing in the universe was the invention of contraception. I disagree. > John, you can't have your cake and eat it. Just a bit ago you were arguing that interstellar gas can't think, now you are telling us that genes do think. The fact is that ANY amount of processing of information, whether it is a single quantum event or an AI, is to be classified, for purposes of this exercise, as 'thought'. I think that it is a fair maxim of universal, objective, morality, that if you count each flop as a vote in priority or preference, entities which think the most have greater priority for survival, self-preservation, and self-posession. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri May 6 19:48:08 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:48:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <427BC9F8.4010109@mindspring.com> Amara Graps wrote: >> Can't access this article. > > > There are seven oil articles in the special section on oil-related > topics. It's worth to buy the magazine for at least this (I have > a subscription.). If you don't subscribe, then I wonder why > not- the magazine is a superb source of information for many of > the topics to which we discuss at length here. > > Amara > > P.S. there is a nice overview of the new cold fusion result in > this issue too. I second Amara's recommendation. I too subscribe although the cost is somewhat steep. Perhaps I'll read these articles over the weekend. We completed electronics testing of the Stryker commander's vehicle yesterday. Terry -- "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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 6 20:46:57 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506204657.49645.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Unfortunately, whether or not it worked, people > could then argue about > whether the analogy was sufficiently good that its > working or not > working would be a proof or disproof. So it > wouldn't suffice to prove > or disprove the nanoscale device, at least nearly as > well as the > nanoscale device itself. True enough but at least the analogy clearly demonstrates that your device need not be a perpetual motion machine. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 6 20:53:44 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506205344.53345.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Hal: I think I've come up with a better way of phrasing the point. It was actually kind of in my original post... At any one moment, yes, there may be a finite amount of energy in the system. Some of the energy flows from the quantum fluctuations into mechanical energy of the ring. But the system is not in isolation: it is surrounded by empty space where the QFs have not been tapped...and it seems logical to suppose that their energy would diffuse into the QFs that have been tapped. Basically, this creates a well into which energy can flow - kind of like, in a gas pressure vessel, poking a hole and tapping the escaping gas. Except that the "vessel" is the entire universe. The universe may have a finite amount of energy; that would be the limit of how much this can tap, so it's not actually "perpetual" motion. Just very long lived. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 6 21:12:21 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506211221.44486.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Hal: I think I've come up with a better way of phrasing the point. > It was actually kind of in my original post... > > At any one moment, yes, there may be a finite amount of energy in the > system. Some of the energy flows from the quantum fluctuations into > mechanical energy of the ring. But the system is not in isolation:it > is surrounded by empty space where the QFs have not been tapped...and > it seems logical to suppose that their energy would diffuse into the > QFs that have been tapped. The key feature that is needed is that each gap vane needs to generate more Casimir pressure in one direction while not in the other. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html From megao at sasktel.net Fri May 6 21:25:34 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:25:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] State of the Total Information Awareness project Message-ID: <427BE0CE.3090907@sasktel.net> Just how close is the TIA project to being able to track all 360 million or so North Americans 24/7/364? If money is scannable at ATMs , then next might be scanning mechanisms integrated into cash registers. If Banks implement total tracking of transactions all that might slip by would be coins. If all card-related transaction data is TIA accessible then it is possible to track individuals quite well. Biometric ID would complete the picture and co-relate the individual to the deemed transaction owner. GPS linkage to POS and POTransactions and location of physical conveyances would then allow analysis of patterns of movement and make patterns more and more predictable. Things like individual home power consumption signatures could indicate volumes and strengths and pitches of device in and outputs. All that would then be missing would be an AI scaled to handle TIA data flow in real time. Crime as we know it would become predictable as TIA became more and more sophisticated and robust enough to hold 360,000,000 dynamic patterns in active memory 24/7/365. Is the cost of this worth the benefits. Compared to policing, enforcement and punishment costs society bears it might be economical. Compare the cost of preventing a murder with the costs of 40 years of confinement by a judicial system. The other cost would be social. If the system has firm protocals and individuals are prevented from any form of civil disobedience which might be required to implement a process of change how would this be built into an otherwise totally managed system? From riel at surriel.com Fri May 6 22:39:51 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 18:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: <20050504191928.8551.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050504191928.8551.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > That being said, I do work for GoldGrams (http://www.goldmoney.com). Yet another precious-metal-backed currency. What I don't understand is where the people behind these currencies make their money - and that directly impacts my impression of the long term viability of the currency ;) -- "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 rhanson at gmu.edu Fri May 6 23:51:33 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 19:51:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506194652.0318a238@mail.gmu.edu> At 09:19 PM 5/5/2005, Keith Henson wrote: >>Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge >>of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to >>think EP is crap? > >You will find that most of them are social "science" people and EP pretty >much junks their entire life work, and all the theories back to the >beginning of time for their fields. EP does integrate psychology and >related subjects seamlessly into the rest of human knowledge where >currently the social sciences are this floating blob with no underpinnings. >The rest of science is really one piece where the divisions between >chemistry and physics are more historical than an actual discontinuity. ... >I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace >virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced >theories in geology. >But it will take the present generation of social "science" professors >dying off to do it. I don't plan on dying off anytime soon, and as economics is a social science, I must be one of these professors you are talking about. I'm a big fan of evol pysch, and its expectation of functionality behind most behavior is close to a similar expectation of economists. Economics is already quickly moving to integrate EP insights as they come along. I see little chance of EP displacing economics, nor should it. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 6 23:54:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050506235416.31761.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > That being said, I do work for GoldGrams > (http://www.goldmoney.com). > > Yet another precious-metal-backed currency. What I don't > understand is where the people behind these currencies > make their money - and that directly impacts my impression > of the long term viability of the currency ;) It's pretty easy to figure out: Aggregate warehouse gold currency issuer purchases $1 million in gold at spot price plus, maybe 0.5%, in expectation of $1 million in total buys by individuals holding accounts at their warehouse. The smaller buyers, being smaller buyers, pay a premium of 1-3% above spot to purchase holdings in the warehouse. Holders are able to spend their gold for free, and the value of their holding floats with the spot price, so when they buy 3 oz. at $420/oz+3% on Friday, but spend 1 oz on Monday when spot prices have risen to $437, they find they earned their premium back already. Meanwhile the warehouse gives $437 on Monday for the redeemed ounce, but sells that ounce to another customer who is buying on Monday for spot plus 3%. GoldMoney.com has something like $50-80 million in holdings after only a few years of operation, and operating on the deposit side very slowly for those who want to remain unbanked and don't work with people who can do ACH transfers. Online spends are quick and painless. Spends in the real world are tiresome. Whoever makes keeping and spending metal holdings as easy as, say, a debit card, is going to make a mint..... ;) Metal money folks have done fine over the last several years. Bernard von Nothaus told me the other day that his days are generally between $20,000-80,000 in sales of coin and receipts at NORFED, with a total circulation of about $15 million. He has much larger margins, which is to be expected given he is actually coining lawful money, but there is a barrier to entry for people who think they ought to be able to buy coin at mass quantity boullion spot prices. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 7 01:10:06 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 21:10:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506194652.0318a238@mail.gmu.edu> References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050506203905.0352c820@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:51 PM 06/05/05 -0400, you wrote: >At 09:19 PM 5/5/2005, Keith Henson wrote: >>>Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge >>>of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to >>>think EP is crap? >> >>You will find that most of them are social "science" people and EP pretty >>much junks their entire life work, and all the theories back to the >>beginning of time for their fields. EP does integrate psychology and >>related subjects seamlessly into the rest of human knowledge where >>currently the social sciences are this floating blob with no underpinnings. >>The rest of science is really one piece where the divisions between >>chemistry and physics are more historical than an actual discontinuity. ... >>I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace >>virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced >>theories in geology. >>But it will take the present generation of social "science" professors >>dying off to do it. > >I don't plan on dying off anytime soon, and as economics is a social >science, I must be one of these professors you are talking about. I'm a >big fan of evol pysch, and its expectation of functionality behind most >behavior is close to a similar expectation of economists. Economics is >already quickly moving to integrate EP insights as they come along. I see >little chance of EP displacing economics, nor should it. Sorry, I didn't state that clearly. "I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace [the underpinnings of] virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced [foundation] theories in geology." It is not like sediment geology was dumped, but what drove places to sink and accumulate sediment is now understood in terms of plate tectonics. Biology can't really be understood without evolution. Social sciences make no sense without the lower level underpinnings of biology, including evolutionary psychology. Economics is based off biology. Economics is a factor for all life, even the most primitive, since they have to allocate resources to growth, reproduction, etc. Humans behave as if to maximize reward and minimize effort, but what is the agent benefiting and over what time frame? There are things human are *known* to do, for example punishing cheaters at considerable cost to themselves that don't make much sense until you understand that such psychological traits have been shaped by evolution. The reward for punishing cheaters, for example, was spread over your relatives who had copies of your genes, so even if punishing a cheater cost you dearly, the cost was made up by the benefits to copies of your genes in other band members. Another example why do humans exchange huge amounts of resources for addictive drugs? What is the mechanism? They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges who give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a judge. Why is this? The answers are obvious if not downright trivial given EP. EP puts the half of the foundation under economics that plain biology does not. Keith Henson PS, I bet you can think of a dozen professors who will never buy into the world view of EP. :-) From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 7 01:14:53 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 18:14:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of morality as opposed to self interest In-Reply-To: <200505041957.j44JvaR16011@tick.javien.com> References: <200505041957.j44JvaR16011@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4DFA7B84-6DFF-43EA-A5CE-41BD61F17CD9@mac.com> On May 4, 2005, at 12:57 PM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > Keith Henson says: "... minds, having been built by genes, are > biased in certain > very predictable ways. "Be nice to relatives more or less in > proportion to how > closely they are related." "Don't fight with strangers unless they > are > competing for the same short supply resources you need to feed > relatives." > > I admit to being puzzled here. Mr. Henson seemed to be talking > about the way men > act when mere natural prudence, but not morality, dictates their > actions. The > moral maxims of the world specifically denounce what Mr. Henson > here is claiming > is the universal (gene-based) moral maxims. Really? I don't see much of an effective denunciation of any such thing. Most seem to build on the natural conditioning by extending the set of others we consider ourselves related to. "All men are brothers" and such. This is by no means counter to evolved conditioning. You seem to want to disown evolution or denigrate its effects. I don't see why you might believe this is necessary. > For example, the Buddhist is urged > by the Enlightened One to renounce all aggression, not merely > aggression against > neighbors. The Stoic holds that all men, not merely one's > neighbors, are the > Sons of Zeus, and contain the Divine Fire that makes them > reasonable creatures. > Jesus ordered his disciples to turn the other cheek when struck; he > did not say > turn the other cheek when a Jew strikes you, but Romans and > Sammaritans are > outsiders: them, you should strike back. > Actually he said his message was only for the Jews in one part of scripture. I always found that disconcerting. > In trying to make the case for a biological and evolutionary cause > for morality, > one must be careful to identify what the moral thinkers of the ages > actually say. What various religions say and what people actually live by and can live by when it comes to ethics are quite different things. I don't agree that such pious idealisms are definitive of morality. > > If Mr. Henson is making that point that men often or usually ignore > the demands > of morality, and put their selfish desires, or the honor of their > community, > before the common good they may have with others and outsiders, > well, that is > surely true. Prudence often tempts men to look at their self- > interest in an > exaggerated fashion, and passion often tempts men to look at their > tribe and > nation with eyes blinded by love. > Surely you see this isn't exactly fair to what was said. - s > From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat May 7 01:52:38 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 21:52:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506214810.036c59b8@mail.gmu.edu> At 09:10 PM 5/6/2005, Keith Henson wrote: >>>I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace >>>virtually all of social science, kind of like plate tectonics displaced >>>theories in geology. >>>But it will take the present generation of social "science" professors >>>dying off to do it. >> >>I don't plan on dying off anytime soon, and as economics is a social >>science, I must be one of these professors you are talking about. ... I >>see little chance of EP displacing economics, nor should it. > >Sorry, I didn't state that clearly. > >"I predict that EP and related evolutionary understandings will displace >[the underpinnings of] virtually all of social science, kind of like plate >tectonics displaced [foundation] theories in geology." It is not like >sediment geology was dumped, but what drove places to sink and accumulate >sediment is now understood in terms of plate tectonics. If EP takes over psychology, then it will displace other psychology foundations of economics. But economics has many other foundations besides psychology. >... They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges who >give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a judge. Why is >this? The answers are obvious if not downright trivial given EP. What exactly status is and what people use to infer it and produce it remain big open questions, and have been for a long time, long before EP was popular. They remain so even within EP. These questions are far from trivial. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com Sat May 7 03:18:38 2005 From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 04:18:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <427C338E.6010203@dsl.pipex.com> Jeff Medina wrote: >Am I missing something here based on an insufficiently deep knowledge >of EP? Can anyone shed some light on why so many professors seem to >think EP is crap? > > I think EP looks like cognitive psychology with an evolutionary story tacked on to most people. That, plus the general lack of convincing results, abundance of over the top pronouncements, perceived political bias, and EPs enthusiasm for their own victim status seems to be a turn off. BM From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 7 05:23:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 22:23:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism) In-Reply-To: <42793884.80209@pobox.com> References: <200505041910.j44JA7R10835@tick.javien.com> <42793884.80209@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6C6B87D5-CF9A-449F-B4B4-17E41F05221B@mac.com> Hmm. My impression was that he said something somewhat similar about "objective morality" not " objective reality". The question seems to me about whether "is" implies "ought", whether objective reality gives rise to or supports objective morality. I don't think you were simply being terse in only referring to it as "objective reality". -s On May 4, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > >> Giu1io Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His >> standard is that >> we should have no standards. He makes two arguments: first, he >> reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary; >> second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of >> character and >> conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other >> words, argues >> that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that >> moral >> standards are bad. >> > > It was a tad worse than that. I believe Giulio also said that > believing in an external, objective reality leads to mass-murder > and atrocity. > > But as that is only Giulio's mere personal opinion, bearing no > relation to (smirk smirk) any actual "reality" (if indeed such a > concept is even coherent) we may safely ignore it. > > (Though that refutation does not actually follow. Giulio did not > assert that reality was not objective; he merely said that > entertaining the notion leads to homicide. This assertion has no > evidential bearing on whether reality is objective.) > > -- > 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 fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat May 7 05:56:58 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 22:56:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (Skeptic) Re: Flynn Effect Message-ID: <427C58AA.7020204@mindspring.com> Whatta load of bollocks. >Yet Flynn discovered the astonishing and still little-known fact >that intelligence scores have steadily increased for at least the >past 100 years. And it's a substantial gain; people who would have >been considered geniuses 100 years ago would be merely average today. Which explains the preponderance of da Vincis and Newtons clogging every street corner. This is particularly stunning work since the notion of IQ wasn't even established until the early 20th century, so any "data" about the intelligence of people before that is just a wild-ass guess. Not to mention that the whole notion of IQ is shaky at best. And you can't even legitimately compare the IQ scores of people from decades ago to today's scores, since they keep changing the tests. The famous battery of IQ tests administered to inductees in the Army at the start of WWI was ludicrously flawed, they required people to have knowledge of baseball, or asked the subject to draw something, but neglected to consider that some of the people taking the test had never even held a pencil. Dave Palmer ---------------------------- On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 09:19:29AM -0400, Greg Singer wrote: >> On 5/5/05, Dave Palmer wrote: > > >>> > And you can't even legitimately compare the IQ scores of people from >>> > decades ago to today's scores, since they keep changing the tests. >> >> >> >> I seem to recall that the scores on IQ tests are scaled so that if the >> test were administered to the entire population, the median score >> should be 100. Therefore, I don't even see how it's possible for >> average IQs to increase over time, since the IQ score is supposed to >> measure your intelligence relative to other people at this moment in >> time. >> >> - Greg > > See http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml, "Why must IQ tests be routinely restandardized?" Or http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html Flynn started his research because he noticed that the tests kept having to be restandardized to prevent scores from continually climbing upward. -- Jim Lippard -- "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.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Sat May 7 06:39:02 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 18:39:02 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. Message-ID: <20050507063902.30146.qmail@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >I would wish to live in a universe which terminates >in an omega point, >and can see how you could perhaps derive correct >moral behaviours >assuming an omega point scenario. >But unfortunately wishing something does not make it >actual, and as >Eugen says available scientific evidence points >against Tipler. Well, my argument does not require the Omega Point scenario as such (although the Omega Point scenario is currently my best guess). My argument only requires that the ultimate fate of the universe be indeterminate and could be changed though the actions we take. You agree that people (subjective experience) is of supreme important right? Well, if the universe ever ends, then all people in it will die and all subjective experience will end as well. Therefore it follows that we *ought* to take the actions required to keep the universe existing in the long run. And which actions these are is entirely a matter which could be determined through an empirical investigation of the state in which the universe currently *is* >Of course this may change with new experiments and >observations. >But this is precisely one of the points that I am >trying to make. >Morality is *IMPORTANT* to us human beings, so we >should really base >it on something solid that is not invalidated when >experiment shows >that the mass of the hchsgahcgion is 5% higher that >previous >estimates. I entirely agree that morality is important to us human beings, and should be based on something solid. But the alternative to basing morality on empirical data is to base it on 'social consensus', as you admit below. Do you really call social consensus 'solid'? I'd say its far more unreliable and changeable than empirical data! >So, I join moral relativists in trying to base >morality on social >consensus achieved through a painful and erratic >trial and error >process. This does not have the pristine simplicity >and beauty of >2=2=4, but is the best we can do. The trouble with basing morality on 'social consensus' is that this reduces morality to simple 'might makes right'. If there is no other standard of judgement outside 'social consensus' then obviously what the majority say must be taken as right. A very dubious position indeed... Still, there the debate must rest for now. As I said on wta-talk, the debate could rage on forever. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Sat May 7 07:30:30 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:30:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project References: <20050506211221.44486.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001801c552d6$a6447370$c3c51b97@administxl09yj> From: "Mike Lorrey" > The key feature that is needed is that each gap vane > needs to generate more Casimir pressure in one direction > while not in the other. But also constantly (and strong enough). It is - perhaps - easy to create a *temporary* asymmetry. ---- ---- ---- ---- fixed multi-plate < ---- ---- ---- ---- sliding multi-plate (You can also imagine round multiplates, one fixed and the other spinning). Due to the "lateral" Casimir force, the sliding multi-plate moves to the left, because the plates of the sliding multi-plate and of the fixed multi-plate tend to overlap. During the process the sum of field energy and mechanical energy is (supposed to be) constant. ---- ---- ---- ---- fixed multi-plate ---- ---- ---- ---- sliding multi-plate But when you get the configuration here above, how to create a new asymmetry? From benboc at lineone.net Sat May 7 09:36:17 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 10:36:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract, too silly, too confused. I'd like to ask the moral philosophers on this list some questions, and hopefully clear up just what is meant by 'moral relativism'. Here's a hypothetical situation in which decisions need to be made, that will be guided by moral considerations: Frank and Sue are relatively poor westerners. Frank is Sue's stepfather. Sue is 14. She has just discovered she is pregnant. She is reasonably intelligent, and could to to college and have a chance to improve her life. But a baby would make that impossible. Frank is not the father of her baby. What should Sue decide to do? What should Frank decide to advise her (assume that they have a good relationship, and she would listen to his advice)? My understanding of things is that a moral absolutist might say "abortion is wrong, period. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it's just wrong. I've been told this and i believe it, and it applies to everybody under all circumstances. Sue should have the baby, Frank should advise her to have it, regardless of what this leads to." A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or abort the baby depends upon the circumstances. These include, but are not limited to, Her attitude towards abortion, her future prospects with or without a baby at her age, her social and financial circumstances, etc. Frank should weigh factors such as the importance to him of the happiness of his stepdaughter, the fact that the baby is not genetically related to him, the impact of a baby on his family, his estimation of her ability to make a responsible decision in the matter, etc. These things cannot be decided by applying a single, rigid rule, because different things are more important to different people, and circumstances change." That is what 'moral relativism' versus 'moral absolutism' means to me. Nothing to do with objective reality, or with 'truth'. Just about what rules people decide to apply to their behaviour under different circumstances. So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists and moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide? (Note: I am equating 'objectivism' with 'absolutism' here. My impression is that the new pope's issue is with relative moral rules as against absolute ones, and i think that using the word 'objective' just confuses the matter.) ben From eugen at leitl.org Sat May 7 11:43:23 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 13:43:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050507063902.30146.qmail@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050507063902.30146.qmail@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050507114323.GO1433@leitl.org> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 06:39:02PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote: > My argument only requires that the ultimate fate of > the universe be indeterminate and could be changed > though the actions we take. According to our current knowledge, there's nothing indeterminate in the fate of the universe http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101fate.html and, also according to our current knowledge, there's nothing we can do about it -- on global scale, that is. > You agree that people (subjective experience) is of > supreme important right? Well, if the universe ever > ends, then all people in it will die and all > subjective experience will end as well. Which would kinda suck. > Therefore it follows that we *ought* to take the > actions required to keep the universe existing in the > long run. And which actions these are is entirely a For the sake of the argument, what if there's something I can do in the local neighbourhood which will greatly prolong the local life but will screw the rest of them cosmic commons (by, say, increasing the dark energy pressure elsewhere)? Generally, what if your ethics interferes with your economic interests? (Nothing new in that, obviously: we're all soaking in it). > matter which could be determined through an empirical > investigation of the state in which the universe > currently *is* Very easy cause of action: immediately start populating our own lightcone, restructuring matter in the wake to maximize the amount of computation extractable until global inflation rate will make communication impossible even on very small assemblies. All very ethical; unfortunately this will prevent emergence of new life and will require translating existing life (if we're going to bother, they're all so dumb) into an emulation system indistinguishable from how universe otherwise would have evolved. (Notice that this would run contrary to evolutionary behaviour, which would completely populate the substrate, and crank at maximum rate possible). I'm not even being advocatus diaboli in this one, you know. > I entirely agree that morality is important to us > human beings, and should be based on something solid. > But the alternative to basing morality on empirical > data is to base it on 'social consensus', as you admit > below. Do you really call social consensus 'solid'? > I'd say its far more unreliable and changeable than > empirical data! The social consensus are evolutionary algorithms, modulated with chance and faulty models (based on empirical data). This is as empirical as it gets; what you do with it will depend on the amount of crunch you can spend on your data. > The trouble with basing morality on 'social consensus' > is that this reduces morality to simple 'might makes > right'. If there is no other standard of judgement This isn't true even for most primitive organisms (where cooperation is very widespread) -- and entirely untrue for social organisms, especially the human primate. > outside 'social consensus' then obviously what the > majority say must be taken as right. A very dubious > position indeed... > > Still, there the debate must rest for now. As I said > on wta-talk, the debate could rage on forever. So you're effectively agreeing you can't extract global-scale (spatially and temporally) behaviour algorithms valid for all and sundry critters from measurements (empirical data) on reality. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 7 14:21:19 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 10:21:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics.UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <02da01c5525d$6d663c60$39ee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <20050505060851.67102.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20050505201850.0350bec0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050507082304.03526440@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:02 PM 06/05/05 -0400, you wrote: >"Keith Henson" Wrote: > >>mind concepts like good, evil, ethics and morality are >>dependent on objective reality. > >If that were true you would expect a general consensus on what is good and >evil, but any two minds seem to have three opinions on morality. And those opinions are subject to wild swings depending on environmental/ecological/memetic circumstances. Exactly what you would expect from gene based theory. >And if that >were true you would expect there would be consequences for being wrong, that >is, for being evil; however monsters who torture people every day have lived >long happy lives and died in their bed. True of course. But evolution makes the claim that every physical and psychological trait all living things have is either a direct or indirect result of evolution. Since torturing monsters not only exist but are relatively common, you need to ask what is the evolutionary basis for this behavior? (I would call it vile behavior, but that characterization might get in the way of understanding the basis for it.) We do understand how rape probably has a genetic basis *and* why it is rare. Rape is a high risk/high reward optional reproductive mode from the gene's viewpoint. It occurs at low frequency presumably because the reproductive advantage of this mode falls rapidly as it becomes more common. I.e., the ESS, evolutionary stable strategy, for rape as a reproductive mode in a population stabilizes at a low percentage of the population. Any higher and this parasitic reproductive mode would not pay off. (The provisioning pair bonded males of the rape victims were the genetic victims if they supported children resulting from rape.) Incidentally before anyone jumps down my throat over such statements, to the extent rape behavior has a basis in genes I would favor editing them out. Of course with abortion for rape pregnancies (a good idea!) this will happen eventually anyway. >>There are reasons rooted in what is good for *genes* > >Genes have there view of morality and I have mine. Genes think the most evil >thing in the universe was the invention of contraception. I disagree. If you think about it, that's not entirely true. Genes *invented* contraception. Ovulation is suppressed in humans and our closest relatives by lactation, same as ovulation is suppressed by birth control pills. Ovulation suppression is certainly an evolved feature. Genes are "concerned" about getting into later generations.* For very high K factor animals who have to split their energy between bearing and caring, the optimal number of babies is not the highest number possible. Too many kids and *none* of them are likely to survive. The number of kids that make sense to genes is variable as well. Good times where you can move into new territory and have plenty to eat should set the number higher. Bad times, a couple might be lucky to raise one. Of course most of this evolution occurred in hunter gatherer bands and tribes, an environment that for better or worse most of our ancestors left behind a long time ago. We are so far out of the envelope of our hunter gatherer ancestors that prediction based on them is not always accurate. For example, the well known trait of women above a certain economic level to strongly curtail births (if they are not prevented from doing so) is not something you would expect from our evolutionary background. As EO Wilson says we are just incredibly lucky. Keith Henson * Of course genes are not "concerned" at all. But the effect of evolution--genes that are good a getting into the next generation become more common over time--has the same end result as if genes were agents with purpose. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat May 7 14:56:00 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 07:56:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> Message-ID: <427CD700.1070501@jefallbright.net> ben wrote: > These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract, > too silly, too confused. > Yes, but we hope they lead to greater understanding. Thank you for posing the question, which at the lowest level may appear to be a simple question of "right" and "wrong", while at the level of popular discourse it may appear paradoxical as people ask themselves how they can possibly decide which is morally correct, and at a higher level it may be seen that the framing of the question is what limits our comprehension of these issues. > So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists and > moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide? > Since I am neither a moral relativist nor absolutist, I'll withhold further comment for now. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From jonkc at att.net Sat May 7 15:55:45 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 11:55:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objectiveethics.UniversalVolition and 'Ought' from 'is'. References: <20050506194233.36607.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000c01c5531d$6b2a79f0$25f04d0c@MyComputer> "Mike Lorrey" > John, you can't have your cake and eat it. Just a bit ago you were > arguing that interstellar gas can't think, now you are telling us that > genes do think. Don't be silly Mike. Do you honestly think I believe genes can think? Do you honestly believe when Einstein said God does not play dice he wanted to inform people that God did not like the game played with cubes of ivory with black dots on their sides? Granted the Extropian list may not be the best place to look for poetic license but holy cow people! John K Clark From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 7 16:13:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050507161319.69833.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > The key feature that is needed is that each gap vane > > needs to generate more Casimir pressure in one direction > > while not in the other. > > But also constantly (and strong enough). It is - perhaps - > easy to create a *temporary* asymmetry. > > ---- ---- ---- ---- fixed multi-plate > < ---- ---- ---- ---- sliding multi-plate > > (You can also imagine round multiplates, one fixed and > the other spinning). > > Due to the "lateral" Casimir force, the sliding multi-plate > moves to the left, because the plates of the sliding multi-plate > and of the fixed multi-plate tend to overlap. During the > process the sum of field energy and mechanical energy is > (supposed to be) constant. > > ---- ---- ---- ---- fixed multi-plate > ---- ---- ---- ---- sliding multi-plate > > But when you get the configuration here above, how > to create a new asymmetry? Try using a field effect. As Casimir Force is an electric force, some sort of asymmetric electric field should do the trick. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 7 16:23:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050507162349.20296.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jef Allbright wrote: > ben wrote: > > > These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract, > > > too silly, too confused. > > > Yes, but we hope they lead to greater understanding. Thank you for > posing the question, which at the lowest level may appear to be a > simple > question of "right" and "wrong", while at the level of popular > discourse > it may appear paradoxical as people ask themselves how they can > possibly > decide which is morally correct, and at a higher level it may be seen > > that the framing of the question is what limits our comprehension of > these issues. > > > So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists > and > > moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide? > > > Since I am neither a moral relativist nor absolutist, I'll withhold > further comment for now. As a moral objectivist, I say the solution is clearly that Sue should have the kid, and that Uncle Frank should adopt it and raise it while Sue goes off to college. If Frank thinks life is so important, then he needs to put his money where his mouth is. Choice "C" always works. > > - Jef > http://www.jefallbright.net > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 7 16:33:52 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 12:33:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050506214810.036c59b8@mail.gmu.edu> References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050507102732.02fe9a00@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:52 PM 06/05/05 -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: >At 09:10 PM 5/6/2005, Keith Henson wrote: snip >>... They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges >>who give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a >>judge. Why is this? The answers are obvious if not downright trivial >>given EP. > >What exactly status is and what people use to infer it and produce it >remain big open questions, and have been for a long time, long before EP >was popular. They remain so even within EP. These questions are far from >trivial. Hmm. As you know, I came very late to the party and by an exceedingly strange non-academic route. It never occurred to me that there would be controversy about what status is (at least in hunter gatherer tribes and chimpanzee groups) or why (after applying EP) people and chimps would seek it. My inspiration happened at Howard Davidson's Pensfa party in the spring of 1996 when a woman told me her time in the scientology cult was "the peak experience of her life." (The tone and body language reminded me of a drug addict I had known two decades previous.) My eureka moment was late that fall at Romano Machado's Extropian party while talking to Kennita Watson about this incomprehensible experience at the Pensfa party. It eventually dawned on us that EP could account for cult behavior. I posted shortly after that connecting drugs, cults, and evolved brain reward circuits. (And crediting our mutual friend Kennita.) "Of all the things which have been measured in such representative ancestral environments as we have, social standing or status is the most predictive of reproductive success. This is true for both sexes, though the potential rewards for high status were--and still are--higher for males. High status males had multiple wives or additional mating opportunities in the ancestral environment (and for that matter, still do). High status females, from what we can see in chimpanzees and humans, have no more offspring than low status ones, but their children are more likely to survive. (In bad times, much more likely to survive.) "It follows that humans would have evolved to be exquisitely sensitive to changes in status, which (no surprise) is the observed situation. Activities which lead to feelings of increasing status are highly rewarding: that is, they cause the release of chemicals which induce highly pleasurable states in the brain. This reward system is fundamental to human motivation, and in the ancestral environment it worked to enhance reproductive success most of the time. It makes sense for hunters who brought in the first meat the tribe has seen in six weeks to get a lot of attention (a mark of status) from the other tribe members and to experience rewarding feelings about what they had done as a (real) increase in social status. Of course, people tend to repeat behavior which led to flooding their brains with pleasurable chemicals. In our hunter example, more hunting leads to more protein for the hunter's mate(s) and children which in turn leads to improved reproductive success--and thus to another generation of status-seeking hunters who are rewarded individually with brain chemicals and in the evolutionary sense by more children. There are two causal loops involved here. The short term one acts over hours to years, and the long term one over generations. The long term loop sets up susceptibility to the short term loop. "In short, an action (such as hunting) leads to attention (an indicator of status) which in the short term releases rewarding brain chemicals and in the long term improves reproductive success. " http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.memetics/msg/a29591fc23120afd?dmode=source&hl=en Years later this was expanded into the Human Nature Review article here: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html which has hundreds of links to it and has been downloaded upwards of 200k times. (Not an indicator of how many time it was *read* of course. :-) ) I am not aware of a refutation of the points made in this article. But perhaps there are. The net is a big place not to mention academia. Once expressed in EP terms status sure seemed obvious to me. Best wishes, Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 7 16:47:15 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:47:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] holy cow people, batman! In-Reply-To: <000c01c5531d$6b2a79f0$25f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200505071649.j47GnWR18786@tick.javien.com> > ... Granted the Extropian list may not be the best > place to look for poetic license but holy cow people! > > John K Clark Thanks, John, my thoughts exactly. Do you know any holy cow people? I need to consult with them if so, and they really don't even need to be holy, just so long as they are cow people. My parents recently purchased a cattle ranch. I have learned some new terminology which must be mastered, for I elicited gales of derisive laughter by commenting on 70 heads of cattle. I was told that the plural of head is head. So I countered that I really meant that this ranch supports 280 hoof of cattle, or if they prefer, 140 kidney of cattle. These explanations failed to make clear my intention. Perhaps holy cow people are not good with mental arithmetic. Another such puzzler is the term "cow puncher". Would not the SPCA object to punching the cattle? I know the definition of "cowboy", having seen them strumming guitars and singing on TV, but it is not clear why the gender of the cow-human must be specified in this context, holy or otherwise. And what if this cow-human received a tech upgrade of his or her mind or body? Would he or she be a cow-transhuman? Or a trans-cowhuman? I know from viewing Bonanza there is such a thing as a cow poke, altho I am reluctant to inquire regarding the actual job description of such a profession. Hoss Cartwright was a cow poke, but the producers of the show drew the curtain of mercy upon further elaboration. In any case, I have concluded that cattle are painfully boring lifeforms. Having learned from which end the moo emerges, I soon began to suspect that this moo is apparently the only verbiage of which these beasts are capable. Horses appear to utter at least three comments: "nay", "whinny" and that b-b-b-b-b flappy lips thing that horses do. It seems cows could work out a more effective system of communications, such as long and short moos. If, for instance, a cow were in distress, she could comment: moo moo moo MOOO MOOO MOOO moo moo moo. Perhaps we could call it moorse code or something. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 7 16:55:50 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:55:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050507102732.02fe9a00@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200505071657.j47GvtR20893@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > ... I posted shortly > after that connecting drugs, cults, and evolved brain reward > circuits. (And crediting our mutual friend Kennita.)... For those who are acquainted with Kennita Watson, I am happy to report that she is doing well. She was at a party at my house a few weeks ago, walking unassisted. Other than minor balance issues, she appears to be winning the battle against MS. {8-] spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat May 7 17:13:07 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 10:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050507161319.69833.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050507171307.11280.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- scerir wrote: > > But when you get the configuration here above, how > > to create a new asymmetry? You don't. Part of the point of this system is to create a system where, even when the parts move, the asymmetry remains. > Try using a field effect. As Casimir Force is an electric force, some > sort of asymmetric electric field should do the trick. My impression is that the CF is not fundamentally electric. And "asymmetric field", while perhaps technically true in this case, is woefully misleading: it suggests the far more commonly thought of type of asymmetric field that doesn't and can't exist in nature. From pgptag at gmail.com Sat May 7 17:25:38 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 19:25:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <20050507162349.20296.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050507162349.20296.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520505071025726d5720@mail.gmail.com> Very simple answer: Sue should have the baby if she wants to have the baby, she should not have the baby if she doesn't want to have the baby. And this is precisely the advice Frank should give her. He should also, of course, offer to help her evaluate different options in view of his greater experience of things. Well, I don't really care whether this answer reveals a moral relativist or objectivist stance. From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 7 17:40:29 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 12:40:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050504211304.22079.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050504211304.22079.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507123734.02cc7f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Again, at this point it looks like the only real way to see what will > > happen is to actually build it and observe. I've lost track of how > > much time I spent going over the theoretical problems, but in the > > end, science is about actual experiments. > >Not on this list, it's about giving flippant and self assured excuses >for doing nothing and why whoever is doing something is wasting their >time and list bandwidth. Mike are you accusing the extropy-chat this list of being flippant? Are you claiming that people on this list do nothing? Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat May 7 17:53:53 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 13:53:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507134717.02e3a1c8@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:33 PM 5/7/2005, Keith Henson wrote: >>>... They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges >>>who give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a >>>judge. Why is this? The answers are obvious if not downright trivial >>>given EP. >> >>What exactly status is and what people use to infer it and produce it >>remain big open questions, and have been for a long time, long before EP >>was popular. They remain so even within EP. These questions are far >>from trivial. > >... It never occurred to me that there would be controversy about what >status is (at least in hunter gatherer tribes and chimpanzee groups) or >why (after applying EP) people and chimps would seek it. > >"Of all the things which have been measured in such representative >ancestral environments as we have, social standing or status is the >most predictive of reproductive success. ... It makes sense for >hunters who brought in the first meat the tribe has seen in six weeks >to get a lot of attention (a mark of status) ... >http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html ... >I am not aware of a refutation of the points made in this article. ... Yes, status can be measured just by asking people "who has high status?" But measured with substantial error - people often answer this quite differently. In any case that is very different from understanding exactly what contributes how much to status. Sure bringing in the first meet in six weeks helps, but how much compared to other things? I don't say your article is wrong, I say it doesn't answer the question. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat May 7 18:20:59 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 11:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507123734.02cc7f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050507182059.69044.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Mike are you accusing the extropy-chat this list of being flippant? > Are > you claiming that people on this list do nothing? Part of my reason for posting this was to disprove that *all* people on this list do nothing - and to encourage those that don't, to step up to the plate too. Doesn't have to be in science/tech (although that's certainly one possibility); other aspects, like politics and education, will need to be tended to as well. Posthumanism isn't going to just happen; whether or not it seems inevitable, it will require people to actually make it come about. The more of us that help, the sooner it will happen, and the better for all of us it will likely be. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat May 7 19:22:38 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 12:22:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427CD700.1070501@jefallbright.net> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427CD700.1070501@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <427D157E.3000304@jefallbright.net> ben: These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract, too silly, too confused. My understanding of things is that a moral absolutist might say "abortion is wrong, period. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it's just wrong. I've been told this and i believe it, and it applies to everybody under all circumstances. Sue should have the baby, Frank should advise her to have it, regardless of what this leads to." A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or abort the baby depends upon the circumstances. These include, but are not limited to, Her attitude towards abortion, her future prospects with or without a baby at her age, her social and financial circumstances, etc. Frank should weigh factors such as the importance to him of the happiness of his stepdaughter, the fact that the baby is not genetically related to him, the impact of a baby on his family, his estimation of her ability to make a responsible decision in the matter, etc. These things cannot be decided by applying a single, rigid rule, because different things are more important to different people, and circumstances change." That is what 'moral relativism' versus 'moral absolutism' means to me. Nothing to do with objective reality, or with 'truth'. Just about what rules people decide to apply to their behaviour under different circumstances. So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists and moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide? Jef: Thank you for posing the question, which at the lowest level may appear to be a simple question of "right" and "wrong", while at the level of popular discourse it may appear paradoxical as people ask themselves how they can possibly decide which is morally correct, and at a higher level it may be seen that the framing of the question is what limits our comprehension of these issues. Mike: As a moral objectivist, I say the solution is clearly that Sue should have the kid, and that Uncle Frank should adopt it and raise it while Sue goes off to college. If Frank thinks life is so important, then he needs to put his money where his mouth is. Choice "C" always works. Giulio: Very simple answer: Sue should have the baby if she wants to have the baby, she should not have the baby if she doesn't want to have the baby. And this is precisely the advice Frank should give her. He should also, of course, offer to help her evaluate different options in view of his greater experience of things. Well, I don't really care whether this answer reveals a moral relativist or objectivist stance. ---------------------------------------- Giulio, do you think *all* moral issues are equally relative, or was this an exceptionally easy case? What if Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, perhaps based on simple jealousy. Would you still say that the answer is simply that Sue should do as she wants? If not, then can you help us understand what basis of reasoning applies? - Jef From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com Sat May 7 20:03:50 2005 From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 21:03:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> Message-ID: <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> ben wrote: > Here's a hypothetical situation in which decisions need to be made, > that will be guided by moral considerations: > > > Frank and Sue are relatively poor westerners. > > Frank is Sue's stepfather. Sue is 14. She has just discovered she is > pregnant. She is reasonably intelligent, and could to to college and > have a chance to improve her life. But a baby would make that > impossible. Frank is not the father of her baby. > > What should Sue decide to do? What should Frank decide to advise her > (assume that they have a good relationship, and she would listen to > his advice)? Under normal usage, the moral objectivist would claim that there is a fact of the matter independent of social norms, whereas the moral relativist would deny this. The two example responses you give are neither objective nor relativistic, they could in fact be either. A moral relativist would hold that "abortion is wrong, period" is correct where that was the prevailing norm and "abortion is okay given x, y, z" is correct where that was the prevailing norm; they would claim that there's no method for deciding between these social norms but that they hold within their respective communities. A moral objectivist would claim that there is an absolute truth to the matter, that either "abortion is wrong, period" or "abortion is okay given x, y, z" is correct, regardless of the fact that there are communities that believe one, communities that believe the other. Some people confuse moral scepticism or moral expressivism, the doctrines that there are no moral truths or that moral statements are merely emotive or prescriptive, respectively, with moral relativism. Your question is normative and doesn't have a great deal to do with such metaethical quibbles as relativism, objectivism, scepticism, expressivism, etc. If, however, Frank believed "abortion is wrong, period" and Sue believed "abortion is okay given x, y, z" the moral relativist might claim that Frank should be tolerant of Sue's belief (or vice versa), whereas the moral objectivist might claim that one or the other or neither is correct. Meanwhile the sceptic would shrug his shoulders and the expressivist would claim that what Frank meant to say was that he wants her to keep the baby and what Sue meant to say is that she doesn't want the baby. BM From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 7 20:54:55 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 15:54:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Jef wrote: >A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or abort the >baby depends upon the circumstances. BM wrote: >Meanwhile the sceptic would shrug his shoulders and the expressivist would >claim that what Frank meant to say was that he wants her to keep the baby >and what Sue meant to say is that she doesn't want the baby. I see that people keep responding to the question by referring to "keeping the baby" versus killing it, disposing of it, adopting it out. I find this extraordinary. There was no baby in the original thought experiment. There was a (presumably only just) pregnant girl. The question of abortion in this instance has to do with whether or not to retain a small embryo with the potential to become a baby, and then a child, and then an adult, and then an old person. We might as well talk about the girl's quandary being whether or not to kill a wise old grandparent, because if she remains pregnant that's probably what the clump of cells in her uterus will eventually turn out to be. But it's not yet. And it's not a baby yet. Certain moralists will claim that it is because it has human DNA; or more probably, because it has a complete and fully developed nonmaterial soul embedded in it or associated with it or something. The first claim seems to me a grotesquely reductive misunderstanding of what it is to be a human person. The second might seem to deal with objective reality, but I know of no empirical yardstick for testing it. Meanwhile, then, it seems to me saner to speak (as medical people do) of "the conceptus", or "the embryo", or "the foetus". The one thing we can be sure of is that Sue is not faced with the option of murdering a baby, or a bank teller with three children to support, even though both potentials might lie in the future light cone of the very unfinished organism growing inside her. Damien Broderick From hal at finney.org Sat May 7 21:03:08 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project Message-ID: <20050507210308.9988357EE6@finney.org> Scerir writes: > But also constantly (and strong enough). It is - perhaps - > easy to create a *temporary* asymmetry. > > ---- ---- ---- ---- fixed multi-plate > < ---- ---- ---- ---- sliding multi-plate > > (You can also imagine round multiplates, one fixed and > the other spinning). > > Due to the "lateral" Casimir force, the sliding multi-plate > moves to the left, because the plates of the sliding multi-plate > and of the fixed multi-plate tend to overlap. During the > process the sum of field energy and mechanical energy is > (supposed to be) constant. > > ---- ---- ---- ---- fixed multi-plate > ---- ---- ---- ---- sliding multi-plate I thought of something similar earlier. You could unroll Adrian's design and get a linear accelerator. What you do is put parallelogram shaped "blockers" between the two rows in the first diagram, so that the bottom moving plates only "see" the plates above them to the left. This is supposed to pull them in that direction. Then when they get to the position in the second diagram, the bottom plates are completely covered by the blockers and so they don't see the forces that would normally pin them there. Then when they move a little farther (by momentum, or by careful arrangement of the blockers) they will again only "see" a force pulling them to the left. Presto, perpetual motion again, only this time we create a linear rather than rotary accelerator with no input. I am confident that this won't work either, because with the blockers in place the plates can no longer move in such a way as to minimize potential energy, hence there will be no force. Or else, there will be a minimum in the PE, as in Scerir's second diagram (with no blockers), and then the plates will just go to that position and stay there. Hal From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 7 22:10:52 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 17:10:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050507182059.69044.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507123734.02cc7f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050507182059.69044.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:20 PM 5/7/2005, Adrian wrote: >Part of my reason for posting this was to disprove that *all* people >on this list do nothing - and to encourage those that don't, to step >up to the plate too. Doesn't have to be in science/tech (although >that's certainly one possibility); other aspects, like politics and >education, will need to be tended to as well. Posthumanism isn't going >to just happen; whether or not it seems inevitable, it will require >people to actually make it come about. The more of us that help, the >sooner it will happen, and the better for all of us it will likely be. Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Since this list is text driven and does not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and to record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that any poster on this list has knowledge of what list members are actually doing. This new list has a rule and that is insinuating comments intended to discredit list members will not be tolerated on this list. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 7 22:15:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507123734.02cc7f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050507221522.713.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >--- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > Again, at this point it looks like the only real way to see what > will > > > happen is to actually build it and observe. I've lost track of > how > > > much time I spent going over the theoretical problems, but in the > > > end, science is about actual experiments. > > > >Not on this list, it's about giving flippant and self assured > >excuses for doing nothing and why whoever is doing something > > is wasting their time and list bandwidth. > > Mike are you accusing the extropy-chat this list of being flippant? > Are you claiming that people on this list do nothing? Those on this list with the most self assured excuses for why what others are doing is impossible, improbable, stupid, sure to fail, contrary to physics, etc. generally are the do-nothing types who do not take personal responsibility for making the future happen. There are people on this list who do not fit the above description, but IMHO there are far too many who do for a supposedly 'extropic' group. This list was once about challenging the limits on what it means to be human in this universe. Adrian's work is the first truly original work I've seen a list member do in several years, yet there are those here who see fit to dismiss it based on one sketch and a few paragraphs of text. This is far too cynical a view for a list that once believed in dynamic optimism. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 7 22:35:54 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050507223554.26396.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Adrian is clearly one of the exceptions. > Since this list is text driven and does > not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and > to record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that > any poster on this list has knowledge of what list members are > actually doing. > > This new list has a rule and that is insinuating comments intended to > discredit list members will not be tolerated on this list. No insinuations need to be made, I can merely ask for quantitative proof by asking people to answer the following questions: a) how many patents have list members applied for and/or received in the last decade? b) how many published papers/books? b1) nobel or other academic prizes? c) how many members have grown their personal net worth from their own entrepreneurship by more than a million dollars? d) how many political offices have they run or campaigned for, or managed campaigns for? e) how many non-profits started by list members have raised over $100,000 in one year? f) how many bills have been passed or prevented by the actions of list members? g) how many demonstrations have list members conceived, organized, and brought to fruition? I will wager that of list members that post to this list, less than fifteen have done one of the above, less than seven have done more than one, in the last ten years, not including myself (count me for six at a minimum). If a list member has not done at least one of the above in the last decade, they can draw their own conclusions about whether they are 'doing anything'. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat May 7 22:45:23 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 18:45:23 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 7 May 2005, Damien Broderick wrote: > I see that people keep responding to the question by referring to "keeping > the baby" versus killing it, disposing of it, adopting it out. I find this > extraordinary. There was no baby in the original thought experiment. There > was a (presumably only just) pregnant girl. [...] Thank you very much for this. I was trying to figure out how to write what you have now written. :) Regards, MB From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 7 22:56:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- MB wrote: > > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > I see that people keep responding to the question by referring to > "keeping > > the baby" versus killing it, disposing of it, adopting it out. I > find this > > extraordinary. There was no baby in the original thought > experiment. There > > was a (presumably only just) pregnant girl. [...] > > Thank you very much for this. I was trying to figure out how to write > what you have now written. :) The freedom to choose means the freedom to be responsible for your actions. When you ask most people who are pro-choice, they generally believe that other people have abortions. Few women proudly admit to having aborted a fetus. Wonder why? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 7 23:25:32 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 18:25:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion In-Reply-To: <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507181606.01deb4e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:56 PM 5/7/2005 -0700, Mike wrote: >When you ask most people [you happen to know] who are pro-choice, they >generally >believe that other people have abortions. I find this a very strange claim. Certainly it goes against my own experience. On the other hand, many if not most younger people who are not in favour of banning abortion use fairly reliable contraception routinely, and so the occasion might not arise very often. Exceptions do occur. When I was younger, before I had a vasectomy, two of my girlfriends became pregnant despite one of them having a loop and the other being on the pill. We chose to abort the foetuses, because none of us were in a position to become parents responsibly at that stage. As a childless old fart, I sometimes wonder wistfully what those lumps of cells might have grown into. But this is sentimentality. I could wonder the same thing about every ovum shed unfertilized by every woman I ever had sex with. >Few women proudly admit to >having aborted a fetus. Wonder why? Because we live in a culture debauched by superstition. Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 7 23:34:29 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 18:34:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050507223554.26396.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050507223554.26396.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507182928.04d492c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Mike wrote: >If a list member has not done at least one of the above in the last >decade, they can draw their own conclusions about whether they are >'doing anything'. You list is fine, but a narrowly focused. There are other numerous ways for determining and rating success, both personal success and professional success. Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 7 23:39:15 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 16:39:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> Message-ID: <4EA67F65-D71C-4FAB-A705-45B62A2AA80F@mac.com> On May 7, 2005, at 2:36 AM, ben wrote: > These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract, > too silly, too confused. I don't think you have helped this much with the following. > > I'd like to ask the moral philosophers on this list some questions, > and hopefully clear up just what is meant by 'moral relativism'. > > Here's a hypothetical situation in which decisions need to be made, > that will be guided by moral considerations: > > > Frank and Sue are relatively poor westerners. > > Frank is Sue's stepfather. Sue is 14. She has just discovered she > is pregnant. She is reasonably intelligent, and could to to college > and have a chance to improve her life. But a baby would make that > impossible. Frank is not the father of her baby. > > What should Sue decide to do? What should Frank decide to advise > her (assume that they have a good relationship, and she would > listen to his advice)? > Even objective morality does not dictate particular decisions. Objective moral guidelines and principles would be applied to the particulars as part of the decision process. It isn't a bunch of rules from some high autocrat. > > My understanding of things is that a moral absolutist might say > "abortion is wrong, period. It doesn't matter what the > circumstances are, it's just wrong. I've been told this and i > believe it, and it applies to everybody under all circumstances. > Sue should have the baby, Frank should advise her to have it, > regardless of what this leads to." You are confusing absolutism with objectivity. > > A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or > abort the baby depends upon the circumstances. These include, but > are not limited to, Her attitude towards abortion, her future > prospects with or without a baby at her age, her social and > financial circumstances, etc. Frank should weigh factors such as > the importance to him of the happiness of his stepdaughter, the > fact that the baby is not genetically related to him, the impact of > a baby on his family, his estimation of her ability to make a > responsible decision in the matter, etc. These things cannot be > decided by applying a single, rigid rule, because different things > are more important to different people, and circumstances change." > A moral objectivist would also consider all the circumstances. Objective morality has nothing to do with rigidity. It has to do with being objective and honestly applying all one knows about ethics and other relevant aspects of reality to the situation. That one's ethics is based in objective reality does not mean that the facts of reality in the case at hand are ignored. That would hardly be objective now would it? > > That is what 'moral relativism' versus 'moral absolutism' means to > me. Nothing to do with objective reality, or with 'truth'. Just > about what rules people decide to apply to their behaviour under > different circumstances. > The discussion was not about absolutism or at least I hope it has not gone that far astray from anything worth talking about. > So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists > and moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide? > > (Note: I am equating 'objectivism' with 'absolutism' here. My > impression is that the new pope's issue is with relative moral > rules as against absolute ones, and i think that using the word > 'objective' just confuses the matter.) > In this you have made the entire discussion more of a fruitless muddle than it was. Congratulations. - samantha > From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 7 23:45:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 16:45:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> Message-ID: On May 7, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Bryan Moss wrote: > > Under normal usage, the moral objectivist would claim that there is > a fact of the matter independent of social norms, whereas the moral > relativist would deny this. The two example responses you give are > neither objective nor relativistic, they could in fact be either. > A moral relativist would hold that "abortion is wrong, period" is > correct where that was the prevailing norm and "abortion is okay > given x, y, z" is correct where that was the prevailing norm; they > would claim that there's no method for deciding between these > social norms but that they hold within their respective > communities. A moral objectivist would claim that there is an > absolute truth to the matter, that either "abortion is wrong, > period" or "abortion is okay given x, y, z" is correct, regardless > of the fact that there are communities that believe one, > communities that believe the other. > Oh my. The conversation really has got that silly. Can we stop now? Clearly most of us have no idea whatsoever what we are talking about. - samantha From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com Sun May 8 00:17:44 2005 From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 01:17:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <427D5AA8.8060003@dsl.pipex.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > I see that people keep responding to the question by referring to > "keeping the baby" versus killing it, disposing of it, adopting it > out. I find this extraordinary. There was no baby in the original > thought experiment. There was a (presumably only just) pregnant girl. > The question of abortion in this instance has to do with whether or > not to retain a small embryo with the potential to become a baby, and > then a child, and then an adult, and then an old person. We might as > well talk about the girl's quandary being whether or not to kill a > wise old grandparent, because if she remains pregnant that's probably > what the clump of cells in her uterus will eventually turn out to be. > But it's not yet. And it's not a baby yet. The quandary concerns whether she wants a baby, does it not? If she has an abortion, it will be because she doesn't want a baby, not because she doesn't want an embryo. I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it - a lot of anti-abortion rhetoric tries to blur the distinction between foetus and child - but I'm not sure "keep the baby" is wrong in this context. > Certain moralists will claim that it is because it has human DNA; or > more probably, because it has a complete and fully developed > nonmaterial soul embedded in it or associated with it or something. > The first claim seems to me a grotesquely reductive misunderstanding > of what it is to be a human person. The second might seem to deal with > objective reality, but I know of no empirical yardstick for testing it. I don't think it's quite that simple. Morality is concerned primarily with counterfactuals. The girl, for example, on considering an abortion, will probably be considering things like the first few years of the potential child's life, perhaps even the 18 years of responsibility, and, at a stretch, the potential adult. She's thinking about more than the foetus. None of this seems unusual to me. Here's a thought experiment (and I apologise for the subject matter, I'm not trying to suggest any equivalence between murder and abortion): We say that it's unethical to kill a man. We believe that this is true even when he's sleeping, even though he won't be enjoying life or contributing to society until the morning. Are we concerned here with the man's potential? I'd say no. That seems too metaphysical to me. Is it something *actual* about him? We can simply say he's a man, but that doesn't seem specific enough. He has hopes, dreams, and a sense of dignity, perhaps, but does that mean we can catch him on a off day? Perhaps we can say, "if he was awake now he would object." But that just seems like more of the same thing. As does, say, considering the situation in functionalist terms: he has moral agency, a diginity module, whatever. Anyway, to get back to reality, I'm not sure saying "that's potential" and "that's actual" is really a good way to reject or accept moral claims. I tend to naturalism in matters of philosophy. I feel like I can reject the anti-abortionist who talks of a soul because I can reject the soul just fine. And I'll hypothesise that those who speak of "potential" would disappear with that controversy. But if they didn't, I'm not sure how to respond. All of our moral intuitions seem shot through with possibility, consequence, counterfactuals; how do we distinguish the good from the bad? BM From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun May 8 00:20:49 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 19:20:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050507223554.26396.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hey Mike -- this is an email list, not a points-counting club. There are lots of people who read the list off and on who've accomplished many things on the scale you've pointed to, me among them. While I've been a list member, I've built a successful law practice (or two or three), designed and built my dream house with my wife, learned to live with a lemur, helped the Smithsonian raise money to restore a Saturn V, taught myself 3d computer modelling, started a blog that gets quite a few hits, revived my Chinese language skills ... and that's just what comes to me off the top of my head. There are plenty of others here who've done just as much or more. It's true there's often an inverse proportion between activity in the "real world" and posting on the list here. But that doesn't mean folks aren't still thinking about the issues we consider vital and, when the opportunity presents itself, moving things along a little bit at a time ... GB > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 5:36 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project > > > > --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > Thank you for speaking up Adrian. > > Adrian is clearly one of the exceptions. > > > Since this list is text driven and does > > not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and > > to record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that > > any poster on this list has knowledge of what list members are > > actually doing. > > > > This new list has a rule and that is insinuating comments intended to > > discredit list members will not be tolerated on this list. > > No insinuations need to be made, I can merely ask for quantitative > proof by asking people to answer the following questions: > > a) how many patents have list members applied for and/or received in > the last decade? > b) how many published papers/books? > b1) nobel or other academic prizes? > c) how many members have grown their personal net worth from their own > entrepreneurship by more than a million dollars? > d) how many political offices have they run or campaigned for, or > managed campaigns for? > e) how many non-profits started by list members have raised over > $100,000 in one year? > f) how many bills have been passed or prevented by the actions of list > members? > g) how many demonstrations have list members conceived, organized, and > brought to fruition? > > I will wager that of list members that post to this list, less than > fifteen have done one of the above, less than seven have done more than > one, in the last ten years, not including myself (count me for six at a > minimum). > > If a list member has not done at least one of the above in the last > decade, they can draw their own conclusions about whether they are > 'doing anything'. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 8 00:19:10 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 20:19:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507134717.02e3a1c8@mail.gmu.edu> References: <5844e22f05050512106ac26d9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050507155009.02f97380@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:53 PM 07/05/05 -0400, you wrote: >At 12:33 PM 5/7/2005, Keith Henson wrote: >>>>... They also work very hard for status, one classic example is judges >>>>who give up large amounts of income for the higher status of a >>>>judge. Why is this? The answers are obvious if not downright trivial >>>>given EP. >>> >>>What exactly status is and what people use to infer it and produce it >>>remain big open questions, and have been for a long time, long before EP >>>was popular. They remain so even within EP. These questions are far >>>from trivial. >> >>... It never occurred to me that there would be controversy about what >>status is (at least in hunter gatherer tribes and chimpanzee groups) or >>why (after applying EP) people and chimps would seek it. >> >>"Of all the things which have been measured in such representative >>ancestral environments as we have, social standing or status is the >>most predictive of reproductive success. ... It makes sense for >>hunters who brought in the first meat the tribe has seen in six weeks >>to get a lot of attention (a mark of status) ... >>http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html ... >>I am not aware of a refutation of the points made in this article. ... > >Yes, status can be measured just by asking people "who has high status?" >But measured with substantial error - people often answer this quite >differently. In any case that is very different from understanding >exactly what contributes how much to status. Sure bringing in the first >meat in six weeks helps, but how much compared to other things? I don't >say your article is wrong, I say it doesn't answer the question. Well, "what is status" wasn't the question the article was intended to answer. The article was trying to account for why people do really hard to understand things like join a cult and cut their balls off. Or of equal effect in genetic terms, why become a celibate priest in a long established religion? But I venture to say that the different ways people answer "who has high status" would be predictable using EP. A person moving up in status and his supporters would probably have a higher opinion of his status than the people supporting the "old guard." And it would not surprise me to find that women in a group might have a different average status estimate than the men do. I think we can go further and propose that status is the integral of attention, and that attention itself produces an immediate chemical reward. Those of us who have done public speaking are usually aware of the buzz we get from attention. The concept of chemically activated reward circuits is well supported by fMRI studies of recent years. There are pointers to researchers here: "Hijacking the Brain Circuits With a Nickel Slot Machine" By SANDRA BLAKESLEE, New York Times, February 19, 2002 http://www.vivaconsulting.com/education/hijacking.html EP can deal with high measurement error for concepts like status in answering the question of why people work so hard for status. The answer, in common with a lot of other answers from EP, is that ancestors who did so left more descendents than those who did not. Unlike dragging meat back to a hunter gatherer camp, most things we do for status today (such as posting on mailing lists) don't seem to have much effect on how many descendents we have. :-) Keith Henson From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com Sun May 8 00:30:35 2005 From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 01:30:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> Message-ID: <427D5DAB.2030804@dsl.pipex.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Oh my. The conversation really has got that silly. Can we stop > now? Clearly most of us have no idea whatsoever what we are talking > about. That was a rather straightforward definition. What, exactly, are you objecting to? BM From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun May 8 00:41:45 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 20:41:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050507225609.8720.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 7 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > The freedom to choose means the freedom to be responsible for your > actions. When you ask most people who are pro-choice, they generally > believe that other people have abortions. Few women proudly admit to > having aborted a fetus. Wonder why? Wonder why? Not particularly. What kind of question is that, anyway? And on the flip side, how many men proudly admit to "fathering" such fetuses? Earlier in my life two relationships resulted in abortions. This solution was the best under the circumstances. We did not broadcast these events knowing we'd be condemned roundly by some whose beliefs were different - and likely never hear the end of it. However, neither have they been kept secret. Regards, MB From wingcat at pacbell.net Sun May 8 00:56:51 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 17:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Since this list is text driven and > does > not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and > to > record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that any > poster > on this list has knowledge of what list members are actually doing. So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it happen? From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 8 01:37:56 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 20:37:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507201243.02c49228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:56 PM 5/7/2005, Adrian wrote: >--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Since this list is text driven and > > does not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and > > to record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that any > > poster on this list has knowledge of what list members are actually doing. > >So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us >how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it >happen? Currently I am completing a masters of science degree focusing on cultural strategy and will use this for developing plans for marketing transhumanism, as well as teaching courses relating to transhumanism. I'm writing 2 books: "The Transhumanists" about the culture of transhumanism, is past, present and future forecast; and "The World's Most Dangerous Idea" which you know about. By the way, a new book on the future is coming out in Europe this month and I am featured in it. I have attached some information if anyone is interested. Also, I was featured in L'Optimum high gloss French magazine last month. And, lastly, and most importantly, developing a new website for ExI which will feature "transhumanism". Should be released within two weeks. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun May 8 02:22:05 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 12:22:05 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project References: Message-ID: <00b001c55374$ba804f50$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Greg Burch wrote: > Mike ...There are lots of people who read the list off and on > who've accomplished many things on the scale you've pointed > to, me among them. While I've been a list member, I've built a > successful law practice (or two or three), designed and built > my dream house with my wife, learned to live with a lemur, > helped the Smithsonian raise money to restore a Saturn V, > taught myself 3d computer modelling, started a blog that gets > quite a few hits, revived my Chinese language skills ... and >that's just what comes to me off the top of my head. There > are plenty of others here who've done just as much or more. > It's true there's often an inverse proportion between activity > in the "real world" and posting on the list here. But that > doesn't mean folks aren't still thinking about the issues we > consider vital and, when the opportunity presents itself, > moving things along a little bit at a time ... What has any of that got to do with transhumanism or extropy? Is merely trying (and perhaps succeeding) in having a good, enjoyable, rewarding life enough? This reminds me of a sort of protestantism that equates christianity with going to church on sunday. You are a Director of ExI Greg, and yet you hardly ever post to this list. The same could be said of Max More. Imo the list is the poorer and the less interesting for the absence of your voices. And the list to me IS the public face of extropy. Brett Paatsch From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Sun May 8 02:30:36 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 22:30:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <427D79CC.4050906@humanenhancement.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun May 8 02:56:42 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 19:56:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050507154045.01d33538@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <427D7FEA.4050902@jefallbright.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > Jef wrote: > >> A moral relativist might say "Whether or not Sue should keep or abort >> the baby depends upon the circumstances. > Actually, ben made that statement. My desire with regard to this discussion is to eventually get beyond specific actions which may be considered moral or immoral, get beyond the various stands people take on moral issues based on evolved biases and cultural and personal beliefs, and then show that between the absolutist position and the relativist position there may be a very practical way of looking at these kinds of issues that is not free-floating or fixed, but grows with the complexity of the issues. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 8 04:24:32 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 21:24:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505080426.j484QZR16789@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... > So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us > how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it > happen? ... Money is what makes things happen, the only force that we can always rely upon to make things happen. Transhumanism will not advance on collective will, self-sacrificing volunteers, individual courage, any of that. Transhumanism will be advanced a bit at a time by making each piece of the journey profitable. Market forces will make it happen. Consider the small steps we have already made in the transhuman direction: advanced medical technology, computers, the internet, stem cell research, all that. It only goes forth when market forces push it forward. Show them the money, they will come. spike From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun May 8 05:50:43 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 15:50:43 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity References: <200505080426.j484QZR16789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <013e01c55391$df98bee0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > ... >> So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us >> how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it >> happen? > ... > > > Money is what makes things happen, the only force that > we can always rely upon to make things happen. That cannot be the whole truth. Not if you accept that there has been people for longer than there has been money. Most of us would accept that at some point(s) in history people invented 'money' as a means of exchange. Before there was money to "make things happen" there had to be other things, other 'drivers', to "make things happen". Perhaps those 'drivers' were genes, (sex), perhaps they were memes, perhaps they were something else, but they definately were not money, not originally. > Transhumanism will not advance on collective will, self-sacrificing > volunteers, individual courage, any of that. Transhumanism will > be advanced a bit at a time by making each piece of the journey > profitable. Market forces will make it happen. This form of transhumanism looks just like another sort of elitism, or apoligia for the status quo by those that are benefitting from it, it has no deep roots in science or in an understanding of the natural world of which humans and all human constructions and institutions are a part. What parent is driven to have children for financial reasons? Money is an enabler (at best) it is not a driver. > Consider the small steps we have already made in the > transhuman direction: advanced medical technology, computers, > the internet, stem cell research, all that. It only goes forth when > market forces push it forward. Those things go forward because human agents take them forward, human agents constitute both the supply and the demand for those things, but they don't get to go forward when those human agents are distracted by the necessity to chase away thieves and marauders. I am unaware of any advances in medical technology, computing, the internet or stem cell research that happened under a transhuman flag or under a company or individual who said that they were doing the work that they were doing because of transhumanism. If transhumanism is going to be significant in world historical terms it will only be because human agents make it mean something. In the case of embryonic stem cell research one of the biggest political/social/ethical challenges is getting people to recognize that there is a difference between a *potential* human being (an embryo) and an *actual* one. Transhumanism isn't helping with this discussion at all. If anything most transhumanist talk as though what could potentially happen, cryonics, Drexlerian nanotech, will happen given enough time. (As though time was irrelevant for mortals). By living so far in a hypothetical potential future many transhumanists seem to be losing or failing to engage in the issues of the present. With the possible exception of Natasha and a handful of others those that are engaging with the real issues of the day are doing so under their own names, and their own brands, not under a banner of transhumanism. Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 8 07:09:15 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 00:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050508070915.9074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Greg Burch wrote: > Hey Mike -- this is an email list, not a points-counting club. Coulda fooled me. The BBS quite clearly has karma points on each user by which the irate can browbeat and depersonate those they disagree with to enforce list orthodoxy and malaise. You can count one point: the one I'm trying to make that some are virulently attempting to avoid or deny. > There > are lots of people who read the list off and on who've accomplished > many things on the scale you've pointed to, me among them. You I would count in the handful of doers, and you know I always have. > There are > plenty of others here who've done just as much or more. There are some who've done as much. > It's true > there's often an inverse proportion between activity in the "real > world" and posting on the list here. But that doesn't mean folks > aren't still thinking about the issues we consider vital and, when > the opportunity presents itself, moving things along a little bit at > a time ... There is a distinct difference between moving things along and holding things back, downplaying things, cynically denigrating things. There is a pernicious virus of cynicism, negativity, and armchair quarterbacking going on on this list which is highly unextropic. Adrian got started on his project partly to prove me wrong, to prove that this list isn't full of do nothings by being one person who is doing something. Unfortunately, he has proven me right at least as much given the number of people who immediately came out with posts denying, contesting, challenging, or denouncing Adrian and his project. His project is separating the wheat from the chaff on this list. What he is showing is that there is a distinct difference between the statements "this list is full of do nothings" and "this list is 100% do nothings". The second he has proven false. The first remains to be seen. I for one remain dynamically optimistic, despite evidence to the contrary. Call it an unfounded faith in humanity. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 8 07:29:17 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 00:29:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427D5DAB.2030804@dsl.pipex.com> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427D1F26.5080503@dsl.pipex.com> <427D5DAB.2030804@dsl.pipex.com> Message-ID: The notion that objective morality leads to an either-or about such a situation between a dogmatic answer and a limited justification of choice. Morality hangs out a level deeper than that. But I apologize for calling it silly. It wasn't and was better than a lot that has been posted on this topic. I seem to be battling a late flu bug today so I may not post more for a day or two, - s On May 7, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Bryan Moss wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> Oh my. The conversation really has got that silly. Can we stop >> now? Clearly most of us have no idea whatsoever what we are >> talking about. >> > > > That was a rather straightforward definition. What, exactly, are > you objecting to? > > BM > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Sun May 8 07:44:44 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 09:44:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427D157E.3000304@jefallbright.net> References: <200505061800.j46I0ER05644@tick.javien.com> <427C8C11.30808@lineone.net> <427CD700.1070501@jefallbright.net> <427D157E.3000304@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <470a3c520505080044132a63bd@mail.gmail.com> If Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, the situation changes completely because now there is another person whose interest must be taken into account. So barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. the adult is pointing a gun at Sue and threatening to shoot), I would say Sue should not do as she wants in this specific case. If she does it anyway, well this is what we have police and laws for. The difference is that the unborn baby is not a person, and the adult is. In the first case, no harm is done to a person, and in the second it is. G. On 5/7/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > Giulio: > Very simple answer: > Sue should have the baby if she wants to have the baby, she should not > have the baby if she doesn't want to have the baby. > And this is precisely the advice Frank should give her. He should > also, of course, offer to help her evaluate different options in view > of his greater experience of things. > Well, I don't really care whether this answer reveals a moral > relativist or objectivist stance. > > ---------------------------------------- > > Giulio, do you think *all* moral issues are equally relative, or was > this an exceptionally easy case? > > What if Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, perhaps based on > simple jealousy. Would you still say that the answer is simply that Sue > should do as she wants? If not, then can you help us understand what > basis of reasoning applies? > > - Jef From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 8 07:56:21 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 00:56:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050508070915.9074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050508070915.9074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E94B315-5A54-4017-809E-4F1468DC4682@mac.com> On May 8, 2005, at 12:09 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Greg Burch wrote: > >> Hey Mike -- this is an email list, not a points-counting club. >> > > Coulda fooled me. The BBS quite clearly has karma points on each user > by which the irate can browbeat and depersonate those they disagree > with to enforce list orthodoxy and malaise. > That's quite a statement form the biggest bully on the list. About browbeating and denigrating those who disagree with you I acknowledge your mastery. Who do you think you are that we would care who is and is not on your positive list? I am sorry if you chafe at the reputation you have built for yourself. Karma trues us up. > > There is a distinct difference between moving things along and holding > things back, downplaying things, cynically denigrating things. > There is > a pernicious virus of cynicism, negativity, and armchair > quarterbacking > going on on this list which is highly unextropic. > You believe you are the solution somehow? Newton help us. But I do agree that there is indeed a lot of all of those things. Along with a grandstanding, chest thumping, ducking hard issues, denial, self congratulation, culture blindness and many other less than helpful traits. Welcome to the human condition. The day you learn to lift the spirits, enhance the contribution, actually fully listen to and appreciate each person on this list is the day I will believe you have positive useful guidance to give. In the meantime it is hard to see. - samantha > From benboc at lineone.net Sun May 8 11:04:33 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 12:04:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism In-Reply-To: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com> References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <427DF241.8090709@lineone.net> samantha said: "The discussion was not about absolutism or at least I hope it has not gone that far astray from anything worth talking about." "In this you have made the entire discussion more of a fruitless muddle than it was. Congratulations." Well, i'm sorry if i'm contributing to the muddle, that's obviously not my intention. I can see what you're saying about absolutism vs objectivism, but as i said, i think that the pope's original announcement was not about relative morality as opposed to objective morality - i.e., moral arguments based on objective reality - but about relative moral viewpoints as opposed to absolute ones (he's a PRIEST. What does he care about objective reality? He cares about what god tells him is the absolute truth). This discussion has drifted away from that, and i was trying to point this out. You might think that absolutism isn't worth talking about, and personally, i would tend to agree - in an ideal world. But there are many people who have absolutist viewpoints, and some of them are very influential. This makes it worth talking about. here's an example of why (taken from a recent letter in the New Scientist): The catholic church knows perfectly well that their policies on AIDS prevention are killing people. They know this and approve of it, because they know that "The wages of sin are death". This is hardly a moral stance derived from objective reality. I'm just trying to understand things, same as everybody else. Sometimes this means more muddle before things (hopefully) become clearer. Being a bear of little brain, i was a bit confused about the use of the term 'objective', now i think i understand better. Jef said: "Giulio, do you think *all* moral issues are equally relative, or was this an exceptionally easy case? What if Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, perhaps based on simple jealousy. Would you still say that the answer is simply that Sue should do as she wants?" I would doubt that Guilio (or anyone in their right mind) would say that people should do whatever they want. This is not what moral relativism is, although many people try to portray it as such. I get the impression that the phrase 'moral relativism' is being taken to mean different things to different people. Just what do the people here understand it to mean? Ditto with moral objectivism. ben From jef at jefallbright.net Sun May 8 14:54:31 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 07:54:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427DF241.8090709@lineone.net> References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com> <427DF241.8090709@lineone.net> Message-ID: <427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net> ben wrote: > > I'm just trying to understand things, same as everybody else. > Sometimes this means more muddle before things (hopefully) become > clearer. Thank you ben, for helping to illuminate the difficulty with the way these terms are applied. It appears muddled because these concepts of absolute and relative are a poor match to human affairs which involve subjective viewpoints and incomplete knowledge of the context. Seeing the muddle is a step along the way to asking questions about what really underlies our evaluation of "right" and "wrong" across a range of situations and a range of moral agents from the simple to the more complex. > I would doubt that Guilio (or anyone in their right mind) would say > that people should do whatever they want. This is not what moral > relativism is, although many people try to portray it as such. Of course we would all agree that people can not always do whatever they want. My question to Giulio was to try to clarify what he thinks is the underlying principle. So far now, I think he has said that if a moral decision does not involve another person, then one can do what one wants, and if it does involve another person then ... what? He then refers to depending on laws, which is another clue to the bigger picture. Laws are part of a larger process involving multiple agents. But do they represent a higher level of morality, since they encompass more than the individual? Or might laws become dangerously out of touch with the subjective issues of the individual? By the way, I agree with Giulio that if there is no other moral agent involved, one should do as one wants. I question however, whether there is any clear dividing line between actions that do, and actions that do not, affect others. Just about everything we do has indirect effects on others, and I think it's most practical to look at these issues in terms of expanding circles of context of awareness. Simply put: actions are considered increasingly moral as they are seen to be effective over increasing context of agents and their interactions. From this basis we can then proceed to discover and develop principles of effective interaction, essentially principles that tend to promote cooperative growth. This thinking has an inherent subjective component, but it is not relative. This thinking is based on what (increasingly) objectively works, but it is not absolute. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From wingcat at pacbell.net Sun May 8 15:16:17 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050508151617.79221.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Adrian got started on his project partly to prove me wrong, to prove > that this list isn't full of do nothings by being one person who is > doing something. Unfortunately, he has proven me right at least as > much > given the number of people who immediately came out with posts > denying, > contesting, challenging, or denouncing Adrian and his project. I haven't seen any posts that I would consider to be "denying, contesting, challenging, or denouncing" myself specifically, as opposed to my project. As to those posts challenging the project - welcome to normal scientific debate. This has been nothing compared to what I'll eventually face in the scientific community - and there will be those who, even if I have overwhelming evidence (not just theoretical proof, not just video clips of the device in action, but even if and after I advance all the way to cheap commercialization where I can build and sell these things at prices almost anyone can afford), will continue to reject it. Hal's arguments, granted, have largely been straw men - but that's not his fault. Given as this is a new and strange idea by the standards of what has come before, the onus is on me to find a way to explain the idea clearly enough that people don't make the false associations that lead them to believe that the straw men are real. (Most of my audience, I *won't* get to respond directly to. They won't even state their questions, just harbor and nurture them where no one else may perceive them. So I need to make sure their first impression - which may be their only impression - is a correct and good one. This takes some doing, and refining it by open questioning to highlight potential misunderstandings appears to be one of the best processes for doing so. It's actually rather similar to the reason why open source software works so well, once a project attracts a sizable audience of developers.) From pgptag at gmail.com Sun May 8 16:04:56 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:04:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism In-Reply-To: <427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net> References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com> <427DF241.8090709@lineone.net> <427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <470a3c52050508090415536e1f@mail.gmail.com> Yes, you are right that almost whatever we do affects someone else in some way. Let's see some extremes: A) Killing someone has a very strong negative impact on the target, so it is not a moral thing to do (barring exceptional circumstances of course). Z) Choosing to wear grey instead of brown may be unpleasant to those who do not like brown, but I think everyone will agree that wearing grey instead of brown is not morally wrong. An interesting middle ground is personal choices that, even if they do not damage anyone, can offend those with specific worldview strongly against that particular choice. Gay marriage is an example. No harm is done to anyone is two adults of the same sex want to marry, yet the very idea outrage some people. But I think we fall in Z also in this case. As long as nobody forces you to adopt a specific lifestyle, you should be tolerant because it is not your business. G. On 5/8/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > ben wrote: > > > > > I'm just trying to understand things, same as everybody else. > > Sometimes this means more muddle before things (hopefully) become > > clearer. > > Thank you ben, for helping to illuminate the difficulty with the way > these terms are applied. It appears muddled because these concepts of > absolute and relative are a poor match to human affairs which involve > subjective viewpoints and incomplete knowledge of the context. Seeing > the muddle is a step along the way to asking questions about what really > underlies our evaluation of "right" and "wrong" across a range of > situations and a range of moral agents from the simple to the more complex. > > > I would doubt that Guilio (or anyone in their right mind) would say > > that people should do whatever they want. This is not what moral > > relativism is, although many people try to portray it as such. > > Of course we would all agree that people can not always do whatever they > want. My question to Giulio was to try to clarify what he thinks is the > underlying principle. So far now, I think he has said that if a moral > decision does not involve another person, then one can do what one > wants, and if it does involve another person then ... what? He then > refers to depending on laws, which is another clue to the bigger > picture. Laws are part of a larger process involving multiple agents. > But do they represent a higher level of morality, since they encompass > more than the individual? Or might laws become dangerously out of touch > with the subjective issues of the individual? > > By the way, I agree with Giulio that if there is no other moral agent > involved, one should do as one wants. I question however, whether there > is any clear dividing line between actions that do, and actions that do > not, affect others. Just about everything we do has indirect effects on > others, and I think it's most practical to look at these issues in terms > of expanding circles of context of awareness. Simply put: actions are > considered increasingly moral as they are seen to be effective over > increasing context of agents and their interactions. > > From this basis we can then proceed to discover and develop principles > of effective interaction, essentially principles that tend to promote > cooperative growth. > > This thinking has an inherent subjective component, but it is not relative. > This thinking is based on what (increasingly) objectively works, but it > is not absolute. > > - Jef > http://www.jefallbright.net From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 8 16:35:19 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 11:35:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating Transhumanity) Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Okay, taking the bull by the horns, this is for all you proactive transhumanists for a more extropic future. Here are some of my suggestions. Because I have more than 5, this will be 2 weeks worth, starting last week. This will give me an opportunity to post again next week. 1. Write to me and ask how you can help with my research as a volunteer. 2. Write to me and ask how you can help with my research as my assistant. 3. Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this summer). 4. Work with Extropy Institute's marketing department. 5. Start an extropic and future-oriented group in your area to discuss transhumanism. 6. Write articles for some of the transhumanist ideas that are timely. 7. Post 3-5 things a week that we could be doing on a weekly basis to get ideas out in to the public. 8. Work with Immortality Institute on its upcoming conference and film and book. 9. As your schools if you can get credit by working with Extropy Institute. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Sun May 8 16:58:29 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project Message-ID: <20050508165829.EA0E457EE6@finney.org> I have found a good site with articles and references on Casimir forces for different shaped cavities and arrangements. It is www.quantumfields.com, particularly http://www.quantumfields.com/articles.htm . I wasn't sure about this site at first, it looked a little "iffy" because there are so many quack sites selling junk perpetual motion machines based on ZPE and Casimir force, but this one looks legit from what I can tell. At least the articles mostly appear to be from refereed journals. Adrian might be especially interested in "A design manual for micromachines using Casimir forces: preliminary considerations", http://www.quantumfields.com/staif-2000paper.PDF , by Jordan Maclay. This is not a journal article but it looks legit to me. It discusses a number of possible MEMS devices that would use or interact with Casimir force: > Casimir forces have been computed for only a few common geometries > (See Table 1). The most common one is the infinite, parallel plate > geometry that produces an attractive force between the plates. If we > examine the infinite parallel plate geometry more fully, and imagine > placing perfectly conductive, metal surfaces normal to the parallel > plates in order to enclose the volume between the plates, then there > would be outward forces on these additional four infinitely long, narrow, > surfaces (Brown, 1969). For a conducting spherical shell (Milton, 1978) > and (Boyer, 1968) have predicted outward or repulsive Casimir force. > (Lukosz, 1971) has predicted repulsive forces for a conducting hollow > cube. The vacuum stress on two intersecting planes is attractive. For > conductive rectangular cavities with square cross section (1 x 1 x > c) the Casimir energy and the forces on the cavity walls have been > computed by (Ambjorn, 1983), (Haycan, 1993), and (Mostepanenko, 1997) > with the result that the forces can be inward or outward depending on > the specific dimensions. (Ambjorn , 1983) has computed the constant > energy contours for a1 x a2 x a3 geometry for the region a2, a3 > 1. > (Maclay, 1999) has computed the energy and force for rectangular cavities > of arbitrary dimension. > > For the parallel plate, sphere, cube, and rectangular cavity expressions > for the stress-energy tensor Tuv have been derived, giving separate > expression for the stresses Tij and energy density T00. It is very > important to note that for all geometries for which energy densities > and forces have been computed, the expression for the force can also > be obtained from the expression for the energy density by the principal > of virtual work, which is based on the conservation of energy. By this > principal, the force Fx in the x-direction equals dE/dx, where E is the > total energy in the volume. Thus in microdevices utilizing Casimir > forces, we expect to conserve the total energy, which includes the > mechanical energy and the field energy. Two key points here: first, for other geometries than infinite, parallel plates, the Casimir force seems to be as often repulsive as attractive. The effect is apparently quite complex and has only been computed from first principles for a few geometries. And second, most importantly, it conserves energy, exactly as I have been saying. Casimir is a conservative force and can be calculated as the partial derivative of the potential energy E with respect to the position coordinate x. As I showed, this proves that Adrian's device cannot work since the position coordinate corresponds to the rotational position of the circular shell, which is perfectly symmetric, hence E cannot change with that position, hence F is zero. Nevertheless this article, and others on the site, point to some interesting experimental tests of Casimir forces. From what I have read elsewhere, current results do not match up that well with theory. They only agree to within about 10-20%, which is not that good. Better experimental technique could help to show whether more theory is needed. I would encourage Adrian to continue his experiments but base them on realistic expectations. BTW another paper on this site, the last one by the late Robert Forward, may interest Mike Lorrey: "A Gedanken spacecraft that operates using the quantum vacuum (Dynamic Casimir effect)", http://www.quantumfields.com/gedanken%20spacecraft.pdf . The abstract says, "In this paper we consider another suggestion from science fiction and explore how the quantum vacuum might be utilized in the creation of a novel spacecraft. The spacecraft is based on the dynamic Casimir effect, in which electromagnetic radiation is emitted when an uncharged mirror is properly accelerated in the vacuum. The radiative reaction produces a dissipative force on the mirror that tends to resist the acceleration of the mirror. This force can be used to accelerate a spacecraft attached to the mirror. We also show that, in principle, one could obtain the power to operate the accelerated mirror in such a spacecraft using energy extracted from the quantum vacuum using the standard Casimir effect with a parallel plate geometry." Sounds promising, but when you read it you find that it still obeys the boring old laws of physics: conservation of energy, conservation of momentum. It uses a vibrating mirror to radiate photons, a side effect of Casimir force. These radiating photons propel the craft using conservation of momentum. And that idea of powering the ship with energy from the vacuum? It's a simple Casimir battery, parallel plates allowed to fall together so that you can extract energy from them. It's a one shot operation that does not generate infinite power. Too bad. As for the larger question of whether it makes more sense for Extropians to work on concepts and ideas that are consistent with the laws of physics vs hoping to find that these laws are false, I still think it is obvious that the first path is more likely to succeed and advance one's goals. Hal From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 8 18:03:02 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 13:03:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Proactive Posts vs. Underhanded Posts Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508125745.02c45a38@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Friends, We are having a stream of posts that could be proactive and helpful in getting people motivated to build projects to spread ideas about transhumanism. This is a good thing. We are also having some underhanded posts which are insulting list members. This is not a good thing. This is a warning to all list posters that on this list, we do not allow posters to make accusations using a broad stroke with an underhanded approach. If it continues, you will be asked to leave the list or removed today. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Sun May 8 17:34:13 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 12:34:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating Transhumanity) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <427E4D95.2050204@sasktel.net> What I have done is trademarked LIFESPAN in Canada and likely later in the USA. I have found investors to co-fund LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. I add transhuman memes to the business such as: Mission Statment: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance the Human Lifespan. Not rocket science to the leading edge stuff we discuss but down in the trenches grunt stuff to "Make it so" and "engage" as "Captain Picard" would put it. Transhumanism does involve real work 24/7/365 and must be profitable. So like-em or hate-em we have got to do the Bill Gates or Ray Kurzweil thing, commercialize transhumanism. Groups like Futuretagltd are great semi-commercial mentoring enterprises and we should all participate to the best of our time and ability available. Time spent in our numerous favorite think tanks is time well spent.... at least to we , "the converted". Win, loose or draw there are no real loosers in our movement... just differing shades of success. Morris Johnson From scerir at libero.it Sun May 8 18:51:07 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 20:51:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project References: <20050508165829.EA0E457EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <003e01c553fe$e5c811e0$1ec01b97@administxl09yj> Forward wrote another paper, about his "Casimir battery": http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v30/i4/p1700_1 Federico Capasso (a friend of mine, but 35 years ago!) is also working in the field (at Bell labs now?). http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109046 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410136 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312043 From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 8 22:45:39 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 00:45:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <013e01c55391$df98bee0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <200505080426.j484QZR16789@tick.javien.com> <013e01c55391$df98bee0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050508224539.GE1433@leitl.org> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:50:43PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > That cannot be the whole truth. Not if you accept that there has > been people for longer than there has been money. Universally scarce goods were the precursor of money. Precious metals used to be a just another bartering item (e.g. rubles originated as pieces hacked off a silver bar). > Most of us would accept that at some point(s) in history people > invented 'money' as a means of exchange. Before there was > money to "make things happen" there had to be other things, > other 'drivers', to "make things happen". Perhaps those 'drivers' > were genes, (sex), perhaps they were memes, perhaps they were > something else, but they definately were not money, not originally. I might be remembering this wrong, but Etruscans (the @ symbol used to refer to a unit of trade, amphora) used wine to motivate people. Holding feasts in general was a motivational system of high-status people -- you had to be wealthy in order to be able afford that. > This form of transhumanism looks just like another sort of elitism, or > apoligia for the status quo by those that are benefitting from it, it has > no deep roots in science or in an understanding of the natural world > of which humans and all human constructions and institutions are a > part. Research and development are expensive. Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and space are extremely expensive, risky technologies with a long-term ROI. > What parent is driven to have children for financial reasons? Money Until very recently, having many children was a source of cheap labour. Not having many children despite heavy infant mortality was a recipe for gene self-termination. > is an enabler (at best) it is not a driver. > > >Consider the small steps we have already made in the > >transhuman direction: advanced medical technology, computers, > >the internet, stem cell research, all that. It only goes forth when > >market forces push it forward. > > Those things go forward because human agents take them forward, > human agents constitute both the supply and the demand for those > things, but they don't get to go forward when those human agents > are distracted by the necessity to chase away thieves and marauders. > > I am unaware of any advances in medical technology, computing, > the internet or stem cell research that happened under a transhuman > flag or under a company or individual who said that they were doing > the work that they were doing because of transhumanism. I suspect many such advances have been made, despite of lack of explicit alligation. Actually, I suspect many consider transhumanism as an albatross around one's neck, and would tend to shun association, even if they're aware that such a label exists. > If transhumanism is going to be significant in world historical terms > it will only be because human agents make it mean something. > > In the case of embryonic stem cell research one of the biggest > political/social/ethical challenges is getting people to recognize that > there is a difference between a *potential* human being (an embryo) > and an *actual* one. Transhumanism isn't helping with this > discussion at all. If anything most transhumanist talk as though what > could potentially happen, cryonics, Drexlerian nanotech, will happen > given enough time. (As though time was irrelevant for mortals). By > living so far in a hypothetical potential future many transhumanists > seem to be losing or failing to engage in the issues of the present. > > With the possible exception of Natasha and a handful of others those > that are engaging with the real issues of the day are doing so under > their own names, and their own brands, not under a banner of > transhumanism. Transhumanism is just a label for a common value cluster. It's perfectly feasible to pursue that cluster of values in full ignorance of such a label. This is, in fact, what most people do. However, in order to lobby effectively, and to establish agent cooperation based on mutual recognition it is necessary to agree on a common label. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 9 00:22:11 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating Transhumanity) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > 3. Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this > summer). Programming for a summit? Out of curiosity, what does that entail? From dirk at neopax.com Mon May 9 00:23:01 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 01:23:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <427EAD65.5080009@neopax.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > >>Thank you for speaking up Adrian. Since this list is text driven and >>does >>not yet have the capability to peer inside the minds of posters and >>to >>record their day-to-day experiences, it is highly unlikely that any >>poster >>on this list has knowledge of what list members are actually doing. >> >> > >So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us >how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it >happen? > > See the sigline for my first effort. For my second I'm writing a book on magick where the last chapter will be an analysis of Transhumanism as the modern day 'Great Work' of alchemy. I expect to be excommunicated from the list upon publication... -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Mon May 9 00:26:11 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 01:26:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <4E94B315-5A54-4017-809E-4F1468DC4682@mac.com> References: <20050508070915.9074.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E94B315-5A54-4017-809E-4F1468DC4682@mac.com> Message-ID: <427EAE23.4080302@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 8, 2005, at 12:09 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> >> --- Greg Burch wrote: >> >>> Hey Mike -- this is an email list, not a points-counting club. >>> >> >> Coulda fooled me. The BBS quite clearly has karma points on each user >> by which the irate can browbeat and depersonate those they disagree >> with to enforce list orthodoxy and malaise. >> > > That's quite a statement form the biggest bully on the list. About > browbeating and denigrating those who disagree with you I acknowledge > your mastery. Who do you think you are that we would care who is and > is not on your positive list? I am sorry if you chafe at the > reputation you have built for yourself. Karma trues us up. > Hey, lighten up! You're all wussies here when it comes to bullying, compared with people I have regularly mixed with on and off line. At least nobody is issuing death threats... -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Mon May 9 00:28:52 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 01:28:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Proactive Posts vs. Underhanded Posts In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508125745.02c45a38@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508125745.02c45a38@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <427EAEC4.6070809@neopax.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Friends, > > We are having a stream of posts that could be proactive and helpful in > getting people motivated to build projects to spread ideas about > transhumanism. This is a good thing. > > We are also having some underhanded posts which are insulting list > members. This is not a good thing. > > This is a warning to all list posters that on this list, we do not > allow posters to make accusations using a broad stroke with an > underhanded approach. If it continues, you will be asked to leave the > list or removed today. > Sorry to be a pain over this, but I don't understand what precisely you are trying to say. What, for example, are "accusations using a broad stroke with an underhanded approach"? I'm not asking for quotes from posts you have seen here, but a fictitious example might be helpful. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 9 00:51:45 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 17:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <20050508224539.GE1433@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050509005145.58220.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Actually, I suspect many consider transhumanism as > an albatross around one's > neck, and would tend to shun association, even if > they're aware that such a > label exists. > > > If transhumanism is going to be significant in > world historical terms > > it will only be because human agents make it mean > something. > > > > In the case of embryonic stem cell research one of > the biggest > > political/social/ethical challenges is getting > people to recognize that > > there is a difference between a *potential* human > being (an embryo) > > and an *actual* one. Transhumanism isn't helping > with this > > discussion at all. If anything most transhumanist > talk as though what > > could potentially happen, cryonics, Drexlerian > nanotech, will happen > > given enough time. (As though time was irrelevant > for mortals). By > > living so far in a hypothetical potential future > many transhumanists > > seem to be losing or failing to engage in the > issues of the present. > > > > With the possible exception of Natasha and a > handful of others those > > that are engaging with the real issues of the day > are doing so under > > their own names, and their own brands, not under a > banner of > > transhumanism. Yup. This describes my situation exactly. I was interested in and made career choices regarding life-extension through stem cells and genetic and physiological augmentation long before I was aware of the existence of ExI or transhumanism in general. It just seemed to be a logical and lucrative course of action. Then in the midst of graduate school (PhD in microbiology, immunology, and molecular genetics) I discovered you guys and thought, "wow, I am not such a crazy apostate weirdo... there are other people out there that want to live a thousand years too and they realize that it is scientifically feasable and morally justifiable to do so." That essentially was the whole reason I signed onto this list. I would rather be part of a movement than a lone crack-pot. But to be totally honest I am somewhat in love with my own humanity and so there are aspects of transhumanism I am not terribly comfortable with. I for one would not go out of my way to rush the singularity to our doorsteps. I love life as I know it. I don't think I would love life with my psyche trapped in some unix box, or with me at the beck and call of some all-powerful AI. > Transhumanism is just a label for a common value > cluster. It's perfectly > feasible to pursue that cluster of values in full > ignorance of such a > label. This is, in fact, what most people do. > However, in order to lobby effectively, and to > establish agent cooperation > based on mutual recognition it is necessary to agree > on a common label. Yes it is a label and that can be good or bad, depending entirely on how it is perceived. On one hand one would like to think that our cluster of values would sell itself on its own merits. Unfortunately however experience has taught me that this is not how the world works. The difference between brand name peanut butter and generic peanut butter is not the ingredients or the processing. It is entirely the label and the spin. I for one think that our label would sell better if it was seen by the mainstream as being sexy, chic, and powerful. I don't think that transhumanists have done a good enough job on this front. Instead I think we give the world the impression that we are a bunch of irreverant amoral geeks that sit at our computers and argue about how what the world will be like 10,000 years from now. I know most of people on this list detest Scientology and Dianetics but that should not mean that we can't learn anything from them. They didn't reach critical mass until they recruited hollywood celebraties like Tom Cruise and John Travolta into their midst. So taking this into account, I don't think that it is nessesary that every extrope on this list need write a book, invent the elixir of eternal life, or make a billion dollars in order to proactively create transhumanity. I believe that it is sufficient that every list member find what they are best at doing. It doesn't really matter what this is even if it is just underwater-basket-weaving, golf, or reciting poetry and strive to do as well as humanly possible. Then once they are at that level, they need to do it just a little bit better so that the world will take notice. Then when the world is paying attention to them, they need to proudly own up to being a transhumanist or Extrope or whatever you decide THE LABEL ought to be. Once any movement or product becomes associated with famous powerful beautiful people, you will have to beat the wannabes off with a stick. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon May 9 00:55:35 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 10:25:35 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating Transhumanity) In-Reply-To: <20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0505081755175574f9@mail.gmail.com> Yes, do tell. Emlyn On 09/05/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > 3. Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this > > summer). > > Programming for a summit? Out of curiosity, what does that entail? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * (my real website is back, music, software, everything!) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 9 00:58:47 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050509005847.56231.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > See the sigline for my first effort. > For my second I'm writing a book on magick where the > last chapter will > be an analysis of Transhumanism as the modern day > 'Great Work' of alchemy. > I expect to be excommunicated from the list upon > publication... I won't call for your excommunication because I know better. Biochemistry can trace its roots back in an unbroken chain all the way to the alchemists of ancient Egypt. Hermes Trismejestus may have very well been the world's first transhumanist. He did after all publish some dozen books or so over a period of several hundred years. Philosopher's stone, Elixir of Life, Embryonic Stem Cells... all different facets of the same jewel. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 9 01:03:58 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 20:03:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Proactive Posts vs. Underhanded Posts In-Reply-To: <427EAEC4.6070809@neopax.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508125745.02c45a38@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <427EAEC4.6070809@neopax.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508195712.02cebda8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:28 PM 5/8/2005, you wrote: >Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >>Friends, >> >>We are having a stream of posts that could be proactive and helpful in >>getting people motivated to build projects to spread ideas about >>transhumanism. This is a good thing. >> >>We are also having some underhanded posts which are insulting list >>members. This is not a good thing. >> >>This is a warning to all list posters that on this list, we do not allow >>posters to make accusations using a broad stroke with an underhanded >>approach. If it continues, you will be asked to leave the list or >>removed today. >Sorry to be a pain over this, but I don't understand what precisely you >are trying to say. >What, for example, are "accusations using a broad stroke with an >underhanded approach"? >I'm not asking for quotes from posts you have seen here, but a fictitious >example might be helpful. Underhanded and overboard claims that are intended to insult list members. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 9 01:06:42 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 20:06:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating Transhumanity) In-Reply-To: <20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508113030.02cfafd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050509002211.12364.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508200427.02d14ea0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:22 PM 5/8/2005, Adrianwrote: >--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > 3. Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this > > summer). > >Programming for a summit? Out of curiosity, what does that entail? Fabulous! It entails basic compiling data and preparing web pages for summit. I will get you in touch with the tech team and you can speak with them. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 9 01:11:04 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactive Transhumanism (was: Creating Transhumanity) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508200427.02d14ea0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050509011104.30780.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 07:22 PM 5/8/2005, Adrianwrote: > >--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > 3. Offer your programming skills for the next ExI Summit (this > > > summer). > > > >Programming for a summit? Out of curiosity, what does that entail? > > Fabulous! It entails basic compiling data and preparing web pages > for > summit. I will get you in touch with the tech team and you can speak > with > them. Just curious for the details. Not saying I will...though not saying I won't either. ;) From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 9 01:32:48 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050508165829.EA0E457EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050509013248.12583.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Adrian might be especially interested in "A design manual for > micromachines using Casimir forces: preliminary considerations", > http://www.quantumfields.com/staif-2000paper.PDF , by Jordan Maclay. > This is not a journal article but it looks legit to me. I note that all of the structures it proposes keep all the faces parallel, and do not attempt to bias the Casimir effect one way or another. So of course those systems remain conservative. > Two key points here: first, for other geometries than infinite, > parallel > plates, the Casimir force seems to be as often repulsive as > attractive. > The effect is apparently quite complex and has only been computed > from > first principles for a few geometries. As noted in my project description, it's quite possible the geometry I'm using would indeed result in repulsive forces instead of attractive. However, in most cases, I've found that the absolute magnitude of the force (for a certain separation, et al) does not vary that much, even if the direction inverts. > And second, most importantly, > it conserves energy, exactly as I have been saying. For the specific geometries the paper considers. Just because parallel plates are conservative does not mean that all systems that can tap the Casimir effect must be conservative. > Better > experimental technique could help to show whether more theory is > needed. > I would encourage Adrian to continue his experiments but base them on > realistic expectations. *nods* It may well be, given the amount of not-solidly-knowns here, that the system neither converts energy in the expected manner nor just sits in place (either doing nothing, or reaching some equilibrium from which it does not budge). Other results are extremely unlikely, but not totally impossible given current experimental evidence. I expect to discover something. I do not know exactly what I will discover (if I did, it wouldn't be a discovery), nor do I know approximately how immediately useful it will be ("new energy source" and "minor academic curiosity" being almost at opposite ends of the immediate utility spectrum, yet both results are quite possible). And I am already getting hints that the most useful thing to come out of it may have nothing to do with the initial objective at all... > As for the larger question of whether it makes more sense for > Extropians > to work on concepts and ideas that are consistent with the laws of > physics > vs hoping to find that these laws are false, I still think it is > obvious > that the first path is more likely to succeed and advance one's > goals. Actually, the question was more "whether it makes more sense for Extropians to actually do something that can improve the world, or to endlessly debate philosophy and not actually put it into practice in the real world". Valid scientific criticism (trying to clarify what the laws of physics actually are and how they apply) was mistaken for the latter, though. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 9 01:33:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050508165829.EA0E457EE6@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050509013326.14628.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > > As for the larger question of whether it makes more > sense for Extropians > to work on concepts and ideas that are consistent > with the laws of physics > vs hoping to find that these laws are false, I still > think it is obvious > that the first path is more likely to succeed and > advance one's goals. With all due respect Hal, if Einstein had followed your advice, we'd still be wondering why our GPS satellites were going out of alignment all the time. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 9 01:44:48 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050509014448.89087.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Money is what makes things happen, the only force that > we can always rely upon to make things happen. Transhumanism > will not advance on collective will, self-sacrificing > volunteers, individual courage, any of that. Transhumanism > will be advanced a bit at a time by making each piece of > the journey profitable. Market forces will make it > happen. Oh, but the irony is: often times, altering these same market forces - developing tech to make things cheaper and better, altering society so that a desired end becomes the most economically beneficial end, and so forth - is often accomplished by collective will, self-sacrificing volunteers, individual courage, and so forth. Not always, of course, but in the absence of those things, market forces will push development towards that which is currently profitable. Take, for example, the civil rights movement. Even after the end of slavery, it was perceived as profitable to treat people of color as second-class citizens, so that relatively more affluent white people would be more likely to purchase one's goods or services. When this fact changed - and, in fact, a significant number of said white people started to not patronize merchants who discriminated against non-whites - then the market followed. But consider what it took to change that fact itself. We are simultaneously slaves to and masters of the market. It is definitely true that making certain lines of development obviously profitable will accomplish our goals. But how do we make them that way? (Either "proftiable" if they aren't already, or "obviously" if they are but those with the power to do it don't see things that way.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 9 02:56:43 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 19:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050509025643.48296.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Online spends are quick and painless. Spends in > the real world are tiresome. Whoever makes keeping and spending metal > holdings as easy as, say, a debit card, is going to make a mint..... > ;) Sounds like a possibly simple problem to tackle, if you've got a reputable metal holding organization. Pitch it as a new type of debit-account-only bank, and strike a deal with Visa or MasterCard to be able to start issuing cards. Downplay the fact that you're investing in metal instead of in cash, but generally hide customers' accounts behind the account number. Probably limit non-sale authorizations to 95% or so of balance, to protect against fluctuations in price making a previously granted auth no longer good a few days later (on top of the usual protections against auth then withdraw then process auth). Gives a new meaning to the term "gold card"... E-commerce. It's everywhere you want to be. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 9 04:41:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 21:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Economist 14-page special on oil In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050509044116.4760.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Online spends are quick and painless. Spends in > > the real world are tiresome. Whoever makes keeping and spending > metal > > holdings as easy as, say, a debit card, is going to make a > mint..... > > ;) > > Sounds like a possibly simple problem to tackle, if you've got a > reputable metal holding organization. Pitch it as a new type of > debit-account-only bank, and strike a deal with Visa or MasterCard to > be able to start issuing cards. Downplay the fact that you're > investing in metal instead of in cash, but generally hide customers' > accounts behind the account number. Probably limit non-sale > authorizations to 95% or so of balance, to protect against > fluctuations > in price making a previously granted auth no longer good a few days > later (on top of the usual protections against auth then withdraw > then process auth). Gives a new meaning to the term "gold card"... > > E-commerce. It's everywhere you want to be. Which brings me to a project I've been working on with a group of folks, mostly Florida libertarians. It is now named Aurum Debit Union, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company organized as a cooperative of cardmembers. Members will have a subholding under the ADU main holding, linked to an ADU Gold Debit Card, usable at ATMs, merchants, etc. Spends are cleared same day (as required by banking laws) at the daily spot price. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 9 06:20:05 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 07:20:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050507170422.027436e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0505082320cb3c05b@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us > how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it > happen? For the second, I'm trying to figure out how to create Friendly AI. (Whether I have a significant chance of success is of course a different question :)) For the first, I've just written this: http://homepage.eircom.net/~russell12/dp.html - Russell From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 9 06:44:28 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 23:44:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1672C519-CD86-4947-BB49-1910CC30E58E@mac.com> > Adrian wrote: > So, out of curiosity, would anyone else like to speak up, and tell us > how y'all interpet transhumanism and what you're doing to make it > happen? Transhumanism to me is an extension and continuation of the upward movement in humanity toward fulfillment, in the direction of increasing perfection, abilities and choices and overcome various types of limitation and suffering. What attracted me originally and still most lights me up is the real possibility of Abundance, on all levels and for everyone. But it goes deepen than that. It connects up to all those personal and global circuits that usually get channeled into spirituality and religion. Except that I see that most of the things most religions promise in heaven or in another life can be ours here, on this world, and in whatever other types of habitats that may someday be ours. So what am I doing. I have been kicking something around for a long time. I am done kicking it around. I will found a strongly transhumanist religion. Ah. I can hear the groaning already. I think that there is room and good reason to take the best of human spirituality and its tools and deep yearnings and wed that with science and especially with transhumanism/futurism/extropian memes. A Vision that knits hearts and minds together toward its manifestation could be planted all across many spiritual communities, in transhumanist circles and pull in many others from their cynicism or experience of lack of meaning. When such a Vision takes hold the chances of arriving at a future that sings the best in us into manifestation will be greatly increased. It is a religion because it will teach that we need much more than technology to truly create a relative paradise on this earth. It will take a lot of in depth psychological and spiritual work to become our best selves and free our energies for the Work. It is quite a shift of consciousness to really get Abundance. This religion is not exclusive and certainly doesn't have a corner on Truth. It is simply the best and widest net for moving forward that I can presently conceive of weaving and casting. You don't have to believe everything I believe. Take what works for where you are. It will work for some and not for others. It is not my job to figure it all out. I hope enough others are drawn to the basic idea that we together can flesh out the organization and create, ever sharpen and spread the Vision. I hope it infects a lot of people in various other religions. I hope it infects and inflames a lot of people who think that to create, claim and be claimed by a Vision is somehow intellectually uncool. It is very early in the formation phase of this new religion. The name I am considering is "Church of the Fulfillment". The idea being that we, all of humanity, can now get on with fulfilling all those age-old dreams of humanity and more for real, here and now, in this world. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 9 07:36:38 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 00:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Breaking the laws of physics. Message-ID: <20050509073638.22662.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> It is perfectly rational and extropic to attempt to break the laws of physics from time to time. First of all it is because the laws of physics are not the Laws of Nature. The laws of physics are meme-sets that arose by the natural selection of empiricism. The Laws of Nature simply are. They are the way that true objective nature existed long before sentient minds evolved to walk this planet. While it is much harder to argue for an objective morality, I would hope not to have to argue for the existence of an objective and very real nature. This existence of nature is argued for by a fossil record way too expansive to be a simulation of any type. If you firmly believe you live in the Matrix then just humor me and let me make my case. Now if you accept that nature simply is then one comes to understand that our brains built by genes and our minds built by memes evolved to maximize their fitness relative to a many dimensional fitness landscape. In essense both genes and memes seek maximums on the fitness landscape relative to an environment that can be "sensed" but not absolutely known for certain. Now it is commonly thought that evolution happens by mutation, one base pair of DNA at a time. True enough, for fine tuning of fitness these small steady changes of genes and memes is beneficial. But the problem with this is two-fold. First of all, this slow gradual change does not fit with all the existing data. In a laboratory one does see small changes in phenotype, like fruit flies changing the their eye color and such. But in the fossil record one sees a totally different story. One sees that a particular phenotype is stable for extended periods of time, then suddenly in a very short span of time new phenotypes will diverge from it and change rapidly. These phenomenon are called adaptive radiation and punctuated equilibrium respectively. While the exact mechanisms of these phenomena are not exactly known, they are thought to involve such traits as runaway sexual selection, genetic hypermutation, recombination, and lateral gene transfer. What is important to understand however is, that regardless of the mechanism involved, these changes serve the purpose of moving one very far from ones current location on the fitness landscape. This allows for one to escape what mathematicians and computer scientists refer to a local maximum. Now this is a very risky venture, because one is leaving the safe realm of ones little ecological niche so it is not something one should do lightly. But from the point of a search algorithm trying to find the global maximum of the fitness lanscape, reality function, or whatever you want to call it, it has to be done. An example of this is the lowly cockroach. Yeah, cockroaches are enourmously successful life-forms but I would not want to be one. The cockroach has remained virtually unchanged for hundreds of million years. It had found a pretty high point on the fitness landscape and stayed there. A very long long time ago, our genes and the cockroaches genes were very much alike. But the genes that became our ancestors moved out of that local maximum and found a higher point on the fitness landscape. So because of those brave genes so willing to face change and the unknown, there you now sit reading this and hopefully thinking about it. What does this have to do with the laws of physics? Physics is an abstract model of Nature. It is built of memes, in the form of equations. Functions that attempt to capture the multidimensional shape of reality. They are in the end mere abstract models of Nature and not Nature itself. The ultimate reality of Nature is probably not knownable. But thats not important. What is important is that the laws of physics should be as close to that reality as they can be, like a function approaching an asymptote. I would say that the laws of physics as they are, are trapped in a local maximum. That general relativity and quantum mechanics conflict with one another in their regions of overlap indicate that physics is not at a global maximum. Sure we can putter around and try to figure out the next few decimal places of plank's constant but that is not going get us out of this rut. Not only is this a problem in a philosophical sense in that physics should be as close to the truth as possible, but the laws of physics as they are seem to doom us to be trapped here on this third rock of Sol. And the universe is so big and beautiful and hanging out there just waiting for us. So to all the crack-pots and lunatics on this list in search of cold fusion, Casimir turbines, and what not, I say this: Go forth and be fruitful. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 9 08:11:07 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 18:11:07 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <1672C519-CD86-4947-BB49-1910CC30E58E@mac.com> Message-ID: <04e001c5546e$a7247fd0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Samantha wrote: > So what am I doing. I have been kicking something around > for a long time. I am done kicking it around. I will found a > strongly transhumanist religion. Ah. I can hear the groaning > already. I'm not groaning, I'm smiling. I think the idea is just about crazy enough to be worth trying. A transhumanist religion is likely to fare better than a transhumanist political party for instance. I think that you will find that there is a lot of work involved, but it could be interesting to work out how to legally establish a religion in the USA. There are probably tax concessions etc. > I think that there is room and good reason to take the best of > human spirituality and its tools and deep yearnings and wed > that with science and especially with transhumanism/futurism/ > extropian memes. A Vision that knits hearts and minds > together toward its manifestation could be planted all across > many spiritual communities, in transhumanist circles and pull > in many others from their cynicism or experience of lack of > meaning. When such a Vision takes hold the chances of > arriving at a future that sings the best in us into manifestation > will be greatly increased. > It is a religion because it will teach that we need much more > than technology to truly create a relative paradise on this earth. I'm not certain but I think there are some tests that have to be passed to be classified as a 'religion', you can't just proclaim yourself to be the religion of freedom-from-other's-foolish- religiousness for instance. I'm not sure but perhaps you have to believe in some sort of supreme being. > It will take a lot of in depth psychological and spiritual work > to become our best selves and free our energies for the Work. > It is quite a shift of consciousness to really get Abundance. > This religion is not exclusive and certainly doesn't have a > corner on Truth. It is simply the best and widest net for > moving forward that I can presently conceive of weaving > and casting. You don't have to believe everything I believe. > Take what works for where you are. It will work for some > and not for others. It is not my job to figure it all out. I hope > enough others are drawn to the basic idea that we together > can flesh out the organization and create, ever sharpen and > spread the Vision. I hope it infects a lot of people in various > other religions. How ecumenical :-) > I hope it infects and inflames a lot of people who think that to > create, claim and be claimed by a Vision is somehow > intellectually uncool. Intellectual coolness is overrated. > It is very early in the formation phase of this new religion. > The name I am considering is "Church of the Fulfillment". > The idea being that we, all of humanity, can now get on with > fulfilling all those age-old dreams of humanity and more for > real, here and now, in this world. I like the idea Samantha. Its not for me. But its at least *interesting* and you would learn something by trying to do it in a sensible way. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 9 09:27:02 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 19:27:02 +1000 Subject: Samanthas religion was Re: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <1672C519-CD86-4947-BB49-1910CC30E58E@mac.com> Message-ID: <050f01c55479$42118e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Another thought Samantha, If your religion specifically favoured or encouraged cryonics then it is possible (even likely that) civil liberties organisations would go into bat for you in defence of freedom of religion, in the event that local or state laws turned against you because cryonics fell out of favour with the locals for some reason. They would not have to agree that your decision to sign up for cryonics rational sense to be willing to uphold your right to make that decision for yourself especially if you made it on religious grounds. With a hub religion set up, cryonicists could convert to your religion at some stage in the future, as a form of additional insurance. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From claribel at intermessage.com Mon May 9 09:57:11 2005 From: claribel at intermessage.com (Claribel) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 05:57:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com><427DF241.8090709@lineone.net> <427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net> Message-ID: <018701c5547d$c8c78010$2b863040@WIGGLES> . > > Thank you ben, for helping to illuminate the difficulty with the way these > terms are applied. It appears muddled because these concepts of absolute > and relative are a poor match to human affairs which involve subjective > viewpoints and incomplete knowledge of the context. Seeing the muddle is > a step along the way to asking questions about what really underlies our > evaluation of "right" and "wrong" across a range of situations and a range > of moral agents from the simple to the more complex. I am also in favor of an 'in-between' view of relativism & absolutism. Both of them, taken in literal form, contain inherent paradoxes. With absolutism, the paradox is this: Not all absolutists agree on /what/ values should be regarded as absolute. Therefore, to profess an absolute system of values, you must choose between different possible absolute value systems. But, on what criteria do you base this choice? They cannot be absolute criteria, for, until you have made the choice, you do not have absolute criteria yet. You cannot have absolute criteria before you have them (well, not without a time travel paradox.) Therefore, the principles upon which you base your selection of absolute principles must themselves be either relative, arbitrary or nonrational (based on faith, intuition, feeling, etc. As a matter of fact, it is quite common to use faith as a basis for absolute values.) The paradox of relativism, on the other hand, is that each choice made must be relative /to/ something (otherwise it is purely arbitrary, which means that no choice is better than any other; therefore one has no basis for choosing at all.) But if a relative choice is relative /to/ something, that something must be either absolute or relative. If it is absolute, then what you have is an absolute value system buried under one or more levels of if-then clauses; the absolutes are simply at a more abstract level than that of immediate judgements. If it is relative, then /those/ criteria must be relative to still others, and so on, and so on, so you end up with an infinite regress. Thus, both absolutism and relativism ultimately deconstruct themselves. I think that in actual practice, people often make difficult moral decisions not through a clear-cut, linear list of ordered criteria, but through a complex calculus of multiple, interconnected values -- not maximizing any one of them, but optimizing a complex combination of them. And nonrational factors often play a role, precisely because the complexity is greater than can be easily reduced to a discrete set of rules. I am reminded of a scene in the movie /The Golden Child/, in which a young Asian boy is given a test to determine his worthiness to be the next spiritual leader. He is given a bunch of objects that represent the different virtues, and told to place them on a balance in the correct order. He thinks about it for a while, then, finally, he claps his hands and asks for a plate. Then he puts all of the weights on the plate at the same time, and it balances correctly. Of course, in the real world, it's not always that easy. From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 9 10:28:25 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 03:28:25 -0700 Subject: Samanthas religion was Re: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <050f01c55479$42118e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <1672C519-CD86-4947-BB49-1910CC30E58E@mac.com> <050f01c55479$42118e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <70A14C63-2E20-48CD-94BA-3897AA98D69D@mac.com> I believe the Universal Immortalism (http:// www.universalimmortalism.org) folks and at least one other group that slips my mind are exploring this angle. - samantha On May 9, 2005, at 2:27 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Another thought Samantha, > > If your religion specifically favoured or encouraged cryonics > then it is possible (even likely that) civil liberties organisations > would go into bat for you in defence of freedom of religion, in > the event that local or state laws turned against you because > cryonics fell out of favour with the locals for some reason. > > They would not have to agree that your decision to sign up for > cryonics rational sense to be willing to uphold your right to > make that decision for yourself especially if you made it on > religious grounds. > > With a hub religion set up, cryonicists could convert to your > religion at some stage in the future, as a form of additional > insurance. > > Brett Paatsch > _______________________________________________ > 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: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon May 9 11:41:00 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:41:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <31294dc0d310142c51a9b5dd02596900@bonfireproductions.com> References: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com> <31294dc0d310142c51a9b5dd02596900@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0505090441ed131fc@mail.gmail.com> Monday, 09 May 2005 Much after the thread has died down, I've found my copy of the report in question: "Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, Volume I: Executive Report, 2004." The PDF runs about 600kb, and my copy has the file name "EMPthreat.pdf" I'll gladly give a copy to whoever asks. Please try googling for it first, though. On 4/19/05, Bret wrote: [snip] -- Jay Dugger BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/ HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/ LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger Sometimes the delete key serves best. From dirk at neopax.com Mon May 9 11:55:53 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 12:55:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism In-Reply-To: <018701c5547d$c8c78010$2b863040@WIGGLES> References: <200505080709.j4879hR06846@tick.javien.com><427DF241.8090709@lineone.net> <427E2827.9030506@jefallbright.net> <018701c5547d$c8c78010$2b863040@WIGGLES> Message-ID: <427F4FC9.8060108@neopax.com> Claribel wrote: > > > . > >> >> Thank you ben, for helping to illuminate the difficulty with the way >> these terms are applied. It appears muddled because these concepts >> of absolute and relative are a poor match to human affairs which >> involve subjective viewpoints and incomplete knowledge of the >> context. Seeing the muddle is a step along the way to asking >> questions about what really underlies our evaluation of "right" and >> "wrong" across a range of situations and a range of moral agents from >> the simple to the more complex. > > > > I am also in favor of an 'in-between' view of relativism & absolutism. > Both of them, taken in literal form, contain inherent paradoxes. > Make it simpler still. A few axioms plus 'might makes right'. No need to 'prove' anything. No paradoxes -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005 From bret at bonfireproductions.com Mon May 9 13:12:02 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:12:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack? In-Reply-To: <5366105b0505090441ed131fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <200504180426.j3I4QP226701@tick.javien.com> <31294dc0d310142c51a9b5dd02596900@bonfireproductions.com> <5366105b0505090441ed131fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <14008f6b2828d171cf2f0de193224b6e@bonfireproductions.com> Greetings, One location is: http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/ 108thcongress/04-07-22emp.pdf#search='EMP%20threat.pdf' with a document name of 04-07-22emp.pdf Cheers, ]3 On May 9, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Jay Dugger wrote: > EMPthreat.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 374 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 9 13:38:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Samanthas religion was Re: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <050f01c55479$42118e70$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050509133804.33444.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Another thought Samantha, > > If your religion specifically favoured or encouraged cryonics > then it is possible (even likely that) civil liberties organisations > would go into bat for you in defence of freedom of religion, in > the event that local or state laws turned against you because > cryonics fell out of favour with the locals for some reason. > > They would not have to agree that your decision to sign up for > cryonics rational sense to be willing to uphold your right to > make that decision for yourself especially if you made it on > religious grounds. > > With a hub religion set up, cryonicists could convert to your > religion at some stage in the future, as a form of additional > insurance. I for one encourage Samantha. It is something that needs doing. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 9 13:52:54 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050509135254.78292.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Claribel wrote: > > With absolutism, the paradox is this: Not all absolutists agree on > what values should be regarded as absolute. Therefore, to profess an > absolute system of values, you must choose between different > possible absolute value systems. But, on what criteria do you base > this choice? They cannot be absolute criteria, for, until you have > made the choice, you do not have absolute criteria yet. You cannot > have absolute criteria before you have them (well, not without a > time travel paradox.) Therefore, the principles upon which you base > your selection of absolute principles must themselves be either > relative, arbitrary or nonrational (based on faith, intuition, > feeling, etc. As a matter of fact, it is quite common to use faith as > a basis for absolute values.) The invalid assumption being made here is that all absolutes are subjective to the people choosing them, rather than that there are inherently objective facts embedded in the universe (pi, c, G, e, i, etc are good candidates) which are neither open to debate, nor open to selective cherry picking by any given sentients personal philosophy. Therefore, there is neither relativeness, arbitrariness, nor nonrationality to do with root objectively true facts. I understand how a post-modernist would overlook the idea that facts could exist outside of human conception, because such facts are outside the possibility of deconstruction. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From John-C-Wright at sff.net Mon May 9 21:13:10 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 16:13:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of a good verbal contest Message-ID: <200505092113.j49LDGR26313@tick.javien.com> Giulio Prisco writes: "I always enjoy a good verbal contest, but I have a feeling that we are sort of wasting our time with this specific issue. You can affirm the objective existence of absolute morality, and I can deny it, and we can still come to the same moral conclusions on specific practical issues, same as we could still come to completely different conclusions if we shared the same opinion on absolute morality. So, believing or not in absolute morality has just no effect on specific moral judgements. So it is like middle age scholars discussing the sex of the angels, or how many angels can dance on a needle tip: completely void of practical meaning and relevance." My dear sir, I know not if this comment is meant for me, but permit me to answer as if it were: I compliment you on your good natured dis-interest in this topic. You believe moral reasoning is pointless and sometimes (if one reasons to an absolute dogma) dangerous; you also believe men will come to the same general conclusions about morality whether moral reasoning is present or absent. How wonderful a world it would be if we could all agree on the correct measured justice for which humans long, and fight, and die, merely without a word uttered! My understanding of history, limited as it is, does not permit me to agree with this happy vision. Someone, uttering arguments no different in scope or approach from the ones uttered on this list, convinced the pagans to adopt Christianity during the Imperial period of Rome. Someone convinced the Christians in the Dark Ages to Crusade against the Paynims. Someone convinced the Protestants to Reform the Church; someone convinced the Catholics to counter-reform. Someone convinced the Abolitionists to organize a world-wide century-long opposition to the slave trade. Someone convinced the Suffragettes that the fairer sex should vote. Someone convinced the American to prohibit the sale of alcohol; someone convinced them a few years later that this was unwise. Someone convinced the Europeans of the unchallenged wisdom of socialist ideals. Someone convinced the Free World to oppose those ideals, a death-stuggle that continues to this day. Someone convinced the Academy to promote speech-codes to prevent any free speech that might offend race-minorities, women, homosexuals. Surely not all those words were wasted. Surely they had some influence for good or ill on human destiny. Sir, I mean not to offend, but if you and I just so happen to agree on whether it is right or wrong to help an old lady across the street, it is because we share a common humanity, and to protect the elderly is a sentiment often found in the breast of civilized men. But if you and I happen to agree on the need for pre-emptive war in the Middle East, or the justice of the death penalty for rapists, or the morality of child-abortion, or any other issue where there is no common consensus, there is nothing you can say to me, because you have denounced the use of reasoning on moral topics. From John-C-Wright at sff.net Mon May 9 21:27:53 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 16:27:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of a good verbal contest Message-ID: <200505092127.j49LRvR28100@tick.javien.com> Giulio Prisco also writes: "Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4" and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so fundamentally different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying to mix them." Mr. Prisco and I are in entire agreement on this one point: statement of mathematics and statements of formal moral principle are not in the same metaphyiscal category, although both are rational rather than empircal, looking to reason, not to experiment, for their confirmation. He and I disagree only in that I deem both are equally obvious, one to the mathematical imagination, the other to the conscience. From dgc at cox.net Mon May 9 23:39:19 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 19:39:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of a good verbal contest In-Reply-To: <200505092127.j49LRvR28100@tick.javien.com> References: <200505092127.j49LRvR28100@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <427FF4A7.4090208@cox.net> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: >Giulio Prisco also writes: "Morality is fundamental to us of course, but "2+2=4" >and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so >fundamentally different and unrelated that I just cannot see any point in trying >to mix them." > >Mr. Prisco and I are in entire agreement on this one point: statement of >mathematics and statements of formal moral principle are not in the same >metaphyiscal category, although both are rational rather than empircal, looking >to reason, not to experiment, for their confirmation. > >He and I disagree only in that I deem both are equally obvious, one to the >mathematical imagination, the other to the conscience. > > > That's elegant and concise enough for me to understand. In mathematics, I must accept formal logic and the Peano Postulates "on faith." What are the "moral Peano Postulates?" From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 01:02:47 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 02:02:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: In defense of a good verbal contest In-Reply-To: <427FF4A7.4090208@cox.net> References: <200505092127.j49LRvR28100@tick.javien.com> <427FF4A7.4090208@cox.net> Message-ID: <42800837.4010508@neopax.com> Dan Clemmensen wrote: > John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > >> Giulio Prisco also writes: "Morality is fundamental to us of course, >> but "2+2=4" >> and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are exemples of two classes of statements so >> fundamentally different and unrelated that I just cannot see any >> point in trying >> to mix them." >> Mr. Prisco and I are in entire agreement on this one point: statement of >> mathematics and statements of formal moral principle are not in the same >> metaphyiscal category, although both are rational rather than >> empircal, looking >> to reason, not to experiment, for their confirmation. >> He and I disagree only in that I deem both are equally obvious, one >> to the >> mathematical imagination, the other to the conscience. >> >> > That's elegant and concise enough for me to understand. In > mathematics, I must accept > formal logic and the Peano Postulates "on faith." > Not really, since they are *axioms*. If they could be derived they would not be axioms. IMO they are mathematical 'facts', or the equivalent of non-reducible physical data in the sciences. While morality may not be mathematics I suggest that it does require logical consistency, and I have no objection to morality that is axiom based ie cannot be derived as long as those axioms are self consistent. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005 From max at maxmore.com Mon May 9 22:34:22 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 17:34:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <427EAD65.5080009@neopax.com> References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <427EAD65.5080009@neopax.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050509173129.061f6c00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:23 PM 5/8/2005, Dirk wrote: >For my second I'm writing a book on magick where the last chapter will be >an analysis of Transhumanism as the modern day 'Great Work' of alchemy. >I expect to be excommunicated from the list upon publication... That's an odd think to expect (unless there's something you're not telling us). I've often made parallels with the alchemists and their three goals of transmuting the elements, achieving flight, and immortality. I like to say: two down, one to go. The alchemists were pre-scientific, of course, but had their heart in the right place. 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 dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 01:22:14 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 02:22:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Creating Transhumanity In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050509173129.061f6c00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050508005651.46949.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <427EAD65.5080009@neopax.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050509173129.061f6c00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <42800CC6.4050500@neopax.com> Max More wrote: > At 07:23 PM 5/8/2005, Dirk wrote: > >> For my second I'm writing a book on magick where the last chapter >> will be an analysis of Transhumanism as the modern day 'Great Work' >> of alchemy. >> I expect to be excommunicated from the list upon publication... > > > That's an odd think to expect (unless there's something you're not > telling us). > > I've often made parallels with the alchemists and their three goals of > transmuting the elements, achieving flight, and immortality. I like to > say: two down, one to go. > > The alchemists were pre-scientific, of course, but had their heart in > the right place. > Only (half) joking. My political efforts and opinions were enough to get me forced off the WTA list. I also plan to precis that rather cutting article that compared Transhumanism to the Gnostic tradition. I note that when that one did the rounds on the list it was most unpopular, but I still think it holds more than a grain of truth. Anyway, I'll recommend the Extropy Inst as the preferred org if any reader is keen on lending a hand. Maybe ExI will become a branch of the OTO :-) -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005 From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 10 02:07:11 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:07:11 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Natasha wrote: > I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, > democracy + capitalism. From my research, democracy and > capitalism lean toward compatibility and could be helpful > advocates of human rights. > > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial > relations between nations could be a driving force behind > advancing worldwide human rights? I'm sceptical but I'd be interested to hear why you think so and I think the area you are choosing to explore has merit. If you write an essay on this I will read it and give you some feedback on or offlist as you prefer, you can then take that feedback or leave it as you prefer. When capitalism and democracy don't map to the same geographical spaces I think capitalism can hurt human rights as human rights are not equivalent in different locations and people are not competing on an even footing. But democracy, capitalism and human rights are all pretty substantial terms and probably need to be defined pretty carefully to ensure that anything sensible is said about them at all. I see some sort of international law as essential to human rights if capitalism is going to apply internationally or capitalism will work against human rights by seeking our the cheapest labour wherever it can get it on any terms that it can get it. Capitalism is as happy to supply weapons as medicines, happier if the margins are bigger. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue May 10 03:37:27 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 22:37:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: <063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050509223238.026d98a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I do think that democracy and capitalism do hit many of the same spaces. Or perhaps I reading too many business journals and marketing plans. For example, a 401(k) plan is in the shared domain of democracy and capitalism. capitalism is profit making. Our retirement plans are privately owned (IRA, Roth IRA, etc.). That is our money for our retirement. We select what we want to invest in -- stock, index funds, mutual funds, etc., thus it is a democratic process. Needless to say that if I invest in my own business it would be a D+C interface. Natasha At 09:07 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote: >Natasha wrote: > > > I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, > > democracy + capitalism. From my research, democracy and > > capitalism lean toward compatibility and could be helpful > > advocates of human rights. > > > > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial > > relations between nations could be a driving force behind > > advancing worldwide human rights? > >I'm sceptical but I'd be interested to hear why you think so and I think >the area you are choosing to explore has merit. > >If you write an essay on this I will read it and give you some feedback >on or offlist as you prefer, you can then take that feedback or leave >it as you prefer. > >When capitalism and democracy don't map to the same geographical >spaces I think capitalism can hurt human rights as human rights are >not equivalent in different locations and people are not competing on an >even footing. > >But democracy, capitalism and human rights are all pretty substantial >terms and probably need to be defined pretty carefully to ensure that >anything sensible is said about them at all. > >I see some sort of international law as essential to human rights if >capitalism is going to apply internationally or capitalism will work >against human rights by seeking our the cheapest labour wherever it >can get it on any terms that it can get it. > >Capitalism is as happy to supply weapons as medicines, happier >if the margins are bigger. > >Brett Paatsch >_______________________________________________ >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 Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue May 10 06:38:19 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 23:38:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion: Honest! Message-ID: <428056DB.3030305@mindspring.com> Cold fusion Honest! Apr 28th 2005 >From The Economist print edition A report of a desktop experiment that produces nuclear fusion is bound to raise eyebrows. But this time, the results look convincing PHYSICISTS who meddle with cold fusion, like psychologists who dabble in the paranormal, are likely to be labelled quacks by their peers. This is due to an infamous incident in 1989 when Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann held a press conference to announce their discovery of nuclear fusion in what amounted to a test-tube full of water connected to a battery. In particular, they said that they were getting more energy out of the process than they put into it. Their result was instantly dubbed "cold fusion", to contrast it with giant fusion-reactor experiments that attempt to reproduce the ultra-high temperatures found inside the sun. But when it failed to stand up to scrutiny, confusion--and eventually outrage--ensued. In 2002, history repeated itself as farce with the announcement by a group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee of fusion inside the bubbles that are produced by ultrasonic waves travelling through a liquid. This result passed the peer-review process, but was immediately attacked by another group--from the same laboratory--which claimed to find no such effect. There was a counterclaim by yet a third team last year, and a final verdict on "bubble fusion" is still not in. But most people have lost interest in the debate, assuming that anyone claiming to have observed fusion in a desktop experiment is a crank or a fraud. This attitude, however, may yet turn out to be mistaken. Desk-top fusion may be possible after all, according to an article published in this week's Nature by three researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski and Seth Putterman have been meticulous in their experiment, and in particular in their measurement of one of the tell-tales of nuclear fusion, the production of neutrons. Their results have been peer-reviewed, and they make no wild claims of surplus energy being produced. Given past excesses, such caution is understandable. And it may indeed be the case that their technique, which involves banging together the nuclei of deuterium atoms (a heavy form of hydrogen) using a tiny crystal in a palm-sized vacuum chamber, will never provide a source of power. It could have some interesting applications, nonetheless. Energy from crystals In principle, nuclear fusion is a simple process. All you have to do is push two suitable atomic nuclei close enough together for them to overcome their mutual electrical repulsion (since both are positively charged) and they will merge. This merger releases oodles of energy. The usual way to push nuclei together is to smash them into one another at high speed. In thermonuclear fusion (the sort that happens in the sun, in hydrogen bombs, and in traditional fusion experiments) that speed is achieved by heating the atoms up. But this, as Dr Naranjo and his colleagues realised, is not the only way to do things. You can, as they have done, simply accelerate a stream of nuclei to high velocity, and fire them into a stationary target. Traditional accelerators, such as those used in particle-physics experiments, use high-voltage electricity to achieve this acceleration. However, they are cumbersome and they consume a lot of power while doing so. Dr Naranjo, by contrast, has devised a compact way of generating high voltages at much lower power using a so-called pyroelectric crystal. Heating such a crystal (or, rather, warming it from -30?C to just above freezing point) deforms its structure in a way that concentrates positive charge in one place and negative charge in another. That results in a big voltage between the two. The researchers then amplified the effect of the positive charge by attaching a metal tip to the place where it was accumulating. This concentrated the electrical field in the same way that the point of a lightning conductor concentrates the stroke. Dr Naranjo used this effect two ways: first to strip deuterium atoms of their electrons and second to repel the resulting stream of deuterium nuclei at high speed towards a target containing more deuterium. When two deuterium nuclei (each composed of a proton and a neutron) fuse, the result is a type of helium composed of two protons and a neutron, a free neutron, and a lot of energy. The bombardment also produces a lot of X-rays. By counting the neutrons and measuring the X-rays the researchers estimate that about 1,000 pairs of deuterium nuclei were fusing every second. This is, as they are the first to admit, a long way from producing a significant amount of energy. And although they reckon they could boost the fusion rate 1,000-fold with better apparatus, that still might not reach the magic threshold of producing more energy than it takes to run the experiment. Beyond that, they are understandably unwilling to speculate. This does not, however, mean that their device will have no applications. With only a little tweaking it could be turned into a handheld X-ray scanner, which would be a significant medical advance. Not yet a precursor to a starship engine, perhaps, but maybe an ancestor of Dr McCoy's portable diagnosis machine. < http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3909490 > -- "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.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue May 10 08:13:21 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 01:13:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 4/30/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy > + capitalism. From my research, democracy and capitalism lean toward > compatibility and could be helpful advocates of human rights. > > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial relations > between nations could be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human > rights? I'm reminded a little of the "Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention": http://everything2.com/?node=The+Golden+Arches+theory+of+conflict+prevention http://slate.msn.com/id/25365/ From natasha at natasha.cc Tue May 10 11:55:32 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 06:55:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050510064933.02c8dc30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:13 AM 5/10/2005, you wrote: >On 4/30/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy > > + capitalism. From my research, democracy and capitalism lean toward > > compatibility and could be helpful advocates of human rights. > > > > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial relations > > between nations could be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human > > rights? > >I'm reminded a little of the "Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention": > >http://everything2.com/?node=The+Golden+Arches+theory+of+conflict+prevention >http://slate.msn.com/id/25365/ Yes, very true - good catch. His is one node on the spectrum. Although globalists do not have to build arches and coffee houses to develop that interconnection. Even developed systems that provide joint economics - benefit and contribution to international nation advantage. Nations that give monetary aid to Africa share a connection. (French friends of mine love Starbucks. One Italian journalist I talking to shuttered when I mentioned meeting at one in Italy). Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue May 10 12:31:43 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:31:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Creating Humanity Message-ID: Max More: >At 07:23 PM 5/8/2005, Dirk wrote: > >I've often made parallels with the alchemists and their three goals of >transmuting the elements, achieving flight, and immortality. I like to say: >two down, one to go. > >The alchemists were pre-scientific, of course, but had their heart in the >right place. > >Max On this topic, in case anyone missed it (I don't think there were comments on my essay at the time) http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013649.html 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 dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 12:42:42 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:42:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Creating Humanity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4280AC42.5080405@neopax.com> Amara Graps wrote: > > > Max More: > >> At 07:23 PM 5/8/2005, Dirk wrote: >> >> I've often made parallels with the alchemists and their three goals of >> transmuting the elements, achieving flight, and immortality. I like >> to say: >> two down, one to go. >> >> The alchemists were pre-scientific, of course, but had their heart in >> the >> right place. >> >> Max > > > > On this topic, in case anyone missed it (I don't think there were > comments > on my essay at the time) > > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013649.html Thanks for pointing this out, its a useful resource since I have not started on that chapter yet (being the last in the book). When I do have a draft available I'll post a link here so that anyone who is interested may offer a critique. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue May 10 12:59:55 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:59:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Creating Humanity Message-ID: <226620-2200552101259550@M2W078.mail2web.com> Amara, Sorry I didn't see your post. Great idea and one that that would be a substantial reference. http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013649.html http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From John-C-Wright at sff.net Tue May 10 13:36:45 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:36:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism Message-ID: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw you attention to a peculiarity in this discussion. In answering the hypothetical about whether a stepfather should prevent his underage daughter from aborting her baby, notice not what the answers are, but notice the method of reasoning used. If the answerer weighs the girl's desires for a career against her desire for the life of her child, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a subjective one. For example, Mr. Prisco answered the girl should spare the child if she wanted, and slay it if she wanted. His answer is entirely confined to the ambit of the girl's fourteen-year-old emotion. If the answerer weighs the girl?s desires against the changing duties imposed upon her by changing circumstances, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a relative one. No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone said, "If the population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but if the population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer depends on the situation; in this case, on population numbers. Again, no one has answered this way, but supposing someone said, "She should obey the laws of her land and heed the opinions of her elders, whatever they are. Only if the general society has reach a consensus that it is right to slay the child can she slay it." This would also be a relativistic answer; because this answer would say right or wrong depends on the values and norms of society. A moral objectivist would weigh, not the desires, but the unchanging duties of the various parties against each other. For example, the Stoic objectivist might say: "Do the duties of a stepfather in this situation differ from the duties of a father? Does the father have a duty to protect the life of his unborn grandson? Does the father have the duty to govern, and the child a duty to obey, when the child is fourteen years of age? Does a mother have a duty to protect and raise her child? Does this duty apply to children once born, to children quickened in the womb, or does it apply from the moment of conception? Does the unborn child have a duty to die so that his mother may have a career, money or other pleasures?" And so on and so forth. But for another example, the Spartan objectivist might say: "Do the duties of the father include that healthy Spartan children must be born to service the state? In the case where the daughter is morally corrupt, does this corruption bring such shame upon her family and tribe that the child cannot be allowed to live?" And so on and so forth. The thing the two objectivist answers have in common is that they are weighing duties, not desires. Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation (either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty, regardless of whether it is his desire or not. The subjective component of decision, desire, falls out of the equation. JCW From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 13:42:20 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:42:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> References: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4280BA3C.4040401@neopax.com> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: >Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw you attention to a peculiarity in >this discussion. In answering the hypothetical about whether a stepfather should >prevent his underage daughter from aborting her baby, notice not what the >answers are, but notice the method of reasoning used. > >If the answerer weighs the girl's desires for a career against her desire for >the life of her child, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a subjective one. For >example, Mr. Prisco answered the girl should spare the child if she wanted, and >slay it if she wanted. His answer is entirely confined to the ambit of the >girl's fourteen-year-old emotion. > >If the answerer weighs the girl?s desires against the changing duties imposed >upon her by changing circumstances, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a >relative one. No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone said, "If the >population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but if the >population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer depends on the >situation; in this case, on population numbers. > >Again, no one has answered this way, but supposing someone said, "She should >obey the laws of her land and heed the opinions of her elders, whatever they >are. Only if the general society has reach a consensus that it is right to slay >the child can she slay it." This would also be a relativistic answer; because >this answer would say right or wrong depends on the values and norms of society. > >A moral objectivist would weigh, not the desires, but the unchanging duties of >the various parties against each other. > >For example, the Stoic objectivist might say: "Do the duties of a stepfather in >this situation differ from the duties of a father? Does the father have a duty >to protect the life of his unborn grandson? Does the father have the duty to >govern, and the child a duty to obey, when the child is fourteen years of age? >Does a mother have a duty to protect and raise her child? Does this duty apply >to children once born, to children quickened in the womb, or does it apply from >the moment of conception? Does the unborn child have a duty to die so that his >mother may have a career, money or other pleasures?" And so on and so forth. > >But for another example, the Spartan objectivist might say: "Do the duties of >the father include that healthy Spartan children must be born to service the >state? In the case where the daughter is morally corrupt, does this corruption >bring such shame upon her family and tribe that the child cannot be allowed to >live?" And so on and so forth. > >The thing the two objectivist answers have in common is that they are weighing >duties, not desires. Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation >(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the stepfather >ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty, regardless of whether it is >his desire or not. The subjective component of decision, desire, falls out of >the equation. > > > Not really, because you have not examined why one feels 'duty bound'. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 10 14:13:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: <063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050510141319.43152.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Natasha wrote: > > > I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, > > democracy + capitalism. From my research, democracy and > > capitalism lean toward compatibility and could be helpful > > advocates of human rights. > > > > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial > > relations between nations could be a driving force behind > > advancing worldwide human rights? > > > I'm sceptical but I'd be interested to hear why you think so and I > think the area you are choosing to explore has merit. > > If you write an essay on this I will read it and give you some > feedback on or offlist as you prefer, you can then take that > feedback or leave it as you prefer. > > When capitalism and democracy don't map to the same geographical > spaces I think capitalism can hurt human rights as human rights are > not equivalent in different locations and people are not competing on > an even footing. I generally agree with you, though I think insisting on human rights before capital is cart before horse. Societies practice the rights and morality they can afford. A homeless and penniless man has no means of exercising a full right to property. Democracy has historically depended upon an educated and skilled middle class of substantial proportion to the greater society in order to function stably. This can only occur through free markets and capitalism. You cannot legislate wealth. The nations which currently are enjoying the industrialization brought by globalisation will find their children rewriting their constitutions in the near future. When arrested individuals around the world insist on being read their rights because they saw it on re-runs of Starsky and Hutch, you know something interesting is starting. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 10 14:18:43 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:18:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] laugh for the day In-Reply-To: <226620-2200552101259550@M2W078.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200505101420.j4AEKmR26088@tick.javien.com> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/10/jesus.lawsuit.ap/index.html From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 10 14:22:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:22:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] coool! we finally caught one In-Reply-To: <200505101420.j4AEKmR26088@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200505101424.j4AEOcR26608@tick.javien.com> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156045,00.html {8-] spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 10 14:31:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050510143132.41933.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > > Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation > >(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the > >stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty, > > regardless of whether it is his desire or not. The subjective > > component of decision, desire, falls out of the equation. > > > Not really, because you have not examined why one feels 'duty bound'. Am I correct, Dirk, in saying your argument is that there is no difference between one persons desire to live morally and another persons desire to live licentiously, that both lifestyles are desire-based? The problem is that one involves the application of reason to structure ones life, while the other is merely a base reaction to ones instinctual urges without reasoning, reflection, introspection. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 14:36:21 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:36:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <20050510143132.41933.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050510143132.41933.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4280C6E5.8010005@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: >> >> >>>Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation >>>(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the >>>stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty, >>>regardless of whether it is his desire or not. The subjective >>>component of decision, desire, falls out of the equation. >>> >>> >>> >>Not really, because you have not examined why one feels 'duty bound'. >> >> > >Am I correct, Dirk, in saying your argument is that there is no >difference between one persons desire to live morally and another >persons desire to live licentiously, that both lifestyles are >desire-based? > > > Not really. I was just pointing out that 'duty' was not defined, nor was there any analysis of why people accept some duties and not others. However, saying that everything is desire based at some level is a truism and rather unhelpful. >The problem is that one involves the application of reason to structure >ones life, while the other is merely a base reaction to ones >instinctual urges without reasoning, reflection, introspection. > > > And why would one *desire* to apply reason? The only reasons I can see are mindless conditioning or success of outcome. And what is the *desired* outcome? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 10 14:49:33 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:49:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> References: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4280C9FD.1030807@jefallbright.net> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: >Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw you attention to a peculiarity in >this discussion. In answering the hypothetical about whether a stepfather should >prevent his underage daughter from aborting her baby, notice not what the >answers are, but notice the method of reasoning used. > > > >The thing the two objectivist answers have in common is that they are weighing >duties, not desires. Once they reach an answer in their moral calculation >(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists will hold that the stepfather >ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it is his duty, regardless of whether it is >his desire or not. The subjective component of decision, desire, falls out of >the equation. > > Very interesting. Until the very last sentence, I thought this was an argument for subjectivity at nested scales of context. It seems that the difference between the two categories here is that those in the first category based their moral decision-making on subjective evaluation within their individual context, while those in the second category based their decision-making on subjective evaluation with the group context. To put it another way, in the first case, they identified only with their own individual desires and intentions, while in the second case they identified with the group desires and intentions. We could take this further and have them identify with all of humanity, and I suspect most of us would find that an even more moral position. We could take it further...but I think my point is made. In either case, the evaluation was subjective; as you pointed out, the Stoics and the Spartans each had their own codes of moral duty, and neither fit the definition of "objective" as meaning "apparent to all", or "based on factual measurement rather than interpretation." - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue May 10 14:49:57 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:49:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050510144957.3919.qmail@web26206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> somebody before compared this debate to the sex of angels one. this seems to be going further to include the sexual orientation of the angels. I just would like that you consider the following: according to Kardashev civilization level classification, based mostly on energy compsumtion, we are not yet at stage 1, a planetary level society, actually we are approaching 0.8 level. After that there are two more to go level 2 an interplanetry society, level 3 an interstellar society. for fans we can have four more levels but that goes beyond the point. But that's mostly a territorial classification. If we could follow a similar scheme for human life I would, by logic, deduct the following: Phase 1, technological singularity and theoretical human immortality (all diseases and aging alterations eliminated)we are not there yet but we are close say 0.8 too Phase 2-enhanced humans, intellianimals and AI plus life forms, including universal brain accessibility Phase 3- mind \body separation, mind travel and mind occupation of bodiesand\or entities natural or artificial Phase 4- mind as energy .... going further we reach God, meaning we are God.(theoretically speaking) considering all the above, debatable and subject to hundred of different opinions and the absolute underpositioning of current humans in the universe, how can we define morality? or even try to do it with current standards? --- Mike Lorrey ha scritto: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > > > Once they reach an answer in their moral > calculation > > >(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists > will hold that the > > >stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it > is his duty, > > > regardless of whether it is his desire or not. > The subjective > > > component of decision, desire, falls out of the > equation. > > > > > Not really, because you have not examined why one > feels 'duty bound'. > > Am I correct, Dirk, in saying your argument is that > there is no > difference between one persons desire to live > morally and another > persons desire to live licentiously, that both > lifestyles are > desire-based? > > The problem is that one involves the application of > reason to structure > ones life, while the other is merely a base reaction > to ones > instinctual urges without reasoning, reflection, > introspection. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail Mobile > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your > mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica? Scaricalo ora! http://it.messenger.yahoo.it From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 10 14:52:48 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:52:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> References: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <9BB150CD-D773-4A84-8D3E-B779BCCCFA87@mac.com> On May 10, 2005, at 6:36 AM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw you attention to a > peculiarity in > this discussion. In answering the hypothetical about whether a > stepfather should > prevent his underage daughter from aborting her baby, notice not > what the > answers are, but notice the method of reasoning used. That wasn't the question was it? I believe it was phrased more in terms of what you would advise such a newly pregnant youngster to do. > > > If the answerer weighs the girl's desires for a career against her > desire for > the life of her child, this answer (whether yea or nay) is a > subjective one. For > example, Mr. Prisco answered the girl should spare the child if she > wanted, and > slay it if she wanted. His answer is entirely confined to the ambit > of the > girl's fourteen-year-old emotion. tsk, tsk. There is no child. There is little more than an embryo and a grl whose chances to grow up and prepare for life are foreshortened by this unfortunate event. > > If the answerer weighs the girl?s desires against the changing > duties imposed > upon her by changing circumstances, this answer (whether yea or > nay) is a > relative one. No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone > said, "If the > population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but > if the > population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer > depends on the > situation; in this case, on population numbers. I am amazed that supposedly intelligent people would speak in such terms of "slaying a child" or forcing women and even girls to give birth regardless of their own needs which should count at least as much as those of a fetus. Discussions like this make me very doubtful that humanity is bright enough to survive. We seem to suffer recurring breakdowns in our thinking. - samantha From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 14:54:27 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:54:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality Message-ID: <4280CB23.7080200@neopax.com> Three axiom possible bases: (a) Propagation of self into the future (b) Propagation of genes (c) Propagation of memes Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from either of the other two Transhumanists clearly favour (a) Religious people (c) Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From amara at amara.com Tue May 10 15:35:06 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:35:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy Message-ID: One of the things that supported my positive views about Italy before I arrived 2.5 years ago was the country's innovative medical sciences; very good doctors were free to try new technology. Unfortunately, during the time I've been here, that arena has shifted drastically, into an environment I'm finding more and more technophobic and xenophobic. Italy has now the most restrictive assisted reproductive technology (ART) laws in Europe. Next month is a referendum, to allow Italians (the Italian taxes I pay mean nothing for my helping to contribute to this society, and I'm prohibited from voting on anything) for some of the most controversial parts of the assisted reproductive technology laws to be removed. The timing of the law coincides nicely with the start of the summer holiday :-\ My Italian friends (not enough) are voting in this referendum to try to change the laws; the details of the law is here: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/print_report.cfm?DR_ID=27656&dr_cat=2 but I'm not very hopeful for a change in the laws. I spent the weekend (I spoke on another topic about volcanoes) at the Italian National Book Fair in Torino, and saw the many carefully packaged religious books and pamphlets portraying ART as terribly dangerous for the existence of mankind. (Another note: out of the 1500 book publishers there, only _one_ was a publisher that published solely technical topics.) Last week, the every-evening discussion program titled "8:30", on the only independent (Berlusconi controls the rest) television station featured Severino Antinori, a very well-respected doctor (gynocology), where he presented his opinion about assisted reproductive technology. He was clear and focused and sharp however, on the program, he drowned in a sea of phobic people, who would not consider his arguments in a rational way. Even the moderator, a relatively freethinking smart guy, showed his fear and ignorance about technology and assisted reproductive methods, and argued, along with the rest of the people on the show, from an emotional base. How disappointing. This article sums up the current state of assisted reproductive technology laws in Italy and Antinori's views. Amara --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.theamericanmag.com/article.php?show_issue_id=3&show_article_id=14 The Right To Bear Opinions By Paul Virgo May 2004 The Right To Bear Opinions By Paul Virgo May 2004 Italian embryologist and gynecologist Severino Antinori is among medicine's most controversial figures. The Rome-based fertility expert made headlines in 2001 when he proposed human cloning as a way around male infertility. Antonori's claim that he could clone humans was met with skepticism and hostility (many in the medical community labeled it unethical) and helped usher in legislation banning reproductive cloning in Italy. Antinori has countered that resistance is based wholly on prejudice. He has also received support from unlikely sources, including Noble laureate and DNA pioneer James Watson and in vitro fertilization (IVF) pioneer Robert Edwards. In 1986, Antinori infuriated the Roman Catholic Church by developing a microinjection fertility technique for men, earning the nickname "father of the impossible children." In 1994, he helped 62-year-old Rosanna Della Corte become the oldest known woman to give birth. Antinori chatted with The American's Paul Virgo in Rome. These are excerpts from their conversation. Q. How do you respond to those who claim Italy is the Wild West of fertility treatment? A. The Vatican invented the name Wild West. It can no longer do as it once did and bully people like Galileo, whose ideas they disapproved of. They use another strategy to fight science and people that think differently. They use this name to defame this field. I reject the Wild West accusation. There are good people. The Swiss international body ISO, which rates the quality of care at IVF clinics, found that half were of high quality. In Italy's general hospitals, only 20 percent fell into this category. Wild West ... is a name invented in an attempt to destroy people's right to fertility treatment, which in my opinion is a basic human right. Don't forget that Italy is the country of Machiavelli. What does this mean? If you want to destroy someone, you don't do it directly, but you use other ways, damaging their reputation. Q. But Italy's new law on assisted fertility was meant to rein in such a Wild West. How do you see its effect? A. Paradoxically now we have the most restrictive law in the world in terms of assisted fertility: It [restricts] human rights, freedom of research, freedom to have therapy, freedom to reproduce. Q. How so? A. It limits the use of much technology and brings down by 50 percent the childbearing chances of people with fertility problems. The law limits the number of eggs that can be used to three; it limits the number of embryos; it bans the freezing of embryos, and so on. If you can only use three eggs, the chances of success with IVF drops from 30 percent to about five percent. This is bad for women, because they are forced to repeat the treatment, with the risks that involves. It's a return to the dark ages. The spirit of this law, inspired by the Vatican, is, "Don't touch the embryo." For them the embryo is human two days after fertilization. But 90 percent of scientists consider life to begin two or three weeks after fertilization, not simply when the spermatozoid enters the egg. Another important restriction is the forbidding of gametes outside the couple. It's unbelievable. And the best bit is that you can do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, but if you find a problem in the embryo you must transfer it to the woman's uterus anyway. Even if you know it's unhealthy and will abort. Dangerous stuff. Q. To what extent do you think Vatican views influence national policy? A. Too much. The Vatican established this law. It's incredible that this can happen in a secular state. And it's incredible that a government that calls itself "House of Freedom" (Casa Della Liberta), with [Silvio] Berlusconi as prime minister, becomes the "House of Restrictions." Berlusconi wanted to give the Vatican a present with the law, but he didn't consider the three million couples in this situation [of wanting a child]. I think it's unconstitutional. Fortunately, there are lots of legal checks and balances that stop this sort of tyranny. I'm hopeful the constitutional court will overturn the law. Q. Why is infertility such a widespread and growing problem? A. There are a number of factors, related to lifestyle - smoking, drugs, diet, smog and pollution - which in particular reduce sperm counts. And in women, a higher number of sexual partners increases the number of infections, which in turn affects fertility. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm totally in favor of sexual freedom. Contraception obviously affects the number of children being born. Again, I wholly favor birth control and the right to plan when to have children. But fertility declines with age. In fact, in Italy the situation is that more people are dying than being born. For this reason people don't want too many restrictions on fertility treatment. We should be trying to promote life not prevent it. Q. How have people's attitudes to the problem of infertility changed? A. It's now easier to diagnose infertility and its causes in men. In the past, men always wanted to blame their wives if they could not have children, because being potent was a question of pride. You couldn't find out before; men became offended. But in half the cases the problem is the man. Q. You've been criticized for helping post-menopausal women conceive? Isn't it irresponsible to help women in the later stages of their lives bear children they might not be able to care for? A. My work is not aimed at helping all older women. We only use it in cases where a woman's biological age is not her chronological age. Let me explain. Some women in their 50s are still in good enough shape to give birth and care for their children for at least 20 years. By contrast there are other younger women, 31, 35, 40, say, who are in no condition to have babies. We judge whether to help a woman on the basis of her biological age. I'm happy that in Britain the Human Biology Authority has accepted these criteria. Now it's possible in Britain for a woman in her 50s to have children if she's in shape to bear them. Q. Under what circumstances, if any, is it acceptable to let parents decide the sex of their unborn children? A. This takes us back to the new law again. Now it's illegal to determine a child's sex, even when there are genetic diseases that only arise in one sex. There are diseases of this kind that are so grave they are incompatible with life. In such a case, it's right to determine the sex of the unborn child. Q. Does the vertiginous rise of Caesarean sections in Italy trouble you? A. No, I'm not worried. Caesarean sections enable us to avoid dangerous births, malformations and handicaps. It's an advance. I also approve of epidurals to have birth without pain. I don't agree with the Bible, which says women should go through pain when they give birth. Q. Medical research is often criticized in Italy. Is it justified? A. In the field of fertility it's a disaster. In the past, Italy ... along with Britain was a leader. But the new law has ended all that for now. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Man creates God in his own image." -- Ernst Heinrich Haeckel From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 10 15:41:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050510154133.21143.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Three axiom possible bases: > (a) Propagation of self into the future > (b) Propagation of genes > (c) Propagation of memes You are forgetting the tree huggers axiom: d) propagation of nature/the universe into the future. Survival of individuals, humanity, or human ideas is not necessary and to many thought to be inimical to (d) by such persons. > > Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from > either of the other two > Transhumanists clearly favour (a) > Religious people (c) > Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 10 15:59:04 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:59:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> References: <200505101337.j4ADbdR19792@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050510104817.01df14d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:36 AM 5/10/2005 -0500, John-C-Wright wrote: >No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone said, "If the >population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but if the >population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer depends on the >situation; in this case, on population numbers. > >Again, no one has answered this way, but supposing someone said, "She should >obey the laws of her land and heed the opinions of her elders, whatever they >are. Only if the general society has reach a consensus that it is right to >slay >the child can she slay it." And so on, with this tendentious, emotive, old Testament verb "slay", here applied as usual to a small clump of fetal cells. It seems to me more appropriately employed when Christians of certain denominations withhold permission for life-saving treatment offered to their sick children, such as blood transfusions, and thus unequivocally *slay* their flesh and blood in the name of eccentric interpretations of ancient superstition. See, for example, the disturbing cases of Jehovah's Witness and Christian Science families happier to slay their children than to let them have medical treatment: http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw11.html Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 10 17:18:54 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050510171855.37775.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:36 AM 5/10/2005 -0500, John-C-Wright wrote: > > > >No one has answered this way, but, supposing someone said, "If the > >population of her nation is too low, she must spare the child; but > >if the population is too high, she must slay the child." This answer > >depends on the situation; in this case, on population numbers. > > > >Again, no one has answered this way, but supposing someone said, > >"She should obey the laws of her land and heed the opinions of her > > elders, whatever they are. Only if the general society has reach a > > consensus that it is right to slay the child can she slay it." > > And so on, with this tendentious, emotive, old Testament verb "slay", > here applied as usual to a small clump of fetal cells. Calling a fetus more than two or three weeks old a 'clump of cells' is as hyperbolic a turn of phrase as calling a morning after pill 'murder'. Why not just call partial birth abortion 'downsizing'? You can call it 'repurposing your personal human resources' and 'rightsizing' your 'family tiger team' to enhance taxpayer value. > It seems to me more appropriately employed when Christians of certain > denominations withhold permission for life-saving treatment offered > to their sick children, such as blood transfusions, and thus > unequivocally *slay* their flesh and blood in the name of eccentric > interpretations of ancient superstition. For example, the witholding of feeding tubes from the severely handicapped..... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 10 17:55:27 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:55:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <20050510171855.37775.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050510171855.37775.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050510125120.01dcc820@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:18 AM 5/10/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote: >Why not just call partial birth abortion 'downsizing'? You can call it whatever you like, it has nothing to do with the situation that was proposed in this discussion, which was the early discovery (or so I assume) of pregnancy in a 14-year-old. There is indeed a vulnerable child in this story; the child is the unfortunate girl who was raped. Damien Broderick From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 18:08:25 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 19:08:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality In-Reply-To: <4280CB23.7080200@neopax.com> References: <4280CB23.7080200@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4280F899.7010804@neopax.com> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Three axiom possible bases: > (a) Propagation of self into the future > (b) Propagation of genes > (c) Propagation of memes > > Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from > either of the other two > Transhumanists clearly favour (a) > Religious people (c) > Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences > Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new spamkiller killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server. He raises the possibility of a fourth axiom, that of the propagation of Nature. IMO that is actually (c) -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Tue May 10 20:09:36 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 21:09:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Science of Gender and Science Message-ID: <20050510200650.M69898@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Found on Boing-Boing. (here is only an intro, the rest is at the web site) The Science of Gender and Science Pinker vs. Spelke A Debate http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge160.html Introduction On April 22, 2005, Harvard University's Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative (MBB) held a defining debate on the public discussion that began on January 16th with the public comments by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, on sex differences between men and women and how they may relate to the careers of women in science. The debate at MBB, "The Gender of Gender and Science" was "on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes". It's interesting to note that since the controversy surrounding Summers' remarks began, there has been an astonishing absence of discussion of the relevant science...you won't find it in the hundreds and hundreds of articles in major newspapers; nor will find it in the Harvard faculty meetings where the president of the leading University in America was indicted for presenting controversial ideas. Scientists debate continually, and reality is the check. They may have egos as large as those possessed by the iconic figures of the academic humanities, but they handle their hubris in a very different way. They can be moved by arguments, because they work in an empirical world of facts, a world based on reality. There are no fixed, unalterable positions. They are both the creators and the critics of their shared enterprise. Ideas come from them and they also criticize one another's ideas. Through the process of creativity and criticism and debates, they decide which ideas get weeded out and which become part of the consensus that leads to the next level of discovery. But unlike just about anything else said about Summers' remarks, the debate, "The Science of Gender and Science", between Harvard psychology professors Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke, focused on the relevant scientific literature. It was both interesting on facts but differing in interpretation. Both presented scientific evidence with the realization and understanding that there was nothing obvious about how the data was to be interpreted. Their sharp scientific debate informed rather than detracted. And it showed how a leading University can still fulfill its role of providing a forum for free and open discussion on controversial subjects in a fair-minded way. It also had the added benefit that the participants knew what they were talking about. Who won the debate? Make up your own mind. Watch the video, listen to the audio, read the text and check out the slide presentations. There's a lesson here: let's get it right and when we do we will adjust our attitudes. That's what science can do, and that's what Edge offers by presenting Pinker vs. Spelke to a wide public audience. Amara From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 10 20:49:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050510204955.12152.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Three axiom possible bases: > > (a) Propagation of self into the future > > (b) Propagation of genes > > (c) Propagation of memes > > > > Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from > > either of the other two > > Transhumanists clearly favour (a) > > Religious people (c) > > Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences > > > Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new spamkiller > > killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server. > He raises the possibility of a fourth axiom, that of the propagation > of Nature. IMO that is actually (c) Sorry to be pedantic, but actually, no. Memes require meaning making machines to exist, yet natures existence is a tautology independent of the existence of any meaning making machines, ergo natures continued existence is (d) because it does not require man or other sentient life to make it so. Relgious people can also buy into (d) as well as (c), but the fact that tree huggers are religious nuts is idependent of the fact that what they believe in exists independently of their beliefs. For this reason, (d) natures existence, being true independent of the solipsistic axiom bases posited by Dirk, is an objectively true axiom base. Sorry, Dirk, but the rest of us will go on after you are gone. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 10 21:20:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Enemy action In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050510212031.9762.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new > spamkiller killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server. Several other list members have recently informed me that my email address has been added to spam killers by unknown persons, singling out just my own list traffic as well as private emails, without the permission of those who received my mail. I regard this as an initiation of force. If you find you are also seeing my mail being filtered out, please let me know (assuming you check your bulk mailbox) and what software or ISP is responsible for the filtering. Thank you. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 21:58:31 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:58:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Enemy action In-Reply-To: <20050510212031.9762.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050510212031.9762.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42812E87.6050701@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >>--- Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> > > > >>>Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new >>> >>> >>spamkiller killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server. >> >> > >Several other list members have recently informed me that my email >address has been added to spam killers by unknown persons, singling out >just my own list traffic as well as private emails, without the >permission of those who received my mail. I regard this as an >initiation of force. If you find you are also seeing my mail being >filtered out, please let me know (assuming you check your bulk mailbox) >and what software or ISP is responsible for the filtering. Thank you. > > > Hold the paranoia! It was a mistake on my part using an updated version of mailwasher with a heuristic add-on. For some reason it does that to other ExI list members for no discernable reason despite my filter that marks anything with [extropy-chat] in the subject line as OK. Sometimes maybe a space is missing in the subject line or something. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 22:02:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:02:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Axiomatic Morality In-Reply-To: <20050510204955.12152.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050510204955.12152.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42812F62.2010801@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> >> >>>Three axiom possible bases: >>>(a) Propagation of self into the future >>>(b) Propagation of genes >>>(c) Propagation of memes >>> >>>Depending upon how cynical one is perhaps (a) can be derived from >>>either of the other two >>>Transhumanists clearly favour (a) >>>Religious people (c) >>>Most everyone else is primarily (b) and its consequences >>> >>> >>> >>Sorry it seems like I'm replying to my own post but my new spamkiller >> >>killed Mikes post as I was reading it on the server. >>He raises the possibility of a fourth axiom, that of the propagation >>of Nature. IMO that is actually (c) >> >> > >Sorry to be pedantic, but actually, no. Memes require meaning making >machines to exist, yet natures existence is a tautology independent of >the existence of any meaning making machines, ergo natures continued >existence is (d) because it does not require man or other sentient life >to make it so. Relgious people can also buy into (d) as well as (c), >but the fact that tree huggers are religious nuts is idependent of the >fact that what they believe in exists independently of their beliefs. > > > Such people carry that meme. And we are talking about foundations for morality, which requires (at present) people. No people, no morality. >For this reason, (d) natures existence, being true independent of the >solipsistic axiom bases posited by Dirk, is an objectively true axiom >base. Sorry, Dirk, but the rest of us will go on after you are gone. > > > Not a true axiom for morality because it requires a memetic belief system (aren't all belief systems memetic?) In fact, I could simply deny Nature (and everyone else) exists at all - solipsism. Pure (a). -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 10 22:16:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:16:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would say "That's terrible! What is a wonderful person like you doing in such a backward place?". But then I look at some of the US policies and what passes for "debate" here. -s On May 10, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > > > One of the things that supported my positive views about Italy > before I arrived 2.5 years ago was the country's innovative medical > sciences; very good doctors were free to try new technology. > Unfortunately, during the time I've been here, that arena has > shifted drastically, into an environment I'm finding more and more > technophobic and xenophobic. Italy has now the most restrictive > assisted reproductive technology (ART) laws in Europe. > From benboc at lineone.net Tue May 10 22:16:05 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:16:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <200505101800.j4AI0DR19529@tick.javien.com> References: <200505101800.j4AI0DR19529@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <428132A5.60908@lineone.net> It's quite amusing how my original hypothetical scenario is being pulled in all sorts of directions, and is being subjected to various interpretations. I simply meant it to be background to my questions about what relative and objective morality mean, or what they are taken to mean by different people (Which nobody actually answered directly, but i think i've got a handle on the ideas now). Just to clear a couple of points up: The pregnancy is detected at a very early stage, i didn't say Sue was raped, (although i didn't say she wasn't, either), and I didn't hypothesise on the kind of people they are - religious, rational, conventional, unconventional, etc. Samantha said: "tsk, tsk. There is no child. .... I am amazed that supposedly intelligent people would speak in such terms of "slaying a child" ... Discussions like this make me very doubtful that humanity is bright enough to survive. We seem to suffer recurring breakdowns in our thinking." Thank you for saying that, Samantha, you beat me to it. This kind of language is designed to stir up emotional reactions, not have an intelligent debate. It doesn't matter what you personally think about abortion, there's no need to use an alternative, emotionally-charged term that attempts to manipulate people's emotions. I would hope that that sort of tactic has no place on this list. I would hope that that sort of tactic *doesn't work* on the people reading this list. Well, i can hope... I'm pretty certain that humanity isn't bright enough to survive. That's why i'm a transhumanist. Those recurring breakdowns in our thinking are the pessimists half-empty glass. I prefer the 'half-full glass' viewpoint that we occasionally show bursts of joined-up thinking, and there's scope for them to grow longer and more frequent. Of course, if i was an engineer, i would say the glass is too big. :-) ben From scerir at libero.it Tue May 10 22:27:15 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 00:27:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism References: <20050510144957.3919.qmail@web26206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000d01c555af$6bb7e9e0$9bc11b97@administxl09yj> giorgio chiede: > how can we define morality? If "morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike" (O. Wilde) and if we are propagating ourselves, our memes, our genes, and our universes into the far future, well I see problems here. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 10 22:58:14 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:58:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <428132A5.60908@lineone.net> References: <200505101800.j4AI0DR19529@tick.javien.com> <428132A5.60908@lineone.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050510175507.01e19780@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:16 PM 5/10/2005 +0100, ben wrote: >It's quite amusing how my original hypothetical scenario is being pulled >in all sorts of directions, and is being subjected to various interpretations. >... >Just to clear a couple of points up: The pregnancy is detected at a very >early stage, i didn't say Sue was raped, (although i didn't say she >wasn't, either) A 14-year-old is not legally able to give consent to sexual intercourse, even if she agrees to it. Legally, therefore, if she is pregnant, she's been raped. Even if the pregnancy has been induced by evil IVF scientists or UFO Grays conducting their vile implants. Damien Broderick From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 10 23:03:55 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 00:03:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050510175507.01e19780@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200505101800.j4AI0DR19529@tick.javien.com> <428132A5.60908@lineone.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20050510175507.01e19780@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <42813DDB.4040206@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:16 PM 5/10/2005 +0100, ben wrote: > >> It's quite amusing how my original hypothetical scenario is being >> pulled in all sorts of directions, and is being subjected to various >> interpretations. >> ... >> Just to clear a couple of points up: The pregnancy is detected at a >> very early stage, i didn't say Sue was raped, (although i didn't say >> she wasn't, either) > > > A 14-year-old is not legally able to give consent to sexual > intercourse, even if she agrees to it. Legally, therefore, if she is > pregnant, she's been raped. Even if the pregnancy has been induced by > evil IVF scientists or UFO Grays conducting their vile implants. > > Depends which nation all this happens in. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Wed May 11 06:15:51 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:15:51 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. Message-ID: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Eugen* Leitl: >According to our current knowledge, there's nothing >indeterminate in the fate >of the universe >http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101fate.html >and, also according to our current knowledge, >there's nothing we can do about >it -- on global scale, that is. According to current knowledge, we know next to nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe. Since next to nothing is known about the nature of the dark energy, conclusions about the ultimate fate of the universe are seriously premature at this time. Exactly what is 'dark energy'? Exactly how does it work? Can you be sure that its effects will remain constant? Why? Can you be sure that the sign of the dark energy pressure won't suddenly flip at some point in the future- so expansion becomes contraction? All we know is that the universe is *currently* accelerating. No more can be said until there is a causal understanding of the dark energy. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Wed May 11 06:29:55 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:29:55 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism Message-ID: <20050511062955.44452.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> giorgio chiede: > how can we define morality? --------------------------------- Morality = Eudaimonia x Volition Eudaimonia = Health x Happiness Volition = Harmony x Growth --------------------------------- Substituting for full utility function yields: Morality = (Health x Happiness) x (Harmony x Growth) --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 11 09:17:24 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:17:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:15:51PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote: > According to current knowledge, we know next to > nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe. We do know that the Omega point theory has been falsified. Also, we have empirical data on the past, current, and can extrapolate -- though not into far future. I wouldn't call this next to nothing -- that's be well before Edwin Hubble. > Since next to nothing is known about the nature of the > dark energy, conclusions about the ultimate fate of > the universe are seriously premature at this time. You're making a prediction. You have to make a prediction using the current state of cosmology, or refrain from doing so. Current state is that dark energy is accelerating the expansion, limiting where you could go/signal, and even what you could see, and ultimatively put an end to computation altogether (things pick up seriously at +100 GYr). > Exactly what is 'dark energy'? Exactly how does it Nobody knows! > work? Can you be sure that its effects will remain Nobody knows! > constant? Why? Can you be sure that the sign of the > dark energy pressure won't suddenly flip at some point > in the future- so expansion becomes contraction? You seem to maximize the amount of surprise in your predictions. > All we know is that the universe is *currently* > accelerating. No more can be said until there is a > causal understanding of the dark energy. Excellent. This means you'll stop making predictions about the future fate of the universe, and how can/cannot shape its future. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 11 10:01:33 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:01:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism In-Reply-To: <20050511062955.44452.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050511062955.44452.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050511100133.GY21730@leitl.org> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:29:55PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote: > giorgio chiede: > > how can we define morality? > > --------------------------------- > Morality = Eudaimonia x Volition > > Eudaimonia = Health x Happiness > Volition = Harmony x Growth > --------------------------------- > > Substituting for full utility function yields: > > Morality = (Health x Happiness) x (Harmony x Growth) What is the SI unit for harmony? Which measurement process do you use? Does melanoma count for growth? Why not? Which operation is 'x', and why isn't it commutative? To everybody: please stop posting about morality until you've worked out a morality calculus worth peer review. Thanks. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 11 09:13:38 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 02:13:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org> References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org> Message-ID: On May 11, 2005, at 2:17 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:15:51PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote: > > >> According to current knowledge, we know next to >> nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe. >> > > We do know that the Omega point theory has been falsified. Please explain. If we really don't understand all that much about some crucial cosmological questions can't we only say (at most) that it is false in the context of current theories? With things like dark energy thrown in as some mysterious something that makes our models sort of work for now, I hardly have a lot of confidence to say our theries are strong enough to make good predicitons about far future. As Omega point theory is far future I thus think I need more than current cosmological theories to say it has been falsified. > Also, we have empirical data on the past, current, and can > extrapolate -- > though not into far future. > > I wouldn't call this next to nothing -- that's be well before Edwin > Hubble. > > >> Since next to nothing is known about the nature of the >> dark energy, conclusions about the ultimate fate of >> the universe are seriously premature at this time. >> > > You're making a prediction. You have to make a prediction using the > current > state of cosmology, or refrain from doing so. What prediction? > - s From giogavir at yahoo.it Wed May 11 10:18:45 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:18:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050511101845.16050.qmail@web26204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> since we are at 0.7 in the Kardashev scale of civilization level while the Omega point is located at an hypothetical Phase 5 level, we don't have any rational nor scientific possibility to make any prediction, due to lack of basic information . Check.www.biologydaily.com/biology/Kardashev_scale only predictions can be based on faith, that's what religions are made of. Giorgio --- Samantha Atkins ha scritto: > > On May 11, 2005, at 2:17 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:15:51PM +1200, Marc > Geddes wrote: > > > > > >> According to current knowledge, we know next to > >> nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe. > >> > > > > We do know that the Omega point theory has been > falsified. > > Please explain. If we really don't understand all > that much about > some crucial cosmological questions can't we only > say (at most) that > it is false in the context of current theories? > With things like > dark energy thrown in as some mysterious something > that makes our > models sort of work for now, I hardly have a lot of > confidence to say > our theries are strong enough to make good > predicitons about far > future. As Omega point theory is far future I thus > think I need more > than current cosmological theories to say it has > been falsified. > > > Also, we have empirical data on the past, current, > and can > > extrapolate -- > > though not into far future. > > > > I wouldn't call this next to nothing -- that's be > well before Edwin > > Hubble. > > > > > >> Since next to nothing is known about the nature > of the > >> dark energy, conclusions about the ultimate fate > of > >> the universe are seriously premature at this > time. > >> > > > > You're making a prediction. You have to make a > prediction using the > > current > > state of cosmology, or refrain from doing so. > > What prediction? > > > > - s > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica? Scaricalo ora! http://it.messenger.yahoo.it From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 11 13:19:20 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:19:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050511101845.16050.qmail@web26204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20050511101845.16050.qmail@web26204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050511131919.GF21730@leitl.org> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +0200, giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > since we are at 0.7 in the Kardashev scale of > civilization level while the Omega point is located at > an hypothetical Phase 5 level, we don't have any The Kardashev scale is not a meaningful way to deal with Tipler. > rational nor scientific possibility to make any > prediction, due to lack of basic information . We're talking about Tipler's Omega Point theory http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html While not being a scientific theory, it contains a few specific falsifyable, and since falsified predictions. In that sense, it's wrong. > Check.www.biologydaily.com/biology/Kardashev_scale > only predictions can be based on faith, that's what > religions are made of. Absolutely. The Omega point theory is a religion. However, according to current cosmology the Kardashev phase 5 is unachievable due to signalling constraints due to dark energy-driven runaway expansion, and the total number of operations is similiarly limited. I also agree with you that at this time there is no point to discuss yet unknown cosmology, or, rather, the very large number of possible yet unknown cosmologies (including these, in which the Moon is made from uncollapsed green cheese wavefunction). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Wed May 11 12:52:33 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:52:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050511131919.GF21730@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050511125234.69161.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> i fully agree with you(except for the green cheese. regards Giorgio )--- Eugen Leitl ha scritto: > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +0200, giorgio > gaviraghi wrote: > > since we are at 0.7 in the Kardashev scale of > > civilization level while the Omega point is > located at > > an hypothetical Phase 5 level, we don't have any > > The Kardashev scale is not a meaningful way to deal > with Tipler. > > > rational nor scientific possibility to make any > > prediction, due to lack of basic information . > > We're talking about Tipler's Omega Point theory > http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html > > While not being a scientific theory, it contains a > few specific falsifyable, and since falsified > predictions. > > In that sense, it's wrong. > > > Check.www.biologydaily.com/biology/Kardashev_scale > > only predictions can be based on faith, that's > what > > religions are made of. > > Absolutely. The Omega point theory is a religion. > > However, according to current cosmology the > Kardashev phase 5 is unachievable due to > signalling constraints due to dark energy-driven > runaway expansion, and the total > number of operations is similiarly limited. > > I also agree with you that at this time there is no > point to discuss yet > unknown cosmology, or, rather, the very large number > of possible yet > unknown cosmologies (including these, in which the > Moon is made from > uncollapsed green cheese wavefunction). > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica? Scaricalo ora! http://it.messenger.yahoo.it From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 11 15:17:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050511151706.16507.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > I would say "That's terrible! What is a wonderful person like you > doing in such a backward place?". But then I look at some of the US > > policies and what passes for "debate" here. > > -s > > On May 10, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > > > > > > > One of the things that supported my positive views about Italy > > before I arrived 2.5 years ago was the country's innovative medical > > sciences; very good doctors were free to try new technology. > > Unfortunately, during the time I've been here, that arena has > > shifted drastically, into an environment I'm finding more and more > > technophobic and xenophobic. Italy has now the most restrictive > > assisted reproductive technology (ART) laws in Europe. > > I'd like some clarification from Amara. Do Italian ART laws ban government subsidy of ART, or ban ART altogether? These are two entirely different things. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 11 15:42:08 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:42:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy In-Reply-To: <20050511151706.16507.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050511151706.16507.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511103918.02c9c8f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> What a strange acronym, especially coming out of Italy - the world's historical center for "art". Natasha From amara at amara.com Wed May 11 15:48:12 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:48:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy Message-ID: Mike Lorrey: >I'd like some clarification from Amara. Do Italian ART laws ban >government subsidy of ART, or ban ART altogether? These are two >entirely different things. Italian laws ban ART. Doctors like Antinori are forbidden to perform these assisted reproductive technology practices no matter where the money comes from. It's an extremely nasty set of laws. (I would say call them "Regressive" in most of the world.) See here about what the Referendum is seeking to change: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/print_report.cfm?DR_ID=27656&dr_cat=2 I wish I could optimistic for the changes, but I am not. (*) Amara (*) Another visit (my ~50th in the last two years) yesterday to the polizia for my expired permit-of-stay. Now the daily queue (thousands of people, all professions, ages, every day) in Rome begins at 2am. The polizia want me to resubmit my 2003 application renewal because... it too has 'expired'. I am presently at square zero again to have the document to live in a normal way (housing, bank account, driver's license, medical service..) in this country. It makes me very discouraged about anything positive coming from the Italian political process. -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Once in a great while the temptation to be REALLY DIRTY is just irresistible." -- W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling & B. P. Flannery From amara at amara.com Wed May 11 15:56:52 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:56:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy Message-ID: assisted (or assistive) reproductive technology - ART I thought this was the standard *English* acronym in the medical field. Amara From jonkc at att.net Wed May 11 16:18:31 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:18:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card (was: A crushing defense of objective ethics) References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org> Message-ID: <004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer> In his 1992 book Tipler made a number of predictions and I think it's time to look back at some of them because Tipler himself said that every one of his predictions must turn out to be correct or the entire theory is dead. Tipler predicted that the universe is closed, but we now know it is almost certainly open. Tipler predicted that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV. The particle has still not been found so it's still possible he's right but most think that value is too heavy and even a few are starting to wonder if the Higgs even exists. In looking around CERN's web page I found this educated guess: "The Higgs boson should be lighter than about 220 GeV, with a best fit at around 90 GeV." Tipler predicted that the temperature fluctuations of the cosmic background black body radiation must be less than 6*10^-5: This prediction was good, the observed value is about 6*10^-6. Tipler predicted that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45 km/sec/Mpc, but today the best accepted value is 72. John K Clark From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 11 16:41:54 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:41:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card In-Reply-To: <004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer> References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org> <004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <428235D2.3010803@neopax.com> John K Clark wrote: > In his 1992 book Tipler made a number of predictions and I think it's > time > to look back at some of them because Tipler himself said that every > one of > his predictions must turn out to be correct or the entire theory is > dead. > > Tipler predicted that the universe is closed, but we now know it is > almost > certainly open. > > Tipler predicted that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV. The > particle > has still not been found so it's still possible he's right but most think > that value is too heavy and even a few are starting to wonder if the > Higgs > even exists. In looking around CERN's web page I found this educated > guess: > "The Higgs boson should be lighter than about 220 GeV, with a best fit at > around 90 GeV." > > Tipler predicted that the temperature fluctuations of the > cosmic background black body radiation must be less than > 6*10^-5: This prediction was good, the observed value is > about 6*10^-6. > > Tipler predicted that the Hubble constant must be less than or > equal to 45 km/sec/Mpc, but today the best accepted value is 72. > All of these predictions rely on the unlikely scenario (given the hypothesis) that we are living in the real universe, near the beginning, and not in one of the myriad simulations at the omega point. Tipler did not take his logic far enough. If Tipler is correct then the state of our visible universe is irrelevent. The hypothesis renders itself untestable. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 11 18:53:18 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:53:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card In-Reply-To: <428235D2.3010803@neopax.com> References: <004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer> <428235D2.3010803@neopax.com> Message-ID: <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:41:54PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > All of these predictions rely on the unlikely scenario (given the You cannot attach any probability to either branch. Occam's razor is against the simulation branch. > hypothesis) that we are living in the real universe, near the beginning, > and not in one of the myriad simulations at the omega point. Tipler did > not take his logic far enough. Tipler is a deeply religious person, and that part of his theory isn't. It's a religion. Even if his physics was correct (which it isn't), the properties he ascribes to the Omega point are arbitrary (or, rather, the opposite). http://www.middx.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html is a pretty flawed critique, but it has some valid points. > If Tipler is correct then the state of our visible universe is irrelevent. > The hypothesis renders itself untestable. Why are so many transhumanists filled with the need to establish a yet another belief system? This is actively damaging to the work we claim we're trying to do. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 11 17:13:41 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:13:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card In-Reply-To: <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org> References: <004c01c55645$42fd5d00$c9f34d0c@MyComputer> <428235D2.3010803@neopax.com> <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org> Message-ID: <42823D45.8000909@neopax.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:41:54PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > >>All of these predictions rely on the unlikely scenario (given the >> >> > >You cannot attach any probability to either branch. Occam's razor is against >the simulation branch. > > > Not if infinite computing power is available, as Tipler claims. >>hypothesis) that we are living in the real universe, near the beginning, >>and not in one of the myriad simulations at the omega point. Tipler did >>not take his logic far enough. >> >> > >Tipler is a deeply religious person, and that part of his theory isn't. It's >a religion. Even if his physics was correct (which it isn't), the properties >he ascribes to the Omega point are arbitrary (or, rather, the opposite). > >http://www.middx.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html is a pretty flawed critique, but it >has some valid points. > > > >>If Tipler is correct then the state of our visible universe is irrelevent. >>The hypothesis renders itself untestable. >> >> > >Why are so many transhumanists filled with the need to establish a yet >another belief system? This is actively damaging to the work we claim >we're trying to do. > > > Tipler's argument leads inevitably to the Simulation Argument. In fact, it is the strongest form of the Simulation Argument. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 11 17:45:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card In-Reply-To: <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050511174540.74522.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Why are so many transhumanists filled with the need to establish a > yet another belief system? This is actively damaging to the work > we claim we're trying to do. Who we? How? Why? If you mean the orthodox atheists and scientific fundamentalists, such have never had success effing the ineffable with their brown-paper-bag effology, or even effing the effing-edge-of-effness. A failure in ability to eff the ineffible is a sign that ones effology is effing insefficient for the projeff and needs an effing efferhaul, tune eff, and effl change. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 11 18:04:49 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:04:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tipler's report card In-Reply-To: <20050511174540.74522.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050511185318.GD21730@leitl.org> <20050511174540.74522.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050511130358.01d23498@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:45 AM 5/11/2005 -0700, Mike wrote: >A failure in ability to eff the ineffible is a sign that ones effology >is effing insefficient for the projeff and needs an effing efferhaul, >tune eff, and effl change. Those puns are effl! :) Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 11 18:21:14 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:21:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The state of ART in Italy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511131625.027844a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Yes, but there are more links to "ART" as a discipline. (I think the scientist who coined this was a follower of Snow.) "Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) is the term coined to describe the techniques used to assist conception. These methods have been developed in recent decades and offer a treatment alternative for couples unable to conceive through natural means. The science has progressed rapidly in ways that humankind recently could only imagine. Assisted Reproductive Technologies which fall under the category of ART include In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Embryo Transfer (ET), Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT), Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer (ZIFT), Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), and Selective Assisted Hatching (SAH). Nearly half a century ago it was said that the fertilization of an egg by a sperm cell is one of the greatest wonders of nature. . . as a spectacle, it can be compared only with the eclipse of the sun or an eruption of a volcano.' http://www.ifwh.org/htm2/fertility.asp At 10:56 AM 5/11/2005, you wrote: >assisted (or assistive) reproductive technology - ART > >I thought this was the standard *English* acronym in the >medical field. > > >Amara >_______________________________________________ >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 Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed May 11 19:49:32 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:49:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Theory and Practice Message-ID: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com> Kind sirs and gracious ladies, during this interesting debate on Moral Relativism, one main concern raised, by more than one writer on this list, has been whether or Christians pose a mortal threat to your lives and freedoms. As if we are all slavering gollum-like over our Bibles aching for the days to return when we would burn Giordano Bruno again. I do not mind swallowing insults. God knows, back when I was an atheist, I insulted my fair share of Christians, and so I have no grounds to complain. But I cannot tell when an intellectual (by which I mean someone more concerned with theory than with practice) knows he is uttering slander, and when he does not know, but is sincerely worried that I and mine are conspiring to enslave and kill the innocent. This is a Margaret Atwood style fantasy. Here is an example of the reality: http://ga0.org/freedom_action/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=3565057 Over 300 Sudanese Slaves Liberated Christian Solidarity International has reported the release of 336 black Sudanese slaves from the Dinka tribe in southern Sudan. Upon being freed from their Arab masters, the former slaves were registered and given grain rations and survival kits including a cooking pot, mosquito net, plastic sheet, water container, sickle, and fishing hooks. Many of the newly freed female slaves reported incidents of rape, genital mutilation, forcible conversion to Islam, and physical abuse. JCW From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed May 11 21:20:37 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:20:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Duty, Fashion, or Personal Taste Message-ID: <200505112120.j4BLKgR30250@tick.javien.com> I wrote: The thing the two objectivist answers have in common is that they are weighing duties, not desires ... The subjective component of decision, desire, falls out of the equation. Dirk Bruere writes: ?Not really, because you have not examined why one feels 'duty bound'.? I admit I am baffled by this response. What does it matter what a man feels about his duty, so long as he does it? A man might have any number of accidental and subjective reasons for doing a duty, but the essential and formal reason is, he does his duty because he recognizes it as a ?duty?. Reasonable men can disagree as to what duties exist and what is their scope; but if duties do exist, the one property all duties share, is that they are claims on our behavior independent of our personal satisfactions. Now, if a philosopher should say that no duties at all exist, he must logically say that nothing is or should be done save what serves one?s own pleasure, either immediately or in the long-term. The question immediately comes to mind whether that philosopher would be indignant if someone stole his seat on a bus, or cut ahead of him in queue. Myself, I observe that men have consciences, which they go to elaborate precautions to ignore. We were machines designed by evolution to act in a self-interested fashion, or to propagate the generations, and nothing more, a conscience would be an excrescence, and we should all do ourselves a service by shedding them as quickly as is safe. Jeff Albright writes: ?It seems that the difference between the two categories here is that those in the first category based their moral decision-making on subjective evaluation within their individual context, while those in the second category based their decision-making on subjective evaluation with the group context.? Actually, I gave three cases: the subjective see his morals as an expression of his tastes; the relativist sees his morals as an expression of the consensus of his local social mores; the objectivist sees his morals as an expression of universal law, independent of taste and mores. I grant you that there may be a superficial similarity between the last two cases. But notice the difference between a man who says, for example, ?I will be faithful to my wife because my neighbors hold it to be our fashion and our law; but if they change their consensus, and change the laws, I have no objection to adultery.? and someone who says, ?I will be faithful to my wife because that is the universal duty of any husband; and that duty applies in this case.? Jef Allbright writes: ?In either case, the evaluation was subjective; as you pointed out, the Stoics and the Spartans each had their own codes of moral duty, and neither fit the definition of "objective" as meaning "apparent to all", or "based on factual measurement rather than interpretation."? With all due respect, I would not accept this definition of objective for any science but an empirical one. I am bold enough to say the strange fetish of modern thinkers to try to reduce the rational sciences to empirical ones is the source of the intellectual mischief of the modern age: you must end up believing in nothing, not even in metaphysical axioms of empiricism, if you believe in only what can be reduced to measurement. Only empirical sciences are concerned with measurement, but they are not the only objective science. The laws of logic are the same to all observers, and so I call them ?objective?; and yet no one can measure the law of non-contradiction nor measure the fallacy of the excluded middle. Your terminology would call all these things not objective, which is a misleading way to talk. If you define the word objective to mean that which does not change when the observer changes, I am confident you can see the difference between someone who believes morals are a matter of duty, which is the same for anyone in that role, and someone who believes morals are a matter of taste, which exists nowhere but in the eye of the beholder. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 10 05:31:21 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:31:21 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><063101c55504$fa4dccc0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20050509223238.026d98a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <066b01c55521$80163d30$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Natasha wrote: > I do think that democracy and capitalism do hit many of the > same spaces. Or perhaps I reading too many business journals > and marketing plans. Within a democratic country capitalism and democracy might indeed cover the same geographic space, in the US for instance, people who provide capital and people who provide labour domestically are both protected as people by the same Bill of Rights. But you'd mentioned globalisation and capitalism when it seeks the best opportunities for profit in the world can seek them in places where labour is not covered by the US Bill of Rights. > For example, a 401(k) plan is in the shared domain of democracy > and capitalism. > > capitalism is profit making. Our retirement plans are privately > owned (IRA, Roth IRA, etc.). That is our money for our retirement. > We select what we want to invest in -- stock, index funds, mutual > funds, etc., thus it is a democratic process. How is that democratic? Sure I can see that you have choices, but those are choices about how you allocate your capital, that has nothing to do with democracy that I can see. The human rights exposure is on the labour side not the capital side. If capital is free to source labour anywhere in the world including in places where human rights are at a lesser level than where the capital operates from it has incentives for doing just that in order to maximize profits. Brett Paatsch From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 11 21:41:51 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050511214151.74153.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> The main link I see between these two concepts is no more complex than that they're mutually reinforcing - at least in the long term. (Short sightedness can and has caused many exceptions, but excessive short sightedness can, in general, cause problems in non-democratic and/or non-capitalistic societies just as easily.) E.g.: democracy allows for regulations to be set by those closer to a certain issue (with any higher-ups not needing to even be educated about it in most cases), thus regulations are likely to be more efficient, with obvious benefits for companies dealing with that issue and without anyone losing anything in the deal. Meanwhile, if people are free to vote with their dollars, it becomes possible to use economics as a form of protest over powerful non-government organizations, so someone exploiting cheap labor and not at least sharing the savings with the public (through lower prices) may see that practice become uneconomical. (The public can be bought off by any organization controlling enough resources to do so, of course, but that seems to be a problem under any form of government...and the buying off itself at least puts a limit on relative power, by transferring some to the public being bought off.) From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 11 21:52:00 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:52:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Theory and Practice In-Reply-To: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com> References: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 5/11/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > Kind sirs and gracious ladies, during this interesting debate on Moral > Relativism, one main concern raised, by more than one writer on this list, has > been whether or Christians pose a mortal threat to your lives and freedoms. As > if we are all slavering gollum-like over our Bibles aching for the days to > return when we would burn Giordano Bruno again. > Well, it sounds as though you personally are not seeking the end times and the destruction of the unbelievers, but many evangelicals are. Take your Sudan example. Do you realise what happened when the rich western organisations arrived in Sudan and started buying slaves so that they could free them? Firstly, the price of slaves shot up, making the slave traders rich men. Secondly, there was a huge upsurge in slave hunting throughout sub-Saharan Africa to provide slaves to sell to the rich westerners. See: There are many non-Xian charitable organisations. Red Cross for one, Red Crescent for another. Or Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Amnesty, and so on. Remember the US has a born-again president who is fighting a glorious crusade which is killing thousands. The John Jay study of priest sex abuse of minors in the United States documented that there were more than 10,000 credible allegations against more than 4,000 priests between 1950 and 2002. Do some Google searching and you will find lots more misbehaving Xians. Quoting good acts versus all the bad acts of Xians is a losing battle. BillK From benboc at lineone.net Wed May 11 21:56:33 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:56:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 20, Issue 19 In-Reply-To: <200505111800.j4BI0FR28214@tick.javien.com> References: <200505111800.j4BI0FR28214@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42827F91.1090308@lineone.net> Damien wrote: "A 14-year-old is not legally able to give consent to sexual intercourse, even if she agrees to it. Legally, therefore, if she is pregnant, she's been raped. Even if the pregnancy has been induced by evil IVF scientists or UFO Grays conducting their vile implants." Hey, stop splitting hairs! :-) Legally, in some western countries, what you say is true (although not in Holland, as i understand. I think the age of consent there is 12). Conventionally, though, 'rape' means forcing someone. So what i meant was, she was not forced. The reason i thought it worth making the point, was that if someone is raped (forcibly, rather than legally), that is an additional consideration when deciding whether to abort or not. And for the record, the pregnancy was not the result of evil scientists, aliens, or ming the merciless and his diabolical designs. It was cos she liked a boy, and, um, was inadequately educated. Because the teachers at her school weren't allowed to give sex education classes. Maybe. ben From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 12 00:27:40 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:27:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?Researchers_Needed_=97_Transhumani?= =?iso-8859-1?q?sm_and_?= Futurists Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I am looking for one or more assistants to work with me on a project focusing on the past, present and future of transhumanism. The outcome will be a formal report, a CD, and a university course. Skills needed at least one of these two areas: (1) Ability to perform Internet data mining; produce models of behavior over time; compile data in either Excel, Visio and/or Vensim. (2) Technical writing skills, web design, survey models; (3) Creative thinking, transdisciplinary knowledge. Please contact my office at 011.512.263.2749 or email me at natasha at natasha.cc Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu May 12 01:09:04 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:09:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Calling all EvoPsych Jedi... Message-ID: <4282ACB0.1000203@mindspring.com> "Terry W. Colvin" fnarded: > > I keep coming across professors badmouthing evolutionary psychology as > a junk field. I've read some basics, mostly Cosmides and/or Tooby, but > fail to see why it has become such a popular whipping boy. > > A review of a new book arguing against EP is here: > http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/files/wall_street_journal_review.pdf Sympathize with Jeff's dilemma - trouble with "science" is that most disciplines are based on much less than 1% of data (in universe). That makes them all prone to swerves of fashion and hype - as you can best see in those with the very least data (and worst logic?: sociology and psychology / psychiatry etc). Seems to me that at least the more simple E.P. sits. - say the "step-parent v. natural parent" thing, are still subject to at least two variables (which may be unique in each case):- E.g. 1) "natural" parent may not have been around very much: so little or no parental bonding or recognition of responsibility 2) "step" parent may have spent more family-time (always with other "natural" parent) and so made up the deficit of "bonding" and "responsibility". Even so think the historical assault and murder stats re "step" relationships would tend, on purely statistical basis, to support the E.P. case. (Don't all you exceptions all get offended now). cheers Ray D "... but few scientists nowadays seriously believe that their laws are true." - Profs. Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart - "Collapse of Chaos" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Perceptions" http://www.perceptions.couk.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- "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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu May 12 01:19:45 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:19:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers Needed =?windows-1252?Q?=97_Tra?= =?windows-1252?Q?nshumanism_and___Futurists?= In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <4282AF31.5060301@humanenhancement.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Thu May 12 01:22:39 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:22:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Researchers Needed =?windows-1252?Q?=97_Tra?= =?windows-1252?Q?nshumanism_and___Futurists?= In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <4282AFDF.20008@humanenhancement.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 12 01:27:23 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Duty, Fashion, or Personal Taste In-Reply-To: <200505112120.j4BLKgR30250@tick.javien.com> References: <200505112120.j4BLKgR30250@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4282B0FB.5050007@jefallbright.net> John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > > I am bold enough to say the strange fetish of modern thinkers to try > to reduce the rational sciences to empirical ones is the source of > the intellectual mischief of the modern age: you must end up > believing in nothing, not even in metaphysical axioms of empiricism, > if you believe in only what can be reduced to measurement. > I am indeed arguing for empirically grounded rationality, and for degrees of confidence rather than absolute belief. Thank you for clarifying the fundamental disconnect between us. - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 12 01:44:07 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:44:07 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[extropy-chat]_Researchers_Needed_=97_Tra?= nshumanism and Futurists In-Reply-To: <4282AFDF.20008@humanenhancement.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511191706.027572a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <4282AFDF.20008@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050511204026.02cf7d40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Never be embarrassed about these types of things in front of me. I am a wee bit dyslexic and transpose words, only to find out after someone nudges me or I have the time to reread what I wrote. Anyway, I'm in final exams right now, so if you look back over my posts you will notice some typos that I admit to with no shame whatsoever. Natasha At 08:22 PM 5/11/2005, Joseph Bloch wrote: >Of course I did not mention my #1 skill... > >Screwing up a personal email and sending it to a list. > >Profound embarassment ensues, and I scuttle off to a hole somewhere. > >Joseph > >Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> >>I am looking for one or more assistants to work with me on a project >>focusing on the past, present and future of transhumanism. The outcome >>will be a formal report, a CD, and a university course. >> >>Skills needed at least one of these two areas: (1) Ability to perform >>Internet data mining; produce models of behavior over time; compile data >>in either Excel, Visio and/or Vensim. (2) Technical writing skills, web >>design, survey models; (3) Creative thinking, transdisciplinary knowledge. >> >>Please contact my office at 011.512.263.2749 or email me at >>natasha at natasha.cc >> >>Thanks, >>Natasha >> >>Natasha Vita-More >>http://www.natasha.cc >>[_______________________________________________ >>President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org >>[_____________________________________________________ >>Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz >> >>Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler >>If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 12 02:00:04 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:00:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism--Theory and Practice In-Reply-To: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com> References: <200505111949.j4BJnqR13913@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <1710ED21-C975-44D0-97CB-777444757B00@mac.com> On May 11, 2005, at 12:49 PM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > Kind sirs and gracious ladies, during this interesting debate on Moral > Relativism, one main concern raised, by more than one writer on > this list, has > been whether or Christians pose a mortal threat to your lives and > freedoms. As > if we are all slavering gollum-like over our Bibles aching for the > days to > return when we would burn Giordano Bruno again. Certainly not "all" but those who would happily do the equivalent seem on the ascendant in the US and gaining political power. > > I do not mind swallowing insults. God knows, back when I was an > atheist, I > insulted my fair share of Christians, and so I have no grounds to > complain. But > I cannot tell when an intellectual (by which I mean someone more > concerned with > theory than with practice) knows he is uttering slander, and when > he does not > know, but is sincerely worried that I and mine are conspiring to > enslave and > kill the innocent. Careful who and what you claim as your own. Do you claim Pat Robertson as your own? If so I don't think it is in my nature to be insulting enough. - samantha From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu May 12 02:39:02 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:39:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Life in these here Unitey States Message-ID: <4282C1C6.4010702@mindspring.com> Naked people versus nanotech pants! Comments well worth reading, too http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-wrinkle-for-eddie-bauer.html -- "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 Thu May 12 03:02:51 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:02:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Life in these here Unitey States In-Reply-To: <4282C1C6.4010702@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200505120303.j4C334R05125@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin > > Naked people versus nanotech pants! Comments well worth reading, too > > http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-wrinkle-for-eddie-bauer.html > THONG is actually trying to promote nanotech. Corporations would be encouraged to work in these technologies in the hope of attracting naked protesters. We engineers are suckers for that trick. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 12 03:09:15 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:09:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <4282C1C6.4010702@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com> Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem: I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem. I test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that all are good. From that information only, what is the probability that all 131 droobs are good? I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem but they are giving me puzzling results. A closed-form solution to this would be impressive, winning my undying respect. spike From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 12 03:57:18 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:57:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com> References: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4282D41E.8070308@pobox.com> spike wrote: > Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem: > > I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem. I > test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that > all are good. From that information only, what is the > probability that all 131 droobs are good? > > I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem > but they are giving me puzzling results. A closed-form > solution to this would be impressive, winning my > undying respect. Depends on your prior. If your prior belief is that any number of good droobs between 0 and 150 is equiprobable, then this is the *classic* Bayesian problem, the one that Bayes himself considered. If I recall correctly, the closed form solution *for this prior* is that if you observe X good cases and Y bad cases, the posterior expected probability of goodness is: X + 1 ----- X+Y+2 Thus if you started out believing that any failure rate between 0 and 150 was equally plausible, you would expect that the probability is 20/21 that any given remaining droob is good. You actually asked a more difficult question, the probability that all remaining droogs are good. Intuitively I would expect the answer to be 20/21 * 21/22 * 22/23 ... = 20/152 but I haven't checked my work. Other priors give different answers. I don't think the equiprobable prior is a reasonable one for this case; we don't think it equally likely that a manufacturing facility turns out 150 straight successes vs. 150 straight rejects. In real life, Spike, your problem is pretty much undefined, unless you can give me some kind of base rate statistics on how often your manufacturing technique works. How on Earth did you set up a Monte Carlo sim on this? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Thu May 12 04:24:23 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:24:23 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians Message-ID: <20050512042423.45591.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem: > >I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem. >I test the remaining 19 spares destructively and >find that all are good. From that information only, >what is the probability that all 131 droobs are good? The probability that all remaining 131 droobs are good is around: 1/118 (0.0085) Pretty small. My hackers intuition beats Eli's super genius again! ;) Seriously, far too many people here have a Bayesian fetish. Believe me, Bayes is not the be all and end all. Some of you Bayesians are in for a tremendous shock when you finally learn that deductive reasoning cannot possibly be incorporated into Bayesian induction. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 12 04:42:00 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:42:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <4282D41E.8070308@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200505120442.j4C4g9R17514@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:57 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians > > spike wrote: > > Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem: > > > > I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem. I > > test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that > > all are good. From that information only, what is the > > probability that all 131 droobs are good? > > > > I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem > > but they are giving me puzzling results. A closed-form > > solution to this would be impressive, winning my > > undying respect. > > Depends on your prior... Wooo hooo! This is what I hoped you would say. I was puzzled by the fact that any line of reasoning about this problem seems to double back on itself. Today at the office I argued that this problem has not enough information to solve by itself. >...In real life, Spike, your problem is pretty much undefined, > unless you can give me some kind of base rate statistics on how often your > manufacturing technique works... Eeeeexcellent. I argued today that we need the theoretical reliability from the math model in order to calculate the probability that the remaining 131 droobs are good. > > How on Earth did you set up a Monte Carlo sim on this? > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky I set the MC to show that if one assumes one of every ten droobs is bad, then one can calculate the probability of choosing 19 good droobs vs the probability of 131 good droobs. Then set the probability to one in eleven droobs are bad, repeat. Keep going up thru one in 400 droobs is bad. In each case, you supply a prior, the MC hands you back probability that all 131 remaining droobs are good. You can do that in closed form, so I wanted to demonstrate that the sim agrees with theory. This technique derives a probability distribution function that can then be compared to the theoretical reliability model, from which I can give back an answer. Nowthen, here is the interesting part. A freem only requires 130 droobs, not 131. A failed droob was discovered in the 130, so it was replaced by one of the 20 spares. So that leaves 19 spares and possibly some information regarding the reliability of a droob. If I assume the theoretical reliability of the droobs at one bad in 130, then the MC sim gives an answer for the probability that the remaining 130 are all good (~37%). Testing 19 and finding all good tells me almost nothing, because that is the expected outcome (~86%). But without further info, I don't know that droobian reliability is one in 130 bad. I fall into a kind of circular reasoning. Does this conclusion agree with a Bayesian approach? From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 12 04:45:01 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:45:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <20050512042423.45591.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505120445.j4C4j9R17832@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes ... > The probability that all remaining 131 droobs are good > is around: > > 1/118 (0.0085) Pretty small. > > > My hackers intuition beats Eli's super genius again! > ;) > > Seriously, far too many people here have a Bayesian > fetish. Believe me, Bayes is not the be all and end > all. Some of you Bayesians are in for a tremendous > shock when you finally learn that deductive reasoning > cannot possibly be incorporated into Bayesian > induction. > Oh boy, here we go. {8^D Marc, I cannot reproduce your answer. Please elaborate. spike From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Thu May 12 04:52:55 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:52:55 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians Message-ID: <20050512045255.31017.qmail@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just briefly summarizing my quick 'n dirty hackers reasoning chain: The information given said that you manufactured 150 droobs (so presumably the probability of a droob failure would be the same for each droob from this 150 droob batch). The information given then said that you tested 19 droobs from this batch and all of them were good. What can we infer from this about the probability that a droob from the batch is good? Well, since we are given no other information, we can only assume a 50% chance that all 19 tested would be found to be good and a 50% chance that they wouldn't. Which probability raised to the 19th power equals 50%? Answer: .9642 (approx) .9642^19 = .5 (approx) We have to take .9642 as the probability that a given droob from the batch will be good. Now we simply raise this probability to the 131st power to find the probability that 131 droobs in a row will be found to be good .9642^131 = 0.0084 (approx) Is this the result you're getting? --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 12 05:10:49 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:10:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <20050512045255.31017.qmail@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505120510.j4C5AqR20951@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes > > .9642^131 = 0.0084 (approx) > > Is this the result you're getting? Actually no. But your comment: > Well, since we are given no other information, we can > only assume a 50% chance that all 19 tested would be > found to be good and a 50% chance that they wouldn't... ...confirms what I did conclude: that there is not enough information in the problem as stated to calculate an answer. I turned it around: by assuming a droob reliability, what is the probability that the destructive testing of the 19 spare units would result in all-good? That method demonstrates the circular reasoning inherent in the problem. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 12 05:20:25 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:20:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <200505120510.j4C5AqR20951@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200505120520.j4C5KXR22212@tick.javien.com> > ...confirms what I did conclude: that there is not enough > information in the problem as stated to calculate an > answer. I turned it around: by assuming a droob reliability, > what is the probability that the destructive testing of > the 19 spare units would result in all-good? That > method demonstrates the circular reasoning inherent > in the problem. > > spike > This is not to say there is *no* value in destructively testing the 19 spares. If two or three bads show up in the 19, then I know there is some serious problem with my initial reliability assumption. If it show no bads, (as I expect it will) then that test tells me very little. spike From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Thu May 12 05:38:25 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:38:25 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians Message-ID: <20050512053825.65893.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >...confirms what I did conclude: that there is not >enough >information in the problem as stated to calculate an >answer. But you asked what is the probability *given only that information*. That question does have an answer when re-phrased in terms of the language of the multiverse. You are really asking: Out of all the possible universes which could exist where this situation presents itself (150 droobs manufactured, 19 from the batch tested, found to be good), in what proportion of these universes are all remaining 131 droobs found to be good? There's a definite number, and I think it's 1/118 for the reasons I gave. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 12 05:42:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050512054250.22262.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem: > > I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem. I > test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that > all are good. From that information only, what is the > probability that all 131 droobs are good? > > I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem > but they are giving me puzzling results. A closed-form > solution to this would be impressive, winning my > undying respect. Depends what the MTBF was for each of the 19 spares, as well as the standard deviation in the distribution of MTBF for them. You must compare this against how much operation time under similar conditions is considered "good". Do you mean just good out of the box? You also have problems of the various components that the droobs are made of, their MTBF. What sort of performance is considered 'good'? For example, there are at least three standards of performance for resistors in terms of resistance variation from the labelled value. Without knowing any of this, the only metric I have to go by is population statistics in which the opinion of 200 people supposedly can quite accurately predict the opinion of 20,000 within less than 1% (according to FSP statisticians). Based on this, the behavior of 19 components could thus predict the behavior of 1900. Since you only have 131, you should be able to say they are all good out of the box if you test only 2 spares and find them good. 19 is overkill, so you can pretty conclusively say that all 131 should be good out of the box, but nothing more about MTBF. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 11 10:27:32 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:27:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'. In-Reply-To: <20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org> References: <20050511061551.79919.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050511091724.GX21730@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4281DE14.7070302@neopax.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:15:51PM +1200, Marc Geddes wrote: > > > >>According to current knowledge, we know next to >>nothing about the ultimate fate of the universe. >> >> > >We do know that the Omega point theory has been falsified. > > We do not know that. All we can deduce is that either the Omega theory is false *or* we are living in an Omega Point simulation. And since there can be an infinite number of them what does that suggest? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 12 18:55:52 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:55:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <200505120442.j4C4g9R17514@tick.javien.com> References: <200505120442.j4C4g9R17514@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4283A6B8.6050006@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > Nowthen, here is the interesting part. A freem only requires > 130 droobs, not 131. A failed droob was discovered in the 130, > so it was replaced by one of the 20 spares. So that leaves 19 > spares and possibly some information regarding the reliability > of a droob. If I assume the theoretical reliability of > the droobs at one bad in 130, then the MC sim gives an answer > for the probability that the remaining 130 are all good (~37%). Um, that number is just 1/e, I think. > Testing 19 and finding all good tells me almost nothing, because > that is the expected outcome (~86%). But without further info, > I don't know that droobian reliability is one in 130 bad. I > fall into a kind of circular reasoning. > > Does this conclusion agree with a Bayesian approach? That bad droob was extremely relevant information, Spike, you should have told me that at the outset; it means you know that the failure rate isn't on the order of zero. Also it sounds like what you want is a mean-time-to-failure estimate, unless the badness is a fixed property of the droob. Having discovered one failed droob in 130, whether testing the other 19 is interesting evidence about the other 129 depends on how much stress the other 129 have been subjected to. If the other 129 have been placed in situations that would cause them to definitely fail if they were bad, then testing 19 tells you nothing, of course. If the very first time you stressed any droob sufficiently to make it fail, that droob failed, and none of the other droobs have been tested, then you potentially have a very serious problem and you should try testing some of the 19. What Bayesian reasoning will do, in a case like this, is tell you how much a given test result or observation favors hypothesis A over hypothesis B. You have to provide hypothesis A, hypothesis B, and the prior likelihoods, I'm afraid. So if you say, for example, that you think a failure rate of 1 in 130 is reasonable, and someone else says that a failure rate of 1 in 10 is also reasonable, Bayes can tell you how much the success or failure of 19 droobs would favor one hypothesis over the other. It doesn't say what prior likelihood to assign to these hypotheses, although depending on other specifications about mechanisms, it may tell you that the observed data already significantly favors one hypothesis over the other. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 12 18:57:55 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:57:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <20050512054250.22262.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050512054250.22262.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4283A733.1070207@pobox.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Without knowing any of this, the only metric I have to go by is > population statistics in which the opinion of 200 people supposedly can > quite accurately predict the opinion of 20,000 within less than 1% > (according to FSP statisticians). Based on this, the behavior of 19 > components could thus predict the behavior of 1900. Since you only have > 131, you should be able to say they are all good out of the box if you > test only 2 spares and find them good. 19 is overkill, so you can > pretty conclusively say that all 131 should be good out of the box, but > nothing more about MTBF. Mike, I'm afraid this is a total non-sequitur. Counterintuitively, 200 people can predict the opinion of 200,000 or 20,000,000 about as well as they can predict 20,000. But 20 people cannot give you anywhere near as good a prediction for the behavior of 200 people as 200 people can for 20,000 people. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dgc at cox.net Thu May 12 22:51:52 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 18:51:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com> References: <200505120309.j4C39TR06036@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4283DE08.2060203@cox.net> spike wrote: >Guys help me eff this real-life effing problem: > >I build 150 droobs and use 131 of them in my freem. I >test the remaining 19 spares destructively and find that >all are good. From that information only, what is the >probability that all 131 droobs are good? > >I have four Monte Carlo sims chewing on this problem >but they are giving me puzzling results. A closed-form >solution to this would be impressive, winning my >undying respect. > >spike > > > > > As stated, a droob must only be used once and will either work or not, like a hand grenade, not like a hard disk. We start by computing a probability of failure and a confidence interval for the test of the 19 droobs. Probability of success =p. Example: if p =.5, then the chance of 19 of 19 successes is one in 2^^19, or one in about 500,000. better stated, chance of 19 successes is .5^^19. If p=.99 (i.e. 99% reliable) the chance of 19 successes is .99^^19. Let's use 99% reliability as our guess. Then the chance that one of the 130 will fail is: .99^^130, Which is .27 All of the above is elementary probability theory. not statistics, and I no longer remember the statistical theory to combine the confidence interval back with this last number, so let's try this: let's assume that the best estimator for p is the one with a 50% confidence: p^^19=.5 p= 19th root of .5, or about .965. That is about half the time we test a set of 19 droobs, all of them will pass if there is a 3.5% failure rate. Now, .965^^130=.0097 or thereabouts. From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Fri May 13 05:55:20 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:55:20 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians Message-ID: <20050513055520.78668.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> dgc: >let's assume that the best estimator for p is the one >with a >50% confidence: > p^^19=.5 > p= 19th root of .5, or about .965. That is about >half the time we >test a set of 19 droobs, all of them >will pass if there is a 3.5% failure rate. > >Now, .965^^130=.0097 or thereabouts. That's how I reasoned Dan! It may not actually be a bad rough estimate, but after thinking about it over-night I realized that Eliezer is right again dammit. There's not enough information given in the original problem for a proper mathematical analysis. You need empirical data on the reliability of manufacturing techniques. Now if the original problem is rephrased so that it's a question about the set of all possible such situations it does have a definite answer. (i.e. given the space of all possible such situations, in how many with 19 droobs tested good did the other 131 test good?). So I suggest that spike run simulations testing all possible failure rates and pretend that all of the simulations as a whole are the 'multiverse'. Then find the total number of simulations in which there were 131 good droobs and ask what proportion of these had 19 spares all testing good (but be sure to add up the results from all possible failure rate simulations to get a SINGLE number - i.e spike must not treat the different simulated failure rates as being seperate domains - he needs to treat the whole set as a single entity to simulate the 'multiverse'). Of course the figure obtained that way would be assuming equal probabilities for failure rates and we don't know whether that's a good assumption in the case of manufacturing. So as I said, it's really an empirical question. But if we look at the context of the problem i.e (manufacturing, testing) , it suggests that a new manufacturing technique is being tested. For any new manufacturing technique , you'd have to think that there's far more ways for things to go wrong than to go right, so it would be reasonable to choose the lowest prior probabilities of success consistent with the experimental results. So for instance, testing 19 droobs in a row and finding them all good one could only logically conclude that the probability a given droob is good is likely anywhere between 95% - 100%, but given the empirical context (manufacturing, testing) it would seem sensible to opt with for the lowest sensible figure (95%). As to Mike, sorry but the context was not 'sampling things out of the box' (in that case we *expect* the goods to work and should assign high prior probabilities - once goods are packaged and sold we expect them to work). The context was 'manufacturing and testing'. In that context we would expect that there's far more ways for new manufucturing techniques to fail than succeed, so we should assign low prior probabilities. I give up. How in the hell are we ever going to build an FAI if we're stumped by silly things like droobs and grues? Why are we so stupid dammit? --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 13 06:25:31 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:25:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] calling all bayesians In-Reply-To: <20050513055520.78668.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505130625.j4D6PbR19756@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes > ... So I suggest that spike run simulations > testing all possible failure rates and pretend that > all of the simulations as a whole are the > 'multiverse'. Then find the total number of > simulations in which there were 131 good droobs and > ask what proportion of these had 19 spares all testing > good (but be sure to add up the results from all > possible failure rate simulations to get a SINGLE > number - i.e spike must not treat the different > simulated failure rates as being seperate domains - he > needs to treat the whole set as a single entity to > simulate the 'multiverse')... Thats the conclusion I came to. Today I learned that there have been 4386 droobs manufactured and a total of 9 have failed. With that info, I was able to use the monte carlo to find an estimate, which agreed with the closed form solution. Now you have enough info to solve the problem. This is a fascinating discussion, which I would like to continue. This evening has been taken up by my scrambling to get an ancient motorcycle ready to roll for a trip to Oregon, so that I might play amateur cowboy this weekend. Surely I will elicit gales of derisive laughter from cow-savvy observers, but this is OK, for I know that derisive laughter is the purest expression of disdainful mirth. Think of the last time you had true uncontrolled diaper-wetting hilarity. It was not at some clever joke or sophisticated comedic drama, but rather from some silly goof clumsily attempting something stunt far beyond his expertise. Furthermore, I know that should any of these snarky cowboys show up at my office and attempt to perform rocket science, they would surely make a bigger mess of it than I am likely to make of the cowboy business. In any case, the motorcycle ride should be fun. spike From amara at amara.com Fri May 13 13:43:36 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 15:43:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Certificate of Ownership for the Entire Universe Message-ID: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4174&item=6530828170 (stranger than fiction) 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 is big: it doesn't fit in one viewgraph." -- Carlos Frenk [showing the VIRGO Consortium Hubble volume simulation] From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 13 14:26:31 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:26:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ut oh! Message-ID: <184670-220055513142631484@M2W110.mail2web.com> http://www.crystalinks.com/friday13th2.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 13 14:39:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Certificate of Ownership for the Entire Universe In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050513143942.85448.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4174&item=6530828170 > > (stranger than fiction) > Amara At $102.50 (its current bid) it is overpriced. Given that the average cubic meter of space contains a few hydrogen atoms, which is essentially worthless, and given that the universe is expanding indefinitely, and thus is for all practical purposes infinite, when you divide zero by infinity, you get zero as the proper value of the universe. The certificate itself may have artistic or collectible value, though. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri May 13 15:11:49 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:11:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Certificate of Ownership for the Entire Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52c005e94bf58a5a51d51628f08a0ec4@bonfireproductions.com> I call prior ownership! In a solipsistic fit back in an undergrad philosophy class I got this down in essay format! /runs off to find notebook ]3 On May 13, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? > ViewItem&category=4174&item=6530828170 > > (stranger than fiction) > 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 is big: it doesn't fit in one viewgraph." > -- Carlos Frenk [showing the VIRGO Consortium Hubble volume simulation] > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 13 15:33:41 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] CBC: A Manifesto on Biotechnology and Human Dignity Message-ID: <184670-220055513153341793@M2W051.mail2web.com> This will certainly provide content to fuel to the "Transhumanist Manifesto" for transhumanity, and a resource content to validate the use of the "Proactionary Principle" as a balanced measure for which to determine the pros and cons of the use of biotechnology. Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Premise Checker checker at panix.com Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:36:50 -0400 (EDT) To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org, transhumantech at yahoogroups.com Subject: [wta-talk] CBC: A Manifesto on Biotechnology and Human Dignity A Manifesto on Biotechnology and Human Dignity The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/manifesto.php If you agree with this statement, [15]click here to join with Chuck Colson, James Dobson, Joni Eareckson Tada, Dr. Richard Land, and the other signatories listed above in signing on to the Biotech Manifesto. "Our children are creations, not commodities."President George W. Bush "If any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after are the patients of that power," slaves to the "dead hand of the great planners and conditioners." C. S. Lewis 1. The Issue The debates over human cloning have focused our attention on the significance for the human race of what has been called "the biotech century." Biotechnology raises great hopes for technological progress; but it also raises profound moral questions, since it gives us new power over our own nature. It poses in the sharpest form the question: What does it mean to be human? 2. Biotechnology and Moral Questions We are thankful for the hope that biotechnology offers of new treatments for some of the most dreaded diseases. But the same technology can be used for good or ill. Scientists are already working in many countries to clone human beings, either for embryo experiments or for live birth. In December 2002, the Raelians, a religious cult that believes the human race was cloned by space aliens, announced that a baby they called "Eve" was the first cloned human. But it is not just the fringe cults that are involved in cloning; that same month, Stanford University announced a project to create cloned embryos for medical experimentation. Before long, scientists will also be able to intervene in human nature by making inheritable genetic changes. Biotechnology companies are already staking claims to parts of the human body through patents on human genes, cells, and other tissues for commercial use. Genetic information about the individual may make possible advances in diagnosis and treatment of disease, but it may also make those with "weaker" genes subject to discrimination along eugenic lines. 3. The Uniqueness of Humanity and Its Dignity These questions have led many to believe that in biotechnology we meet the moral challenge of the twenty-first century. For the uniqueness of human nature is at stake. Human dignity is indivisible: the aged, the sick, the very young, those with genetic diseases--every human being is possessed of an equal dignity; any threat to the dignity of one is a threat to us all. This challenge is not simply for Christians. Jews, Muslims, and members of other faiths have voiced the same concerns. So, too, have millions of others who understand that humans are distinct from all other species; at every stage of life and in every condition of dependency they are intrinsically valuable and deserving of full moral respect. To argue otherwise will lead to the ultimate tyranny in which someone determines who are deemed worthy of protection and those who are not. 4. Why This Must Be Addressed As C. S. Lewis warned a half-century ago in his remarkable essay The Abolition of Man, the new capacities of biotechnology give us power over ourselves and our own nature. But such power will always tend to turn us into commodities that have been manufactured. As we develop powers to make inheritable changes in human nature, we become controllers of every future generation. It is therefore vital that we undertake a serious national conversation to ensure a thorough understanding of these questions, and their answers, so that our democratic institutions will be able to make prudent choices as public policy is shaped for the future. 5. What We Propose We strongly favor work in biotechnology that will lead to cures for diseases and disabilities, and are excited by the promise of stem cells from adult donors and other ethical avenues of research. We see that around the world other jurisdictions have begun to develop ethical standards within which biotech can flourish. We note that Germany, which because of its Nazi past has a unique sensitivity to unethical science and medicine, has enacted laws that prohibit all cloning and other unethical biotech options. We note that the one international bioethics treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, outlaws all inheritable genetic changes and has been amended to prohibit all cloning. _____________________________________________________________ We therefore seek as an urgent first step a comprehensive ban on all human cloning and inheritable genetic modification. This is imperative to prevent the birth of a generation of malformed humans (animal cloning has led to grotesque failures), and the establishment of vast experimental embryo farms with millions of cloned humans.. We emphasize: All human cloning must be banned. There are those who argue that cloning can be sanctioned for medical experimentation--so-called "therapeutic" purposes. No matter what promise this might hold--all of which we note is speculative--it is morally offensive since it involves creating, killing, and harvesting one human being in the service of others. No civilized state could countenance such a practice. Moreover, if cloning for experiments is allowed, how could we ensure that a cloned embryo would not be implanted in a womb? The Department of Justice has testified that such a law would be unenforceable. We also seek legislation to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information, which is private to the individual. We seek a wide-ranging review of the patent law to protect human dignity from the commercial use of human genes, cells, and other tissue. We believe that such public policy initiatives will help ensure the progress of ethical biotechnology while protecting the sanctity of human life. We welcome all medical and scientific research as long as it is firmly tethered to moral truth. History teaches that whenever the two have been separated, the consequence is disaster and great suffering for humanity. (Signed) Carl Anderson Supreme Knight [16]Knights of Columbus Gary Bauer President [17]American Values Robert H. Bork Senior Fellow [18]The American Enterprise Institute Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D. Dean, [19]Wilberforce Forum Director, [20]Council for Biotechnology Policy Dr. Ben Carson Neurosurgeon [21]Johns Hopkins Hospital, Dept. of Neurosurgery Samuel B. Casey Executive Director & CEO [22]Christian Legal Society Charles W. Colson Chairman [23]The Wilberforce Forum, [24]Prison Fellowship Ministries Ken Connor President [25]Family Research Council Paige Comstock Cunningham, J.D. Board Chair and former President [26]Americans United for Life Dr. James Dobson [27]Focus on the Family Dr. Maxie D. Dunnam [28]Asbury Theological Seminary C. Christopher Hook, M.D. [29]Mayo Clinic Deal W. Hudson Editor and Publisher [30]CRISIS magazine Dr. Henk Jochemsen Director [31]Lindeboom Institute Dr. D. James Kennedy Senior Pastor [32]Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church Dr. John Kilner President [33]Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D. [34]C. Everett Koop Institute at Dartmouth Former U.S. Surgeon General Bill Kristol Chairman, [35]Project for The New American Century Editor, [36]The Weekly Standard Jennifer Lahl Executive Director [37]The Center for Bioethics and Culture Dr. Richard D. Land President [38]The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention Dr. C. Ben Mitchell [39]Trinity International University Editor, [40]Ethics & Medicine R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President [41]The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Fr. Richard Neuhaus [42]Institute for Religion and Public Life David Prentice, Ph.D. Professor, Life Sciences [43]Indiana State University Sandy Rios President [44]Concerned Women for America Dr. Adrian Rogers Senior Pastor [45]Bellevue Baptist Church Dr. William Saunders Senior Fellow & Director, Center for Human Life & Bioethics [46]Family Research Council Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Chairman [47]Traditional Values Coalition David Stevens, M.D. Executive Director [48]Christian Medical Association Joni Eareckson Tada President [49]Joni and Friends Paul Weyrich Chairman and CEO [50]The Free Congress Foundation Ravi Zacharias President [51]Ravi Zacharias International Ministries Biotech Manifesto Signature Form If you agree with this statement, [52]click here to join with Chuck Colson, James Dobson, Joni Eareckson Tada, Dr. Richard Land, and the other signatories listed above in signing on to the Biotech Manifesto. References 15. http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/manifesto_signer.php 16. http://www.kofc.org/ 17. http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/ 18. http://www.aei.org/ 19. http://www.wilberforce.org/ 20. http://www.biotechpolicy.org/ 21. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hopkinshospital 22. http://www.clsnet.org/ 23. http://www.wilberforce.org/ 24. http://www.pfm.org/ 25. http://www.frc.org/ 26. http://www.unitedforlife.org/ 27. http://www.family.org/ 28. http://www.ats.wilmore.ky.us/ 29. http://www.mayo.edu/ 30. http://www.crisismagazine.com/ 31. http://www.lindeboominstituut.nl/ 32. http://www.crpc.org/ 33. http://www.chbd.org/ 34. http://www.dartmouth.edu/dms/koop/index.shtml 35. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ 36. http://www.weeklystandard.com/ 37. http://www.thecbc.org/ 38. http://www.erlc.com/ 39. http://www.tiu.edu/ 40. http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/ 41. http://www.sbts.edu/ 42. http://www.firstthings.com/ 43. http://www.indstate.edu/ 44. http://www.cwfa.org/ 45. http://www.bellevue.org/ 46. http://www.frc.org/ 47. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/ 48. http://www.cmdahome.org/ 49. http://www.joniandfriends.org/ 50. http://www.freecongress.org/ 51. http://www.gospelcom.net/rzim 52. http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/manifesto_signer.php _______________________________________________ wta-talk mailing list wta-talk at transhumanism.org http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From John-C-Wright at sff.net Fri May 13 19:28:38 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:28:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism and Intellectual Poverty Message-ID: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com> So far, three people have taken me to task for using the term "slay the child" in reference to a hypothetical question about an abortion being sought by a fourteen-year-old. My language has been called emotive and dishonest. I humbly beg to differ. The language was precise and unemotional. Any emotion involved was because of the subject matter, not because of the language used to depict it. When an organism reproduces a second organism, the first is the parent of the second: the second organism, with no violence done to the ordinary meaning of the word, is properly called a "child." I did not call it an ?embryo? or a ?fetus? for the simple reason that the hypothetical did not, originally, specify a stage of development for the child. It could have been the morning after or nine months after. The word ?child? is broad enough to cover all those cases. The hypothetical was concerned, not with disposing of a mass of dead tissues, but with taking a living organism and rendering it not-living, that is to say, dead. The word "slay" meaning to render a living organism non-living is perfectly clear and unambiguous. >From the reaction, one would think I had blasphemed in a church: two of my esteemed correspondents are now in despair that the human race is not intelligent enough to survive, merely because I did not adopt the currently fashionable language of euphemism. Of course, the point of adopting the language of euphemism is to halt the analysis. It is not done to make things clear, but to shut questions out of consideration. But if we shut the question out of consideration, then there is no point in raising the hypothetical. The hypothetical was not whether "Sue" wished to remove a meaningless mass of cells, an abscessed tooth or an unsightly wart. The moral question was whether she wished to stop of life process (slay) an organism that stands to her in the relation of reproductive cause and effect (child). If this so-called clump of cells were not an entity to whom she has a particular duty and obligation, such as a mother?s obligation to love and care for her child, and if that duty were not, as in this case, calling upon her to make severe and painful sacrifices, such as founding a family at a tender age, and foreswearing her other ambitions, then there would be no moral question involved in the hypothetical. If there is no conflict of duties, there is no moral question. I also did not think weighing the pros and cons of abortion was the point of the question. The point of the question was to ask what is the mental process by which the pros and cons are weighed. In that regard, I actually thought he question was useful. Some answers addresses the duties of the various parties involved, without taking into account their desires; and some addresses the desires of the mother, without taking into account either her duties, or the desires of any other person. The question was also useful in that it brought out the intellectual poverty of the ?moral relativist? camp: note how the ?relative? morals always happen to be the ones that excuse difficult duties, never ones that impose new and more rigorous duties. Indeed, the idea of duty is alien to Epicureanism or Eudaemonism, or any other moral philosophy which takes pleasure or self-interest to be the foundation of morality. In the happy world of the epicurean, he need only select between what shall please him more and what shall please him less, like a gourmand choosing from a wine list. Shall I raise the child, abort it, or give it up for adoption? Shall I have white wine or red? No serious thought or debate can take place in the world where mere emotion is sovereign. Were "Sue" to come in tears to any of our Epicurean friends for advice and guidance, they would have nothing to say: telling her to do as she will is not advice, any more than telling her to walk in any direction she pleases is guidance. JCW From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 14 02:06:31 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 22:06:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism and Intellectual Poverty In-Reply-To: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com> References: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc6050513190639f80792@mail.gmail.com> On 5/13/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > So far, three people have taken me to task for using the term "slay the child" > in reference to a hypothetical question about an abortion being sought by a > fourteen-year-old. My language has been called emotive and dishonest. > > I humbly beg to differ. The language was precise and unemotional. Any emotion > involved was because of the subject matter, not because of the language used to > depict it. > > When an organism reproduces a second organism, the first is the parent of the > second: the second organism, with no violence done to the ordinary meaning of > the word, is properly called a "child." I did not call it an "embryo" or a > "fetus" for the simple reason that the hypothetical did not, originally, specify > a stage of development for the child. It could have been the morning after or > nine months after. The word "child" is broad enough to cover all those cases. > ### But, John, you know very well that the words "child of" may only be applied to a very small subset of organisms produced by other organisms. We do not call a bacterium a child, we do not call a cell line established from a tumor its child, or the child of the tumor's owner, and the unemotional and rational among us will not call an embryo a child, until it acquires the characteristics of a child, which always include a certain, dependent on circumstances, higher or lesser degree of similarity to its (multicellular) parent. That is, whenever you are not talking about computer programs which spawn child processes all the time. ------------------------------------------ > The hypothetical was concerned, not with disposing of a mass of dead tissues, > but with taking a living organism and rendering it not-living, that is to say, > dead. The word "slay" meaning to render a living organism non-living is > perfectly clear and unambiguous. ### And again here there is nothing precise and unemotional about your wording - "to slay" doesn't mean "render non-living", but only a small subset of such renderings, most frequently the ones the speaker is outraged at. Otherwise other terms are used, such as "terminate", "fry" (esp. potatoes), "excise" (esp. warts) or "abort" (esp. growing masses of cells in the womb). In both cases you are taking relatively precise terms and using them very broadly in ways absolutely incompatible with their common meanings. ------------------------------------------- > > Of course, the point of adopting the language of euphemism is to halt the > analysis. It is not done to make things clear, but to shut questions out of > consideration. But if we shut the question out of consideration, then there is > no point in raising the hypothetical. ### Changing the language to strident advocacy where blase is in order is a rhetorical manipulation intended to halt analysis. After all, what honest person would analyze the merits of infanticide? ----------------------------------------------------- > > The hypothetical was not whether "Sue" wished to remove a meaningless mass of > cells, an abscessed tooth or an unsightly wart. The moral question was whether > she wished to stop of life process (slay) an organism that stands to her in the > relation of reproductive cause and effect (child). ### No, the question in the abortion debate is about aborting a fetus. Not slaying, and not a child. ------------------------------------ > > If this so-called clump of cells were not an entity to whom she has a particular > duty and obligation, such as a mother's obligation to love and care for her > child, and if that duty were not, as in this case, calling upon her to make > severe and painful sacrifices, such as founding a family at a tender age, and > foreswearing her other ambitions, then there would be no moral question involved > in the hypothetical. ### Obviously, no person has any prima facie duty towards any non-sentient clumps of cells, no matter what the genetic relationship. ----------------------------- > > No serious thought or debate can take place in the world where mere emotion is > sovereign. ### Indeed. Only emotion can bring a human to give serious thought to a clump of brainless cells. Rafal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat May 14 03:30:57 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 20:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] CBC: A Manifesto on Biotechnology and Human Dignity In-Reply-To: <184670-220055513153341793@M2W051.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20050514033058.43507.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" CBC: A Manifesto on > Biotechnology and Human Dignity > > > > "Our children are creations, not > commodities."President George W. Bush > Except insofar as Bush can squander our children's financial futures with deficit spending and educational cut backs in order to finance a military campaign to seize the few paltry oil reserves remaining in the world. Oil reserves that are bound to run dry before our children get driver's licenses. > "If any one age really attains, by eugenics and > scientific education, > the power to make its descendants what it > pleases, all men who live > after are the patients of that power," slaves to > the "dead hand of the > great planners and conditioners." C. S. Lewis In a certain sense we are all slaves to the situations left by our forebears, whether they practiced eugenics or not. It is the harsh reality of the world that children have no choice but to inherit their legacy, but it is the responsibility of adults to leave them a legacy worth inheriting. > 1. The Issue > The debates over human cloning have focused > our attention on the > significance for the human race of what has > been called "the > biotech century." Biotechnology raises great > hopes for > technological progress; but it also raises > profound moral > questions, since it gives us new power over > our own nature. It > poses in the sharpest form the question: > What does it mean to be > human? That depends. Since we have had the ability to discern our own nature, we have always differed from the beast in spirit. Now that we have the power to change our nature, we have the potential to differ from the beast not just spiritually but in all ways. The question is do we want to remain forever in limbo caught between the worm and the divine or are we willing to let go of the worm and embrace the divine. What does it mean to be human? Whatever we want it to and whatever we allow it to. > 2. Biotechnology and Moral Questions > Before long, scientists will also be able to > intervene in human > nature by making inheritable genetic > changes. Biotechnology > companies are already staking claims to > parts of the human body > through patents on human genes, cells, and > other tissues for > commercial use. In recent years, through some perverse logic, biology has become the whipping-boy of the religious right. Don't blame biotechnology for the "commodification" of humanity. That has been happening for thousands of years. Slaves, serfs, or labor, it has been our own lust for wealth and power that has commodified mankind. This condition is brought about by consumerism and unregulated capitalism. Biology is simply what its name means, "the words of life" from Greek. It is a description of the processes which govern the physiological processes of life. Capitalism on the other hand, is the wholesale worship of money and consumerism is the glorification of waste. Biotechnology is no more responsible for the commodification of humanity than fire is responsible for war. Genetic information about > the individual may make > possible advances in diagnosis and treatment > of disease, but it > may also make those with "weaker" genes > subject to discrimination > along eugenic lines. Genetic information is just another realm of perception. One of the lesser natures of man is his tendency to discriminate against any differences he can perceive between himself and others. Given sight and skin color, he will discriminate on the basis of that. Given religion and language, he will discriminate on the basis of that. Again genetic differences and the information that call these differences to our attention are no more responsible for prejudice than is skin color or any of the thousand heritable traits that we can enumerate. To deny ourselves the fruits of biology on this basis is nearly as inexcusable as to infect all of mankind with a virus that turns us all purple so that we can no longer discriminate on the basis of skin color. > 3. The Uniqueness of Humanity and Its Dignity > These questions have led many to believe > that in biotechnology we > meet the moral challenge of the twenty-first > century. For the > uniqueness of human nature is at stake. > Human dignity is > indivisible: the aged, the sick, the very > young, those with > genetic diseases--every human being is > possessed of an equal > dignity; any threat to the dignity of one is > a threat to us all. > This challenge is not simply for Christians. > Jews, Muslims, and > members of other faiths have voiced the same > concerns. So, too, > have millions of others who understand that > humans are distinct > from all other species; at every stage of > life and in every > condition of dependency they are > intrinsically valuable and > deserving of full moral respect. To argue > otherwise will lead to > the ultimate tyranny in which someone > determines who are deemed > worthy of protection and those who are not. I agree fully with this. I do believe that every human being is deserving of dignity and respect no matter what their state of dependency. Yet being deserving of dignity and actually possessing it are two different things. An 86 year old man in a nursing home is most certainly deserving of dignity and respect. But when he is senile and calling for his mother while a nurse changes his diaper only because she is paid to do it, does he really have any? I and other biotechnologists want to give that man BACK his dignity. How is this wrong? > 4. Why This Must Be Addressed > As C. S. Lewis warned a half-century ago in > his remarkable essay > The Abolition of Man, the new capacities of > biotechnology give us > power over ourselves and our own nature. But > such power will > always tend to turn us into commodities that > have been > manufactured. As we develop powers to make > inheritable changes in > human nature, we become controllers of every > future generation. > It is therefore vital that we undertake a > serious national > conversation to ensure a thorough > understanding of these > questions, and their answers, so that our > democratic institutions > will be able to make prudent choices as > public policy is shaped > for the future. Where is the conversation? These guys gather together some big names with fancy degrees and pedigrees that all believe the same argument. An argument that they have not subjected to the purifying flames of reason. Then they draft some blanket manifesto replete with references to a guy who writes children's books about a magic closet and they call this a national conversation? Where is MY voice in this conversation? > 5. What We Propose > We strongly favor work in biotechnology that > will lead to cures > for diseases and disabilities, and are > excited by the promise of > stem cells from adult donors and other > ethical avenues of > research. We see that around the world other > jurisdictions have > begun to develop ethical standards within > which biotech can > flourish. We note that Germany, which > because of its Nazi past has > a unique sensitivity to unethical science > and medicine, has > enacted laws that prohibit all cloning and > other unethical biotech > options. We note that the one international > bioethics treaty, the > European Convention on Human Rights and > Biomedicine, outlaws all > inheritable genetic changes and has been > amended to prohibit all > cloning. I do not believe that the ethics of cloning has been settled to my own satisfaction. > We therefore seek as an urgent first step a > comprehensive ban on > all human cloning and inheritable genetic > modification. Banning all cloning is not going to help the condition of the world one bit. The second part of the ban against all heritable genetic modification is even more ridiculous. After all it doesn't specify artificial modification. Thus these guys want to pass a man-made law to prohibit something that occurs by natural means all the time. Thus it will be illegal to evolve and adapt to changing enviroments or for that matter to have inter-racial sexual relations for the purpose of procreation. > This is imperative to prevent the birth of a > generation of malformed > humans (animal cloning has led to grotesque > failures). I am thouroughly against the creation of quasi-human abominations. I am reasonably certain that almost all biotechnologists feel the same as I do on this point. This is why we are perfecting our techniques in animals so that this does not occur. In regards to malformed humans, this occurs in nature from time to time without any help from well-meaning scientists. Also, if thalidomide is any indication, traditional medicine and drug development can cause these problems as well. I see no reason to single out cloning as being responsible for this phenomenon, since to my knowledge it has never occured in humans. . . unless the Raelians are hiding them in their basement or something. > and the establishment of vast experimental embryo > farms with millions of > cloned humans.. Ok so these guys have read the bible (maybe), C.S. Lewis, and Aldous Huxley. What about the establishment of vast consumer farms, where the giant corporations graze on us like herds of cattle? These are called cities. Is this any more "human" or dignified? > We emphasize: All human cloning must be > banned. There are those > who argue that cloning can be sanctioned for > medical > experimentation--so-called "therapeutic" > purposes. No matter what > promise this might hold--all of which we > note is speculative--it > is morally offensive since it involves > creating, killing, and > harvesting one human being in the service of > others. No, it can be done ethically by not "creating" one human being but "copying" one human being. I agree with these jokers that intellectual property laws SHOULD be reformed but not in the fashion that they intend. Instead I would posit that every human being should own a "de facto" copyright on their own genetic code. If one takes this to be true, that a person owns their own genetic blueprint, then therapeutic cloning seems much less scary. If I were to conceive and grow an embryo that was completely unrelated to me then kill it to harvest its embryonic stem cells, then I could see that that would be unethical. It would indeed be growing one human being only to harvest it so as to serve another. But on the other hand, if I were take a nucleus from one of my own skin cells, implant it into an unfertilized egg, wait for an embryo to form but not waiting long enough for it to develop a nervous system, and harvest the embryonic stem cells from it, I don't see anything morally objectionable to that. The cells are human yes, but the only specific human that they can be traced to is me. And I willingly agreed to the procedure in the first place. They are built to the specifications of my genome and therefore they are for all intent and purposes my cells. Yes they are alive, but so are the thousands of skin cells that you slough off me in the shower on a daily basis. It is a sign of ignorance to decide that one clump of cells deserves human rights while another clump does not when in fact the cells have the identical genetic information. They should be and are, in my opinion, the same thing. Sure, one can say that given elaborate conditions (such as implantation into some woman's womb) that the ES cells might become become a fully formed human but this argument is flawed because with another set of elaborate conditions (the cells undergo nuclear transfer into an egg cell) the skin cells can become a fully formed human. Thus, I think that a person's genome is their property. If they choose to create a genetic copy of themselves in case the original gets damaged, I don't see how the LAW can justify preventing this. Of course by this argument it is assumed that the cloned embryo must be harvested before it develops a nervous system. Once this happens, I could not swear that harvesting them would NOT be taking a human life, but every technique for therapeutic cloning now devised involves harvesting these cells LONG before they develop a nervous system. So until a nervous system is formed, the clump of cells is not a human being. It is a potential human being but so is every flake of dandruff you brush off your collar every day. > No civilized > state could countenance such a practice. > Moreover, if cloning for > experiments is allowed, how could we ensure > that a cloned embryo > would not be implanted in a womb? The > Department of Justice has > testified that such a law would be > unenforceable. Yeah, its funny how the civilized state won't countenance cloning or other reproductive sciences but the science of developing weapons of mass destruction is countenanced, encouraged, and well funded. >We also seek legislation to prohibit discrimination >based on genetic information, which is private to >the individual. We seek a wide-ranging review of the >patent law to protect human dignity from the >commercial use of human genes, cells, and other >tissue. We believe that such public policy >initiatives will help ensure the progress of ethical >biotechnology while protecting the sanctity of human >life. I strongly support that all biological and medical research be conducted in an ethical manner. I believe most strongly that genetic information is private to the individual. I would go one step farther and say that all genetic information is the intellectual property of the individual. I would not mind a FAIR AND WELL THOUGHT OUT review of patent law. I have no problem with legally protecting the rights and dignity of human beings. If it were possible, I would advocate developing cures for disease and human suffering free of cost so that EVERYONE would benefit. Unfortuanately, I don't make those decisions, the politicans do. The same politicians that are making all these intellectually lazy arguments against cloning and stem cells because of some vague passages in the bible and some science fiction story they read in 4th grade. >We welcome all medical and scientific research as >long as it is firmly tethered to moral truth. >History teaches that whenever the two have been >separated, the consequence is disaster and great >suffering for humanity. There is NO gradation or prioritizing of truth. Truth is truth. Falsehood is falsehood. No one truth is more important than another truth. One cannot take a scientific truth like the earth goes around the sun and then make it conditional on some moral truth like humans have rights. This is ridiculous. Are we to believe that if there were no human beings than the earth would stop revolving around the sun? I am so sick and tired of these people! Its hard enough trying to figure out how biology and ageing work without having these armchair ethicists try to tell me what's right or wrong when the majority have not even cracked a basic textbook on biology since 6th grade let alone prayed, meditated, and communed with the holy spirit upon the technologies they have so summarily rejected. Natasha, I don't know if I know enough about transhumanism to write a general manifesto about it. But I do know enough about both biology and religion to write a Biotechnologist's Manifesto that will blow these turkeys away. I was hoping somebody else would do this, but every article, editorial, and manifesto I have come across seems to condemn what I have devoted my life to on the basis of the same flabby moral arguments. I am ready to fight back. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From megao at sasktel.net Sat May 14 04:59:14 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:59:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Certificate of Ownership for the Entire Universe In-Reply-To: <52c005e94bf58a5a51d51628f08a0ec4@bonfireproductions.com> References: <52c005e94bf58a5a51d51628f08a0ec4@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <428585A2.7080800@sasktel.net> Perhaps there should be a time coordinate of some sort set out and therefore a large number of certificates could be issued , each dated to document a specific time slice for a rolling possession of the "universe". There could be a numbering system and "transfer to and from" The creator of the certificates then must keep a registry of such...... but seriously.... pet rocks, cabbage patch dolls, now this...... From scerir at libero.it Sat May 14 06:31:09 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 08:31:09 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze References: <184670-220055513142631484@M2W110.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <001d01c5584e$a3f0fc60$94b21b97@administxl09yj> Interesting letter, by R.P. Feynman, about the bomb in New Mexico. And much more. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1481368,00.html From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 14 09:30:54 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:30:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism and Intellectual Poverty In-Reply-To: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com> References: <200505131928.j4DJSmR21057@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8BAE1841-7220-4D2F-A74E-0A9233CD0003@mac.com> On May 13, 2005, at 12:28 PM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > So far, three people have taken me to task for using the term "slay > the child" > in reference to a hypothetical question about an abortion being > sought by a > fourteen-year-old. My language has been called emotive and dishonest. > > I humbly beg to differ. The language was precise and unemotional. > Any emotion > involved was because of the subject matter, not because of the > language used to > depict it. I don't see much sign of humility. It looks to me largely like a self-defensive failure to understand what was objected to. > > When an organism reproduces a second organism, the first is the > parent of the > second: the second organism, with no violence done to the ordinary > meaning of > the word, is properly called a "child." Reproduction takes place when there are now two (or more) separate organisms. Conception by itself is not a full cycle of reproduction. Before birth and especially in early pregnancy the "child" is not present in the sense you alluded to. You are too fine a wordsmith for me to believe there was anything innocent in your choice of words. > I did not call it an ?embryo? or a > ?fetus? for the simple reason that the hypothetical did not, > originally, specify > a stage of development for the child. It could have been the > morning after or > nine months after. The word ?child? is broad enough to cover all > those cases. > Hardly. Did you get that straw you reached for so hard? > The hypothetical was concerned, not with disposing of a mass of > dead tissues, > but with taking a living organism and rendering it not-living, that > is to say, > dead. The word "slay" meaning to render a living organism non- > living is > perfectly clear and unambiguous. In short, by the definitions relevant, an embryo or fetus, not child. > > >> From the reaction, one would think I had blasphemed in a church: >> two of my >> > esteemed correspondents are now in despair that the human race is not > intelligent enough to survive, merely because I did not adopt the > currently > fashionable language of euphemism. > No. My reaction was over more than your incendiary prose. It was despair that morality seems to be so poorly understood and our communication skills so limited that its discussion devolves in these unfortunately characteristic ways even here. > Of course, the point of adopting the language of euphemism is to > halt the > analysis. It is not done to make things clear, but to shut > questions out of > consideration. But if we shut the question out of consideration, > then there is > no point in raising the hypothetical. > The point of incendiary language is to halt the analysis. You did so admirably. > The hypothetical was not whether "Sue" wished to remove a > meaningless mass of > cells, an abscessed tooth or an unsightly wart. The moral question > was whether > she wished to stop of life process (slay) an organism that stands > to her in the > relation of reproductive cause and effect (child). Everyone knows that given time enough and general health there will eventually be a child unless the pregnancy is terminated by accident or on purpose. But it is hardly a universally accepted as murder to terminate a pregnancy. Why is it moral to accidentally or on purpose destroy sperm or egg but an act of murder to remove a fertilized egg immediately or some ways into a pregnancy if a child is not desired? Are you also against birth control generally? If birth control is ok but accidents happen does the right of people to decide when to bear children end once an unwanted conception occurs? Again this specialized subarea of ethics isn't even the point we were attempting to discuss! > > If this so-called clump of cells were not an entity to whom she has > a particular > duty and obligation, such as a mother?s obligation to love and care > for her > child, and if that duty were not, as in this case, calling upon her > to make > severe and painful sacrifices, such as founding a family at a > tender age, and > foreswearing her other ambitions, then there would be no moral > question involved > in the hypothetical. That she may (or may not) fel a "duty" in no small part driven by hormones and conditioning des not justify comparing the situation of being pregnant to the situation after the pregnancy comes to term and an actual child is born into this world. AGAIN, this was not even the point. Again, you simply derailed the conversation. Your choice of words prejudged this specific area and the shape of the problem. > > If there is no conflict of duties, there is no moral question. Duties are a poor way to define morality. > > > I also did not think weighing the pros and cons of abortion was the > point of the > question. The point of the question was to ask what is the mental > process by > which the pros and cons are weighed. > > In that regard, I actually thought he question was useful. Some > answers > addresses the duties of the various parties involved, without > taking into > account their desires; and some addresses the desires of the > mother, without > taking into account either her duties, or the desires of any other > person. > It is not fruitful to discuss morality as a tradeoff of supposed duties. > The question was also useful in that it brought out the > intellectual poverty of > the ?moral relativist? camp: note how the ?relative? morals always > happen to be > the ones that excuse difficult duties, never ones that impose new > and more > rigorous duties. > It is not my problem you are hung up on "duty" when you attempt to talk about morality. I am personally not a moral relativist. I am also not a moral absolutist. My morality does not hang on something as flimsy as "duty". > Indeed, the idea of duty is alien to Epicureanism or Eudaemonism, > or any other > moral philosophy which takes pleasure or self-interest to be the > foundation of > morality. > Self interest including interest in social interactions with others is the heart of morality in my view. You seem to take the view, which I would expect from certain types of religious belief although not only there, that morality is imposed from without by God or Nature as unchosen duties. > In the happy world of the epicurean, he need only select between > what shall > please him more and what shall please him less, like a gourmand > choosing from a > wine list. Shall I raise the child, abort it, or give it up for > adoption? Shall > I have white wine or red? > > No serious thought or debate can take place in the world where mere > emotion is > sovereign. Do you think self-interest is about mere whim? Really? > - samantha From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat May 14 09:36:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. Message-ID: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> In the emotional wake of my rebutal to the CBC's anti-cloning propaganda, I had a chilling thought. What if all this opposition from the religious right fanned by the rich arch-conservatives against transhumanist ideas is just a red-herring? What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the technology is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can get access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. There will always be someplace in the world where it could be allowed and or hidden. The rich sure wouldn't have any trouble either hearing about or traveling to it. Plus medical costs right out of their pocket. Since insurance won't pay for it . . . after all it is illegal! Am I paranoid or did I show my hand too soon? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From riel at surriel.com Sat May 14 14:52:01 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 10:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the technology > is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can get > access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. I'd say that is very unlikely. After all, the rich like keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they have no interest in these new technologies not becoming commodities that are safe and easily available to them. -- "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 eugen at leitl.org Sun May 15 16:50:02 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:50:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze In-Reply-To: <001d01c5584e$a3f0fc60$94b21b97@administxl09yj> References: <184670-220055513142631484@M2W110.mail2web.com> <001d01c5584e$a3f0fc60$94b21b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <20050515165002.GX23917@leitl.org> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 08:31:09AM +0200, scerir wrote: > Interesting letter, by R.P. Feynman, > about the bomb in New Mexico. And much more. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1481368,00.html The artificial mineral created in the blast is called trinitite: http://www.google.com/search?q=trinitite&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From megao at sasktel.net Sat May 14 15:16:28 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 10:16:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4286164C.6090701@sasktel.net> I am dealing with an area where this sort of thing might also play a part. The pharmaceuticalization of the old generic cannabis to a high cost drug for pharma seeks to keep illegal an old low cost pharma item while similtaneously commercializing it at a cost that most middle class persons will not be care to access it, in spite of its vastly understated medical values. The sort of thing you mention can and does happen but not quite in the way you present. The Avantguardian wrote: > In the emotional wake of my rebutal to the CBC's >anti-cloning propaganda, I had a chilling thought. >What if all this opposition from the religious right >fanned by the rich arch-conservatives against >transhumanist ideas is just a red-herring? What if the >rich are just biding their time knowing that the >technology is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it >SPECIFICALLY so they can get access to it while the >proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. There will >always be someplace in the world where it could be >allowed and or hidden. The rich sure wouldn't have any >trouble either hearing about or traveling to it. Plus >medical costs right out of their pocket. Since >insurance won't pay for it . . . after all it is >illegal! Am I paranoid or did I show my hand too soon? > > > >The Avantguardian >is >Stuart LaForge >alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > >"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." >-Bill Watterson > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Mail Mobile >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail >_______________________________________________ >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 May 14 16:42:38 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 11:42:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The spiritual life clarified Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050514114117.01ced3c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> from THE ONION: LOS ANGELES?According to a report released Monday by the American Institute of Religions, the Church of Scientology, once one of the fastest-growing religious organizations in the U.S., is steadily losing members to the much newer religion Fictionology. "Unlike Scientology, which is based on empirically verifiable scientific tenets, Fictionology's central principles are essentially fairy tales with no connection to reality," the AIR report read. "In short, Fictionology offers its followers a mythical belief system free from the cumbersome scientific method to which Scientology is hidebound." Created in 2003 by self-proclaimed messiah Bud Don Ellroy, Fictionology's principles were first outlined in the self-help paperback Imaginetics: The New Pipe-Dream Of Modern Mental Make-Believe. Fictionology's central belief, that any imaginary construct can be incorporated into the church's ever-growing set of official doctrines, continues to gain popularity. Believers in Santa Claus, his elves, or the Tooth Fairy are permitted?even encouraged?to view them as deities. Even corporate mascots like the Kool-Aid Man are valid objects of Fictionological worship. "My personal savior is Batman," said Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Greg Jurgenson. "My wife chooses to follow the teachings of the Gilmore Girls. Of course, we are still beginners. Some advanced-level Fictionologists have total knowledge of every lifetime they have ever lived for the last 80 trillion years." "Sure, it's total bullshit," Jurgenson added. "But that's Fictionology. Praise Batman!" While the Church of Fictionology acknowledges that its purported worldwide membership of 450 billion is an invented number, the AIR report estimates that as many as 70 percent of the church's followers are former Scientologists. Church of Scientology public-relations spokesman Al Kurz said he was "shocked" when he learned that Fictionology is approaching the popularity of his religion. "Scientology is rooted in strict scientific principles, such as the measurement of engrams in the brain by the E-Meter," Kurz said. "Scientology uses strictly scientific methodologies to undo the damage done 75 million years ago by the Galactic Confederation's evil warlord Xenu?we offer our preclear followers procedures to erase overts in the reactive mind. Conversely, Fictionology is essentially just a bunch of make-believe nonsense." Hollywood actor David McSavage, who converted to Fictionology last year, attempted to explain. "Scientology can only offer data, such as how an Operating Thetan can control matter, energy, space, and time with pure thought alone," McSavage said. "But truly spiritual people don't care about data, especially those seeking an escape from very real physical, mental, or emotional problems." McSavage added, "As a Fictionologist, I live in a world of pretend. It's liberating." A tax-exempt organization, the Church of Fictionology stands poised to become a great moneymaking power if it continues to grow at its current rate?a situation Kurz called "outrageous." "In recruiting new members, Fictionology preys on the gullible with fanciful stories and simple-minded solutions," Kurz said. "Fictionology is depriving legitimate churches of the revenue they need to carry out charitable works worldwide?important charitable works like clearing the planet of body-thetan implants." From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat May 14 20:16:10 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 13:16:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > > What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the > technology > > is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can > get > > access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. > > I'd say that is very unlikely. After all, the rich like > keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they > have no interest in these new technologies not becoming > commodities that are safe and easily available to them. Unless they want the techs to become *only* available to them. Which is a common misunderstanding of technological development possessed by many elites, who think it is possible to restrict certain techs only to the rich and powerful forever. Just look at how well the security restrictions on nuclear weapons have worked...er, well, maybe the restrictions on biotech...no, maybe the restrictions on cryptography? Still, while there may be some element of this, it's not the main driving force behind neoluddism. Many people honestly don't grok the core concetps of science, and really don't understand* any other way to greet significant changes than fear and panic. * I'd say "know", except that they may have heard of such things as investigation and research to dig up the truth. But to them, these are remote abstractions that other people do, not an activity they themselves should undertake. (Many even think they *can* not read up on things, after practicing for so long the mindset of letting their eyes glaze over and their minds tune out at the slightest hint of complexity. Reacting to complexity with mental strategies to break it down into understandable parts is a learned art - one that some may have more of a genetic predisposition towards than others, but ultimately learned nonetheless.) From riel at surriel.com Sat May 14 22:45:50 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 18:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project In-Reply-To: <20050509013248.12583.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050509013248.12583.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 8 May 2005, Adrian Tymes wrote: > I note that all of the structures it proposes keep all the faces > parallel, and do not attempt to bias the Casimir effect one way or > another. So of course those systems remain conservative. For the people in search of an analogy, think about how the laws of electricity get applied differently depending on whether we're talking about DC, AC or extremely high frequency radiation. -- "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 benboc at lineone.net Sat May 14 23:25:56 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 00:25:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The spiritual life clarified In-Reply-To: <200505141800.j4EI08R29355@tick.javien.com> References: <200505141800.j4EI08R29355@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42868904.7010604@lineone.net> Thanks, Damien. That really gave me the giggles. ben From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 15 00:38:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515003834.95224.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > In the emotional wake of my rebutal to the CBC's > anti-cloning propaganda, I had a chilling thought. > What if all this opposition from the religious right > fanned by the rich arch-conservatives against > transhumanist ideas is just a red-herring? What if the > rich are just biding their time knowing that the > technology is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it > SPECIFICALLY so they can get access to it while the > proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. Of course that is the reason. Furthermore, it is a good conspiracy theory because it will take so long to prove, that technology will quickly catch up and whatever longevity the rich and powerful gain can be attributed to clean living and nutritional supplements. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 15 00:42:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515004214.39020.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the > technology > > is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can > get > > access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. > > I'd say that is very unlikely. After all, the rich like > keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they > have no interest in these new technologies not becoming > commodities that are safe and easily available to them. You aren't seeing the point: just because technology isn't available to US doesn't mean it won't be available to THEM. Much like machine guns, most people think they are banned, while in reality production/supply is limited, prices have escalated out of reach of most people, and those who gain the special permission of govt can enjoy the privilege. Given the propensity of Chinese, for example, to kill off daughters, or selectively abort based on gender of the fetus (to describe it more euphemistically for the politically correct here), the PTB clearly feel that most of the human race cannot responsibly handle advanced reproductive and longevity technologies. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun May 15 02:29:53 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:29:53 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. References: <20050514093616.79034.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <086501c558f5$fa218620$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > In the emotional wake of my rebutal to the CBC's > anti-cloning propaganda, I had a chilling thought. > What if all this opposition from the religious right > fanned by the rich arch-conservatives against > transhumanist ideas is just a red-herring? What if the > rich are just biding their time knowing that the > technology is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it > SPECIFICALLY so they can get access to it while the > proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. There will > always be someplace in the world where it could be > allowed and or hidden. The rich sure wouldn't have any > trouble either hearing about or traveling to it. Plus > medical costs right out of their pocket. Since > insurance won't pay for it . . . after all it is > illegal! Am I paranoid or did I show my hand too soon? Perhaps the best way to rebut this is to encourage you to run with it and see how you can develop the scenario. Why and how would "the rich" bind together as a class? Brett Paatsch From megao at sasktel.net Sun May 15 02:40:22 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:40:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net> You might call that the old "dog in the manger syndrome". Those who cannot or wish not to avail themselves try to feel better about their condition by pulling any bystanders into their "party in the cesspool". There may also be the inverse; those who have succeeded to crawl out of the cesspool may feel that those remaining are unworthy of anything better than the slop they are wallowing in so may try to squeeze all they can out of the unfortunate ones all the while blocking the path out for the same , so that their personal self worth , ego and power might be increased. Humans can be a real embarrassment at times. Or maybe it is all part of the process of natural selection. Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Rik van Riel wrote: > > >>On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: >> >> >>>What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the >>> >>> >>technology >> >> >>>is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can >>> >>> >>get >> >> >>>access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. >>> >>> >>I'd say that is very unlikely. After all, the rich like >>keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they >>have no interest in these new technologies not becoming >>commodities that are safe and easily available to them. >> >> > >Unless they want the techs to become *only* available to them. Which >is a common misunderstanding of technological development possessed >by many elites, who think it is possible to restrict certain techs >only to the rich and powerful forever. Just look at how well the >security restrictions on nuclear weapons have worked...er, well, maybe >the restrictions on biotech...no, maybe the restrictions on >cryptography? > >Still, while there may be some element of this, it's not the main >driving force behind neoluddism. Many people honestly don't grok the >core concetps of science, and really don't understand* any other way to >greet significant changes than fear and panic. > >* I'd say "know", except that they may have heard of such things as >investigation and research to dig up the truth. But to them, these are >remote abstractions that other people do, not an activity they >themselves should undertake. (Many even think they *can* not read up >on things, after practicing for so long the mindset of letting their >eyes glaze over and their minds tune out at the slightest hint of >complexity. Reacting to complexity with mental strategies to break it >down into understandable parts is a learned art - one that some may >have more of a genetic predisposition towards than others, but >ultimately learned nonetheless.) >_______________________________________________ >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: From aiguy at comcast.net Sun May 15 03:41:33 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 23:41:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze In-Reply-To: <20050515165002.GX23917@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200505150341.j4F3fhR30593@tick.javien.com> How can people be collecting this stuff? Haven't we been told that the half-life for the radiation produced by atomic weapons is so long that it would leave the areas uninhabitable for thousands if not tens of thousands of years? Which leads me to another question I've had for ages. What is left after an underground nuclear blast? Is there a large under ground spherical glass or crystalline cavern created by all the heat and pressure. If so would some of the crystals formed be gemstones. Previously I had assumed that even if there were, they would be so radioactive for so long that excavating such a site would be useless because of the radioactivity. Is it possible that at the blast temperature and pressures created new crystal and/or materials not normally found in nature could be created? I realize this is a lot of questions but I find the whole topic pretty interesting. Has anyone ever seen any good books devoted to this subject? Or has this whole area of exploration been kept off limits by government restriction to these sites? -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:50 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 08:31:09AM +0200, scerir wrote: > Interesting letter, by R.P. Feynman, > about the bomb in New Mexico. And much more. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1481368,00.html The artificial mineral created in the blast is called trinitite: http://www.google.com/search?q=trinitite&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&sta rt=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official From megao at sasktel.net Sun May 15 02:49:08 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:49:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <20050515004214.39020.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050515004214.39020.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4286B8A4.60101@sasktel.net> You know, that fits very well into the medical marijuna situation. The pharmaceutialized version @ 15-30,000/year is clearly available to the most able to pay and the knowledge of the longevity potential of the substances within is reasonably accessible but the continuence of prohibition laws creates a good highly restricted market system and cash flow to those capable of manipulating the key positions in that economy. As an aside I include in my definition of medical marijuna the hemp chemistry which lacks the psychogenic factors but reatins the entire remainder of the underlying chemistry. Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Rik van Riel wrote: > > >>On Sat, 14 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: >> >> >> >>>What if the rich are just biding their time knowing that the >>> >>> >>technology >> >> >>>is nigh upon us and try to illegalize it SPECIFICALLY so they can >>> >>> >>get >> >> >>>access to it while the proletariat can't? Like Cuban cigars. >>> >>> >>I'd say that is very unlikely. After all, the rich like >>keeping money (otherwise they wouldn't be rich), so they >>have no interest in these new technologies not becoming >>commodities that are safe and easily available to them. >> >> > >You aren't seeing the point: just because technology isn't available to >US doesn't mean it won't be available to THEM. Much like machine guns, >most people think they are banned, while in reality production/supply >is limited, prices have escalated out of reach of most people, and >those who gain the special permission of govt can enjoy the privilege. > >Given the propensity of Chinese, for example, to kill off daughters, or >selectively abort based on gender of the fetus (to describe it more >euphemistically for the politically correct here), the PTB clearly feel >that most of the human race cannot responsibly handle advanced >reproductive and longevity technologies. > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >"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://intlib.blogspot.com > > > >Yahoo! Mail >Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: >http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html > >_______________________________________________ >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: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 15 04:14:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515041430.80439.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gary Miller wrote: > > How can people be collecting this stuff? > > Haven't we been told that the half-life for the radiation produced by > atomic weapons is so long that it would leave the areas > uninhabitable for thousands if not tens of thousands of years? Obviously someone suffering from being programmed by years of Superman/Kryptonite disinformation. Gotta watch out for that Marvel Comics, they are just one more commie front.... Firstly, not all radiation is the same. Long half lives typically indicate that the isotopes involved are very stable and emit a very low level of radiation. Secondly, having a small piece of low radiation material (like, say, a piece of uranium ore, depleted uranium, or irradiated glass) is markedly different from handling enriched fissile materials, or even from living in a location where all the landscape has a low level of residual radioactivity. Living at Trinity is bad for you, but visiting there, or taking home a small piece of trinitite, is not unsafe. Glass is also much more stable than, say, a piece of radioactive dust. You inhale far more radioactive isotopes each day from coal plant and diesel fueled vehicle emissions into the urban atmosphere. Coal plants sell their fly ash for filler to cement manufacturers for filler, despite being so laden with radioactive heavy metal isotopes that it would be high level nuclear was if it was produced by a nuclear plant. This is the true source of most residential radon contamintion, not natural emissions from granite rock formations. > > Which leads me to another question I've had for ages. > > What is left after an underground nuclear blast? A crater, a lump of radioactive rock and soil, and if near a water table, leaching death.... > > Is there a large under ground spherical glass or crystalline cavern > created by all the heat and pressure. Supposedly. > > If so would some of the crystals formed be gemstones. Could be. I don't think you'd want a loved one wearing it around her neck. She might need a thyroid transplant a few decades hence, at least for those from a recent blast. > > Previously I had assumed that even if there were, they would be so > radioactive for so long that excavating such a site would be useless > because of the radioactivity. > > Is it possible that at the blast temperature and pressures created > new crystal and/or materials not normally found in nature could be > created? > > I realize this is a lot of questions but I find the whole topic > pretty interesting. > > Has anyone ever seen any good books devoted to this subject? > > Or has this whole area of exploration been kept off limits by > government restriction to these sites? That is a pretty good guess. I doubt, though, that a blast would produce very large gems. Large carat gemstones require a significant amount of constant pressure for a long term to grow without massive flaws and detectable spectral differences. A blast produces a very short period of pressure. Even then, most of the crystals that it produces would be glass/quartz of little value. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Sun May 15 05:09:43 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:09:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze References: <184670-220055513142631484@M2W110.mail2web.com><001d01c5584e$a3f0fc60$94b21b97@administxl09yj> <20050515165002.GX23917@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001901c5590c$4e3f2d50$54c61b97@administxl09yj> From: "Gary Miller" > I realize this is a lot of questions but I find > the whole topic pretty interesting. > Has anyone ever seen any good books devoted > to this subject? No, but there are stories about *what* was happening at Oak Ridge, at that time :-). Oppenheimer sent there Emilio Segr? http://www.aip.org/history/esva/ and then R.Feynman. Both wrote few pages about their missions. (Segr? told me that, during that mission, few items were stolen, at Oak Ridge, from his luggage, which was locked. The Army thought he was keeping some 'equations' secret or, more probably, he was taking secrets to Oak Ridge, from Los Alamos, and that was forbidden.) Feynman reports .... Well, I want to tell about some of the special problems I had at Los Alamos that were rather interesting. One thing had to do with the safety of the plant at Oak Ridge. Los Alamos was going to make the bomb, but at Oak Ridge they were trying to separate the isotopes of uranium - uranium 238 and uranium 235, the explosive one. They were just beginning to get infinitesimal amounts from an experimental thing of 235, and at the same time they were practicing the chemistry. There was going to be a big plant, they were going to have vats of the stuff, and then they were going to take the purified stuff and repurify and get it ready for the next stage. (You have to purify it in several stages.) So they were practising on the one hand, and they were just getting a little bit of U235 from one of the pieces of apparatus experimentally on the other hand. And they were trying to learn how to assay it, to determine how much uranium 235 there is in it - and though we would send them instructions, they never got it right. So finally Segre [Emilio Segr?] said that the only possible way to get it right was for him to go down there and see what they were doing. The Army people said, 'No, it is our policy to keep all the information of Los Alamos at one place.' The people in Oak Ridge didn't know anything about what it was to be used for; they just knew what they were trying to do. I mean the higher people knew they were separating uranium, but they didn't know how powerful the bomb was, or exactly how it worked or anything. The people underneath didn't know at all what they were doing. And the Army wanted to keep it that way. There was no information going back and forth. But Segre insisted they'd never get the assays right, and the whole thing would go up in smoke. So he finally went down to see what they were doing, and as he was walking through he saw them wheeling a tank carboy of water, green water - which is uranium nitrate solution. He says, 'Uh, you're going to handle it like that when it's purified too? Is that what you're going to do?' They said, 'Sure - why not?' 'Won't it explode?' he says. 'Huh! Explode?' And so the Army said, 'You see! We shouldn't have let any information get to them! Now they are all upset.' Well, it turned out that the Army had realized how much stuff we needed to make a bomb - 20 kilograms or whatever it was - and they realized that this much material, purified, would never be in the plant, so there was no danger. But they did not know that the neutrons were enormously more effective when they are slowed down in water. And so in water it takes less than a tenth - no, a hundredth - as much material to make a reaction that makes radioactivity. It kills people around and so on. So, it was very dangerous, and they had not paid any attention to the safety at all. So a telegram goes from Oppenheimer to Segre: 'Go through the entire plant. Notice where all the concentrations are supposed to be, with the process as they designed it. We will calculate in the meantime how much material can come together before there's an explosion.' Two groups started working on it. Christie's group worked on water solutions and my group worked on dry powder in boxes. We calculated about how much material they could accumulate safely. And Christie was going to go down and tell them all at Oak Ridge what the situation was, because this whole thing is broken down and we have to go down and tell them now. So I happily gave all my numbers to Christie, and said, you have all the stuff, so go. Christie got pneumonia; I had to go. I never traveled on an airplane before. I traveled on an airplane. They strapped the secrets in a little thing on my back! The airplane in those days was like a bus, except the stations were further apart. You stopped off every once in a while to wait. There was a guy standing there next to me swinging a chain, saying something like, 'It must be terribly difficult to fly without a priority on airplanes these days.' I couldn't resist. I said, 'Well, I don't know. I have a priority.' A little bit later he tried again. 'It looks like this. There are some generals coming. They are going to put off some of us number 3's.' 'It's all right,' I said, 'I'm a number 2.' He probably wrote to his congressman - if he wasn't a congressman himself - saying, 'What are they doing sending these little kids around with number 2 priorities in the middle of the war?' At any rate, I arrived at Oak Ridge. The first thing I did was have them take me to the plant, and I said nothing, I just looked at everything. I found out that the situation was even worse than Segre reported because he noticed certain boxes in big lots in a room, but he didn't notice a lot of boxes in another room on the other side of the same wall - and things like that. Now, if you have too much stuff together, it goes up, you see. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 15 08:19:43 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 01:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515081943.4559.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Perhaps the best way to rebut this is to encourage > you to run with it and > see how you can develop the scenario. Huh? I am guessing you didn't read my rebuttal. It is posted simply as a reply to Natasha's post about the CBC's Manifesto. I may write an "Immortalist's Manifesto" later but for the time being, I think I got irritation at the CBC out of my system. > Why and how would "the rich" bind together as a > class? Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather flock together." When's the last time some ordinary guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? They would bind together because they have more in common with one another than they do with us. The way they do it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name a few off the top of my head. Did I understand your question correctly? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 15 08:25:38 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 01:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515082538.45735.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > * I'd say "know", except that they may have heard of > such things as > investigation and research to dig up the truth. But > to them, these are > remote abstractions that other people do, not an > activity they > themselves should undertake. (Many even think they > *can* not read up > on things, after practicing for so long the mindset > of letting their > eyes glaze over and their minds tune out at the > slightest hint of > complexity. Reacting to complexity with mental > strategies to break it > down into understandable parts is a learned art - > one that some may > have more of a genetic predisposition towards than > others, but > ultimately learned nonetheless.) Do you really think that the rich are this stupid? How did they get rich if this is the case? I suppose they could have inherited it all but how would they keep it, if they don't have the simple ability to process information and think for themselves? Or are your refering specifically to the "poor" religious right? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun May 15 15:34:16 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:34:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. Message-ID: <1116171256.31755@whirlwind.he.net> The Avantguardian wrote: > Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather > flock together." When's the last time some ordinary > guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? They > would bind together because they have more in common > with one another than they do with us. The way they do > it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business > deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name > a few off the top of my head. I take it from this that you do not actually know many rich people, as this is a very strange and not very realistic characterization. Most are indistinguishable from everyone else, hang out with the same people they always did, and generally do what they've always done. There is a tiny blue blood set, but the vast majority aren't in it. j. andrew rogers From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun May 15 16:27:39 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:27:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <1116171256.31755@whirlwind.he.net> References: <1116171256.31755@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 May 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > The Avantguardian wrote: > > Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather > > flock together." When's the last time some ordinary > > guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? They > > would bind together because they have more in common > > with one another than they do with us. The way they do > > it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business > > deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name > > a few off the top of my head. > > > I take it from this that you do not actually know many > rich people, as this is a very strange and not very > realistic characterization. Most are indistinguishable > from everyone else, hang out with the same people > they always did, and generally do what they've > always done. There is a tiny blue blood set, but > the vast majority aren't in it. > Yes, I agree with this assessment. Check out "The Millionaire Next Door" - which, IIRC, was discussed here at some length a few years ago (2000?). The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D. and William D. Danko, Ph.D. Regards, MB From wingcat at pacbell.net Sun May 15 16:41:18 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515164118.10557.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > The Avantguardian wrote: > > Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather > > flock together." When's the last time some ordinary > > guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? They > > would bind together because they have more in common > > with one another than they do with us. The way they do > > it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business > > deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name > > a few off the top of my head. > > I take it from this that you do not actually know many > rich people, as this is a very strange and not very > realistic characterization. Most are indistinguishable > from everyone else, hang out with the same people > they always did, and generally do what they've > always done. There is a tiny blue blood set, but > the vast majority aren't in it. Technically, meeting at social gatherings and doing business deals with one another are accurate - but misleading. Most of these social gatherings are open to anyone willing to at least act like and have the (non-expensive) trappings of a businessperson. Acting like one requires some research into what all is expected, but it's doable. Trappings, at least in the Silicon Valley scene (and, I'm told, increasingly elsewhere) mainly consists of business-casual dress (something you'd wear to an office; 3-piece suits and the like are only expected at the extreme upper end), business cards, and an office (can be a home office) and something to sell (product or service) that the cards point one to. Anyone can show up, but most of the time the rich tend to do more business with those who have done a lot of business before - a fair number of whom have become rich as a result. Most of the rich do seem to be regular people only wealthier - and some caution in matters financial (very few people get rich by recklessly spending money). Not that this caution is all that is needed to become rich, just a common trait. From wingcat at pacbell.net Sun May 15 16:49:43 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515164943.25786.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Do you really think that the rich are this stupid? > Or are your > refering specifically to the "poor" religious right? I was referring to neoluddites, most of whom do indeed appear to be poor and/or religious and/or with the set of politics commonly described as "right". Those with significantly more wealth than average appear, mostly, to be on our side if they've considered the issue at all. There are a few rich who fear science, and while these few may give the appearance of wealthy allies, this is not the case in truth. Fear-motivated unpaid labor can do a lot of things that paid labor can also do, and the former often cares about its work. (The problem, of course, lying in the type of work that fear can motivate one to do...) From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 15 19:51:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515195108.5672.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > Do you really think that the rich are this stupid? > > > Or are your > > refering specifically to the "poor" religious right? > > I was referring to neoluddites, most of whom do indeed appear to be > poor and/or religious and/or with the set of politics commonly > described as "right". Those with significantly more wealth than > average appear, mostly, to be on our side if they've considered the > issue at all. There are a few rich who fear science, and while these > few may give the appearance of wealthy allies, this is not the case > in > truth. Fear-motivated unpaid labor can do a lot of things that paid > labor can also do, and the former often cares about its work. (The > problem, of course, lying in the type of work that fear can motivate > one to do...) I have rarely seen religious right wingers protesting, or sabotaging, technology and development. They are almost unanimously radical left wingers, many of which are trust fund babies with too much time on their hands and all the wrong professors at college. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br Sun May 15 20:23:21 2005 From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 17:23:21 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] just a though I had.... Message-ID: <200505151723.21250.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> The Fate of Mankind It is now the year 2005, the ocidental civilization has taken three thousand years to do this, but it has now concentrated almost all the power there is to achieve in the world. Wherever capitalism arrives, it vanishes the previous culture. To avoid wars, the world has seemed always to be forced to make the two powers to be more likely to each other, and this brought padronization of thoughts. Individualism as an ideological doctrine has been settled never to be challenged again, as it fills human needs better than predecessors. The internal powers of civilization are being concentrated, more and more, just like properties, weapons, and media power. At this moment, some possible futures arrive, and this text has the pretension of analyzing whatsoever comes for us. The process of concentrating power, as controlled itself by nobody is very likely to keep itself rolling, in this meanwhile, the world will be much like the same, famine and suffering everywhere, and some millions of rich happy people, that are not so happy as we want to beleive they are. No concentration of power will make people more or less happy, since people were designed by evolution not to be happy always at all. Being unhappy with the growing concentration, the people who held the power, during history, have had two main options, make their own subordinates to suffer, or make their own subordinates to make others to suffer in their place. When one becomes a murderer dictador, he has made the first choice, when he declares war for any cause, he chose the second one. It is a part of our own nature to use our power to inflict suffering on others, since only this way we can make them remember that we are the ones with the power. The fact that we are still alive today can probably be attributed to the fact that when the technology to make overwhelming bombs has been achieved, we were living in representative (democratic or not) countries. The representative power, like US government for example, usually holds enormous amounts of destructive possibilities, and a huge number of people to stop this destruction being made. Governments are constituted by thousands if not millions of people, and this makes them very likely not to take some very impulsive actions against their own or other peoples. The UN and NATO have been created to be an extra force of power moralization, for cases where mass histeria allows a country to do what its governers want, like the nazi Germany once did. Its own government people, the UN, NATO, and the US are today the most powerfull organizations there are against government coercion and destruction. Most people today would agree that the biggest threat for our world is The United States of America government and their politics. I would argue in the opposite direction, US is today the only organization with power enough to fight against the desires of other powerfull non representative organizations. The monetary capitalism is concentrating in the hand of few make some people to be ultra-powerful, and this people usually do not have any group of thousands of people to make them to think twice before killing inumerous people. If one of this mighty people wanted to cause big destruction, he would be considered a terrorist and his power would diminish in the hands of US government. But with alliances and technology, the power of terrorists, or any other non representative group only rises, and the more powerful they become, the bigger threat they are. If we were to extrapolate this thought, the obvious conclusion would be that if no international power, like UN were given power enough, sooner or later the terrorist organizations would be able to achieve enough power to thread the US, and start a world war that is very likely to give a terminate end to our species. But extrapolating is a very incomplete technique, if we do not extrapolate a sistem as a whole. The extrapolation I have proposed in the last paragraph is an extrapolation of human condition, it is, for all purposes, valid if, and only if, the human condition remains the same. But, just like technology has been giving birth to inumerous amounts of different weapons and ways of killing each other, it also brings a hope for our future. If technology could make us change the human condition before the individual powers become a threat to the power of nations, than the powerful individuals would not anymore need to use their power in coercion instances. The thing that I have been hitherto considering as human condition is the sum of all structures our brain developed in our evolutionary past. This complex set of evolutionary based commands control the way we live, think and proceed, including the way that we administer our power, inflict damage, and love our close related. With the development of technologies we are now in a very crucial moment for our destiny, this happens because we have already ultrapassed the moment when humanity has enough power to destroy us all, and we still have not ultrapassed the moment when we can get rid of the evolutionary constraints that make us think like we think. We still think in terms of achieving power, and we have bombs to do so if no powerful organization stops us from doing it. If the sum of international organization plus the US manage to maintain the power of few under control for enough time, we still have a chance of surviving as a species. This way is through artificial inteligence and/or biological manipulation. Supose that our brains could, genuinely, feel very happy about helping others, and had no desire for obtaining absolute power in our own community, in this case, the world would probably become a paradise within few years or decades. We would still be persecuting happiness, but happiness would have two main differences, the first one is that it would be something real, rather than just poetry, the second one is that its consequences would be the end of suferring, not its maintance at a stabel level, as it happens today. If we understand the working of brains in a way much ahead of what we know today, we will be able to achieve the goal of both creating real happiness and making this happiness to serve other purpose rather than the genes will to replicate. Our knowledge about the world, and about brains, has been constantly increasing, and, further than that, the speed rate about which it increases also increses within time. Like an object will fall at a constantly higher speed if thrown out of a building, our knowledge seems to be speeding up its learning general ability. Having this on mind, we should consider that we are very likely to be able to change the human condition within no more than one century. Take for instance the number of pharmaceutical mood-changing remedies we already have. Millions of people have taken anti-depression drugs and challenged one of the human weaknesses, and with the current speed of technological progress, we will soon be able to challenge all of them. Once we have the power to design our own evolution, and therefore the way we think, the world will probably change in unpredictable ways. We have been, until recend time, restricted by the mechanical restictions in achieving power. The whole of our species has already surpassed this point, and therefore we are now able to kill ourselves if we make a coordenated effort for it. The time has come were the effort to achieve autodestruction is every day smaller, since fewer people achieve constantly more and more power. We have also been restricted by the ways our brains make us think, this time is also near to its end, and I could say that our past sixty, and probably the next sixty or so years are, by far, the most important years for our species as a whole. Through representative governments and international powerful forces we have achieved to survive this age for sixty years, but the concentration of power is only growing, and its growth must or be traced by the powers of the large groups, or it must be surpassed by technological power over brain and genetic manipulation. If the UN, NATO and the US manage to keep us alive until these new forms of technology arrises, than our fate is going, at least for a while, be somehow near to the so wished paradises of the prophets and leaders during history. In the other case, we will have lost the battle against ourselves, against what it means to be human, ultimately, we would have lost the battle to our genes, if this happens to be the case, we may, during our last breath still be able to have a consolation to fill our needs of defeating oponents, the genes that killed us will die with us. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun May 15 22:20:46 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:20:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] The Long Emergency: ... Message-ID: <4287CB3E.808@mindspring.com> [See also: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1113439994015&has-player=true] "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" James Howard Kunstler Atlantic Monthly Press 320 pages Nonfiction After the oil is gone Say goodbye to your suburban house, yoke up that horse, and stand by to repel pirates! Author James Howard Kunstler talks about the dire world of his new book, "The Long Emergency." - - - - - - - - - - - - By Katharine Mieszkowski May 14, 2005 | Suburbs will collapse into slums. Farmhand will be a more viable career choice than public relations executive. And avoiding starvation will replace avoiding boredom as the national pastime. Those are just a few of the predictions that James Howard Kunstler makes in his new book. "The Long Emergency" paints a dystopic view of the United States in the wake of what Kunstler dubs the "cheap oil fiesta." It's a future the author insists is not apocalyptic. Calling it the end of the world be too easy. No, Kunstler believes the human race will survive as we slip down the other side of Hubbert's Oil Peak. But the high standard of living we've built by gorging on cheap oil will not. America, as a political entity, will be history too. When will the doom begin? It already has. "There have been no significant discoveries of new oil since 2002," Kunstler says. And the Saudis have screwed up their super-giant Ghawar oil field, long a fossil-fuel font for the U.S. "They have damaged it by pumping enormous amounts of salt water into it; in fact, the field itself may be entering depletion," he says. A former journalist turned novelist turned social critic, Kunstler is best known for his book excoriating the suburbs, "Geography of Nowhere." Now he foresees the end of the entire artifice of American life, from the suburbs to the interstate highway to Wal-Mart and the global supply chain that supports it. In Kunstler's world, a teenager will be better off learning how to yoke up a horse-drawn buggy than how to change the oil in a car. Woodshop will be more important than computer literacy. Among Kunstler's predictions: The South will devolve into agricultural feudalism and the Pacific Northwest will be beset by a plague of pirates from Asia. Forget about sleek hydrogen-powered cars coming to the rescue. For that matter, quit tilting your hopes toward wind power. Kunstler displays a kind of macabre wit about the unpleasantness and strife that await us all. Talking to him is like trying to argue with a prophet. His assertions have a neat way of doubling back to anticipate your critiques. If you express doubt about his views, then you may well be among the deluded masses too addicted to your McSUV and McSuburb to accept the reality that lies ahead. Salon spoke to Kunstler at his home in upstate New York, mindful that in the future such an hour-long, cross-country telephone call, undertaken so casually, could be a remote luxury, a quaint remnant of a bygone era rich in the splendors of oil. Plenty of analysts are confident that in coming decades we'll switch from oil to another form of energy, like Europeans switching from burning wood to burning coal when forests became scarce. Why aren't you? That's been a pattern in the last several hundred years, but it has followed a supply of mineral resources that we've exploited to their logical end. When a society is stressed, when it comes up against things that are hard to understand, you get a lot of delusional thinking. There are at least two major mental disturbances in the collective American mind these days that can be described with some precision. One is the Jiminy Cricket syndrome -- the idea that when you wish upon a star your dreams come true. This is largely a product of the technological achievements of the last century, which were themselves a product of cheap energy: namely, things like our trip to the moon, combined with the effects of advertising, Hollywood and pop culture. We have now become a people who believe that wishing for things makes them happen. Unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way. The truth is that no combination of alternative fuels or so-called renewables will allow us to run the U.S.A. -- or even a substantial fraction of it -- the way that we're running it now. There's another mental disturbance that Americans are suffering from. It's the idea that it's possible to get something for nothing -- unearned riches, free energy, perpetual motion -- and it's exemplified by Las Vegas. Combine the Jiminy Cricket syndrome and the idea that it's possible to get something for nothing and you end up with a population that's thoroughly deluded and unable to deal with reality. That's precisely where we're at. You point out that there are all sorts of ways that we're dependent on oil that we don't think about. We have evolved a cheese-doodle agriculture system run by large corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, which grow immense amounts of corn by using fossil fuels to produce immense amounts of corn-based junk food. The prospects are poor that we will continue living this way. The implications are enormous. We will have to grow much more of our food closer to home. Also, our national retail chain system -- otherwise known as Wal-Mart and Co., Wal-Mart and wannabes, Wal-Mart and imitators -- is unlikely to survive both the rising costs of oil and far more volatile price fluctuations. Their economic equation requires them to predict the cost of transport because their margins are so razor thin. And they won't be able to anymore. Remember: These immensely hypertrophic organisms like Wal-Mart are products of the special economic growth of the late 20th century, namely an unusually long period of relative world peace and extraordinarily cheap energy. If you remove those two elements, all large-scale enterprises --corporate farming, big-box shopping, big government, professional sports -- are going to be in trouble. So, the collapse of the cheap oil fiesta is going to... I wouldn't call it "collapse." That's the cause of a lot of misunderstanding. What we're talking about is the process of heading down the arch of depletion, not the catastrophic cutoff of oil. Heading down the arch implies that we will not have the normal growth of industrial economies anymore. And that has tremendous implications for capital-finance instruments to produce wealth, namely securities and bonds. All the financial paper in the world is essentially based on the increasing accumulation of wealth. You argue that we won't know we've hit the global oil peak until a few years after it's happened. There will be hangover. The rearview-mirror effect. What will be the first signs of the long emergency? We're already seeing them. The two clearest signs are serious geopolitical friction and the volatility in the oil markets. A third one, which hasn't quite gotten traction, will be disruptions in the financial markets. But that could happen at any moment. And the real estate bubble? Absolutely. The housing bubble is a perverse form of financial behavior. It's a consequence of capital desperately seeking a way to increase in an industrial economy that has ceased to grow. America is no longer producing wealth in the conventional sense. And so the housing bubble is a way for residual capital to produce wealth. But like all bubbles, it's a delusional thing that will probably end in tears. You write that even the educated minority in the U.S. is clueless about its role in geopolitical problems, like the family in your neighborhood that had a sign in their yard that said, "War Is Not the Answer," and two SUVs in the garage. Or all my politically progressive friends who drove their SUVs to the peace rallies of 2003. Why do you think that there's such a disconnect? Because we haven't been challenged for such a long time. The last challenge we experienced was the OPEC oil disturbances of the 1970s, which thundered through our economy and caused a lot of problems. But they were short-lived and the cheap oil fiesta was able to continue because the final great discoveries of the oil age came online in the 1980s, namely the North Sea and the Alaska North Slope. And that allowed us to go back to sleep for another two decades. Does the Iraq war presage the kind of resource wars that you see in the future? The Iraq war is not hard to understand. It wasn't an attempt to steal Iraq's oil. If that was the case, it would have been a stupid venture because we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars occupying the place, not to mention the lives lost. It was not a matter of stealing the oil; it was a matter of retaining access to it. It was an attempt to stabilize the region of the world that holds two-thirds of the remaining oil, namely, the Middle East. We opened a police station in the Middle East, and Iraq just happened to be the best candidate for it. They had a troublesome dictator. They were geographically located between Iran and Saudi Arabia. So we went to Iraq to moderate and influence the behavior of the two countries --Iran and Saudi Arabia -- that are so important to us. We desperately wanted the oil supplies to continue coming out of them in a reliable way. So the Iraq venture was all about stabilizing the Middle East. It raises the obvious question: How long can the U.S. hope to occupy unfriendly nations? The answer is, not forever. Why do you skewer Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, who promotes the idea of a futuristic hypercar, which would get 100 miles per gallon? I regard Lovins hypercar venture as a stupid distraction, if for no other reason that it tends to promote the idea that we can continue being a car-dependent society. Clearly we can't, no matter how good the gas mileage is. I wrote three other books about the fiasco of suburbia before I even got a bug up my ass about the energy issues. What's wrong with trying to make a more efficient car? I'm not against efficient cars. I'm against the idea that somebody in Amory's position would focus on cars at the expense of something else like promoting walkable communities. The New Urbanist movement, for example, was campaigning for a much more intelligent response to suburbia at around the same time. And the solutions that they were promoting made a lot more sense than underwriting the continuation of the suburban fiasco. I think that this was perhaps an unintended consequence of Lovins' venture. It shows the limits of our imagination. Is your basic critique of renewable energy that wind, solar and biomass all depend, to some extent, on fossil fuels? That's one critique. I'm not trying to militate against them. We are going to use them. But we're not going to run the interstate highways and Disney World on them. Suburbia is not going to run on biodiesel. The easy-motoring tourist industry is not going to run on biodiesel, wind power and solar fuel. The point I would repeat is this: We don't know whether we can fabricate the components for these things absent a fossil-fuel economy. My beef with the alt-fuel people is not the renewable or alt-fuel ideas themselves. Sooner or later, there's no question we're going to have to rely on them. For me, it's an issue of scale. As far as I can tell, we're much more likely to use these things on a very small neighborhood or town basis. We're going to have to make tremendous readjustments in every aspect of how we live. Let me give you an example. One of the main characteristics of the suburbs is that everyone can lead an urban life in a rural setting. But land is simply not going to be available for suburban development anymore. So what we're going to see in the years ahead is the return of a much firmer distinction between what is urban and what is rural, between what's the town and what's the country. Because we're going to have to grow so much more of our food close to home, we're going to have to value rural land differently than we have for the past half century. How will this affect our livelihoods? We will no longer be a nation of public relations executives living 38 miles away from town. The future that I see tells me that the larger cities will be in big trouble and the action will be in the smaller cities and smaller towns. They will have resilience. It will be very important to live close to places that have viable agriculture, and the places where this is not possible are going to be in trouble. The huge suburban metroplexes like New York and Chicago are not going to function very well. They're products of the oil age. They are oversupplied with skyscrapers and mega-structures that have poor prospects in a society with scarce energy. We will see a painful contraction in these places. The Southwest is going to be real trouble. And the problem of contracting big cities will be real. I would also hasten to point out that many of them have already entered an advanced state of contraction: Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Des Moines, Louisville and Cincinnati. The list is very long of cities that have been in contraction for quite a bit of time. The difference, of course, is that they have been enjoying hyper-mega-growth in their suburbs, and that's going to stop. What kind of reaction have you been getting when you say we're better off learning how to operate a horse-drawn plow than becoming a P.R. executive? To put it mildly, a lot of people have trouble processing these ideas. What if you put it not so mildly? It tends to conflict with their picture of reality. Do they take you seriously? There is a good term for this and I hasten to point out that I did not invent it, although I couldn't tell you who did. It's really what's called "an outside context problem." It's so far from our normal realm of experience that we are collectively having a hard time processing it. In fact, we can't process it. Talking about these things tends to induce waves of denial, fear, ridicule. But a great philosopher said new ideas are often greeted in three stages. First, they're ridiculed. Second, they're violently opposed. And finally they're accepted as self-evident. What stage do you think that you're in? I think we're in the ridicule stage, for sure. One thing that I'm predicting is that there will be a vigorous and futile defense of suburbia and all its entitlements, no matter what reality is telling us to do. And this will translate into a lot of political mischief. You can quote me: Americans will vote for cornpone Nazis before they will give up their entitlements to a McHouse and a McCar. If there is such a massive threat to the American way of life, why are our government and civic institutions unable to foresee it and make any changes to address it? You will now be enlightened: The dirty secret of the American economy for more than a decade now is that it is largely based on the continued creation of suburban sprawl and all its accessories and furnishings. And if you remove that from our economy there isn't a whole lot left besides hair cutting, Colonel Sanders' chicken, and open-heart surgery. So it would take down the American economy? If we had to actually reform the way that we live, or let go of some of it, the losses would be politically untenable. No politician, whether it is the gallant John Kerry or George W. Bush, will go near the issue. They know that if the suburban-sprawl economy is challenged there isn't a whole lot left behind it. But we're going to have to let those things go, whether we like it or not. Just don't expect to be led through this in an orderly way. The key to understanding what we face is turbulence. We're going through big changes attended by a lot of turbulence, disorder and hardship. The reason that I called this book "The Long Emergency" is precisely because it describes an interval of trouble. I'm not saying that the world is coming to an end. I'm saying we're going to pass through a period of history that's going to be very difficult. There's a distinction between calling something the apocalypse and calling something an epochal discontinuity. But won't the political landscape change in reaction? If the lights aren't coming on because natural gas is scarce, don't you think that a lot of the barriers to, say, nuclear power, will drop pretty quickly? They will shift the political landscape, and the shift will include a great deal of turbulence and mischief. That's precisely why the quixotic attempt to defend suburbia will probably produce a lot of political trouble. Politically, we will try to save it. We will try to take measures, whether that means engaging in more overseas adventures. What I don't understand is why you're so confident that any political change will be futile. I think that we've overshot our window of opportunity to have an orderly transition. It's too late to invest heavily in nuclear energy? No, we may do that. If we want to keep the lights on after 2020, we may have to seriously consider building more nuclear power plants. But even under the best circumstances, it would take five or 10 years to get them built. Here is my talk show question: What do you think people should do? People have to ask themselves about where they're living, whether that place has a viable future. If I was living in the Atlanta suburbs, I would give serious consideration to relocating, ditto Las Vegas or Tucson. If I was a young person, I would rethink my expectations to make public relations my career, or indeed have a corporate future at all. If I was a local politician, I would think very seriously about stopping the sprawl-approval system in my town. And I would turn my attention to local self-sufficiency. The bottom line is this: All these things point to the fact that we're going to have to live a lot more locally and profoundly in the years ahead. The end of the cheap oil fiesta is going to destroy the suburbs and create a simpler, community-based future? Let me draw a parallel for you. A lot of people point out that the kind of predictions I've made about the post-oil world seem to resemble the Pentecostal Christian scenario about apocalypse. It happens that I'm not a born-again Christian. My view of the future is no more a matter of anti-suburban religion than it is a matter of being a Christian. It was simply self-evident that the American way of life was moving into a kind of terminal stage, whether you liked it or not. And I think that there will be a lot of benefits for us. What are the benefits? I think that we will return to many social relations and social enactments that we lost and that were of great value to us, such as working closely with other people on things that really matter to us. Like farming, so we can eat? I'm not saying everybody is going to be a farmer. In the book, I think that I went to great pains to say that we were going to have to reconstruct whole networks of local economic relations and interdependences. As opposed to the globalized situation we have now? Yeah. People are working for large entities that they don't care about and that don't care about them. I think that people will be working on things that will tend to be more meaningful, that will tend to have meaning for their neighbors and the places that they live. One of the great tragedies of the Wal-Mart fiasco has been the destruction of the social and economic roles of businesses in communities. Those roles were pretty complex and created deep webs of culture that we've allowed to be systematically dismantled and destroyed. We're going to get some of them back. I also think we will cease to be a nation of TV zombies who are merely entertaining ourselves to avoid being bored. So, much as we may resist, there will be upsides? Yes. It's possible to boil them down to the idea that we will not be living in the kind of narcissistic isolation that was so pervasive in recent decades. Geopolitically, the world is going to be a larger place. But our individual worlds may become smaller places. American life will be much more about staying where you are than about ceaseless and endless and pointless mobility. And that will resonate. We're afflicted by so many places that are simply not worth caring about anymore. This is having a tremendous effect on us. It's corroding our spirits. And, if pressed, I would have to say that it's led directly to the idea that it's possible to get something for nothing and if you wish upon a star your dreams come true. Americans are suffering so much from being in unrewarding environments that it has made us very cynical. I think that American suburbia has become a powerful generator of anxiety and depression. If we happen to let it go, we won't miss it that much. Very few people are going to feel nostalgic about the parking lot between the Chuck E. Cheeses and the Kmart. Why do you think we resist this transition? I think the notion behind your question is that we've become so accustomed to leisure and comfort that we're afraid to let them go and enter a world of less comfort and greater toil. I myself am a fairly cheerful person. I made certain choices years ago that have led me to lead a rewarding and purposeful life. At 56 years old, I've already outlived Babe Ruth and Mozart. I've enjoyed the cheap oil fiesta. I barely made a living until I was over 40 years old as a professional writer. I've experienced a moderate amount of hardship myself. And I'm not afraid of it. But I also feel fortunate. Fortunate for what? I feel fortunate that I enjoyed the blandishments of modernity. I had hip replacement and root canal. I was able to travel on airplanes. I was able to take cheap food for granted. I went to the movies. I enjoyed rock 'n' roll. And now I'm ready to move on. -- "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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 15 22:37:29 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515223729.99679.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" Most are > indistinguishable > from everyone else, hang out with the same people > they always did, and generally do what they've > always done. There is a tiny blue blood set, but > the vast majority aren't in it. I am refering specifically to the ultra-rich arch-conservatives that get legislation passed by a simple expenditure of money and effort. Not the well-to-do neighborhood guy who made well. I am not certain that I would even include Bill Gates in this definition because HE doesn't have a tremendous amount of sway over legislation or the government as is evinced by his problems with the Dept. of justice a few years back. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun May 15 23:09:34 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:09:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. Message-ID: <1116198574.2947@whirlwind.he.net> > I am refering specifically to the ultra-rich > arch-conservatives that get legislation passed by a > simple expenditure of money and effort. Not the > well-to-do neighborhood guy who made well. I am not > certain that I would even include Bill Gates in this > definition because HE doesn't have a tremendous amount > of sway over legislation or the government as is > evinced by his problems with the Dept. of justice a > few years back. With all due respect, you are crossing over into Conspiracy Nutter land here. How do you think *any* legislation gets passed? It is by "the expenditure of money and effort". Last I checked, a lot of legislation has passed that is very unpopular with "arch-conservatives", so it isn't as though they were ramrodding their agenda through. Get a grip already. Very little has changed in Washington. Did the world end when the watermelons had at least as much influence in the Clinton administration? I think not, and they are at least as evil as your "arch-conservative", whatever that means. Geez, what a bunch of pathetic weenies. They can dish it out but they can't take it when the tables are turned. Nobody gets to change basic rules to suit their desired outcome when things don't go their way. It does not matter who currently holds the ball. j. andrew rogers From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 15 23:52:36 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050515235237.87008.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > With all due respect, you are crossing over into > Conspiracy > Nutter land here. How do you think *any* > legislation gets > passed? It is by "the expenditure of money and > effort". Heh. :) Ok but rememeber that this was just a passing thought and not some researched theory into the inner workings what the Bilderbergers are doing in Area 51. > Last I checked, a lot of legislation has passed that > is > very unpopular with "arch-conservatives", so it > isn't as > though they were ramrodding their agenda through. Well goodie. These guys ought to be thinking about baking ten more pies rather than scheming on how to get the largest piece for themselves. > Get a grip already. Very little has changed in > Washington. > Did the world end when the watermelons had at least > as much > influence in the Clinton administration? I think > not, and they > are at least as evil as your "arch-conservative", > whatever that > means. What exactly are "watermelons"? Is this some sort of racial term? If you say that watermelons are as evil as arch-conservatives, I don't know what the hell we are talking about any more. I din't even mention the word evil and I don't think that "arch-conservatives" are evil. I just think they oppose what we as transhumanists want to accomplish. > Geez, what a bunch of pathetic weenies. They can > dish it out > but they can't take it when the tables are turned. > Nobody > gets to change basic rules to suit their desired > outcome when > things don't go their way. It does not matter who > currently > holds the ball. No, it matters a great deal who is holding the ball. Transhumanity hasn't ever held the ball. The only rule I want changed is the one that says, we can't play the game. Because if we don't play, if we can't get the ball, and if we can't score, then quite frankly I think the "children of the corn" nazis will doom us to the bibically prophesied Armageddon when really we could rebuild Eden if we CHOOSE to. BTW I am curious why this, which was merely a half-formed vague idea started such a long thread, while the stuff I actually think about before I write, I can't tell if anyone is even reading? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon May 16 06:35:55 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien) Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 23:35:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <20050515235237.87008.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050515235237.87008.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/15/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > What exactly are "watermelons"? Is this some sort of > racial term? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_(politics) "The term watermelon is sometimes applied to professed Greens who seem to put social goals higher than ecological ones: it implies someone who is "green on the outside, but red on the inside." Some Red Greens consider this a compliment, others an insult (like most other terms applied to a faction by outsiders). A Red Green is not usually considered or called a "fundi" - more often a "commie"." From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 16 07:10:47 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 17:10:47 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. References: <20050515081943.4559.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <08e701c559e6$62aca940$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Perhaps the best way to rebut this is to encourage >> you to run with it and >> see how you can develop the scenario. > > Huh? I am guessing you didn't read my rebuttal. It is > posted simply as a reply to Natasha's post about the > CBC's Manifesto. I read it. I thought it was a bit ranty to be honest. If you were going to try to pursade anyone with it - as opposed to preaching to the converted (posting to this list) - I think you'd need to sharpen it up. I'll read it again. >> Why and how would "the rich" bind together as a >> class? > > Umm. . . because *cliche alert* "birds of a feather > flock together." When's the last time some ordinary > guy got invited to one of Paris Hilton's parties? I don't know. >They > would bind together because they have more in common > with one another than they do with us. The way they do > it is meeting at social gatherings, doing business > deals with one another, and intermarrying just to name > a few off the top of my head. Did I understand your > question correctly? Apparently. But I'm a bit perplexed by the answer. I don't think you've entered into your own scenario very strongly, despite describing it as a chilling thought. Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 16 15:44:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050516154404.91030.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Neil Halelamien wrote: > On 5/15/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > What exactly are "watermelons"? Is this some sort of > > racial term? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_(politics) > > "The term watermelon is sometimes applied to professed Greens who > seem > to put social goals higher than ecological ones: it implies someone > who is "green on the outside, but red on the inside." Some Red Greens > consider this a compliment, others an insult (like most other terms > applied to a faction by outsiders). A Red Green is not usually > considered or called a "fundi" - more often a "commie"." "racial term"!!! Ha. However, the term "Red Green" is reserved for curmudgeonly redneck characters on Canadian exported PBS programs. Another laugh a minute: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/05/in_new_york_scr.html Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon May 16 17:17:18 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:17:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin> An interesting atricle at cnn today. Curious to your thoughts. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/12/visionary.pearson/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 16 17:44:35 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? In-Reply-To: <01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050516174435.69706.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > An interesting atricle at cnn today. Curious to your thoughts. > http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/12/visionary.pearson/index.html Problem: the article supposes AI breakthrough in creativity - not just seeing what has come before, but doing new things - yet supposes that AIs will not be able to learn from the example of human emotions. (For example: the article says that doctors are being replaced by robots for high-precision surgery...yet does not note that those robots are guided and programmed by the doctors they supposedly replace.) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 16 20:09:58 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050516200958.98593.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > I read it. I thought it was a bit ranty to be > honest. If you > were going to try to pursade anyone with it - as > opposed > to preaching to the converted (posting to this list) > - I think > you'd need to sharpen it up. Yes. It is a bit ranty. I rant when I get angry. The prospect that the very things I have been spending nearly a decade going to school to learn how to do being made completely illegal before I even get out of school really ticks me off. Especially when they are fallaciously based on some vague xtian notion that "death and suffering are part of God's plan". The same bunch of guys that want to unleash the "armies of compassion" to "free" the world, have simultaneously insulted my spiritual sensibilities with their hypocrisy AND threatened my livlihood with their proposed legislation. I feel inclined to gird myself for memetic war. You are right, however, in that posting to the list IS preaching to the converted and sounding too ranty IS liable to turn away the non-converted. So how does this sound? WE write a counter-manifesto, using language that will not alienate or offend simple xtian folk, we get as many signatures from list members on it as possible, and post it to some websites. What do you say? > Apparently. But I'm a bit perplexed by the answer. > > I don't think you've entered into your own scenario > very > strongly, despite describing it as a chilling > thought. No I have not. In fact the more I think about, the less I believe that particular scenario. I think a more likely scenario is that biotech and cloning are just like abortion, Schiavo, and gay marriage. All just smoke and mirrors to confuse and distract Americans from the fact that our leaders are engaged in a crusade of military world conquest. I don't actually have a clue what the rationale of the well-heeled supporters of anti-cloning legislation actually is. All I know is that if the history of politics in America is any indicator, then it is at least 90 degrees off from their stated agenda. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 16 20:24:00 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:24:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) What Bush got wrong about Yalta Message-ID: <42890160.1030208@mindspring.com> history lesson Know Thy Allies What Bush got wrong about Yalta. By David Greenberg Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2005, at 10:23 AM PT After World War I, the political right in Germany developed a myth called the "stab in the back" theory to explain its people's defeat. Though military leaders had helped negotiate the war's end, they fixed blame on civilian leaders?especially Jews, socialists, and liberals?for "betraying" the brave German fighting men. This nasty piece of propaganda was later picked up by Hitler and the Nazis to stoke the populist resentment that fueled their rise to power. America has had its own "stab in the back" myths. Last year, George W. Bush endorsed a revanchist view of the Vietnam War: that our political leaders undermined our military and denied us victory. Now, on his Baltic tour, he has endorsed a similar view of the Yalta accords, that great bugaboo of the old right. Bush stopped short of accusing Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill of outright perfidy, but his words recalled those of hardcore FDR- and Truman-haters circa 1945. "The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history." Bush's cavalier invocations of history for political purposes are not surprising. But for an American president to dredge up ugly old canards about Yalta stretches the boundaries of decency and should draw reprimands (and not only from Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr .). As every schoolchild should know, Roosevelt and Churchill had formed an alliance of necessity with Josef Stalin during World War II. Hardly blind to Stalin's evil, they nonetheless knew that Soviet forces were indispensable in defeating the Axis powers. "It is permitted in time of grave danger to walk with the devil until you have crossed the bridge," FDR said, quoting an old Bulgarian proverb. He and Churchill understood that Stalin would be helping to set war aims and to plan for its aftermath. Victory, after all, carried a price. In February 1945, the "Big Three" met at a czarist resort near Yalta, in the Soviet Crimea, to continue the work begun at other summits, notably in Tehran in 1943. (Many of the alleged "betrayals" of Yalta, at least in rough form, were actually first sketched out in Tehran.) By this time, Soviet troops had conquered much of Eastern Europe from the Germans, including Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, East Prussia, and Eastern Germany. The Western allies, meanwhile, remained on the far side of the Rhine River. Having made terrible military sacrifices to gain these positions, Stalin resolved to convert them into political payoffs. Many of the agreements the Big Three reached at Yalta were relatively uncontroversial: The Allies decided to demand unconditional surrender from Germany, to carve up the country into four zones for its postwar occupation, and to proceed with plans to set up the United Nations. But other issues were contentious. Asia was one. FDR wanted Stalin to enter the war against Japan, so as to obviate any need for an American invasion. In return, Stalin demanded that Russia regain dominion over various lands, notably Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands , then under Japanese control. He forswore any designs on Manchuria, which would be returned to China. By far the knottiest problem?and the source of lingering rage among the far right afterwards?was the fate of Poland and other liberated Eastern European countries. Over several months, the Allies had been divvying up Europe according to on-the-ground military realities and their own individual national interests. The United States and Britain had denied Stalin any role in postwar Italy. Churchill and Stalin had agreed (without Roosevelt's participation) that Britain would essentially control Greece, and Russia would essentially control Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. Poland was another matter. In Lublin, Poland, the Soviets had set up a government of pro-Communist Poles. Back in London, however, a pro-Western group claimed to be the true government-in-exile. Throughout the war, Stalin had acted with customary barbarity in seeking an advantage. In 1940 he ordered the slaughter of thousands of Polish army officers in the Katyn Forest, fearing their potential allegiance to the London Poles. In 1944, he stalled his own army's march into Poland to let the Germans put down the Warsaw Uprising, again to strengthen the Communists' hand. At Yalta, Stalin wanted FDR and Churchill to recognize the Lublin government. They refused. Instead, all agreed to accept a provisional government, with a pledge to hold "free and unfettered elections" soon. For other liberated European countries, the Big Three also pledged to establish "interim governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population" and committed to free elections. Roosevelt knew that Stalin might renege, and it was perhaps cynical for him to trumpet elections that might never take place. But as the historian David M. Kennedy has written, he had little choice, "unless Roosevelt was prepared to order Eisenhower to fight his way across the breadth of Germany, take on the Red Army, and drive it out of Poland at gunpoint." Stalin, of course, never allowed elections in Poland or anywhere else. "Our hopeful assumptions were soon to be falsified," Churchill wrote. "Still, they were the only ones possible at the time." Short of starting a hot war, the West was powerless to intervene, just as it was in Hungary in 1956 or Prague in 1968. Because FDR kept many details of the Yalta agreements under wraps, people in Washington began whispering conspiratorially about "secret agreements." Soon, critics, especially on the far right, were charging that FDR and Churchill had sold out the people of Eastern Europe?charges that Bush's recent comments echo. They asserted that the ailing Roosevelt?he would die only weeks later?had come under the malign influence of pro-Communist advisers who gave Stalin the store. But Yalta did not give Stalin control of the Eastern European countries. He was already there. Moreover, as Lloyd C. Gardner has argued, it's possible that postwar Europe could have turned out worse than it did. For all its evident failings, Yalta did lead to a revived Western Europe, a lessening of open warfare on the continent, and, notwithstanding Bush's remarks, relative stability. Without Yalta, Gardner notes, "the uneasy equilibrium of the Cold War might have deteriorated into something much worse?a series of civil wars or possibly an even darker Orwellian condition of localized wars along an uncertain border." Such "what if" games are generally pointless, but they can remind us that the harmonious Europe that Yalta's critics tout as a counter-scenario wasn't the only alternative to the superpower standoff. Along with the myth of FDR's treachery in leading America into war, the "stab in the back" interpretation of Yalta became a cudgel with which the old right and their McCarthyite heirs tried to discredit a president they had long despised. Renouncing Yalta even became a plank in the 1952 Republican platform, although Eisenhower did not support it. In time, however, these hoary myths receded into the shadows, dimly remembered except as a historical curiosity, where, alas, they should have remained undisturbed. David Greenberg writes the "History Lesson" column and teaches at Rutgers University. He is the author of Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image . Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2118394/ -- "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.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 16 21:21:08 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050516212108.48830.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > So how does this sound? WE write a > counter-manifesto, using language that will not > alienate or offend simple xtian folk, we get as many > signatures from list members on it as possible, and > post it to some websites. What do you say? Like many others that have already been written for our cause? Manifestos don't accomplish much but make people feel good. One of our advantages is that we can consciously, deliberately focus on real change (or rather, stuff that works) as one of our core values. Like, say, in this case concentrate on the "not alienate or offend simple xtian folk", and find a way for politicians to incorporate our values into winning political campaigns. Why kill, and waste their resources, when you can co-opt? > No I have not. In fact the more I think about, > the less I believe that particular scenario. I think a > more likely scenario is that biotech and cloning are > just like abortion, Schiavo, and gay marriage. All > just smoke and mirrors to confuse and distract > Americans from the fact that our leaders are engaged > in a crusade of military world conquest. There could be some of this...but if so, they're finding out they simply don't have the budget for conquest - or a clue of how, exactly, a nominally free society can "conquer" anyone, since they are forbidden from implementing overt fear and repression, and the covert methods they have slowly slipped in at home can not be implemented on the rapid timescale that "conquest" implies. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 17 02:13:21 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:13:21 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought. References: <20050516200958.98593.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <09d501c55a85$ffc359f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> I read it. I thought it was a bit ranty to be >> honest. If you >> were going to try to pursade anyone with it - as >> opposed >> to preaching to the converted (posting to this list) >> - I think >> you'd need to sharpen it up. > > Yes. It is a bit ranty. I rant when I get angry. > The prospect that the very things I have been spending > nearly a decade going to school to learn how to do > being made completely illegal before I even get out of > school really ticks me off. I *can* relate to the frustration. Progress in biotechnology (genetics, stem cells) does seem to have slowed considerably in the last few years. > So how does this sound? WE write a counter-manifesto, > using language that will not alienate or offend simple xtian > folk, we get as many signatures from list members on it as > possible, and post it to some websites. What do you say? Personally, I am reluctant to get into advocating or politiking under transhuman banners at present because I have real problems with transhumanism as I perceive it. I think I'd be less rather than more effective for the association. (I associate transhumanism with technologies like cryonics, Drexlerian nanotech and impressions about impending singularities - and these things are just not real to me). I am currently more comfortable thinking of myself as a humanist than a transhumanist. Humanism rather than transhumanism looks more defensible to me. What I think of loosely as the gains of humanism seem to me to be in some danger of being rolled backward. >> Apparently. But I'm a bit perplexed by the answer. >> >> I don't think you've entered into your own scenario >> very >> strongly, despite describing it as a chilling >> thought. > > No I have not. In fact the more I think about, > the less I believe that particular scenario. I think a > more likely scenario is that biotech and cloning are > just like abortion, Schiavo, and gay marriage. All > just smoke and mirrors to confuse and distract > Americans from the fact that our leaders are engaged > in a crusade of military world conquest. It seems to me that G. W. B's confidence that he is right comes from a pretty old fashioned place - religious faith. G.W.B has succeeded in making *his* issues *the* issues of this period of human history. He would not have been able to do that in a country like the US were it not the case that a lot of his countrymen are operating at a similar level of "development". > I don't actually have a clue what the rationale > of the well-heeled supporters of anti-cloning > legislation actually is. All I know is that if the > history of politics in America is any indicator, then > it is at least 90 degrees off from their stated > agenda. The reasons people are opposed to therapeutic cloning are ultimately different for each individual but for the most part, in my opinion they can be generalised into classes. 1) A lot of people are still operating within traditional religious worldviews and as rates of change in the modern world make them personally uneasy they are more not less inclined to look to their traditional means of support. 2) The benefits of therapeutic cloning to most voters are not obvious enough. They don't see what is in it for them. They don't understand the technologies involved. 3) Most people are not able to be generalists in this age. They specialise to earn a living. 4) Futurists compete against each other and so don't do a particularly good job of explaining benefits of technologies to the public. 5) People like transhumanists that are interested in technology are not demanding enough of scientists and science journalists to explain mechanisms. They cheer technological headlines without understanding the basis of whether those things really are advancements. Without understanding they can't do a good job or persading others that there is a real basis for optimism. I would suspect that most people on this list would not be able to explain in much detail why therapeutic cloning would be a good thing. To often hype from futurists is passed on uncritically. These above are just some off the top of my head thoughts. I'm probably getting into danger of ranting too. I suggest that if something bugs you personally, then act personally, don't try to rally a movement. Say something sensible and people will see it as something sensible. Don't treat transhumanists as the group of people you want to pursuade treat people that vote, your friends, your family, your workmates, whoever you meet and talk with as the people you want to pursuade. Brett Paatsch From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 17 02:44:46 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 03:44:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] green glasslike glaze In-Reply-To: <200505150341.j4F3fhR30593@tick.javien.com> References: <200505150341.j4F3fhR30593@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <42895A9E.4020107@neopax.com> Gary Miller wrote: > >How can people be collecting this stuff? > >Haven't we been told that the half-life for the radiation produced by atomic >weapons is so long that it would leave the areas uninhabitable for thousands >if not tens of thousands of years? > >Which leads me to another question I've had for ages. > >What is left after an underground nuclear blast? > >Is there a large under ground spherical glass or crystalline cavern created >by all the heat and pressure. > >If so would some of the crystals formed be gemstones. > >Previously I had assumed that even if there were, they would be so >radioactive for so long that excavating such a site would be useless because >of the radioactivity. > >Is it possible that at the blast temperature and pressures created new >crystal and/or materials not normally found in nature could be created? > >I realize this is a lot of questions but I find the whole topic pretty >interesting. > >Has anyone ever seen any good books devoted to this subject? > >Or has this whole area of exploration been kept off limits by government >restriction to these sites? > > > Explode a nuke in a coal mine and harvest the diamonds! -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 13/05/2005 From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue May 17 05:20:32 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:20:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Curiouser and curiouser Message-ID: <42897F20.7010406@mindspring.com> < http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3960469 > Unconventional wisdom Curiouser and curiouser May 12th 2005 >From The Economist print edition Many economists don't care whether sumo wrestling is fixed, or whether drug dealers prefer to live with their mothers. It is their loss WHAT a shame about that title. "Freakonomics" is bound to dampen the spirits of any intelligent reader, suggesting an airport-ready, dumbed-down romp--the back cover would inevitably call it a romp--through the bogus theories of some semi-literate phoney economist. But that is not this book at all. Steven Levitt is no "rogue economist", still less a phoney one; and his book, praise be, does not try to explore "the hidden side of everything". Far more intelligent, modest and orthodox than it pretends, the book is a delight; it educates, surprises and amuses. It shows, in fact, what plain old-fashioned economics can do in the hands of a boundlessly curious and superbly skilled practitioner. Mr Levitt is a professor at the University of Chicago, and a winner of the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded by the American Economic Association every two years to the best economist under 40. Not many rogue economists achieve either distinction. Stephen Dubner, Mr Levitt's co-author, is a contributor to the New York Times magazine, and presumably responsible for the book's frequently tiresome breathlessness. And it might be Mr Dubner's fault that the book often veers without due process between being about Mr Levitt and being by him, which is jarring. But the material triumphs over these flaws of style. Indeed, the material is quite fascinating. Mr Levitt's speciality is to spot interesting questions that arise in apparently unrelated fields--questions that it may not even have occurred to anyone else to ask--and then answer them with dazzling ingenuity. The man's curiosity is unbounded in two complementary senses. He finds intriguing anomalies in extraordinarily arcane places--for instance, in sumo wrestling and in alternative spellings of the name Jasmine, to name just two topics examined in this book. And then he digs for explanations with total disregard for the demands of political correctness. You might say that he rejoices in being politically incorrect, except that he seems not to care much one way or the other. One of his best-known, and in some quarters notorious, findings concerns America's falling crime-rate during the 1990s. Towards the end of that decade, confounding the expectations of most analysts, the teenage murder rate fell by more than 50% in the space of five years; by 2000, the book notes, the overall murder rate was at its lowest for 35 years. Other kinds of crime fell too. Why? Some gave the credit to economic growth; others to gun control; still others to new methods of policing, or to greater reliance on imprisonment, or to increasing use of the death penalty, or to the ageing of the population. Mr Levitt goes carefully through these various explanations, checking them against the evidence. He finds that some of them do offer a partial explanation (more jail time, for instance), whereas others do not (greater use of the death penalty, new policing methods). But the most intriguing finding was that one of the most powerful explanations had not even been broached. That explanation was abortion. The reasoning is simple enough. In January 1973, the Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout the United States, where previously it had been available in only five states. In 1974, roughly 750,000 women had abortions in America; by 1980, the number was 1.6m (one abortion for every 2.3 live births). "What sort of woman was most likely to take advantage of Roe v Wade?" the book asks. "Very often she was unmarried or in her teens or poor, and sometimes all three...In other words, the very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives...In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v Wade was hitting its late teen years--the years during which young men enter their criminal prime--the rate of crime began to fall." The theory is the easy part, once you dare to articulate it. Testing it is quite another matter. But the book moves methodically and persuasively through the statistical evidence. It turns out, for instance, that crime started falling earlier in the states that legalised abortion before Roe v Wade; that the states with the highest abortion rates saw the biggest drops in crime (even controlling for other factors); that there was no link between abortion rates and crime before the late 1980s (when unborn criminals, as it were, first began to affect the figures); and that a similar association of crime and abortion has been found in other countries. The book ranges over cheating teachers, corrupt sumo wrestlers and lying on-line daters. It asks, among other things, whether Trent Lott is more racist than the typical contestant on "The Weakest Link". It examines parallels between estate agents and the Ku Klux Klan. It asks why drug dealers tend to live with their mothers. Always it finds questions that are mischievously intriguing in themselves but that also shed light on broader matters as well--and then it finds ingenious ways of answering them. "Freakonomics" looks in particular detail at racial aspects of parenting, which is where those variant spellings of Jasmine (or Jazmyne, or Jazzmin, and so on) come in. Examining the data, Mr Levitt tabulates the "blackest" names (Imani tops the list for girls, DeShawn for boys) and the "whitest" (Molly and Jake). Using all his ingenuity in finding and exploring data, he then examines whether being given a distinctively black or white name affects one's prospects in life. Does it? Surprisingly, perhaps, no. A boy named Jake will tend to do better than one called DeShawn, but that is because he is less likely to have been raised in a low-income, low-education, single-parent household, and not because the name itself confers any advantage. So much for boys' names; what about book titles? Does a stupid title herald a worse-than-average book? Probably--if only because books with bad titles tend to be written by intellectually disadvantaged authors. But if a really clever author were to write a book and give it a really stupid title, it might turn out as well as this one. -- "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.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 17 08:02:22 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 01:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <09d501c55a85$ffc359f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050517080222.49595.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Say something > sensible and people > will see it as something sensible. Don't treat > transhumanists as the > group of people you want to pursuade treat people > that vote, your > friends, your family, your workmates, whoever you > meet and talk > with as the people you want to pursuade. I do Brett. My friends and family all understand me and are all very supportive. Plus California (the state in which I live) pretty handily passed Proposition 71 that raised billions of dollars for stem cell research. My university is setting up a whole new facility specifically for their study. So essentially everybody within earshot is already converted. What I need to do is be able reach the hearts and minds of those that live in the red states. I don't want to pass judgement on them or try to change their politics. They can have their guns, their death penalties, even their wars if they want them. All I want them to know is that they can use therapeutic cloning to enrich their golden years without sacrificing their moral values. They can add many many fruitful years to their lives without harming another human being or offending God (assuming that is what they fear). Why would we have discovered this technology if it wasn't our destiny to use it? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 17 10:18:12 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 20:18:12 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought. References: <20050517080222.49595.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0a1101c55ac9$bb3cfdb0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > What I need to do is be able reach the > hearts and minds of those that live in the red states. > > All I want them to know is that they can use > therapeutic cloning to enrich their golden years > without sacrificing their moral values. They can add > many many fruitful years to their lives without > harming another human being ... So tell me, talking like someone who understands biotechnology as a result of studying it, how will therapeutic cloning do that? What good consequences would flow from doing therapeutic cloning? Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 17 13:36:03 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:36:03 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net> <01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Kevin Freels wrote: > An interesting atricle at cnn today. Curious to your thoughts. > http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/12/visionary.pearson/index.html The article starts : "Between 2015 and 2020 we will have machines that will be comparable to humans in terms of intelligence -- or maybe even significantly more intelligent." So in 10 to 15 years from now. But based on projections not specified. If a single AI could be constructed in that time period and protected by a patent, then copied ad-infinitum, what effect do you imagine that would have economically and geo-politically? Suddenly there is a workforce that works for nothing but is owned by one person or group of persons (like a corporation) and can be produced at cost of materials. This scenario doesn't look politically credible to me even if it was technologically possible. To many variables besides technology have to be assumed to have no impact on the technological realisation time. Amongst those variables that seem to be assumed away are that there would be no effective political resistance to such a technological development that would revolutionise the way human societies organise themselves economically and politically now. How realistic is it to assume that there would be no effective political resistance in that sort of time frame? Surely we know enough about how fast ordinary people that vote in elections that can control laws that effect intellectual property can learn when we only have to project forward another three or four US Presidential electoral periods. 10 - 15 years can seem either like a long time or a short time depending on how you view it. 10 years from now, human level AI? I'm sceptical, I don't think the AI folk know enough today technically to climb that sort of curve in that sort of timeframe. But even if they did, or do, the politics will almost certainly effect the timeframe of any roll out that would have such revolutionary consequences. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue May 17 16:01:38 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:01:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The diamond age is upon us References: <20050516200958.98593.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <09d501c55a85$ffc359f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <002f01c55af9$c4e3ff00$d7ee4d0c@MyComputer> http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0505_16.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 17 16:03:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050517160351.48216.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > Say something > > sensible and people > > will see it as something sensible. Don't treat > > transhumanists as the > > group of people you want to pursuade treat people > > that vote, your > > friends, your family, your workmates, whoever you > > meet and talk > > with as the people you want to pursuade. > > I do Brett. My friends and family all understand me > and are all very supportive. Plus California (the > state in which I live) pretty handily passed > Proposition 71 that raised billions of dollars for > stem cell research. My university is setting up a > whole new facility specifically for their study. So > essentially everybody within earshot is already > converted. What I need to do is be able reach the > hearts and minds of those that live in the red states. How is it that a state that was billions in the red from immigration, ballooning health care, and defaulted on billions in socialized energy bills not too long ago, has the temerity to blow billions on socialized research? > > I don't want to pass judgement on them or try to > change their politics. They can have their guns, their > death penalties, even their wars if they want them. > All I want them to know is that they can use > therapeutic cloning to enrich their golden years > without sacrificing their moral values. They can add > many many fruitful years to their lives without > harming another human being or offending God (assuming > that is what they fear). Why would we have discovered > this technology if it wasn't our destiny to use it? I think there are a lot of red staters who are with you on that. What they don't want is their tax dollars spent on particular types of research that involve acts that they consider murder. There is plenty of private research money available. This is morally no different from the right of anti-war or pacifist types to oppose their taxes paying for bombs and wars which they derive no benefit from. Until we get taxpayer directed budget funding, we're stuck with everybody's money being comingled, and this leaves everyone with an equal right to see that government spending programs they disapprove of being killed outright. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 17 16:51:03 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The diamond age is upon us In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050517165103.86138.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0505_16.html Next challenge: shaping the diamonds so as to make interesting things from them. I wonder if it would be possible to, for example, set up a bunch of disposable CVD chambers, linked like chain mail, where each link is only a few millimeters around. Even at .1 millimeters per hour growth, that would still only take a day or two to grow, if all of the chambers were growing diamond at once. Then crack and throw away the chambers. (The chambers would, of course, have to be made of something cheap - maybe simple hollow steel rings, if that would not interact with the CVD. The CVD equipment itself would have to be removable and reusable, of course, probably with one central source linked via many injector tubes to each of the chambers.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 17 20:37:28 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 13:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Military-run public anonymizer service Message-ID: <20050517203728.59695.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67542,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5 Between this, GPS, and a few other technological developments I've been seeing...random, idle thought - tongue partly in cheek here. It has been noted, in ages past, that among the biggest threats to any representative government was its own military, mainly because of the danger of a coup. In modern America, the military has been one of the main developers of technologies that have given power to the people - which one could see as going directly against the interests of the corporate and political Powers That Be. It would be humorously ironic if the government of what many still call the most free nation on Earth, were to succumb to a military-sponsored "coup"...which consisted of even more free people simply rendering the government as it stands largely irrelevant. (Let the roads fix themselves, let volunteers take on crime while assisted/directed by AIs programmed to determine and serve the needs of the people above any other goal, and so forth.) From iph1954 at msn.com Tue May 17 23:37:51 2005 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 19:37:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving Closer to a Manufacturing Revolution Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - May 17, 2005 Center for Responsible Nanotechnology Mike Treder, Executive Director (1-718-398-7272) mtreder at CRNano.org Chris Phoenix, Director of Research (1-305-387-5583) cphoenix at CRNano.org Nanotech: Moving Closer to a Manufacturing Revolution Nanotechnology's long-expected transformation of manufacturing has just moved closer to reality. A new analysis of existing technological capabilities, including proposed steps from today's nanotech to advanced molecular machine systems, was released today by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. The study, "Molecular Manufacturing: What, Why and How," performed by Chris Phoenix, CRN Director of Research, is available online at Wise-Nano.org. It shows how existing technologies can be coordinated toward a reachable goal of general-purpose molecular manufacturing. "Molecular manufacturing offers a fundamentally new approach to build things 'from the bottom up'," said Phoenix. "The idea is to use nanoscale machines to create structures with atomic precision. Ultimately, that can result in the ability to make complex products, both small and large, with unprecedented performance and value." Theories and concepts for molecular manufacturing, first proposed in the 1980's by nanotechnology pioneer K. Eric Drexler, have improved steadily since then. But recent progress is occurring at a faster pace. Less than two years ago, Phoenix published the first detailed architecture for a "nanofactory," a remarkably powerful general-purpose manufacturing appliance that could sit on a desktop. Since then, Drexler, working with John Burch, has developed an improved design that should be significantly more efficient. Recent developments in DNA synthesis and polymer construction, plus advances in miniaturization and precision of scanning probe microscopes, are rapidly adding pieces to the nanotech jigsaw puzzle. This new study puts the pieces in place. Presenting research performed by CRN under a grant from NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts, while also updating and combining existing work in related fields, it describes a newly simplified way to develop molecular manufacturing starting with today's technology. Phoenix describes two approaches for building the initial basic tools with current technology. Other sections outline incremental improvement from those early tools toward the first integrated nanofactory, and analyze a scalable architecture for a more advanced nanofactory. Product performance and likely applications are discussed, as well as incentives for corporate or government investment in the technology. Finally, considerations and recommendations for a targeted development program are presented. "We've done an end-to-end analysis of molecular manufacturing's goals as well as some ways to get there," said Phoenix. "More important, this study shows that development of the technology will be both highly desirable and relatively straightforward. It's probably not as far away as many people think, which means it's time to begin discussing the ramifications, both positive and negative." "Molecular Manufacturing: What, Why and How" does not directly address the societal, environmental, medical, economic, military, security, and geopolitical implications of the technology's introduction. However, those topics are explored in other papers and articles on CRN?s website. This release is posted online at http://CRNano.org/PR-Analysis.htm The full study is available at http://wise-nano.org/w/Doing_MM Other resources: "Design of a Primitive Nanofactory" (Phoenix) ? http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm "Productive Nanosystems: From Molecules to Superproducts" (Drexler/Burch) http://www.nanotech-now.com/Art_Gallery/John-Burch.htm "What is Nanotechnology?" - http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm "What is Molecular Manufacturing?" - http://www.crnano.org/essays05.htm#2,Feb "Thirty Essential Nanotechnology Studies" - http://www.crnano.org/studies.htm The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (http://CRNano.org) is headquartered in New York. CRN is a non-profit think tank concerned with the major societal and environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology. We promote public awareness and education, and the crafting and implementation of effective policy to maximize benefits and reduce dangers. CRN is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 18 01:51:26 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:51:26 +1000 Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought. References: <20050517160351.48216.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0ae101c55b4c$1ab7c360$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: > How is it that a state that was billions in the red from > immigration, ballooning health care, and defaulted on > billions in socialized energy bills not too long ago, has > the temerity to blow billions on socialized research? How? Ultimately, it was fairly straightforward. 59% voted for a particular proposition that was formulated within a political context and then put to them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6384390/ [The Avantguardian wrote] >> I don't want to pass judgement on them or try to >> change their politics. They can have their guns, their >> death penalties, even their wars if they want them. >> All I want them to know is that they can use >> therapeutic cloning to enrich their golden years >> without sacrificing their moral values. They can add >> many many fruitful years to their lives without >> harming another human being or offending God (assuming >> that is what they fear). Why would we have discovered >> this technology if it wasn't our destiny to use it? > > I think there are a lot of red staters who are with you on that. > > What they don't want is their tax dollars spent on particular > types of research that involve acts that they consider murder. > I think that this particular concern is coming from you rather than them Mike. (Which is fair enough you are entitled to have concerns of your own). Those that consider embryonic stem cell research that is destructive to the embryo (which they consider to be a human being) murder, are not, as a class likely to feel that it is enough to stop their tax dollars being directed to that end, they would, logically, as a class, want to stop all tax dollars being put to that end including tax dollars derived from the supporters of the research. Murder is a pretty large scale wrong, people who characterise things like early stage abortion and the derivation of embryonic stem cell lines as "murder" are not merely expressing a personal preference on discretionary spending. In my opinion, they are in error, (probably an error based on ignorance) to see early stage abortion and the derivation of embryonic stem cells as equivalent to the unlawful killing of a citizen or some other person. > There is plenty of private research money available. You say that there is plenty of private research money available Mike but how do you decide how much is enough? Do you know for instance what the costs of particular research projects in the stem cell areas are and can you do a social cost benefit analysis of different avenues of research in the stem cell field? Are you *that* knowledgeable of the underlying science in this area that you can say with confidence that there is plenty or private research money available to optimise the delivery time of any benefits? > ...This is morally > no different from the right of anti-war or pacifist types to oppose > their taxes paying for bombs and wars which they derive no benefit > from. > Until we get taxpayer directed budget funding, we're stuck > with everybody's money being commingled, and this leaves everyone > with an equal right to see that government spending programs they > disapprove of being killed outright. Do you think that taxpayer directed budget funding is practical? I agree that everyone's money is commingled, but I don't see that it would be practical to allow everyone that pays taxes to be able to pick and choose where their taxes are spent on a personal basis. Do you, or do you have something else in mind? If your point is that, given everyone's tax money is commingled so tax payers do, and ought have a right to voice their concerns and preferences about how those taxes are spent, and to enter into discussions and to try to persuade each other and policy makers about priorities, then I agree with you. If people, perhaps people such as yourself, expressed your scepticism as to whether embryonic stem cell research, or therapeutic cloning was cost justified then perhaps a discussion could be had that might persuade them, or you might end up succeeding in making your case. Brett Paatsch From riel at surriel.com Wed May 18 02:05:53 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:05:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? In-Reply-To: <0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net> <01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin> <0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 May 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > If a single AI could be constructed in that time period and protected > by a patent, then copied ad-infinitum, what effect do you imagine that > would have economically and geo-politically? Then there'd be an even better reason to get rid of software patents ;) -- "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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 18 03:41:15 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:41:15 +1000 Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net><01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin><0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <0b0c01c55b5b$71c27c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> If a single AI could be constructed in that time period and protected >> by a patent, then copied ad-infinitum, what effect do you imagine that >> would have economically and geo-politically? > > Then there'd be an even better reason to get rid of > software patents ;) I'm curious, do you really think that it would be a good thing to get rid of software patents or to change the software patenting laws where you work? I worked in the IT industry in Australia for something like 10 years but I was a business manager rather than a programmer. I tend to see patent law as a potentially good thing but it has to strike the right balance between creating incentives for people to be practical and to innovate and not creating disincentives or other side effects that produce a net or suboptimal social benefit. Its is of course always going to be possible to balance conflicting goods suboptimally in particular laws, and technology and other things can shift the optimal balance point over time. I know that Microsoft is often kicked about and has faced anti-trust actions but I don't really know whether those that complain about software patents generally are complaining because they see that the balance in patent law is wrong in some area or whether it is just because they personally want a different set of laws that in the short term would be in their personal interest. I would like to hear from someone that knows what they are talking about with respect to software patents and can make a reasoned case that the existing law in their area is suboptimal and has got the balance wrong. It is possible that the software ip laws are suboptimal in some respects but it is also possible that those that are complaining about it are not looking at both sides of the quid pro quo that patents are supposed to balance. A very good programmer that has other skills as well might want to have some software patent laws so that they can create a path to wealth based on their personal efforts and their merit. Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 18 04:08:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- A Chilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <0ae101c55b4c$1ab7c360$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050518040833.36115.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > I think there are a lot of red staters who are with you on that. > > > > What they don't want is their tax dollars spent on particular > > types of research that involve acts that they consider murder. > > > > I think that this particular concern is coming from you rather > than them Mike. (Which is fair enough you are entitled to have > concerns of your own). No, it isn't my concern. While I'm pro-choice, I think everybody gets a choice, and abortion is a choice that should be made along the lines of a jury choosing the death penalty: with great consideration, deliberation, and care for ALL concerned. In any pregnancy, there should properly be three entities with choices: the woman's, the man's, and the childs. Today we think that Roman matrons who told their sons to go off to die in battle ("come home with your shield or on it"), and Carthaginians who threw their firstborn into the flaming mouth of Moloch were total barbarians. Pro-abortionists become irate when pro-lifers truthfully display actual photography, cardiography, and other records of fetuses before, during, and after they were aborted. Why are they not proud of the butchery they do? I am a hunter. I kill animals. I do not deny or hide the blood and guts. Unlike abortionists, I do take care that my victims suffer as little as possible. I am the honest one. Feminists are arrogant in thinking that only their choice counts, that they are responsible enough to objectively consider what is best for their fetus independently of what they feel is best for themselves, and sexist in asserting that man's choice lasts a few minutes but a woman's choice lasts 9 months. Do I object to my tax dollars subsidizing such activities? No, because I have no choice, my right to choose and my right to keep my property have been stripped from me by the theivery and thuggery of the state. They are the criminals and the accessories to death. A crime victim never gets a choice in the disbursement of that which is stolen from him. It is enough that I object to being robbed to begin with. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 18 05:49:51 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 15:49:51 +1000 Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- AChilling Thought. References: <20050518040833.36115.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0b4101c55b6d$68a71370$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> I think that this particular concern is coming from you rather >> than them Mike. (Which is fair enough you are entitled to have >> concerns of your own). > > No, it isn't my concern. While I'm pro-choice, I think everybody gets a > choice, and abortion is a choice that should be made along the lines of > a jury choosing the death penalty: with great consideration, > deliberation, and care for ALL concerned. In any pregnancy, there > should properly be three entities with choices: the woman's, the man's, > and the childs. I can see some merit in what you are saying. I am not in favour of cavalier attitudes to late stage abortions either. Very late stage abortions might indeed amount to aborting viable children if the intention of the mother had been to try and have a pre baby. (So I think that their ought be a time based deadline - i.e. a what stage has the fetus reached in its development deadline - and it is my understanding that there is). I don't know how common cavalier attitudes to late stage abortions are in practice. I suspect that they would not be particularly common because the mechanics of having a late stage abortion are not such that a woman is likely to want to have to go through them especially if she has the choice of terminating the pregnancy at an earlier stage. There are also practical considerations that can't be ignored. For instance there are economic costs involved in having trials and appeals processes etc to decide whether to execute a person for a capital crime. Spending as much on the decision to abort would probably be impractical especially if it had to have a jury decision, also if it was a contested decision with say the woman wanting an abortion and the man not wanting her to have an abortion then the longer the legal process dragged on through appeals etc the more developed the fetus would become. If society was going to consider abortions on a case by case basis as you suggest it would have to put some sort of timeframe constraints on the legal process or otherwise the development of the fetus would render the legal process pointless. I think it is important to separate out three classes of human life here though and I'd be interested to see if you agree or disagree with my classifications. First an embryo, at the stage when embryonic stem cells are derived in vitro, at around the five day stage consists of only about 150 cells or so. Scientifically, an embryo at that early stage of development, is not statistically likely to develop into a viable human being if it was implanted into a woman's uteris. Please understand what I am saying, that is that, most embryos in that are created naturally by men and women having sex in the usual way, as well as unnaturally (via IVF) are not statistically likely to be biologically viable. Nature itself is very wasteful and cavalier in the way it conducts meiosis to produce a new genetic entitity. This means that most embryos produced by combination of sperm and egg are not biologically viable and will not go onto to become babies. Obviously some of them, some embryos do, or none of us would be here to talk about it, but the odds of a particular embryo being viable is reckoned to be only about 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 on average. This is based on research that has been done to compare the success rates of IVF with the natural method of constructing embryos. Further, once an embryo has been created by mixing the genetic material of a sperm and egg through meisis it is still possible for some time afterward that not a single embryo but two embryos might be produced by quirks of biochemistry that cause the cells to divide again at a particular time in the cell cycle. At the five day stage when embryonic stem cells are typically derived from IVF embryos (or in therapeutic cloning if that was being done it isn't done much yet) the embryo would still be immature enough that it would not be clear that only a single human being and not two identical twins would result from it even if it had been implanted and had been one of the biologically viable minority of embryos. What I am trying to point out to you is that there are good scientific reasons for not regarding a five day old embryo as having the same potential or moral significance as an embryo or fetus that has developed to a substantially later stage. If you could see these early cells blown up in full living technicolor and watch the science of early life unrolling you would be able to see for yourself that there is a real practical difference that relates to biochemistry. If you were able to see human embryos under one microscope and human sperm and eggs under another you would be looking at different forms of human life that all have some small statistical chance of becoming part of a human being given the right environmental conditions. You don't have to trust that what I am telling you is true, you can (or could if you chose to and went to some effort) check these facts out for yourself. So indeed can just about anyone that wants to have their moral position informed by the scientific facts. So I hope you can see that embryos at the stage that embryonic stem cells are derived (destructively from the embryo) are not equal in potential to produce a human being as embryos or fetuses that are much further developed. > .. Pro-abortionists become irate when pro-lifers truthfully > display actual photography, cardiography, and other records of fetuses > before, during, and after they were aborted. Why are they not proud of > the butchery they do? I don't think its realistic to expect that a woman would ever (or often) be proud of having had an abortion, the process is too unpleasant, what they are chosing is what amounts to a lesser to two unpleasant choices. As for photographs diagrams anything that makes clear what is actually going on, for the most part I agree with you. Society should make its moral decisions with its eyes wide open. > I am a hunter. I kill animals. I do not deny or hide the blood and > guts. Unlike abortionists, I do take care that my victims suffer as > little as possible. I am the honest one. I can respect your attitude as a hunter but I think you are being harsh on the class of woman that choose to have abortions. > Feminists are arrogant in thinking that only their choice counts, that > they are responsible enough to objectively consider what is best for > their fetus independently of what they feel is best for themselves, and > sexist in asserting that man's choice lasts a few minutes but a woman's > choice lasts 9 months. Perhaps you have a point but *practically* how could you have a policy that worked differently than what we currently have? > Do I object to my tax dollars subsidizing such activities? No, because > I have no choice, my right to choose and my right to keep my property > have been stripped from me by the theivery and thuggery of the state. > They are the criminals and the accessories to death. A crime victim > never gets a choice in the disbursement of that which is stolen from > him. It is enough that I object to being robbed to begin with. This seems a bit ranty Mike. That's a pity because, imo, you raise some good points when you keep your equilibrium a bit better, and resist the urge to color the opposing view to your own in the most extreme light. Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 18 06:15:18 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was- AChilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <0b4101c55b6d$68a71370$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050518061518.38072.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > What I am trying to point out to you is that there are good > scientific > reasons for not regarding a five day old embryo as having the same > potential or moral significance as an embryo or fetus that has > developed to a substantially later stage. I never said I did. I am entirely fine with aborting a fetus less than, say, two weeks old. It is incredibly hard for anyone to justify that is either an individual or with sensory capacity of any sort whatsoever. I am increasingly less fine as the fetus ages. > > > .. Pro-abortionists become irate when pro-lifers truthfully > > display actual photography, cardiography, and other records of > fetuses > > before, during, and after they were aborted. Why are they not proud > of the butchery they do? > > I don't think its realistic to expect that a woman would ever (or > often) be proud of having had an abortion, the process is too > unpleasant, what they are chosing is what amounts to a lesser to > two unpleasant choices. This is the real problem. The right to a pursuit of happiness does not include the right to feel pleasant, or even less unpleasant, at the expense of others rights or existences. > > As for photographs diagrams anything that makes clear what is > actually > going on, for the most part I agree with you. Society should make its > moral decisions with its eyes wide open. Thank you. > > > I am a hunter. I kill animals. I do not deny or hide the blood and > > guts. Unlike abortionists, I do take care that my victims suffer as > > little as possible. I am the honest one. > > I can respect your attitude as a hunter but I think you are being > harsh on the class of woman that choose to have abortions. Have you ever seen a man convicted in a tribal setting turned over for punishment by the victims female relatives? Women can be far more brutal than men. > > > Feminists are arrogant in thinking that only their choice counts, > that > > they are responsible enough to objectively consider what is best > for > > their fetus independently of what they feel is best for themselves, > and > > sexist in asserting that man's choice lasts a few minutes but a > woman's > > choice lasts 9 months. > > Perhaps you have a point but *practically* how could you have a > policy that worked differently than what we currently have? a) if a man wants an abortion, and the woman doesn't, she and the state should allow the father to relenquish all rights and future obligations wrt the child. b) if a pregnant woman leaves a jurisdiction to raise a child alone and separate from the father, she relenquishes all future claims against him for support of the child when she crosses the state line. c) if a man does not want an abortion, and the mother does, she must either compense him the cost of a surrogate pregnancy, or have the child, and relenquish it to the father in exchange for fair expense for the term of pregnancy. When the father pays the bills, the mother permanently relenquishes all rights and obligations. > > > Do I object to my tax dollars subsidizing such activities? No, > because > > I have no choice, my right to choose and my right to keep my > property > > have been stripped from me by the theivery and thuggery of the > state. > > They are the criminals and the accessories to death. A crime victim > > never gets a choice in the disbursement of that which is stolen > from > > him. It is enough that I object to being robbed to begin with. > > This seems a bit ranty Mike. That's a pity because, imo, you raise > some good points when you keep your equilibrium a bit better, and > resist the urge to color the opposing view to your own in the most > extreme light. Odd, I thought that the most tame paragraph of them all. I thought this and the idea that taxpayer being allowed to choose which programs their taxes go to is a rather moderate and conciliatory. You ain't seen extreme. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 18 06:39:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON: Playing the Blogshares market In-Reply-To: <20050518061518.38072.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050518063917.19426.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Many may have noticed the address to my blog, The International Libertarian, in my sigline. I have entered my blog into the blogshares fantasy stock and futures market. Part of the valuation of a blog is based on incoming and outgoing links to and from other blogshare listed blogs. As I am learning to 'enhance shareholder value' on this market, I would like to encourage others who blog to register with blogshares.com. If you blog and have read my own in the past, I would like to exchange blogroll listings with you. Please email me your consent and blog URL. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed May 18 06:48:20 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:48:20 -0700 Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was-AChilling Thought. References: <20050518061518.38072.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001301c55b75$98fb6280$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > I never said I did. I am entirely fine with aborting a fetus less than, > say, two weeks old. It is incredibly hard for anyone to justify that is > either an individual or with sensory capacity of any sort whatsoever. I > am increasingly less fine as the fetus ages. Carl Sagan wrote this essay regarding the "pro-life" v. "pro-choice" debate. Of course, the piece was published some time before public discussions about stem cells accelerated. What do you think of it?: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml Olga From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 18 07:17:58 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:17:58 +1000 Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was-AChilling Thought. References: <20050518061518.38072.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0b5601c55b79$b7d77b90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >> What I am trying to point out to you is that there are good >> scientific >> reasons for not regarding a five day old embryo as having the same >> potential or moral significance as an embryo or fetus that has >> developed to a substantially later stage. > > I never said I did. Fair enough, but in political terms the stem cell debate often gets conflated with the abortion debate. Some of the issues are similar but to me embryonic stem cell research is a far easier moral call than abortion. I thought that you might have had reservations about deriving embryonic stem cells from embryos and destroying their potential in the process. I think that it would be possible to show you that it is in your personal interest to support embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning with public funds. You and people close to you are likely to be personally effected by how well and how soon embryonic stem cell research gets moving. In my opinion, interested laypeople do not get very good information on *why* embryonic stem cell research and the funding of it matters. I want to give The Avantguardian a chance to plug therapeutic cloning if he wants too. But if he doesn't want to and you are interested I will. >I am entirely fine with aborting a fetus less than, > say, two weeks old. It is incredibly hard for anyone to justify that is > either an individual or with sensory capacity of any sort whatsoever. I > am increasingly less fine as the fetus ages. Okay but you spoke of three entities as having rights to choose, the mother, the father and the child. Up until two weeks is it your view that only the woman should have the right to decide? In practice I think it would be hard to enforce much else. The embryo has not brain to have an interest and the male quite possibly might not even know that he was a potential father. >> > .. Pro-abortionists become irate when pro-lifers truthfully >> > display actual photography, cardiography, and other records of >> fetuses before, during, and after they were aborted. Why are they >> not proud of the butchery they do? >> >> I don't think its realistic to expect that a woman would ever (or >> often) be proud of having had an abortion, the process is too >> unpleasant, what they are chosing is what amounts to a lesser to >> two unpleasant choices. > > This is the real problem. The right to a pursuit of happiness does not > include the right to feel pleasant, or even less unpleasant, at the > expense of others rights or existences. I agree that no constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness amounts to that. But I still don't get what you are referring to as the real problem. Do you want to give an unborn independent legal child rights? Perhaps that is not a bad idea, such rights do not need to be the equivalent to the rights of a full citizen, but at what stage of its development? >> As for photographs diagrams anything that makes clear what is >> actually going on, for the most part I agree with you. Society should >> make its moral decisions with its eyes wide open. > > Thank you. Your welcome. >> > I am a hunter. I kill animals. I do not deny or hide the blood and >> > guts. Unlike abortionists, I do take care that my victims suffer as >> > little as possible. I am the honest one. >> >> I can respect your attitude as a hunter but I think you are being >> harsh on the class of woman that choose to have abortions. > > Have you ever seen a man convicted in a tribal setting turned over for > punishment by the victims female relatives? Women can be far more > brutal than men. Not personally no. I am sceptical that there are sex differences between men and women wrt brutality but I have no doubt individual men and women and some cultures would be at different positions wrt to the universal mean. >> > Feminists are arrogant in thinking that only their choice counts, >> that they are responsible enough to objectively consider what is best >> for their fetus independently of what they feel is best for themselves, >> and sexist in asserting that man's choice lasts a few minutes but a >> woman's choice lasts 9 months. >> >> Perhaps you have a point but *practically* how could you have a >> policy that worked differently than what we currently have? > > a) if a man wants an abortion, and the woman doesn't, she and the state > should allow the father to relenquish all rights and future obligations > wrt the child. That is not unreasonable so far as I can see, but the critical question of when in the stage of development the abortion might take place matters otherwise the woman might not even inform the man. Further it might be that the woman cannot be certain who the father is. > b) if a pregnant woman leaves a jurisdiction to raise a child alone and > separate from the father, she relenquishes all future claims against > him for support of the child when she crosses the state line. Thats potentially problematic. The woman might have to move to get work to support the child. Slighting the father might not be a motive at all. Or it might be to some degree. How could you tell? > c) if a man does not want an abortion, and the mother does, she must > either compense him the cost of a surrogate pregnancy, or have the > child, and relenquish it to the father in exchange for fair expense for > the term of pregnancy. When the father pays the bills, the mother > permanently relenquishes all rights and obligations. The principle is not unreasonable but to implement it would be complicated as the womans health is intimately linked to the health of the unborn child or fetus. >> >> > Do I object to my tax dollars subsidizing such activities? No, >> because I have no choice, my right to choose and my right to >> keep my property have been stripped from me by the theivery >> and thuggery of the state. >> > They are the criminals and the accessories to death. A crime >> > victim never gets a choice in the disbursement of that which is >> > stolen from him. It is enough that I object to being robbed to > >> begin with. >> >> This seems a bit ranty Mike. That's a pity because, imo, you raise >> some good points when you keep your equilibrium a bit better, and >> resist the urge to color the opposing view to your own in the most >> extreme light. > > Odd, I thought that the most tame paragraph of them all. I thought this > and the idea that taxpayer being allowed to choose which programs their > taxes go to is a rather moderate and conciliatory. You ain't seen extreme. I've seen extreme ;-) You seem to be equating taxing you with the crime of theft. You are calling the state "criminals and accessories to death", but "the state" makes the law. The state is not just the executive government. Brett Paatsch From iph1954 at msn.com Wed May 18 13:11:12 2005 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:11:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving Closer to a Manufacturing Revolution Message-ID: Nanotechnology's long-expected transformation of manufacturing has just moved closer to reality. A new analysis of existing technological capabilities, including proposed steps from today's nanotech to advanced molecular machine systems, was released today by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. The study, "Molecular Manufacturing: What, Why and How," performed by Chris Phoenix, CRN Director of Research, is available online at Wise-Nano.org. It shows how existing technologies can be coordinated toward a reachable goal of general-purpose molecular manufacturing. "Molecular manufacturing offers a fundamentally new approach to build things 'from the bottom up'," said Phoenix. "The idea is to use nanoscale machines to create structures with atomic precision. Ultimately, that can result in the ability to make complex products, both small and large, with unprecedented performance and value." Theories and concepts for molecular manufacturing, first proposed in the 1980's by nanotechnology pioneer K. Eric Drexler, have improved steadily since then. But recent progress is occurring at a faster pace. Less than two years ago, Phoenix published the first detailed architecture for a "nanofactory," a remarkably powerful general-purpose manufacturing appliance that could sit on a desktop. Since then, Drexler, working with John Burch, has developed an improved design that should be significantly more efficient. Recent developments in DNA synthesis and polymer construction, plus advances in miniaturization and precision of scanning probe microscopes, are rapidly adding pieces to the nanotech jigsaw puzzle. This new study puts the pieces in place. Presenting research performed by CRN under a grant from NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts, while also updating and combining existing work in related fields, it describes a newly simplified way to develop molecular manufacturing starting with today's technology. Phoenix describes two approaches for building the initial basic tools with current technology. Other sections outline incremental improvement from those early tools toward the first integrated nanofactory, and analyze a scalable architecture for a more advanced nanofactory. Product performance and likely applications are discussed, as well as incentives for corporate or government investment in the technology. Finally, considerations and recommendations for a targeted development program are presented. "We've done an end-to-end analysis of molecular manufacturing's goals as well as some ways to get there," said Phoenix. "More important, this study shows that development of the technology will be both highly desirable and relatively straightforward. It's probably not as far away as many people think, which means it's time to begin discussing the ramifications, both positive and negative." "Molecular Manufacturing: What, Why and How" does not directly address the societal, environmental, medical, economic, military, security, and geopolitical implications of the technology's introduction. However, those topics are explored in other papers and articles on CRN?s website. This release is posted online at http://CRNano.org/PR-Analysis.htm The full study is available at http://wise-nano.org/w/Doing_MM Other resources: "Design of a Primitive Nanofactory" (Phoenix) ? http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm "Productive Nanosystems: From Molecules to Superproducts" (Drexler/Burch) http://www.nanotech-now.com/Art_Gallery/John-Burch.htm "What is Nanotechnology?" - http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm "What is Molecular Manufacturing?" - http://www.crnano.org/essays05.htm#2,Feb "Thirty Essential Nanotechnology Studies" - http://www.crnano.org/studies.htm The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (http://CRNano.org) is headquartered in New York. CRN is a non-profit think tank concerned with the major societal and environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology. We promote public awareness and education, and the crafting and implementation of effective policy to maximize benefits and reduce dangers. CRN is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 18 13:49:15 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 23:49:15 +1000 Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was-AChillingThought. References: <20050518061518.38072.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <001301c55b75$98fb6280$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <004801c55bb0$61a45ae0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Olga wrote: > Carl Sagan wrote this essay regarding the "pro-life" v. "pro-choice" > debate. Of course, the piece was published some time before public > discussions about stem cells accelerated. What do you think of it?: > > http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml I liked it. It doesn't deal with stem cells but it isn't any the less relevant on the abortion question for that. Lee Daniel Crocker sent an excellent post to this list on Roe vs Wade maybe a year or two ago. I wonder what happened to him? Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 18 15:47:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was-AChilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <0b5601c55b79$b7d77b90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050518154711.97087.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> > >> What I am trying to point out to you is that there are good > >> scientific > >> reasons for not regarding a five day old embryo as having the same > >> potential or moral significance as an embryo or fetus that has > >> developed to a substantially later stage. > > > > I never said I did. > > Fair enough, but in political terms the stem cell debate often gets > conflated with the abortion debate. Some of the issues are similar > but to me embryonic stem cell research is a far easier moral call > than abortion. I thought that you might have had reservations about > deriving embryonic stem cells from embryos and destroying their > potential in the process. > > I think that it would be possible to show you that it is in your > personal > interest to support embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic > cloning with public funds. You and people close to you are likely to > be personally effected by how well and how soon embryonic stem cell > research gets moving. > > In my opinion, interested laypeople do not get very good information > on *why* embryonic stem cell research and the funding of it matters. This is partly because both sides of the debate tend to exaggerate their claims, particularly the pro-choice side, about how long a fetus remains a 'clump of cells'. > > I want to give The Avantguardian a chance to plug therapeutic cloning > if he wants too. But if he doesn't want to and you are interested I > will. I think theraputic cloning is fine, *for me*. I would be happy to help plug it. I don't think that is the debate here. The debate is whether others can be forced at gunpoint to pay for something they may not use, will enjoy no profit from the investment, and morally regard as manslaughter or murder. If you are going to seek to use the gun of the state to fund your research bandwagon, you need to be prepared for those you intend to rob to use the same tool to tell you "hell no". If you are not willing to accept those risks and/or outcomes, you shouldn't engage in that game. Whining about it is poor sportsmanship, to say the least. > > >I am entirely fine with aborting a fetus less than, > > say, two weeks old. It is incredibly hard for anyone to justify > that is > > either an individual or with sensory capacity of any sort > whatsoever. I > > am increasingly less fine as the fetus ages. > > Okay but you spoke of three entities as having rights to choose, the > mother, the father and the child. > > Up until two weeks is it your view that only the woman should have > the right to decide? In practice I think it would be hard to enforce > much else. The embryo has not brain to have an interest and the > male quite possibly might not even know that he was a potential > father. Up until two weeks, both the father and mother have a right to choose, IMHO generally clear of obligations to the fetus. As the fetus gets older, both have an increasing obligation to the fetus. While it would be hard to enforce if a woman is intent on subterfuge, but such a woman is going to have bad relationships to begin with given she is untrustworthy and manipulative. > > This is the real problem. The right to a pursuit of happiness does > not > > include the right to feel pleasant, or even less unpleasant, at the > > expense of others rights or existences. > > I agree that no constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness > amounts to that. But I still don't get what you are referring to > as the real problem. The real problem is that pro-abortionists base their demands upon their 'right to feel less unpleasant', their right to not be inconvenienced by a child. Except in cases of rape, the woman and man got into that situation in the pursuit of happiness.... you don't get to avoid the hangover of your pleasures. > Do you want to give an unborn independent legal child rights? Perhaps > that is not a bad idea, such rights do not need to be the equivalent > to the rights of a full citizen, but at what stage of its > development? I'm not a contractualist like you might be. I recognise the preexistence of a natural right to live that takes on increasing prominence with the age of the fetus. Is the actual life of the mother more important? Of course it is. Is her convenience or career goal more important? Definitely not. At what age does the fetus's right to live override the convenience or plans of the mother? I am almost positive it doesn't happen at two weeks. I know for a fact that it has happened by six months. It is up to honest and objective science, coupled with an objective and ethical philosophy, to decide where the hair gets split in between those two points, and any grey area should be decided on the side of life. > > Have you ever seen a man convicted in a tribal setting turned over > for > > punishment by the victims female relatives? Women can be far more > > brutal than men. > > Not personally no. I am sceptical that there are sex differences > between > men and women wrt brutality but I have no doubt individual men and > women and some cultures would be at different positions wrt to the > universal mean. > > >> > Feminists are arrogant in thinking that only their choice > counts, > >> that they are responsible enough to objectively consider what is > best > >> for their fetus independently of what they feel is best for > themselves, > >> and sexist in asserting that man's choice lasts a few minutes but > a > >> woman's choice lasts 9 months. > >> > >> Perhaps you have a point but *practically* how could you have a > >> policy that worked differently than what we currently have? > > > > a) if a man wants an abortion, and the woman doesn't, she and the > state > > should allow the father to relenquish all rights and future > obligations > > wrt the child. > > That is not unreasonable so far as I can see, but the critical > question of > when in the stage of development the abortion might take place > matters > otherwise the woman might not even inform the man. Further it might > be that the woman cannot be certain who the father is. Honesty and openness with all parties is all I ask. If DNA checking of such a young fetus is impossible, and the woman is so promiscuous as to not know (i.e. multiple partners per day), it is likely a good choice if she chooses to abort early. I doubt her partners are looking for the responsibility either. > > > b) if a pregnant woman leaves a jurisdiction to raise a child alone > and > > separate from the father, she relenquishes all future claims > against > > him for support of the child when she crosses the state line. > > Thats potentially problematic. The woman might have to move to get > work to support the child. Slighting the father might not be a motive > at all. Or it might be to some degree. How could you tell? Honesty and openness versus manipulation and skulduggery. > > > c) if a man does not want an abortion, and the mother does, she > must > > either compense him the cost of a surrogate pregnancy, or have the > > child, and relenquish it to the father in exchange for fair expense > for > > the term of pregnancy. When the father pays the bills, the mother > > permanently relenquishes all rights and obligations. > > The principle is not unreasonable but to implement it would be > complicated as the womans health is intimately linked to the health > of the unborn child or fetus. Quite so. This would obviously be solved when a fetus can be transferred to the male... > > I've seen extreme ;-) > > You seem to be equating taxing you with the crime of theft. You are > calling the state "criminals and accessories to death", but "the > state" makes the law. The state is not just the executive > government. You are right, it is the legislature that ignores the will of the people and authorizes the theft, it is the courts that legislate from the bench to fit their own agendas, and it is the Constitution that all three ignore as much as they are permitted to get away with by the citizenry. Let us look at a few things in that document: Article 1 Section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The Federal gov't can't constitutionally issue a tax bill to a citizen directly, they must always collect from the states, or through corporate person enterprises in direct federal jurisdiction (in federal territories or engaged in international trade). They must tax 'sources', which, given the next section, can only be on federal territories, or american owned enterprises or investments in foreign lands, or foreigners doing business in the several states. "No tax or duty shall be levied on articles exported from any state." This means the $200 transfer tax on my machine gun is unconstitutional, federal and state cigarette duties are illegal, alcohol duties are illegal (if these are produced in one of the several states), gas taxes are illegal on gas refined in the US. You might say, "ah, the 16th Amendment changed that". Wrong, the SCOTUS has ruled that the 16th created no new tax or tax power/authority. I, a private sovereign citizen domiciled in my freehold in one of the several states, doing no business for gain in a federal territory or foreign nation, do not have 'income'. I do earn a living. You figure out the difference. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Wed May 18 16:19:19 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 18:19:19 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics Message-ID: (I didn't follow all of this discussion, but I think that it is about abortion) Mike Lorrey: >Up until two weeks, both the father and mother have a right to choose, >IMHO generally clear of obligations to the fetus. TWO weeks? Tell me Mike, have you ever been pregnant? *Some* women know very soon when something has changed in their body. Many women do not know, until the next MONTH (at least), that they are pregnant. Also I find it unlikely that doctor would (or could) perform a D&C abortion (the simplest kind) on a woman, who is two weeks pregnant. The signs must be clear. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 18 17:00:48 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050518170048.5447.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > (I didn't follow all of this discussion, but I think that it is > about abortion) It was about stem cells and government thuggery subisiding terminations of fetuses, either by abortions or research, and the right of taxpayers to choose to not have their money spent on such things. > > Mike Lorrey: > >Up until two weeks, both the father and mother have a right to > >choose, IMHO generally clear of obligations to the fetus. > > TWO weeks? > > Tell me Mike, have you ever been pregnant? > > *Some* women know very soon when something has changed in their body. > Many women do not know, until the next MONTH (at least), that they > are pregnant. No, Amara, never been pregnant. If a sexually active woman is not pregnancy testing weekly, if not more frequently, on the pill, etc. and waits for *nature* of all things to tell her something is amiss, then she is quite CLEARLY not "in control" of her body, and has surrendered any right to shut the barn door now that the horses are out, at least as much as feminists like to claim the male surrenders control of his sperm at the point of orgasm and thus looses any right to choose what nature, or the woman, choose to do with it. If she demands the right to go so far as to kill the results of her irresponsibility, then the equally irresponsible male involved should have an equal right to participate in that decision (and equal weight in the outcome). Those who want the responsibility pay 100% of the bills and keep all parental rights. Those who don't are off the hook. My two week standard is hard and fast WRT stem cell research, WRT my own moral standards. It might be flexible wrt abortion but I'd need to see more objective science on it that didn't come from an advocacy website. > > Also I find it unlikely that doctor would (or could) perform a D&C > abortion (the simplest kind) on a woman, who is two weeks pregnant. > The signs must be clear. What oh what is a morning after pill for, then, anyways, if not, uh, the morning after? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed May 18 19:24:15 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 14:24:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son Message-ID: <200505181924.j4IJORR11687@tick.javien.com> I am afraid the gulf of disagreement here is rather large, and this may not be the best forum to bridge that gulf. But honesty requires me to admit mistake: The first dictionary I consulted (Merriam Webster) defined ?child? as: 1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant 2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age 3 archaic : a youth of noble birth 4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant 5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs 6 : product, result In other words, my use was correct and unexceptional. I mean the word in meanings 1a, 4a, and 6 (unborn person; a son or daughter of human parents; product or result). On the other hand, it turns out that I am properly chastised me for using the word ?slay?. To my surprise, I find it means: transitive senses: 1 : to kill violently, wantonly, or in great numbers; broadly : to strike down : Kill 2 : to delight or amuse immensely intransitive senses: Kill, Murder There is no evidence in the hypothetical that Sue meant to kill the end the life of the child violently, wantonly, and, unless the child was sextuplets, she could not possibly kill him or her in great numbers! So, despite Miss Atkin?s kind assurance that I am a skilled wordsmith, that skill was lacking here. I thought the word just meant ?kill.? So let us end the furor with a compromise: I will admit I was half inflammatory if my questioners will admit I was half correct. Instead of ?slay? I should have said ?deprive of life.? No one could have an honest objection to that terminology: even if one thought the unborn is not alive at the moment, abortion deprives the infant of whatever life it possesses, the potential life it would have otherwise had. In law, we call this a ?remainder interest?; that is, an interest which someone not in current possession, but who stands to come into possession of it, has vested in the property. Even those who use the awkward terminology of saying the unborn infant is not ?alive at the moment? would have to admit the infant has a legal interest in the life into which it will come into possession, in the same way an remainderman has rights against a life tenant. If there are further objections to the use of the word ?child? once it has been shown to be correct by the dictionary, I fear I have not the patience to answer: because then we are merely discussing emotion. It is not inflammatory to use plain words if the topic is one that is inflames the passions when spoken of in plain words: for then the cause lies with the topic, not the words. The reason why ?child? is a word that causes delight, is that this is the natural and proper emotion to have toward one?s child. The reason why the word ?kill? is a word that causes aversion, is that this is the natural and proper emotion to have toward killing. Now, there are those who suppose that emotions are arbitrary, and that we may select any emotion we like and direct it toward any object we like. It is beyond the scope of this letter to address that weighty topic: suffice it to say that this is another arm of subjectivist theory experience betrays as unpersuasive. The abortion advocate faces the daunting task of misdirecting our natural emotions so that what is unnatural seems normal: hence the vehemence of their anger against someone who uses words in their normal fashion. It is not a coincidence that, in abortion clinics, the mothers are not permitted to see the ultrasound pictures of their babies in their wombs. The technician during a scan carefully turns the screen away, so that the mother will not have a fit of natural emotion that comes when mother sees child. The mother is carefully not told that babies can feel pain in the womb; and excruciating pain when they are killed. The misuse of speech is merely one of several ways the abnormal is made to seem normal. If you think I am exaggerating, consider the parallel cases. This misuse of speech is not present there. Consider if we were discussing the morality of ending the life of Lee Malvo or Terri Schiavo. We would still properly call them ?human beings.? A reasonable man could give an argument as to why our laws might not protect their lives. The general argument in the case of abortion is that the mother?s duty of care and protection does not obtain until and unless the infant develops to a certain stage, or has certain recognizable human characteristics, such as, for example, brain action. It is an argument about when killing a human being is allowable. In this respect, it is no different from the argument about euthanasia or the death penalty for minors. The three arguments would be something like this: 1. Lee Malvo is a human being who should die, despite his youth, because he slew (killed wantonly in great number) his fellow human beings. His right is forfeit. 2. Terri Schiavo is a human being who should die because she lacks the brain action necessary for the enjoyment and exercise of human life. The right has lapsed due to laches (nonuse). 3. The son or daughter of ?Sue? should die because the brain action necessary for the enjoyment and exercise of human life has not yet developed (an argument parallel to that of Mrs. Schiavo). The right does not yet obtain. The death penalty advocate or the euthanasia advocate do not flinch at saying the first two sentences. But this third sentence is something from which the abortion advocate recoils as the pious recoil from blasphemy. Consider the linguistic difficulty of adopting the euphemisms of the abortion advocate. They must strain to make their language unclear. But since reality is coherent, they are forced, step by step, to become increasingly vague in speech on related topics, in order to maintain that first euphemism. They will say the child is not alive because it is not yet born, and yet they cannot say it is dead either: so it is neither alive nor not-alive. They must employ a circumlocution like saying ?end the pregnancy.? They cannot call it a child, but must use some more neutral term, like ?mass of cells.? Or they might use a word that refers to a stage of the child?s development, like ?embryo? or ?fetus?, but they can not admit what entity is in that stage of development, or even that there is a development going on, because this would admit the developing object is alive. This particular euphemism, referring to a stage of development while dying the existence of the thing being developed, is about as honest as the time, when I was a kid, my Mom told me I could no longer play in the Higginson?s house. When I was caught disobeying, I explained that I wasn?t in their house, I had been in their attic. A fetus is an undeveloped child, not an undeveloped not-quite-anything. The Higginson?s attic does not hang unsupported two stories above the street. Likewise, they cannot call the pregnant person a ?mother? because that would raise the embarrassing question as to how this strange creature, a reverse of the Virgin Mary, can be a mother without having a child. In reality, the child is either male (XY) or female (XX). In reality, any child organism is a member of the species of both its parents: such as, ducklings of ducks, foxcubs of foxes. Now, the unborn infant has a sex, but, according to our abortion advocate terminology, it is not a human being and is not alive. But if it cannot be a human, and it cannot be an infant, then it cannot be a boy (an infant male human). The awkward terminology requires us to say that the creature is male, but we cannot admit he is a boy. We are required to say creature has a species (for it is the outcome of sexual reproduction), but it is neither a fox nor a duck nor any other species; yet we cannot admit he is a human. I can understand how one could make the argument that an organism can be simple at one stage and develop the outer characteristics typical of its species later. I cannot understand, logically, how one can make the argument that an organism can be not a member of its own species at one stage and develop membership in its species later. Membership in a species is itself the quality that directs the stages of development; it is not a developed characteristic. All this verbal and intellectual confusion leads our poor abortion advocate into to a broader inability to see the chain of cause and effect that lead to and from the pregnancy under discussion. For them, the pregnancy ?just happens.? In the world of the abortion advocate, the interests of the father in saving his son or daughter from ?termination? cannot be raised nor addressed. Fathers?blank out?there is no such entity. Pregnancies ?just happen.? Since it is a world without duty and without responsibility, the role of fatherhood itself must be blanked out, made unmentionable, like an un-person of 1984. Pregnancies arise out of nothing and happening for no reason, imposing no duties on anyone, and raising no serious moral questions: you may keep or kill the child as your whim takes you, like preferring white wine to red. The risk of sterilization from abortion is not mentioned. The haunting regret in later years of having killed a child are not mentioned. Ah! It must be pleasant indeed to live in the land of the Lotus-eaters! I expect those of you who think morality is a matter of maximizing survival chances to jump in here on my side at any minute. Abortion, as a way of life, is not an inheritable characteristic, is it? It wipes out a segment of the next generation. Population levels are already below replacement in societies that practice it. It is a self-eliminating meme. In the world with no responsibility, among those whose ?moral code? consists of denying that the idea of duty exists, there still somehow seems to be one duty: the commandment to obey the speech code. To pretend a child is not a child is simply a false statement: a lie. Their one commandment reads: Thou Shalt Indeed Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor. My code consists of identifying what I ought to do, whether I?d like it or not. Their code consists of identifying what you?d like to do, whether you ought or not. But if I do not like to obey their speech code, on what ground do they say I ought? I admit that Epicureanism is nobler than Hedonism: to be an Epicurean, you have to correctly identify your long-term self interests, and delay your gratifications. If you were as rigorous in your logic as Hobbes or Ayn Rand, you could end up displaying at least the degree of self-command that their systems require: and the majority of the cases, your moral code would give you serviceable answers. You would live as befits a man who fears more than anything else violent death at the hands of others, or as befits a rational and productive hero. Your system has self-interest only, not duty: and the only cost is that you will end up supporting tyranny in the first case, and callous selfishness in the second. If an Epicurean can show me it is in my rational self-interest to lie, I might be curious about the cleverness with which such and argument is fitted together with axiom and conclusion. But my rational self-interest is not the paramount value in my moral code: honesty is. A philosopher must make something like the heroic choice of Achilles, in this case, to prefer an honest life to a long one. To the Hedonist I make a briefer answer: it is certainly not my pleasure to put your lie in my mouth. If that is the price of admission to a discussion on the topic, I humbly decline. Those of you who dismiss the concept of duty from your moral calculations, please note that duty is merely the obverse of right. If you have a right to free speech, for example, then I have a duty to tolerate it, like it or no. But if my toleration is merely a matter of my pleasure or my self-interest, in cases where it does not please me to allow you speak, or is not serviceable to me in the long term, then I can silence you with impunity. The reason why I speak of duty rather than right in this case is that the so-called right of the unborn to live seems to me to be a highly abstract and doubtful argument, and it is not clear when that right vests. No baby has the visible characteristics of the human race, speech, upright stance, use of fire, use of tools. As for brain activity, my cat is smarter than my newborn, and so if rights were based on brainpower, my cat would have a better claim than my son. My duty as a father to care for my son, however, clearly vests from the moment my son exists, developed or not, human or not. To care for my son means to see to it that he makes it safely to adulthood, armed and ready to march into the battle of life. If it is my job to see to it that he is physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight by Friday, then I cannot kill him on Monday even if his brain activity does not develop until Tuesday. Enough with debating. Instead, let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, my beloved and darling wife, the most beautiful woman in the world, was pregnant with my first child. At this time, I was not a Christian. I was a Stoic, a follower of Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus. (I mention this only because if any of you are tempted to substitute sneering at my faith for answering the questions I raise, such behavior, never relevant, would be even more irrelevant now.) The doctors advised me to abort him because their test showed he would be born with severe birth defects, perhaps brain-dead at birth. During the pregnancy, my wife took steps to see to it that his health would be looked after: without going into details, I will report only that these steps were tedious and painful to her. In other words, when he was a ?mere mass of cells? she treated my son with care and love. Like most parents, we named the child before he was born. Like most mothers, friends and even strangers wanted to touch her belly, the share the joy of the miracle taking place then. Oddly enough, not even one person asked to touch her belly to feel the ?fetus? kick. At one point during the birth, the child posed a direct threat to the life and health of the mother. My wife instructed me to tell the doctors that, should the choice come down to it, I was to kill her and save the child. Fortunately, the skill of the doctors delivered the boy after a caesarian-section: he was rushed to the intensive care ward, where he stayed for several days. He lived. I named him after his father. He is a perfectly healthy six year old at the time of this writing. Yesterday he and his brothers ran with me in circles on our lawn, under the sunshine, until we collapsed with laughter. He lived. He is in perfect health. Please note the several moral choices which I actually faced, which are here being discussed with so little honesty and seriousness. At no point did I allow sentimentality or self-interest to make my decision: I did what I did because it is a father?s duty to protect his son. In situations where there was a conflict of duty, such as a threat to the life of my beloved wife (whom I love more than life itself) honor required me to ceded to her wishes, a sacrifice she was prepared to make, but from which fate spared her. I tell this story only to emphasize one point: if the mother?s duty to care for and protect her child only obtains after birth, then all pre-natal care is not a requirement. Let me emphasize this again. The sacrifices and risks my beloved wife took for my beloved son began before his birth, and he would have died had she not suffered those sacrifices and those risks. Your code says mommy should only love and care for baby at birth, not before. Therefore, by your code, not only is my wife allowed to neglect her child before birth, she can wound and even kill him, and this killing is protected by you and yours as a matter of sacred right. Your code says my child had no right to live. Your code says my wife had no duty to care for him before his birth. No law protected him: even up to the moment his head cleared the cervix, he could be killed with impunity in this land, at this time, thanks to your code. His skull could be punctured with scissors, his brains vacuumed out, his wee little legs and arms clipped from his still-warm body, and the dismembered bits of flesh and bone pulled from his mommy?s womb by forceps. This is what your code and your laws allow. My baby lived. If the golden days of joy I have had with him were emeralds, my treasure would rise as high as Everest, and all the wealth of El Dorado would be the pauper?s mite to me. Had I heeded arguments like yours, all that would have been lost. All that and more. My code won, at least that once. Despite your code, despite whatever sick thrill you loyal partisans of death get out of promoting the death of babies as a way of life, mine did not die. He lived. I am content with that. JCW From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 18 23:09:13 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was-AChilling Thought. In-Reply-To: <0b5601c55b79$b7d77b90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050518230913.84326.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > I want to give The Avantguardian a chance to plug > therapeutic cloning > if he wants too. But if he doesn't want to and you > are interested I > will. I have been tied up in meat space of late, but I have been drafting an essay entitled "Why Threapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and not Murder". As a testament to your prescience, both you and Mike have been able to anticipate many of the arguments I raise. In any case, do not let my temporary absense hold up the discussion. I will post the essay when I am done for feedback, but as I have been told before, posting pro-cloning opinions here are "preaching to the converted". Even Mike's biggest objection to therapeutic cloning seems to be that he will have to help pay for it. In light of this, I am spinning the essay toward "average christian folk". Any ways, take care. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu May 19 00:43:03 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:43:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics References: <20050518170048.5447.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007101c55c0b$b7ac5f90$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > If she demands the right to go so far as to kill the results of her > irresponsibility, then the equally irresponsible male involved should > have an equal right to participate in that decision (and equal weight > in the outcome). Those who want the responsibility pay 100% of the > bills and keep all parental rights. Those who don't are off the hook. What if she wasn't responsible (as in pregnancy by force)? What do you say then, Mike? Olga From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu May 19 01:24:03 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:24:03 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son References: <200505181924.j4IJORR11687@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <00ce01c55c11$7139f3f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> John C Wright wrote: > If there are further objections to the use of the word "child" once > it has been shown to be correct by the dictionary, I fear I have > not the patience to answer: because then we are merely discussing > emotion. I'd certainly object to the use of the word "child" if it was intended as a non perjorative term to describe the whole class of living human entities from fertilization to just before birth nine months later. Such a single classification could not be more biased or more misleading. Once born, alive and apparently healthy there is no question to my mind that a human infant can be fairly called a child. Going backwards in time before birth and especially into timeframes where our best technological efforts could not even potentially keep the developing human alive it gets increasing wrong to call that unborn human entity a child and it gets increasing perjorative to fair debate about the issues to do so. Some people will of course talk of unborn children because they do not have the terminology, morola, zygote, embryo, fetus (after 8 weeks), and for them I might make allowances as they are trying with the best tools they have. But if you are going to try and call everything from a single fertilized egg to a nine month old fetus a child AND pretend that you are using non perjorative language then I am inclined to want to tar and feature you and run you out of town for the scoundrel that you are. In the period between fertilization and nine months later the amount of structural change undergone by a developing human roughly tracks the amount of structural change experienced in the 3.5 billion years of life on earth. Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 19 01:30:39 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 18:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050519013040.43526.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > > If she demands the right to go so far as to kill the results of her > > irresponsibility, then the equally irresponsible male involved > should > > have an equal right to participate in that decision (and equal > weight > > in the outcome). Those who want the responsibility pay 100% of the > > bills and keep all parental rights. Those who don't are off the > hook. > > What if she wasn't responsible (as in pregnancy by force)? What do > you say then, Mike? Not being responsible is a definition of 'irresponsible'. The proper word you are looking for is non-consensual. That being the case, she can't be bound by a biological contract she did not cognizantly consent to. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu May 19 01:41:30 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:11:30 +0930 Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? In-Reply-To: <0b0c01c55b5b$71c27c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net> <01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin> <0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <0b0c01c55b5b$71c27c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <710b78fc050518184179e100a@mail.gmail.com> On 18/05/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 May 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > >> If a single AI could be constructed in that time period and protected > >> by a patent, then copied ad-infinitum, what effect do you imagine that > >> would have economically and geo-politically? > > > > Then there'd be an even better reason to get rid of > > software patents ;) > > I'm curious, do you really think that it would be a good thing to get rid of > software patents or to change the software patenting laws where you > work? > > I worked in the IT industry in Australia for something like 10 years but > I was a business manager rather than a programmer. > > I tend to see patent law as a potentially good thing but it has to strike > the right balance between creating incentives for people to be practical > and to innovate and not creating disincentives or other side effects that > produce a net or suboptimal social benefit. > > Its is of course always going to be possible to balance conflicting goods > suboptimally in particular laws, and technology and other things can > shift the optimal balance point over time. > > I know that Microsoft is often kicked about and has faced anti-trust > actions but I don't really know whether those that complain about > software patents generally are complaining because they see that the > balance in patent law is wrong in some area or whether it is just because > they personally want a different set of laws that in the short term would be > in their personal interest. > > I would like to hear from someone that knows what they are talking about > with respect to software patents and can make a reasoned case that the > existing law in their area is suboptimal and has got the balance wrong. > > It is possible that the software ip laws are suboptimal in some respects > but it is also possible that those that are complaining about it are not > looking at both sides of the quid pro quo that patents are supposed to > balance. > > A very good programmer that has other skills as well might want to have > some software patent laws so that they can create a path to wealth based > on their personal efforts and their merit. > > Brett Paatsch > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Sorry, I don't know enough about the laws to comment in a detailed legal respect. However, from the point of view of someone working in some very fast moving technical areas, I can tell you that software patents are way more trouble (to the industry) than they are worth. An important first point is to distinguish patents from copyright. Source code is subject to copyright, and distributable software is also subject to it too I think (in that, for example, you can't make an exact or close to exact replica of my software's user interface without infringing my copyright I think, or of my manuals, etc etc, although I'm not completely sure about that). So without getting into patents, I am reasonably protected by copyright law from someone just taking my software and onselling it as their own (creative commons licensing notwithstanding!). But patents let people protect entire methods of doing things, which is a whole different idea. With patents in the picture, I can stop people from doing something in the same way that I have done it. In isolation, this is of course attractive to business, but in aggregate it creates a minefield for developers to crawl through, always risking that something they are making is violating someone's patent because they have inadvertently used some technical or methodological approach which violates a patent. I get the impression that for large companies, this has lead to an arms race, where they gather as many patents to themselves as possible. This can be for malevolent purposes, or just as protection, hoping that if they violate someone's patent, they will then be able to find corresponding violations of their own patents to use as bargaining chips. I imaging that large war chests of patents allow large companies to come to mutually advantageous compromises in some circumstances, licensing various technologies to each other as needed. For small companies, however, which I believe are the driving engines of change in software, the environment is difficult and dangerous. Small companies can't have the war chest, and so can't play the legal game. Moreover, small companies can't even afford the reconnaisance, to discover whose toes they are treading on. So, in practice they have to develop away regardless, and cross their fingers with respect to patents. I think that many small companies do hit patent landmines and get taken out. The other result of the hostile legal environment is that people keep their products as closed up as possible; every possible avenue is taken to hide code, hide techniques, and generally make a product appear to work as a magic genie in a bottle, because you (hope that you) can't be sued for violation of a patent if no one can find out that you've violated it in the first place. So the system of patents contributes directly to the tightly closed software environment, and the clear inefficiencies and problems related to that (just ask any security expert). The killer with the patent system is that it demands behaviour at an individual level which is deleterious to the industry as a whole, and so ultimately deleterious to the invidual. I am positive that many large patent holders hold major portfolios not because they want them, but because not to hold the patents would be suicide in the hostile, low trust environment. After all that grumbling about patents, is there a good that balances the bad? Do they encourage innovation enough over and above that which would happen without them? I'd say it's pretty clearly not the case, if only by pointing out that there is a considerable history of pre-patent software development (or at least before there were enough patents to be a problem), and there is no evidence to show that innovation increased since patents were taken up. For most of the software industry, patents for the purpose of protecting your innovation aren't worth much anyway, because the industry moves so fast; grabbing a monopoly and sitting on it isn't going to serve you for long because the market will move away from you in short order; it's a moving target. If you don't believe my ranting, here's a good article I plucked out of the ether at random, saying that the system of patents is stifling innovation: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5342291.html In summary, the system of patents is damaging the software industry. Would I get a patent in an area of novel development for my own company? The costs of the process notwithstanding, I very well might, even though I believe they are bad, the same way that I might possibly travel armed in an environment of personal risk of violence, even though I believe that citizens going about armed in a civilian setting is a bad thing for the group. However, I'd understand fully the problems I was contributing to in that context. I believe that the regulators must remove the patent system in its entirety (though I don't think anyone is going to do it in a hurry). Copyright will more than suffice for protection. Actually, copyright needs some strong pruning too, but that's another story. But patent law just seems to have unintended consequences which lead to unforeseen outcomes far different to those intended. Of course it is supported by the people to happen to win in that environment, ie: big capital, whose winning and support is usually a sign of legislative failure imo. Emlyn From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu May 19 02:03:28 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:03:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics References: <20050519013040.43526.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000801c55c16$f35b73e0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" >> >> What if she wasn't responsible (as in pregnancy by force)? What do >> you say then, Mike? > > Not being responsible is a definition of 'irresponsible'. The proper > word you are looking for is non-consensual. That being the case, she > can't be bound by a biological contract she did not cognizantly consent > to. Ahaaaaaaaaaaa, so you say "OK" to abortion in some cases. (Oh, oh ... what's that ahead there? ... Why it appears to be a slippery slope!) Hmmm, and what if a mother's life may be in danger if she were to carry the embryo? And what if an eleven year old girl *consents* to sex and gets pregnant as a result? (and the father is only twelve or thirteen himself)? And what if the result of an amniocentesis found that the fetus had no brain? What would be the responsible thing to do? In [a] case of sextuplets, would it be responsible to maybe to take out a some of embryos so that the other four? - or three? - or five? - had a better chance to be healthy and/or survive? And in any and all cases ... who's going to be the judge, anyway? Olga From outlawpoet at gmail.com Thu May 19 02:25:36 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:25:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics In-Reply-To: <000801c55c16$f35b73e0$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20050519013040.43526.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000801c55c16$f35b73e0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <3ad827f3050518192557d3c2ae@mail.gmail.com> On 5/18/05, Olga Bourlin wrote: > Ahaaaaaaaaaaa, so you say "OK" to abortion in some cases. (Oh, oh ... > what's that ahead there? ... Why it appears to be a slippery slope!) Perhaps I missed something, but are you suggesting that Mr. Lorrey is against abortion in all cases and that this represents some kind of inconsistency? I could have sworn some pages back Mike clearly enunciated that he was a hunter, okay with death, and that he was in fact, simply advocating clear and honest admission of responsibility, and that the decisions be made with regard to what he calls contractual obligations. It's amusing to me, that Mike gets pushed into arguments so much on this list, and is almost always implicitly blamed for it. It's true that he tends to rant a bit on the Right side of things, when many here lean Left, but here, like so many cases, his Right-like speech is being twisted into some caricature of full on Republicanism, when he hasn't said anything of the kind. And no doubt Mr. Lorrey will angrily come back, adding details which may in themselves contain further fuel for the fire. In another amusingness, I have to point out that the term "slippery slope" actually enters modern politics from the american gun lobby, the NRA. I don't think this particular argument can really be applied to all situations. After all, if all points on any continous relationship are identical, we might as well give up trying to make any decisions in any situation. Mike is simply acknowledging that people may have to make a decision based on complicated input. It's unfortunate for political activists of all flavors, but not everything fits on a t-shirt. > And in any and all cases ... who's going to be the judge, anyway? I don't think it's best to just throw our hands up and decide that since something is complex, it should be broadly brushed in either direction for convenience's sake. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu May 19 03:52:55 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:52:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics References: <20050519013040.43526.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000801c55c16$f35b73e0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <3ad827f3050518192557d3c2ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002601c55c26$3eb04820$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "justin corwin" > On 5/18/05, Olga Bourlin wrote: >> Ahaaaaaaaaaaa, so you say "OK" to abortion in some cases. (Oh, oh ...>> >> what's that ahead there? ... Why it appears to be a slippery slope!)> >> > > Perhaps I missed something, but are you suggesting that Mr. Lorrey is > against abortion in all cases and that this represents some kind of > inconsistency? (Oooh, Mr. Lorrey, now, is it? Well, all right ...) Mr. Lorrey wrote: [From: "Mike Lorrey" I never said I did. I am entirely fine with aborting a fetus less than, say, two weeks old. It is incredibly hard for anyone to justify that is either an individual or with sensory capacity of any sort whatsoever. Iam increasingly less fine as the fetus ages.] > I could have sworn some pages back Mike clearly > enunciated that he was a hunter, okay with death ... And what does shooting birds or other animals (excepting humans) have to do with abortion as we've been discussing? >, and that he was in > fact, simply advocating clear and honest admission >of responsibility, > and that the decisions be made with regard to what he >calls> contractual obligations. Some people can't spell even spell at fourth grade level (the evidence is all over the Internet) ... much less be able to conceive of what contractual obligations may mean. Some people are coo coo. Some people are immature. Things happen. Being "responsible" is a subjective term in many cases. > It's amusing to me, that Mike gets pushed into arguments so much on > this list, and is almost always implicitly blamed for it. It's true > that he tends to rant a bit on the Right side of things, when many > here lean Left, but here, like so many cases, his Right-like speech is > being twisted into some caricature of full on Republicanism, when he > hasn't said anything of the kind. What? Mike gets *pushed* into arguments? Furthermore, Mike has been wrong before, and on issues that have nothing to do with right/left or Democraticism/Republicanism. > And no doubt Mr. Lorrey will angrily > come back, adding details which may in themselves contain further fuel for > the fire. OK, but why "angrily?" > In another amusingness, I have to point out that the term "slippery > slope" actually enters modern politics from the american gun lobby, > the NRA. I don't think this particular argument can really be applied > to all situations. After all, if all points on any continous > relationship are identical, we might as well give up trying to make > any decisions in any situation. Mike is simply acknowledging that > people may have to make a decision based on complicated input. Again, there are many "uncomplicated people" in the world - what are they going to do with complicated input? Until we can all benefit of "better living through chemistry" ... we will have to make do with what we have. >> And in any and all cases ... who's going to be the judge, anyway? > I don't think it's best to just throw our hands up and decide that > since something is complex, it should be broadly brushed in either > direction for convenience's sake. I didn't imply it should be broadly brushed aside. I'm just saying there are too many variants of situations and individuals - some freedom of choice ("right-to-choose") necessarily needs to be in place for individuals to make decisions. Somewhat like pornography - who's to say where it ends and where it begins? And who's to say there's anything wrong with it (as long as it is not breaking the laws as they stand at the present time)? People have tried to define what's "obscene" and what't not ... but not to much success. Therefore, we have choice. Olga From riel at surriel.com Thu May 19 04:04:37 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 00:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? In-Reply-To: <0b0c01c55b5b$71c27c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net><01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin><0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <0b0c01c55b5b$71c27c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 May 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > I tend to see patent law as a potentially good thing but it has to strike > the right balance between creating incentives for people to be practical > and to innovate and not creating disincentives or other side effects that > produce a net or suboptimal social benefit. Exactly how do you think software patents would encourage innovation ? In many (most?) companies, engineers are not allowed to look at patents, unless explicitly asked to do so by the people in the legal department. Also, software patents take a few years to get issued. Add two and two together, and you'll see that software patents are NOT a useful tool to get information on new innovations shared in the field of software engineering. Also, if you were to wait for the patent to be issued before bringing your invention to the market as a product, there is a good chance your product will be outdated before you get around to trying to sell it. A last issue to keep in mind is that you cannot build a useful piece of software that relies on just ONE idea or invention. Any moderately complex piece of software will rely on hundreds, if not thousands of ideas, many of which will have been patented by somebody else! In short, patents can only protect your idea, but not the actual product that your business is trying to make a living off. In fact, patents can endanger your product, and with 150,000 granted software patents in the US alone I don't think there's anything you can do to avoid potential infringement. This is why I believe that software patents hurt innovation, instead of stimulating it. Besides, a perfectly good legal mechanism exists that does protect your product without being any threat: copyright. -- "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 fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu May 19 04:39:56 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 21:39:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Neurology: A mirror to the world [autism tag] Message-ID: <428C189C.6050809@mindspring.com> Mirror neurons are discussed in V.S. Ramachandran's _A Brief Tour of Consciousness_; he discussed them in more detail here: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_index.html At this weekend's Skeptics Society conference, John Allman of Caltech gave a presentation on spindle cell neurons in certain parts of the brain, reduced in size and activity for autistic patients. -- Jim Lippard On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:28:39PM -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > < http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3960516 > > > Neurology > > A mirror to the world > May 12th 2005 > From The Economist print edition > > > > > > Empathy with others seems to be due to a type of brain cell called a > mirror neuron > > CHRISTIAN KEYSERS has a good way of making his point. He shows his > audience a clip from a James Bond movie in which a large, hairy spider > is climbing over our hero's naked body. He then asks the audience what > they think the actor playing Bond is feeling. -- "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 Thu May 19 04:51:58 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 23:51:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son In-Reply-To: <200505181924.j4IJORR11687@tick.javien.com> References: <200505181924.j4IJORR11687@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050518234008.01df3780@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:24 PM 5/18/2005 -0500, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: >even if one thought the unborn is not >alive at the moment, abortion deprives the infant of whatever life it >possesses, >the potential life it would have otherwise had. >...Even those who use the awkward terminology of saying the >unborn infant is not "alive at the moment" would have to admit the infant >has a >legal interest in the life into which it will come into possession Only an imbecile would make the mistake of claiming that a foetus (or a germinal cell, for that matter) is not alive. The salient claim, repeatedly presented on this list, is that human blastocysts, embryos and foetuses, while perfectly obviously alive and human, are not *persons*. There is no justified claim on life until the foetus has passed through a sufficient number of developmental stages that it can sustain its life, and the beginnings of its personhood, outside the womb. It's understandable, then, that Brett would find himself goaded by this kind of preposterous misrepresentation to comment "But if you are going to try and call everything from a single fertilized egg to a nine month old fetus a child AND pretend that you are using non perjorative language then I am inclined to want to tar and [feather] you and run you out of town for the scoundrel that you are." >Despite your code, despite whatever sick thrill >you loyal partisans of death get out of promoting the death of babies as a way >of life This comment was helpful, a real clincher. I don't think I've ever seen any writer self-destruct so comprehensively by abusing readers who, by and large, championed his work with great enthusiasm. (See the favorable archived discussions of John Wright's GOLDEN trilogy.) Well, Truman Capote managed it, but he was abusing socialites while wanting to hang out with them. Damien Broderick From humania at t-online.de Thu May 19 05:32:25 2005 From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 07:32:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son References: <200505181924.j4IJORR11687@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050518234008.01df3780@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c55c34$2704d4d0$5b91fea9@maniaugal3qk6z> I am happy, Damien and Brett did the job this time, so I could spare you and me an objection against this ridiculous pamphlet. Thanx, humania From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu May 19 07:25:10 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:25:10 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics --- Link to the Virtual Human Embryo site References: <20050518154711.97087.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <020b01c55c43$e40675c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> From: "Mike Lorrey" [Mike you have written a lot in your post and I can't address all of it in one go so I'll split it up] >> > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> ... in political terms the stem cell debate often gets >> conflated with the abortion debate. Some of the issues are similar >> but to me embryonic stem cell research is a far easier moral call >> than abortion. I thought that you might have had reservations about >> deriving embryonic stem cells from embryos and destroying their >> potential in the process. >> >> I think that it would be possible to show you that it is in your >> personal interest to support embryonic stem cell research and > >therapeutic cloning with public funds. You and people close to > >you are likely to be personally effected by how well and how soon >> embryonic stem cell research gets moving. >> >> In my opinion, interested laypeople do not get very good >> information on *why* embryonic stem cell research and the >> funding of it matters. > > This is partly because both sides of the debate tend to exaggerate > their claims, particularly the pro-choice side, about how long a fetus > remains a 'clump of cells'. Here's a site that you should find useful so that you can see for yourself. It show embryos at various stages of development up until day 56. Day 56 or the end of week eight, (on average) is the end of the embryonic period and the start of the fetal period. http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/HEIRLOOM/Stages/HEP_StagesFS.htm When talking about embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning in all its conceivable near term medical applications it is ENTIRELY true and appropriate to talk in terms of "clumps of cells" because that is ALL that is involved scientifically. That is NOT the case (scientifically) when we are talking about abortion (that's abortion generally - early stage and natural abortions of course might amount to no more than clumps of cells, one of the ways in which contraceptive pills work is that they prevent implantation of an embryo into the lining of the uteris). ALL embryonic stem cell lines available for research in the western world today are derived from embryos that were left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) processes. Any embryo that is older than 14 days is too old to be of any practical use for embryonic stem cell research and so embryonic stem cell researcher have no interest in them. They are too far gone down the developmental pathway towards cellular specialisation at that stage to be relevent. Up until the 14 day mark an embryo can still potentially (in nature or the clinic -its not done in the clinic but is done with pedigree cattle sometimes) split into two embryos and so go on to form two identical twins. The clump of cells is that unspecific and that undeveloped up until that stage. For research that unspecificness and undevelopedness is exactly why the cells are interesting. Researchers want the base material to use to learn how to direct its development into different sorts of tissue. When therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer is done and it will be done soon by Ian Wilmut the Dolly Cloner and others, it will be done to produce lines of cells (also embryonic stem cells but not from embryos left over from IVF) that contain genes that are known to be from people that have certain diseases. Having the disease in cell and learning how to developing it into its tissue form will make it easier to learn about those sorts of diseases and so perhaps to better fight those sorts of diseases perhaps with drugs. With abortion, obviously, depending on when the abortion takes place in the development of the embryo or the fetus it is NOT necessarily the case that all that is involved is a "clump of cells". Brett Paatsch From scerir at libero.it Thu May 19 08:37:09 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:37:09 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son References: <200505181924.j4IJORR11687@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050518234008.01df3780@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c55c4d$f2cff7c0$eeb21b97@administxl09yj> > .... are not *persons*. It seems that 'person' (Latin: 'persona') comes from 'phersu' (Etruscan) which means mask, actor, dancer, even priest, etc. A painting of the dancing Phersu is here http://www.phersu.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 19 13:59:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 06:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050519135907.96500.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > >> > >> What if she wasn't responsible (as in pregnancy by force)? What > do > >> you say then, Mike? > > > > Not being responsible is a definition of 'irresponsible'. The > > proper word you are looking for is non-consensual. That being > > the case, she can't be bound by a biological contract she did > > not cognizantly consent to. > > Ahaaaaaaaaaaa, so you say "OK" to abortion in some cases. (Oh, oh > ... what's that ahead there? ... Why it appears to be a slippery > slope!) One wonders how rape of a woman is a crime, but her aborting the product of that crime in any way is more moral. Does killing the son properly punish the father? Since when do moral relativists such as yourself visit punishment on children for the sins of the parents? What is that I see? A wholly different slippery slope.... ;) > > Hmmm, and what if a mother's life may be in danger if she were to > carry the embryo? A woman who values her own life more than that of her child will be worthless as a mother. > > And what if an eleven year old girl *consents* to sex and gets > pregnant as a result? (and the father is only twelve or thirteen > himself)? Many such couples have raised fine children. > > And what if the result of an amniocentesis found that the fetus had > no brain? What would be the responsible thing to do? Do you mean the child was conceived as a Democrat, or a post-modernist? The first thing I'd do is get a second opinion. Then I'd start reading it Ayn Rand in the womb. There is still a chance that nurture will overcome nature.... > > In [a] case of sextuplets, would it be responsible to maybe to take > out a some of embryos so that the other four? - or three? - or > five? - had a better chance to be healthy and/or survive? No. How are you going to decide which ones live or die? > > And in any and all cases ... who's going to be the judge, anyway? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 19 14:26:15 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 07:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics --- Link to the Virtual Human Embryo site In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050519142615.85272.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > [Mike you have written a lot in your post and I can't address > all of it in one go so I'll split it up] > When talking about embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic > cloning in all its conceivable near term medical applications it is > ENTIRELY true and appropriate to talk in terms of "clumps of cells" > because that is ALL that is involved scientifically. The problem is the term 'clump of cells' is not a scientific term, it is a popular term of vernacular. Thus its vernacular definition should be used. Generally, such a term refers to either randomly sorted or undifferentiated cells, or a small group of similarly differentiated cells from a larger organ. A drop of blood is a 'clump of cells'. A fingernail or hair is 'a clump of cells', etc. The use of the phrase by pro-abortionists is entirely to soft pedal what a fetus is by minimizing its importance or distinctiveness. To paraphrase you: using such language is perjorative and deserving of tar and feathering, when used to describe a fetus that has moved beyond cell differentiation and particularly when it has started developing its nervous system. Now, I likely kill more brain cells when I sneeze than a fetus has in the first few weeks of its neural development. This being so, and despite Olga's broad brush, black and white tarring and feathering, I don't ascribe 100% personhood to a fetus at this stage. As I said previously which Olga and you have ignored, my concern *increases* as the fetus gets older. Lets say we loosely say that this concern starts at two weeks and reaches 100% at six months. This gives us approximately 24 weeks, so lets say each week after two weeks we give the fetus 2% additional personhood. Now, we know that some people are capable of functioning in life on one hemisphere, don't we? So we could say that half a brain is half a person but still deserving of life. Do we therefore start being very concerned when the fetus has reached the 50% point? Or, given that cellular reproduction is something of an exponential process, should we use a log scale of some sort? Now, discussion about the growth of the outer cortex of the brain seems to be the final establishment of personhood. The problem with claiming that this is the only threshold that matters is that it asserts that anything the mother does interactively before that point has zero impact on the child: playing music, reading, etc. which I think contradicts the claims of most mothers. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 19 14:27:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 07:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050519142752.84751.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What did Etruscans call people who were not phersu, and what is the modern equivalent, if there is any? --- scerir wrote: > > .... are not *persons*. > > It seems that 'person' (Latin: 'persona') > comes from 'phersu' (Etruscan) which means > mask, actor, dancer, even priest, etc. > A painting of the dancing Phersu is here > http://www.phersu.org/ Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu May 19 14:59:17 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 00:59:17 +1000 Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was-AChillingThought. References: <20050518154711.97087.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <029c01c55c83$542fb110$6e2a2dcb@homepc> From: "Mike Lorrey" > I think theraputic cloning is fine, *for me*. I would be happy to > help plug it. Well, your provisional willingness is a start. But I'm not sure if you understood what I meant by "plug it". I meant take action in the real world with a view to influencing and changing policy by influencing and changing the views of voters and politicians. To be persuasive on an issue like this that is very controversial you'd have to be or become pretty knowledgeable so you can share your knowledge with others. The way to plug therapeutic cloning is not to browbeat people but to engage them in conversation and to inform them of facts that they may not currently know and that might once they are known cause them to re-evaluate their moral positions to take account of those facts. Having a good understanding of biotechnology, which is the interface between the life sciences and commerce could give a person a good knowledge base from which to educate others. >I don't think that is the debate here. The debate is whether > others can be forced at gunpoint to pay for something they > may not use, will enjoy no profit from the investment, and > morally regard as manslaughter or murder. Whether others "can" be, or whether others "ought" be? Are you making an argument about morality or about capacity? I suspect that you intend to make a moral argument but I'd like to be clearer on what you mean. >If you are going to seek to use the gun of the state to fund your > research bandwagon, you need to be prepared for those you > intend to rob to use the same tool to tell you "hell no". I am not interested in robbing people with a gun I am interested in persuading them with arguments about public policy. > If you are not willing to accept those risks and/or outcomes, > you shouldn't engage in that game. Whining about it is poor > sportsmanship, to say the least. Do you think I am whining? [This next section is about abortion not stem cell politics, I'm leaving it here so you know where to look for it but if you want to continue this part of the conversation can you please separate it from the Stem Cell politics thread and put it in an abortion thread] >> >I am entirely fine with aborting a fetus less than, >> > say, two weeks old. It is incredibly hard for anyone to justify >> that is >> > either an individual or with sensory capacity of any sort >> whatsoever. I >> > am increasingly less fine as the fetus ages. >> >> Okay but you spoke of three entities as having rights to choose, the >> mother, the father and the child. >> >> Up until two weeks is it your view that only the woman should have >> the right to decide? In practice I think it would be hard to enforce >> much else. The embryo has not brain to have an interest and the >> male quite possibly might not even know that he was a potential >> father. > > Up until two weeks, both the father and mother have a right to choose, > IMHO generally clear of obligations to the fetus. As the fetus gets > older, both have an increasing obligation to the fetus. While it would > be hard to enforce if a woman is intent on subterfuge, but such a woman > is going to have bad relationships to begin with given she is > untrustworthy and manipulative. (Aside: I hope that, as a result of checking for yourself the link that http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/HEIRLOOM/Stages/HEP_StagesFS.htm up until two weeks, (14 days), we are talking about an embryo not a fetus. The distinction matters because a fetus has far more structure and development than an embryo.) Its also very small at less than 0.2 millimetres in diametre (see the 17 days example at Stage 6). By looking at that example I think you can see how Amara must be right when she said " *Some* women know very soon when something has changed in their body. Many women do not know, until the next MONTH (at least), that they are pregnant. " >> > This is the real problem. The right to a pursuit of happiness does >> not include the right to feel pleasant, or even less unpleasant, at the >> > expense of others rights or existences. >> >> I agree that no constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness >> amounts to that. But I still don't get what you are referring to >> as the real problem. > > The real problem is that pro-abortionists base their demands upon their > 'right to feel less unpleasant', their right to not be inconvenienced > by a child. Except in cases of rape, the woman and man got into that > situation in the pursuit of happiness.... you don't get to avoid the > hangover of your pleasures. Perhaps *some* pro-abortionists do. If so I would not agree with them that there is a *right* to feel less unpleasant either. Such a notion of rights would be poorly grounded imo. >> Do you want to give an unborn independent legal child rights? Perhaps >> that is not a bad idea, such rights do not need to be the equivalent >> to the rights of a full citizen, but at what stage of its >> development? > > I'm not a contractualist like you might be. Actually I do not think of myself as a contractualist. That is not a term I can remember hearing before so its not negatively loaded for me, and it might be an okay one word stereotype of my standpoint. > I recognise the > preexistence of a natural right to live that takes on increasing > prominence with the age of the fetus. I think rights only arise in a social context. There would have to be a God for me to think there were natural rights. Nature isn't an agent. This doesn't mean that I couldn't agree in a social context to grant some rights to embryos or other forms of living things like animals etc, but it does mean that I have to balance the books such that there can be no rights that are not underwritten in principle by reciprocal responsibilities accepted. I wonder to whom a person like you would appeal for the upholding of a natural right if no one else thought you had that right? Would it be G/god? I think that with but one other willing person I can create rights (and responsibilities) that did not previously exist. This is where your characterisation of me as a contractualist isn't too bad. > Is the actual life of the mother more important? Of course it is. Agreed. > Is her convenience or career goal more important? Definitely not. Probably not. > At what age does the fetus's right to live override the convenience > or plans of the mother? I am almost positive it doesn't happen at > two weeks. I know for a fact that it has happened by six months. Agree and tend to agree. For me what rights the six month fetus has is a matter of law. But what the law could be in future always remains a matter of negotiation. > It is up to honest and objective science, coupled with > an objective and ethical philosophy, to decide where the hair gets > split in between those two points, and any grey area should be decided > on the side of life. If you take a look at the link I provided I think you'll see that the amount of development between 2 weeks and 6 months isn't a hair split. Actually I'm not sure that there is a picture there of a six month old fetus, a 56 day old embryo is the most developed I saw there. > Honesty and openness with all parties is all I ask. If DNA checking of > such a young fetus is impossible, and the woman is so promiscuous as to > not know (i.e. multiple partners per day), it is likely a good choice > if she chooses to abort early. I doubt her partners are looking for the > responsibility either. I respect your desire for honest and openness. But I think you have to be practical too. It is not possible to have a set of laws or rules to govern every possible contingency sometimes we have to make do with guidelines and leave some discretion to the relevant parties involved. In fact leaving as much discretion as possible to the relevant parties involves where there is not very good reason to override that discretion is a pretty libertarian outlook and I have a lot of sympathy for that. > Honesty and openness versus manipulation and skulduggery. Nice principles. But they don't amount to practical policy. >> > c) if a man does not want an abortion, and the mother does, she >> must >> > either compense him the cost of a surrogate pregnancy, or have the >> > child, and relenquish it to the father in exchange for fair expense >> for >> > the term of pregnancy. When the father pays the bills, the mother >> > permanently relenquishes all rights and obligations. >> >> The principle is not unreasonable but to implement it would be >> complicated as the womans health is intimately linked to the health >> of the unborn child or fetus. > > Quite so. This would obviously be solved when a fetus can be > transferred to the male... I'm not touching that. [This section seems to be about your views on tax, and why you shouldn't have to pay it, and what the various organs of the state are. This also should be a separate thread ] >> You seem to be equating taxing you with the crime of theft. You are >> calling the state "criminals and accessories to death", but "the >> state" makes the law. The state is not just the executive >> government. > > You are right, it is the legislature that ignores the will of the > people and authorizes the theft, it is the courts that legislate from > the bench to fit their own agendas, and it is the Constitution that all > three ignore as much as they are permitted to get away with by the > citizenry. I don't buy this. I don't know that you know what the real role of the judiciary is. Its not obvious that you do from what you say here. > Let us look at a few things in that document: > > Article 1 Section 9: > "No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in proportion > to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Okay, I'll take your word for this much. > The Federal gov't can't constitutionally issue a tax bill to a citizen > directly, they must always collect from the states, or through > corporate person enterprises in direct federal jurisdiction (in federal > territories or engaged in international trade). They must tax > 'sources', which, given the next section, can only be on federal > territories, or american owned enterprises or investments in foreign > lands, or foreigners doing business in the several states. This sound like you giving a legal opinon. Why should I trust that your legal opinion is sound? > "No tax or duty shall be levied on articles exported from any state." Noted. > This means the $200 transfer tax on my machine gun is unconstitutional, > federal and state cigarette duties are illegal, alcohol duties are > illegal (if these are produced in one of the several states), gas taxes > are illegal on gas refined in the US. Again this is you giving legal opinion. It does not necessarily follow from the material you show me. > You might say, "ah, the 16th Amendment changed that". Wrong, > the SCOTUS has ruled that the 16th created no new tax or tax > power/authority. > > I, a private sovereign citizen domiciled in my freehold in one of the > several states, doing no business for gain in a federal territory or > foreign nation, do not have 'income'. I do earn a living. You figure > out the difference. > > Mike Lorrey It would be crazy for me to take on blind faith that your legal opinions are valid Mike without doing a lot of work to check them out. Its possible that some of the terms you use like "sovereign", "domiciled" "income", "sources" just to name a few have special meaning within the legal structure you are operating in and that you don't have the legal skills to tease out that special meaning. Please do not misunderstand. I am not a lawyer either. I think it is good that you try to understand what legal documents mean but if you are going to try and persuade me using them you'll have to have either a lot of skill to excerpt the right bits or you'll have to find a strong reason for me to care enough to do the research myself. Is it possible that you are being taxed in a manner that is not constitutional? For all I know it is possible. Is it likely? No. More to the point even if you are being taxed under laws that are invalid what would be the political consequences of succeeding in making that case in the relevant court? Wouldn't it be that the laws or the constitution would just be changed? Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu May 19 15:25:21 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 01:25:21 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics --- Link to the VirtualHuman Embryo site References: <20050519142615.85272.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02af01c55c86$f86be200$6e2a2dcb@homepc> From: "Mike Lorrey" >> When talking about embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic >> cloning in all its conceivable near term medical applications it is >> ENTIRELY true and appropriate to talk in terms of "clumps of cells" >> because that is ALL that is involved scientifically. > > The problem is the term 'clump of cells' is not a scientific term, it > is a popular term of vernacular. Its not meant to be a scientific term its meant to be a description. Whether the description is accurate or not is a matter of what is being referred to. It would be misleading to describe a fetus as a lump of cells (as the link I gave you should make clear) but its not misleading to describe the embryo at the stage that embryonic stem cells are extracted from it as a clump of cells as that is pretty much all it is. About 150 cells of so about 30 of which make up the inner cell mass. > Thus its vernacular definition should > be used. Huh? What do you mean its "vernacular definition" isn't that an oxymoron? > Generally, such a term refers to either randomly sorted or > undifferentiated cells, or a small group of similarly differentiated > cells from a larger organ. A drop of blood is a 'clump of cells'. A > fingernail or hair is 'a clump of cells', etc. The use of the phrase > by pro-abortionists is entirely to soft pedal what a fetus is by > minimizing its importance or distinctiveness. I am not disputing for one moment that terminology can be used to mislead people by people on both sides of any of these controversial debates. My point is to make the science better known, then the terminology matters less as understanding is greater. > To paraphrase you: using such language is perjorative and deserving of > tar and feathering, when used to describe a fetus that has moved beyond > cell differentiation and particularly when it has started developing > its nervous system. My objection to John C Wright was proportionately higher than it otherwise would have been had he not been pretending to make a virtual of using non perjorative terms whist in fact using them himself. > Now, I likely kill more brain cells when I sneeze than a fetus has in > the first few weeks of its neural development. > This being so, and > despite Olga's broad brush, black and white tarring and feathering, I > don't ascribe 100% personhood to a fetus at this stage. > > As I said previously which Olga and you have ignored, my concern > *increases* as the fetus gets older. I didn't ignore it, you posted this before I sent the rest of the reply. > Lets say we loosely say that this > concern starts at two weeks and reaches 100% at six months. This gives > us approximately 24 weeks, so lets say each week after two weeks we > give the fetus 2% additional personhood. > > Now, we know that some people are capable of functioning in life on one > hemisphere, don't we? So we could say that half a brain is half a > person but still deserving of life. Do we therefore start being very > concerned when the fetus has reached the 50% point? Or, given that > cellular reproduction is something of an exponential process, should we > use a log scale of some sort? > > Now, discussion about the growth of the outer cortex of the brain seems > to be the final establishment of personhood. The problem with claiming > that this is the only threshold that matters is that it asserts that > anything the mother does interactively before that point has zero > impact on the child: playing music, reading, etc. which I think > contradicts the claims of most mothers. As a way of thinking about the problem this has some potential merit. In some of the specifics there are problems but I can't get into this any more tonight. Brett Paatsch From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 19 15:42:01 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:42:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] New domain names Message-ID: <212380-22005541915421969@M2W034.mail2web.com> Does anyone have a finger on the pulse of what new domain names will be rolled out and eta? Thanks, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 19 15:52:21 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:52:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics Message-ID: <205930-220055419155221371@M2W039.mail2web.com> From: Mike Lorrey >A woman who values her own life more than that of her child will be >worthless as a mother. 1. A woman who has an abortion because her own life is in danger is protecting her life. She is not valuing her life about a child, as the child has not been born and no one knows if the cells will complete their formation and evolve into a child. The child is a future being, not the current state of being. 2. A woman who values her life first, and her child second is being responsible. If a woman values her child more than herself, she will not be able to provide a stable environment for the child. She must come first in order to be a "mother." By coming first, she is proactively creating the best possible situation in order to fully provide the care, nuturing, and protection that the child needs in order to be healthy. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 19 17:58:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal: was-AChillingThought. In-Reply-To: <029c01c55c83$542fb110$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050519175806.60690.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > But I'm not sure if you understood what I meant by "plug it". I > meant take action in the real world with a view to influencing > and changing policy by influencing and changing the views of > voters and politicians. To be persuasive on an issue like this > that is very controversial you'd have to be or become pretty > knowledgeable so you can share your knowledge with others. > The way to plug therapeutic cloning is not to browbeat people > but to engage them in conversation and to inform them of facts > that they may not currently know and that might once they are > known cause them to re-evaluate their moral positions to take > account of those facts. > > Having a good understanding of biotechnology, which is the > interface between the life sciences and commerce could give a > person a good knowledge base from which to educate others. As you might be aware, I'm already rather involved politically. I already plug the right to clone, the right to GE, as corollaries of the rights to reproduce, self-determine, and pursue happiness. > > > >I don't think that is the debate here. The debate is whether > > others can be forced at gunpoint to pay for something they > > may not use, will enjoy no profit from the investment, and > > morally regard as manslaughter or murder. > > Whether others "can" be, or whether others "ought" be? Are > you making an argument about morality or about capacity? > I suspect that you intend to make a moral argument but I'd > like to be clearer on what you mean. I speak on both a moral and a legal basis. There are clearly defined limits as to what sort of laws congress is authorized to pass and what congress is authorized to spend money on (See US v Lopez, US v Stewart (9th Circuit), for some choice examples). Last time I checked, subsidizing the intentional mass slaying of millions of innocents with no national security objective was clearly not part of the US Constitution's authorized congressional powers. Even if taxing income and/or earnings were legal and constitutional, spending those taxes on subsidizing abortion or the destruction of human blastocysts/embryos for medical research clearly is not. > > >If you are going to seek to use the gun of the state to fund your > > research bandwagon, you need to be prepared for those you > > intend to rob to use the same tool to tell you "hell no". > > I am not interested in robbing people with a gun I am interested > in persuading them with arguments about public policy. If you want to pursuade taxpayers, voters, or elected representatives to pay for such research with public funds, you are interested in robbing people with a gun. It may not be your gun, and you may not be doing the robbing, but you are certainly asking that someone do some robbing with a gun. If it were a mob boss or drug gang leader you were going to, your actions would constitute conspiracy to commit larceny. > > (Aside: I hope that, as a result of checking for yourself the link > that > http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/HEIRLOOM/Stages/HEP_StagesFS.htm > up until two weeks, (14 days), we are talking about an embryo not a > fetus. > The distinction matters because a fetus has far more structure and > development > than an embryo.) Its also very small at less than 0.2 millimetres in > diametre (see the 17 days example at Stage 6). > > By looking at that example I think you can see how Amara must be > right when she said > > " *Some* women know very soon when something has changed in their > body. Many women do not know, until the next MONTH (at least), > that they are pregnant. " > > > The real problem is that pro-abortionists base their demands upon > > their 'right to feel less unpleasant', their right to not be > > inconvenienced by a child. Except in cases of rape, the woman > > and man got into that > > situation in the pursuit of happiness.... you don't get to avoid > > the hangover of your pleasures. > > Perhaps *some* pro-abortionists do. If so I would not agree with them > that there is a *right* to feel less unpleasant either. Such a notion > of rights would be poorly grounded imo. > > > > I'm not a contractualist like you might be. > > Actually I do not think of myself as a contractualist. That is not a > term I can remember hearing before so its not negatively loaded for > me, and it might be an okay one word stereotype of my standpoint. A contractualist believes that rights only exist as entities created by contracts between persons, rather than as a means of the natural capacities of the individual human animal. The social contract is one such. > > > I recognise the > > preexistence of a natural right to live that takes on increasing > > prominence with the age of the fetus. > > I think rights only arise in a social context. There would have to > be a > God for me to think there were natural rights. Nature isn't an agent. So you believe that unsigned and/or implied contracts (as in the social contract) are binding. Utter tyranny. Who gets to define that contract? There is no need for a god for there to be natural rights. Natural rights are a consequence of evolution, and therefore, objective truth as evinced by scientific fact and physical law. As all humans are the same evolved species, all humans possess the same natural rights. > This doesn't mean that I couldn't agree in a social context to grant > some rights to embryos or other forms of living things like animals > etc, > but it does mean that I have to balance the books such that there can > be no rights that are not underwritten in principle by reciprocal > responsibilities accepted. > > I wonder to whom a person like you would appeal for the upholding > of a natural right if no one else thought you had that right? Would > it be G/god? That a society denies the existence of my right does not negate its existence. I do not lose the ability to sail around the world if society believes it is flat. > I think that with but one other willing person I can create > rights (and responsibilities) that did not previously exist. This is > where your characterisation of me as a contractualist isn't too bad. > > > Is the actual life of the mother more important? Of course it is. > > Agreed. > > > Is her convenience or career goal more important? Definitely not. > > Probably not. > > > At what age does the fetus's right to live override the convenience > > or plans of the mother? I am almost positive it doesn't happen at > > two weeks. I know for a fact that it has happened by six months. > > Agree and tend to agree. For me what rights the six month fetus > has is a matter of law. But what the law could be in future always > remains a matter of negotiation. It shouldn't be, unless technology evolves faster or slower gestation times. Imagine the science fictiony concept of cloning bodies to physical maturation (biologically 16-18 years old). Is that clone not a person so long as it is in the artificial womb? > > > Honesty and openness with all parties is all I ask. If DNA checking > > of such a young fetus is impossible, and the woman is so > > promiscuous as to not know (i.e. multiple partners per day), it > > is likely a good choice > > if she chooses to abort early. I doubt her partners are looking for > > the responsibility either. > > I respect your desire for honest and openness. But I think you have > to be practical too. It is not possible to have a set of laws or > rules to govern every possible contingency sometimes we have to make > do with guidelines and leave some discretion to the relevant parties > involved. In fact leaving as much discretion as possible to the > relevant > parties involves where there is not very good reason to override > that discretion is a pretty libertarian outlook and I have a lot of > sympathy for that. Leaving this cool and loose for individuals to kill each other without legal exceptions, like self-defense, is not libertarian. > > > Honesty and openness versus manipulation and skulduggery. > > Nice principles. But they don't amount to practical policy. Intolerace of fraud is a practical legally recognised policy. > > > > [This section seems to be about your views on tax, and why you > shouldn't have to pay it, and what the various organs of the state > are. This also should be a separate thread ] > > > >> You seem to be equating taxing you with the crime of theft. You > are > >> calling the state "criminals and accessories to death", but "the > >> state" makes the law. The state is not just the executive > >> government. > > > > You are right, it is the legislature that ignores the will of the > > people and authorizes the theft, it is the courts that legislate > from > > the bench to fit their own agendas, and it is the Constitution that > all > > three ignore as much as they are permitted to get away with by the > > citizenry. > > I don't buy this. I don't know that you know what the real role of > the judiciary is. Its not obvious that you do from what you say > here. It is the role of the judiciary to judge the law for compliance with the original intent of the Constitution, then to judge those under those laws which pass muster by constitutional means. Those who take office do not swear allegiance to a flag, or to that government, they swear to protect and defend the constituion against all enemies, foreign and domestic. When they become an enemy, by violating the Constitution, they violate their oath of office. > > > > Let us look at a few things in that document: > > > > Article 1 Section 9: > > "No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in > proportion > > to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." > > Okay, I'll take your word for this much. > > > The Federal gov't can't constitutionally issue a tax bill to a > citizen > > directly, they must always collect from the states, or through > > corporate person enterprises in direct federal jurisdiction (in > federal > > territories or engaged in international trade). They must tax > > 'sources', which, given the next section, can only be on federal > > territories, or american owned enterprises or investments in > foreign > > lands, or foreigners doing business in the several states. > > This sound like you giving a legal opinon. Why should I trust that > your legal opinion is sound? The Constitution was written to be understood, not to be parsed and contorted by technobabble and mandarins on high. The concept of an American Bar Association was anathema to the founders, which is why the original 13th Amendment was passed and ratified and why the attorneys of the US, Canada, and Britain have tried so hard to rub out any record that it ever existed. > > > "No tax or duty shall be levied on articles exported from any > state." > > Noted. > > > This means the $200 transfer tax on my machine gun is > unconstitutional, > > federal and state cigarette duties are illegal, alcohol duties are > > illegal (if these are produced in one of the several states), gas > taxes > > are illegal on gas refined in the US. > > Again this is you giving legal opinion. It does not necessarily > follow from the material you show me. No, this is a normally educated person reading the clear language as it was written and established by precedents which have been fought for. Neither the federal government nor the states can impose taxes, tariffs, or duties on interstate commerce. This is why mail order sales are non-taxable. > > > You might say, "ah, the 16th Amendment changed that". Wrong, > > the SCOTUS has ruled that the 16th created no new tax or tax > > power/authority. > > > > I, a private sovereign citizen domiciled in my freehold in one of > the > > several states, doing no business for gain in a federal territory > or > > foreign nation, do not have 'income'. I do earn a living. You > figure > > out the difference. > > > > Mike Lorrey > > It would be crazy for me to take on blind faith that your legal > opinions are valid Mike without doing a lot of work to check them > out. > > Its possible that some of the terms you use like "sovereign", > "domiciled" > "income", "sources" just to name a few have special meaning within > the legal structure you are operating in and that you don't have the > legal skills to tease out that special meaning. > > Please do not misunderstand. I am not a lawyer either. I think it is > good that you try to understand what legal documents mean but if > you are going to try and persuade me using them you'll have to > have either a lot of skill to excerpt the right bits or you'll have > to find a strong reason for me to care enough to do the research > myself. > > Is it possible that you are being taxed in a manner that is not > constitutional? For all I know it is possible. Is it likely? No. So now, after upbraiding me for not being a lawyer, you assert to be a professional tax attorney, licensed in the US? The case files are filled with instances of persons being unconstitutionally taxed. > > More to the point even if you are being taxed under laws > that are invalid what would be the political consequences of > succeeding in making that case in the relevant court? Wouldn't > it be that the laws or the constitution would just be changed? The laws can't just be changed, they are made as if they never were if they are ruled unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional law is enforced for a long period of time, then found unconstitutional, objectively the damages wrought in that entire period are supposed to be repaired or otherwise compensated for. This is why the Japanese internees got paid 50 years after the fact for their unconstitutional internment during WWII. Congress can't just change the Constitution (I see you liv in Oz, so you may not be familiar with constitutional law here), it takes a supermajority vote of Congress plus ratification by 2/3 of the state legislatures to do so. Many a Constitutional amendment has failed in this process. This is quite unlike the simple majority rule of UK "constitutional law", which I assume applies equally to Canada and Australia. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, Congress must pass a new law which does pass constitutional muster, or that one will get tossed too. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 19 18:24:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] New domain names In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050519182404.2921.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Does anyone have a finger on the pulse of what new domain names will > be > rolled out and eta? > well, .coop is already out, but the TLD administrator is charging $1000 per domain name. They have the churlishness to call themselves "non-profit"!!!! Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From scerir at libero.it Thu May 19 19:56:25 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 21:56:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son References: <20050519142752.84751.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001001c55cac$d74571b0$f8bd1b97@administxl09yj> From: "Mike Lorrey" > What did Etruscans call people who were not phersu, 'lautni'?, 'mech'?, perhaps also 'manu' but I must check it! > and what is the modern equivalent, > if there is any? You mean in Tuscany (or in Italy) now? Persona (plur. persone). From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 19 20:07:59 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050519200759.96920.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > > What did Etruscans call people who were not phersu, > > 'lautni'?, 'mech'?, perhaps also 'manu' but I must check it! > > > and what is the modern equivalent, > > if there is any? > > You mean in Tuscany (or in Italy) now? > Persona (plur. persone). > I meant the modern equivalent of 'lautni' or 'manu'? Man, for instance? What does 'lautni' mean and what would be its modern equivalent? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 19 20:56:33 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:56:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050519155203.01f08c58@pop-server.satx.rr.com> "Scientists Clone Stem Cells Genetically Matched to Patients" May 19, 2005; Washington, D.C. (AP and CNN) -- South Korean scientists have created the world's first human embryonic stem cells that are customized to injured or sick patients, a major step in the quest to grow patients' own replacement tissue to treat diseases. These same scientists last year became the first to clone a human embryo, sparking international clamor. But those cloned stem cells -- the building blocks that give rise to every tissue in the body -- were a genetic match to a healthy woman, not a sick person. And it wasn't easy: It took 242 donated human eggs to grow just one batch. Now the Seoul scientists have cloned patient-specific stem cells, important if doctors are to develop cell-based therapies that won't be rejected by the body's immune system. The technique worked with males and females, as young as 2 and as old as 56 -- all suffering either spinal cord injuries, diabetes, or a genetic immune disease, the researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal Science. And the Korean lab found faster and safer ways to cull stem cells, using far fewer donated eggs -- about 20 per try. They also eliminated the use of mouse "feeder cells" that have been used to nourish most human stem-cell lines, thus obviating concerns about contamination. But, any therapy is still years away from being tested in people. "Therapeutic cloning has tremendous, tremendous healing potential, but we have to open so many doors before human trials," lead researcher Hwang Woo-suk of Seoul National University said in a telephone interview. "Our work reveals the possibility that this technology could be applied in the patient himself in the future." Stem-cell specialists called the research remarkable. "This is a very important advance," said Dr. Janet Rowley of the University of Chicago, a genetics specialist who helped co-author recent ethics guidelines on stem-cell research from the Institute of Medicine. "It's surprising to me the amount of progress they've made in basically a year's time." "This paper will be of major impact," said stem-cell researcher Dr. Rudolph Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass. "The argument that it will not work in humans will not be tenable after this." The work marks "a gigantic advance" for another reason, said neuroscientist Fred Gage of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. By cloning stem cells from sick patients, scientists can watch, in a test tube, the very earliest origins of diseases like Alzheimer's, insight that could point to other ways to prevent and treat illness, explained Gage, who plans to do some of that work. The Korean research "will be a tremendous boon to the investigation of the nature and biology of human disease," he said. It's also sure to revive international controversy over whether to ban all forms of human cloning, as the Bush administration desires -- or to allow cloning for medical research, so-called therapeutic cloning that South Korea has committed by law to pursue. Culling stem cells destroys the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of whether that embryo was cloned or left over in a fertility clinic. Because opponents argue that is the same as destroying life, President Bush has banned Federally-funded research on all but a handful of old embryonic stem-cell lines and the South Korean work spotlights the frustration many U.S. scientists felt at being left behind. "It's just going to highlight the tragedy of our current situation in America where there are technologies that are promising that are not being pursued by talented American scientists because of ideologic constraints," Rowley said. The Seoul researchers collected eggs donated by 18 unpaid volunteers and removed the gene-containing nucleus from them. They inserted into those eggs DNA from skin cells of 11 people who had spinal cord injuries, Type-1 Diabetes, or a congenital immune disease. Chemicals jump-started cellular division, and 31 blastocysts -- early-stage embryos -- successfully grew. From those, the scientists were able to harvest 11 colonies, or "lines," of stem cells, each one a genetic match to the patient who had donated a skin snippet. The scientists were careful to explain to the research participants that getting medicine made from their stem cells is a long shot. They don't yet know how to control which types of tissues -- brain cells, bones, muscles, etc. -- the stem cells form, something the Korean lab is studying next. "I didn't think they would be at this stage for decades, let alone within one year," said Dr. Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, who acted as an adviser to the Korean Lab in analyzing its data for U.S. publication. "All of us in the biomedical communities owe our colleagues in Korea a tremendous debt of gratitude." The work raises ethical concerns, cautioned Stanford University bioethicists David Magnus and Mildred Cho. Scientists must ensure that women understand they get no benefit and can be put at some risk when they agree to donate eggs for medical research -- and that patients who volunteer also understand that it's unlikely they'll benefit from any stem cells they help to clone because so many years of research are yet required, they wrote. __ "Cloning of Human Stem Cells Speeds Up" by Gretchen Vogel (Science) May 19, 2005; Scientists have created nearly a dozen new lines of human Embryonic Stem (ES) cells that for the first time carry the genetic signature of diseased or injured patients. The breakthrough represents a dramatic increase in the efficiency of creating such lines and may eventually pave the way for treating conditions such as spinal cord injury with stem cell transplants. [etc] From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 19 21:17:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050519211756.48144.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > I tend to see patent law as a potentially good thing but it has to > strike > > the right balance between creating incentives for people to be > practical > > and to innovate and not creating disincentives or other side > effects that > > produce a net or suboptimal social benefit. > > Exactly how do you think software patents would encourage > innovation ? > > In many (most?) companies, engineers are not allowed to > look at patents, unless explicitly asked to do so by the > people in the legal department. Also, software patents > take a few years to get issued. Since the passage of GATT, patent protection dates from the date of application, not issuance. > > Add two and two together, and you'll see that software > patents are NOT a useful tool to get information on new > innovations shared in the field of software engineering. That is one point of view. The other point of view is that software engineers/entrepreneurs are cheap and chintzy and have no respect for the work and originality of others, at least not enough to pay for it. And the software industry wonders why there is so much piracy. > > Also, if you were to wait for the patent to be issued > before bringing your invention to the market as a > product, there is a good chance your product will be > outdated before you get around to trying to sell it. Which is why GATT addressed that issue a decade or more ago. > > A last issue to keep in mind is that you cannot build > a useful piece of software that relies on just ONE idea > or invention. Any moderately complex piece of software > will rely on hundreds, if not thousands of ideas, many > of which will have been patented by somebody else! I believe that Ted Nelson's Xanadu has developed some proprietary concepts that deal with this issue quite nicely... ;) > > In short, patents can only protect your idea, but not > the actual product that your business is trying to make > a living off. In fact, patents can endanger your product, > and with 150,000 granted software patents in the US alone > I don't think there's anything you can do to avoid potential > infringement. What the do is establish a nested system of proper accounting for intellectual property. Most hackers, however, don't like doing their homework and are extremely lazy about documenting their sources. > > This is why I believe that software patents hurt innovation, > instead of stimulating it. > > Besides, a perfectly good legal mechanism exists that does > protect your product without being any threat: copyright. Copyright only protects the exact instantiation of code you copyright. It does not protect the algorithm that the code implements. Should code writers have the burden of writing out ALL possible implementations in all languages they want protection in? That might be a reasonable request. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Thu May 19 21:23:54 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:23:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050519155203.01f08c58@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050519155203.01f08c58@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <428D03EA.5040500@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > "Scientists Clone Stem Cells Genetically Matched to Patients" > > May 19, 2005; Washington, D.C. (AP and CNN) -- South Korean scientists > have created the world's first human embryonic stem cells that are > customized to injured or sick patients, a major step in the quest to > grow patients' own replacement tissue to treat diseases. These same > scientists last year became the first to clone a human embryo, > sparking international clamor. But those cloned stem cells -- the > building blocks that give rise to every tissue in the body -- were a > genetic match to a healthy woman, not a sick person. And it wasn't > easy: It took 242 donated human eggs to grow just one batch. > > Now the Seoul scientists have cloned patient-specific stem > cells, important if doctors are to develop cell-based therapies that > won't be rejected by the body's immune system. The technique worked > with males and females, as young as 2 and as old as 56 -- all > suffering either spinal cord injuries, diabetes, or a genetic immune > disease, the researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal > Science. And the Korean lab found faster and safer ways to cull stem > cells, using far fewer donated eggs -- about 20 per try. They also > eliminated the use of mouse "feeder cells" that have been used to > nourish most human stem-cell lines, thus obviating concerns about > contamination. > > But, any therapy is still years away from being tested in > people. "Therapeutic cloning has tremendous, tremendous healing > potential, but we have to open so many doors before human trials," > lead researcher Hwang Woo-suk of Seoul National University said in a > telephone interview. "Our work reveals the possibility that this > technology could be applied in the patient himself in the future." > > Stem-cell specialists called the research remarkable. "This > is a very important advance," said Dr. Janet Rowley of the University > of Chicago, a genetics specialist who helped co-author recent ethics > guidelines on stem-cell research from the Institute of Medicine. "It's > surprising to me the amount of progress they've made in basically a > year's time." "This paper will be of major impact," said stem-cell > researcher Dr. Rudolph Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for > Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass. "The argument that it will not > work in humans will not be tenable after this." > > The work marks "a gigantic advance" for another reason, said > neuroscientist Fred Gage of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies > in San Diego. By cloning stem cells from sick patients, scientists can > watch, in a test tube, the very earliest origins of diseases like > Alzheimer's, insight that could point to other ways to prevent and > treat illness, explained Gage, who plans to do some of that work. The > Korean research "will be a tremendous boon to the investigation of the > nature and biology of human disease," he said. > > It's also sure to revive international controversy over > whether to ban all forms of human cloning, as the Bush administration > desires -- or to allow cloning for medical research, so-called > therapeutic cloning that South Korea has committed by law to pursue. > Culling stem cells destroys the days-old embryo harboring them, > regardless of whether that embryo was cloned or left over in a > fertility clinic. Because opponents argue that is the same as > destroying life, President Bush has banned Federally-funded research > on all but a handful of old embryonic stem-cell lines and the South > Korean work spotlights the frustration many U.S. scientists felt at > being left behind. "It's just going to highlight the tragedy of our > current situation in America where there are technologies that are > promising that are not being pursued by talented American scientists > because of ideologic constraints," Rowley said. > > The Seoul researchers collected eggs donated by 18 unpaid > volunteers and removed the gene-containing nucleus from them. They > inserted into those eggs DNA from skin cells of 11 people who had > spinal cord injuries, Type-1 Diabetes, or a congenital immune > disease. Chemicals jump-started cellular division, and 31 blastocysts > -- early-stage embryos -- successfully grew. From those, the > scientists were able to harvest 11 colonies, or "lines," of stem > cells, each one a genetic match to the patient who had donated a skin > snippet. The scientists were careful to explain to the research > participants that getting medicine made from their stem cells is a > long shot. They don't yet know how to control which types of tissues > -- brain cells, bones, muscles, etc. -- the stem cells form, something > the Korean lab is studying next. "I didn't think they would be at > this stage for decades, let alone within one year," said Dr. Gerald > Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, who acted as an adviser to > the Korean Lab in analyzing its data for U.S. publication. "All of us > in the biomedical communities owe our colleagues in Korea a tremendous > debt of gratitude." > > The work raises ethical concerns, cautioned Stanford > University bioethicists David Magnus and Mildred Cho. Scientists must > ensure that women understand they get no benefit and can be put at > some risk when they agree to donate eggs for medical research -- and > that patients who volunteer also understand that it's unlikely they'll > benefit from any stem cells they help to clone because so many years > of research are yet required, they wrote. > And the US leads the field in the publication of papers on ethics. Meanwhile... -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 17/05/2005 From reason at longevitymeme.org Thu May 19 23:53:40 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason .) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 18:53:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pontin, Tech Review and Aubrey de Grey/SENS again Message-ID: <200505191853.AA1169293558@longevitymeme.org> Folks might find this of interest: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000487.php http://pontin.trblogs.com/archives/2005/05/aubrey_de_grey_1.html By the look of things, biogerontologist Cynthia Kenyon has agreed to a column for Technology Review in which she discusses Aubrey de Grey's Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. From a blog entry by Jason Pontin: "In August, Cynthia Kenyon, a much-respected biogerontologist working at UCSF (she has significantly extended the lifespans of nematodes, amongst other successes), will answer de Grey in Technology Review's "By Invitation" column. What are the most important issues that Dr. Kenyon should address in her analysis of de Grey's ideas on human aging? Quick, write and tell me. Her deadline is approaching fast." >From my previous readings, I'm not actually all that sure where Cynthia Kenyon stands in terms of her view on the science. We all know where Pontin stands, and have castigated him appropriately for his ad hominem and unseemly attacks; I can't say that he seems to have learned his lesson yet, unfortunately. Still, Pontin is asking for feedback for an article addressing substantiative scientific issues, so I think we should go and provide it - politely, please, even though he's being provocative as usual. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 20 00:34:03 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050519155203.01f08c58@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050520003403.21723.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > And the Korean lab > found faster and safer ways to cull stem cells, > using far fewer donated > eggs -- about 20 per try. They also eliminated the > use of mouse "feeder > cells" that have been used to nourish most human > stem-cell lines, thus > obviating concerns about contamination. Does it bother anyone else that S. Korea is establishing itself as the world leader in this technology while the most "modern" country in the world wrings its hands in moral reflection? Even if we started therapeutic cloning today, we might not be able to close the gap. A pity since the economy of the United States could have used the extra revenue that would be generated when this process hits the market. Fortunately I know how to speak basic Korean, so I may still be able to do this stuff after all. > It's also sure to revive international > controversy over whether to > ban all forms of human cloning, as the Bush > administration desires -- or to > allow cloning for medical research, so-called > therapeutic cloning that > South Korea has committed by law to pursue. Interestingly enough, I am pretty certain that the percentage of Christians in Korea are approximately the same as in the US if not higher. Obviously they are more educated and/or do not legislate their morality. > Culling > stem cells destroys > the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of > whether that embryo was > cloned or left over in a fertility clinic. Hmmm... does growing an oak tree destroy the acorn? > Because > opponents argue that is > the same as destroying life, President Bush has > banned Federally-funded > research on all but a handful of old embryonic > stem-cell lines and the > South Korean work spotlights the frustration many > U.S. scientists felt at > being left behind. Hey everybody, lets give Bush some applause here. He considers the lives of 5 day old blastulas sacred and the lives of 21 year old soldiers and criminals to be expendable. Do you think he would feel differently if the embryos came from black people, like many soldiers and criminals do? He is in so tight with God that he can afford to be out of touch with reality. After all, once we start drowning in debt, he can just pray for it to part, like Moses did the red sea. > They don't yet know how > to control which types > of tissues -- brain cells, bones, muscles, etc. -- > the stem cells form, > something the Korean lab is studying next. "I > didn't think they would be > at this stage for decades, let alone within one > year," said Dr. Gerald > Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, who acted > as an adviser to the > Korean Lab in analyzing its data for U.S. > publication. "All of us in the > biomedical communities owe our colleagues in Korea a > tremendous debt of > gratitude." So how long will it be before we owe our South Korean friends a tremendous debt of money? Gee I hope I can afford enough Won on the 4X to get some ES cells made for myself. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri May 20 05:26:33 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:56:33 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son In-Reply-To: <200505181924.j4IJORR11687@tick.javien.com> References: <200505181924.j4IJORR11687@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050519222641a5a4af@mail.gmail.com> On 19/05/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > I am afraid the gulf of disagreement here is rather large, and this may not be > the best forum to bridge that gulf. But honesty requires me to admit mistake: > > The first dictionary I consulted (Merriam Webster) defined 'child' as: > > 1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant > 2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or > childish person c : a person not yet of age > 3 archaic : a youth of noble birth > 4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant > 5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs > 6 : product, result > > In other words, my use was correct and unexceptional. I mean the word in > meanings 1a, 4a, and 6 (unborn person; a son or daughter of human parents; > product or result). > In law, we call this a "remainder interest"; that is, an interest which someone > not in current possession, but who stands to come into possession of it, has > vested in the property. Even those who use the awkward terminology of saying the > unborn infant is not "alive at the moment" would have to admit the infant has a > legal interest in the life into which it will come into possession, in the same > way an remainderman has rights against a life tenant. > > If there are further objections to the use of the word "child" once it has been > shown to be correct by the dictionary, I fear I have not the patience to answer: > because then we are merely discussing emotion. Not necessarily. In the definitions you have chosen above, "Product, Result" is clearly an abstract usage meant for other uses of child not relating to literal parents and children, while the other two (salient) definitions are defined in terms of more unclear words such as person, son and daughter. That definition of child in terms of person is the main dispute that others have answered already. When does a newly formed embryo become a person? But others have addressed this already, enough said. I'm more interested in the concepts that arise further down in your post, around duty vs right. I'll discuss these inline below. > > It is not inflammatory to use plain words if the topic is one that is inflames > the passions when spoken of in plain words: for then the cause lies with the > topic, not the words. It *is* inflamatory if the plain words do not accurately describe complex content, ignoring technical knowledge (in this case regarding the details of gestation) which is necessary to rational discussion of the topic. It is *especially* inflamatory if the topic is emotive, as is anything regarding children. But you know this. > The reason why "child" is a word that causes delight, is that this is the > natural and proper emotion to have toward one's child. The reason why the word > "kill" is a word that causes aversion, is that this is the natural and proper > emotion to have toward killing. Delight is the proper emotion to have in respect toward children in general; that's how evolution built us, and it happens to also work morally (for most reasonable systems). However, is delight natural in terms of an embryo? What if it was plonked down on a table in front of the mythical reasonable englishman? Would the reaction be delight or disgust (at that lump of something awfully putrid)? Left in vivo to develop, delight at the thought of an embryo might be in regards to its *potential* to develop into a person (indeed, into one's son or daughter), or at the miracle of the process of pregnancy itself, but the living tissue that is the embryo, out of the context of its potential for development? Unlikely. > > Now, there are those who suppose that emotions are arbitrary, and that we may > select any emotion we like and direct it toward any object we like. It is beyond > the scope of this letter to address that weighty topic: suffice it to say that > this is another arm of subjectivist theory experience betrays as unpersuasive. > > The abortion advocate faces the daunting task of misdirecting our natural > emotions so that what is unnatural seems normal: hence the vehemence of their > anger against someone who uses words in their normal fashion. It is not a > coincidence that, in abortion clinics, the mothers are not permitted to see the > ultrasound pictures of their babies in their wombs. The technician during a scan > carefully turns the screen away, so that the mother will not have a fit of > natural emotion that comes when mother sees child. The mother is carefully not > told that babies can feel pain in the womb; and excruciating pain when they are > killed. The misuse of speech is merely one of several ways the abnormal is made > to seem normal. > Here, you are talking about the legacy of evolution, the impressions left on us by its heavy hand. Our millions of years of genetic evolution and our tens of thousands of years of cultural evolution leave us unprepared for the complex technical realities of modern life. Our instincts drive us often to irrational ends and with a brute lack of finesse that is as frustrating as it is bewildering, while our common language and the bulk of our meme pool isn't of sufficient complexity and subtlety to deal with concepts like the difference between potential and actual people, or the difference between an embryo and a delivered child. Whether or not the situations you put forward above are factual (I don't know enough about it to comment), they are plausible (aside from the idea of an entity without a brain feeling pain) and understandable in this context. > If you think I am exaggerating, consider the parallel cases. This misuse of > speech is not present there. > > Consider if we were discussing the morality of ending the life of Lee Malvo or > Terri Schiavo. We would still properly call them "human beings." A reasonable > man could give an argument as to why our laws might not protect their lives. > > The general argument in the case of abortion is that the mother's duty of care > and protection does not obtain until and unless the infant develops to a certain > stage, or has certain recognizable human characteristics, such as, for example, > brain action. It is an argument about when killing a human being is allowable. > In this respect, it is no different from the argument about euthanasia or the > death penalty for minors. I beg to differ on a technical point; it is an argument about when a potential person becomes an actual person; a potential person has no rights, no duty of care obtains, but an actual person does. However, interestingly, it seems that once personhood does take hold, once the critical threshold is passed (however sharp or fuzzy it is), the duty of care to the now real person extends back retrospectively to before the point of personhood. This is pertinent to your points below. > > The three arguments would be something like this: 1. Lee Malvo is a human being > who should die, despite his youth, because he slew (killed wantonly in great > number) his fellow human beings. His right is forfeit. > 2. Terri Schiavo is a > human being who should die because she lacks the brain action necessary for the > enjoyment and exercise of human life. The right has lapsed due to laches > (nonuse). > 3. The son or daughter of "Sue" should die because the brain action > necessary for the enjoyment and exercise of human life has not yet developed (an > argument parallel to that of Mrs. Schiavo). The right does not yet obtain. > > The death penalty advocate or the euthanasia advocate do not flinch at saying > the first two sentences. But this third sentence is something from which the > abortion advocate recoils as the pious recoil from blasphemy. Actually that third statement seems pretty dead on, except that "son or daughter" is misleading, because it implies person, when personhood has not yet been reached (and so rights do not obtain, as you have pointed out). Also, I would say "can" rather than "should"; no one believes that we should terminate all embryos! > > Consider the linguistic difficulty of adopting the euphemisms of the abortion > advocate. They must strain to make their language unclear. But since reality is > coherent, they are forced, step by step, to become increasingly vague in speech > on related topics, in order to maintain that first euphemism. > > They will say the child is not alive because it is not yet born, and yet they > cannot say it is dead either: so it is neither alive nor not-alive. They must > employ a circumlocution like saying "end the pregnancy." They cannot call it a > child, but must use some more neutral term, like "mass of cells." Or they might > use a word that refers to a stage of the child's development, like "embryo" or > "fetus", but they can not admit what entity is in that stage of development, or > even that there is a development going on, because this would admit the > developing object is alive. I can't speak for your generic abortion advocate. Clearly the embryo or later entity is alive. Mass of cells is a fine way to describe it, although it does underplay the potential of future development of a child. But it is clearly alive. > > This particular euphemism, referring to a stage of development while dying the > existence of the thing being developed, is about as honest as the time, when I > was a kid, my Mom told me I could no longer play in the Higginson's house. When > I was caught disobeying, I explained that I wasn't in their house, I had been in > their attic. A fetus is an undeveloped child, not an undeveloped > not-quite-anything. The Higginson's attic does not hang unsupported two stories > above the street. > > Likewise, they cannot call the pregnant person a "mother" because that would > raise the embarrassing question as to how this strange creature, a reverse of > the Virgin Mary, can be a mother without having a child. That's just a problem with language, not a problem with the position. Missing clean words for complex concepts in language is not unusual. > > In reality, the child is either male (XY) or female (XX). In reality, any child > organism is a member of the species of both its parents: such as, ducklings of > ducks, foxcubs of foxes. Now, the unborn infant has a sex, but, according to our > abortion advocate terminology, it is not a human being and is not alive. But if > it cannot be a human, and it cannot be an infant, then it cannot be a boy (an > infant male human). A "mass of cells" with the potential to become an infant boy is not an infant boy. But it definitely has the potential, which is important. > > The awkward terminology requires us to say that the creature is male, but we > cannot admit he is a boy. We are required to say creature has a species (for it > is the outcome of sexual reproduction), but it is neither a fox nor a duck nor > any other species; yet we cannot admit he is a human. "Male human embryo", "Male human fetus", etc, are all clear and correct. > > I can understand how one could make the argument that an organism can be simple > at one stage and develop the outer characteristics typical of its species later. > I cannot understand, logically, how one can make the argument that an organism > can be not a member of its own species at one stage and develop membership in > its species later. Membership in a species is itself the quality that directs > the stages of development; it is not a developed characteristic. No one is suggesting that an embryo is not part of the human species (are we still homo sapiens sapiens, or just homo sapiens?). But this has no reflection on personhood. > > All this verbal and intellectual confusion leads our poor abortion advocate into > to a broader inability to see the chain of cause and effect that lead to and > from the pregnancy under discussion. For them, the pregnancy "just happens." > > In the world of the abortion advocate, the interests of the father in saving his > son or daughter from "termination" cannot be raised nor addressed. Fathers?blank > out?there is no such entity. Pregnancies "just happen." > > Since it is a world without duty and without responsibility, the role of > fatherhood itself must be blanked out, made unmentionable, like an un-person of > 1984. Pregnancies arise out of nothing and happening for no reason, imposing no > duties on anyone, and raising no serious moral questions: you may keep or kill > the child as your whim takes you, like preferring white wine to red. The risk of > sterilization from abortion is not mentioned. The haunting regret in later years > of having killed a child are not mentioned. The twists and turns of language, positions of belief, and accepted norms in moral positions that become subcultures (such as the right-to-life and right-to-choose movements) are often irrational and nonsensical when you stand back from them. But that's more to do with the iterated results of political opposition than the original moral standpoint. > > Ah! It must be pleasant indeed to live in the land of the Lotus-eaters! > > I expect those of you who think morality is a matter of maximizing survival > chances to jump in here on my side at any minute. Abortion, as a way of life, is > not an inheritable characteristic, is it? It wipes out a segment of the next > generation. Population levels are already below replacement in societies that > practice it. It is a self-eliminating meme. If it's self eliminating, it shouldn't be an issue. Maximizing survival, an issue close to the heart of most transhumanists, must be defined in terms of actual persons. Potential persons never have the same moral weight as actual persons, otherwise how could we ever take any action (or inaction) for fear of its consequences on future potential persons in the non-linear dynamics of future history? > > In the world with no responsibility, among those whose "moral code" consists of > denying that the idea of duty exists, there still somehow seems to be one duty: > the commandment to obey the speech code. To pretend a child is not a child is > simply a false statement: a lie. Their one commandment reads: Thou Shalt Indeed > Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor. > > My code consists of identifying what I ought to do, whether I'd like it or not. > Their code consists of identifying what you'd like to do, whether you ought or not. > > But if I do not like to obey their speech code, on what ground do they say I ought? > > I admit that Epicureanism is nobler than Hedonism: to be an Epicurean, you have > to correctly identify your long-term self interests, and delay your > gratifications. If you were as rigorous in your logic as Hobbes or Ayn Rand, you > could end up displaying at least the degree of self-command that their systems > require: and the majority of the cases, your moral code would give you > serviceable answers. You would live as befits a man who fears more than anything > else violent death at the hands of others, or as befits a rational and > productive hero. Your system has self-interest only, not duty: and the only cost > is that you will end up supporting tyranny in the first case, and callous > selfishness in the second. > > If an Epicurean can show me it is in my rational self-interest to lie, I might > be curious about the cleverness with which such and argument is fitted together > with axiom and conclusion. But my rational self-interest is not the paramount > value in my moral code: honesty is. A philosopher must make something like the > heroic choice of Achilles, in this case, to prefer an honest life to a long one. > > To the Hedonist I make a briefer answer: it is certainly not my pleasure to put > your lie in my mouth. If that is the price of admission to a discussion on the > topic, I humbly decline. > > Those of you who dismiss the concept of duty from your moral calculations, > please note that duty is merely the obverse of right. If you have a right to > free speech, for example, then I have a duty to tolerate it, like it or no. But > if my toleration is merely a matter of my pleasure or my self-interest, in cases > where it does not please me to allow you speak, or is not serviceable to me in > the long term, then I can silence you with impunity. > > The reason why I speak of duty rather than right in this case is that the > so-called right of the unborn to live seems to me to be a highly abstract and > doubtful argument, and it is not clear when that right vests. No baby has the > visible characteristics of the human race, speech, upright stance, use of fire, > use of tools. As for brain activity, my cat is smarter than my newborn, and so > if rights were based on brainpower, my cat would have a better claim than my son. > > My duty as a father to care for my son, however, clearly vests from the moment > my son exists, developed or not, human or not. To care for my son means to see > to it that he makes it safely to adulthood, armed and ready to march into the > battle of life. If it is my job to see to it that he is physically strong, > mentally awake, and morally straight by Friday, then I cannot kill him on Monday > even if his brain activity does not develop until Tuesday. > For me, this is the most interesting point that you raise in this post; the conflict of duty with right. As you point out, basing thinking on duties instead of rights leads to very different outcomes. As someone who also tends to think in terms of duty, who has children, and who supports the right to abortion, let me propose another way of looking at this. Lets pick an arbitrary point of personhood, say mid 2nd trimester. It could be conception, it could be birth, but both of those are inflamatory, so I'm taking the average. I'm not saying this actually is the dividing line, or that there is a clear dividing line and that this is a black and white debate. I just want to start there to start somewhere. As you point out below, guided only by rights, you might easily end up saying that parents are burdened with responsibility only at the point of person hood, so that before hand they can abort, and can also wound or harm the potential person. It's the wounding or harming part that seems outrageous, rightly so. Guided by duty only, OTOH, you might see a duty to care for a potential person whenever that potential is apparent. Likely this starts from birth (anywhere that the parents' behaviour effects the outcome for the eventual person is part of this duty). But you can go further. Sperm and eggs are potential people too, because they can potentially become part of an actual person. So does duty obtain there? I am reminded of the Monty Python song "Every sperm is sacred". As technology progresses, we may one day find that any human cell can be turned into a stem cell which can be grown into an actual person. So does every cell in every body now create a duty of care in any person who might eventually have a duty of care for the actual person, should the potential be realised? In fact, does that duty obtain *now*, given the potential for the technology to be developed in our lifetimes? Clearly there needs to be a middle way. I would propose it as follows: - A viable fertilised egg is a potential person, not an actual person. It does not become an actual person until some realistic point of it surviving without the mother is reached, and this is a graded transition, rather than clear cut, which changes over time due to technological shifts. - Rights obtain to actual people, not to potential people. But a very special right to consideration of one's welfare by caregivers obtains in retrospect for the time leading up to personhood. - Thus, aborting a potential person is ok (because no actual retrospective right can ever obtain), but permanently maiming is not; any permanent effects on the developing entity will be subject to this right at the time the entity obtains personhood. Whether or not an intervention (such as a smoking mother, a medical intervention, or a genetic modification) violates this right at that later date may be difficult to determine in advance, but that's the essence of parenthood. - Parents (or other guardians) must make a decision to abort or proceed when the pregnancy is known about, in the pre-personhood stage. If parents decide to proceed, the duty of care must obtain from conception (or before that if it has effect!) forward, even retrospectively. So your observation that your duty commenced immediately on finding out about the pregnancy (my experience also) is supported by this point. The duty of care for the potential person, if you are going to try to bring that potential person to actual personhood, derives backward from the possible duty of care for the possible actual person in the future, and the corresponding retrospective rights of that person. ie: If you are going to have the baby, and you would want in the future not to have violated its retrospective right (and neglected your restrospective duty of care) your only way forward is to respect that duty from the first day. Phew! > Enough with debating. Instead, let me tell you a story. > > Once upon a time, my beloved and darling wife, the most beautiful woman in the > world, was pregnant with my first child. > > At this time, I was not a Christian. I was a Stoic, a follower of Marcus > Aurelius and Epictetus. (I mention this only because if any of you are tempted > to substitute sneering at my faith for answering the questions I raise, such > behavior, never relevant, would be even more irrelevant now.) > > The doctors advised me to abort him because their test showed he would be born > with severe birth defects, perhaps brain-dead at birth. > > During the pregnancy, my wife took steps to see to it that his health would be > looked after: without going into details, I will report only that these steps > were tedious and painful to her. In other words, when he was a "mere mass of > cells" she treated my son with care and love. > > Like most parents, we named the child before he was born. Like most mothers, > friends and even strangers wanted to touch her belly, the share the joy of the > miracle taking place then. Oddly enough, not even one person asked to touch her > belly to feel the "fetus" kick. > > At one point during the birth, the child posed a direct threat to the life and > health of the mother. My wife instructed me to tell the doctors that, should the > choice come down to it, I was to kill her and save the child. > > Fortunately, the skill of the doctors delivered the boy after a > caesarian-section: he was rushed to the intensive care ward, where he stayed for > several days. > > He lived. I named him after his father. He is a perfectly healthy six year old > at the time of this writing. Yesterday he and his brothers ran with me in > circles on our lawn, under the sunshine, until we collapsed with laughter. > > He lived. He is in perfect health. Congratulations! Children are wonderful, my kids bring me immeasurable joy, and make the fulfillment of my duty toward them enjoyable, not a burden at all (although maybe I'll revise that in a few years when they are teenagers, I don't know :-) ) I am fortunate enough to have never faced the choice that you faced. Much kudos on you for navigating those murky waters, and the subsequent excellent outcome. I do know people who have chosen abortion, however, and very fairly in my opinion. Especially, I think that for young people who become pregnant accidentally, the requirement to have a child would be a terrible shame when they are not ready, and consider that they may end up eventually having as many or more children with a better life and as better parents after an abortion, than having a child too young, maybe being a bad parent, and having a very difficult life. (btw, in no way am I implying that young people make bad parents, I was a relatively young parent myself. But if people feel this way about themselves, then that subjective judgement is relevant). > > Please note the several moral choices which I actually faced, which are here > being discussed with so little honesty and seriousness. > > At no point did I allow sentimentality or self-interest to make my decision: I > did what I did because it is a father's duty to protect his son. In situations > where there was a conflict of duty, such as a threat to the life of my beloved > wife (whom I love more than life itself) honor required me to ceded to her > wishes, a sacrifice she was prepared to make, but from which fate spared her. > > I tell this story only to emphasize one point: if the mother's duty to care for > and protect her child only obtains after birth, then all pre-natal care is not a > requirement. > > Let me emphasize this again. The sacrifices and risks my beloved wife took for > my beloved son began before his birth, and he would have died had she not > suffered those sacrifices and those risks. > > Your code says mommy should only love and care for baby at birth, not before. > Therefore, by your code, not only is my wife allowed to neglect her child before > birth, she can wound and even kill him, and this killing is protected by you and > yours as a matter of sacred right. > > Your code says my child had no right to live. Your code says my wife had no duty > to care for him before his birth. No law protected him: even up to the moment > his head cleared the cervix, he could be killed with impunity in this land, at > this time, thanks to your code. > > His skull could be punctured with scissors, his brains vacuumed out, his wee > little legs and arms clipped from his still-warm body, and the dismembered bits > of flesh and bone pulled from his mommy's womb by forceps. This is what your > code and your laws allow. > > My baby lived. If the golden days of joy I have had with him were emeralds, my > treasure would rise as high as Everest, and all the wealth of El Dorado would be > the pauper's mite to me. Had I heeded arguments like yours, all that would have > been lost. All that and more. > > My code won, at least that once. Despite your code, despite whatever sick thrill > you loyal partisans of death get out of promoting the death of babies as a way > of life, mine did not die. He lived. > > I am content with that. > > JCW > The code that I've outlined above hopefully walks a middle way between these extremes. But I'll tell you something, which is that I'm not happy with the whole thing. The reason that this stuff is so hard, that the compromises are unsatisfying, and that the ground keeps shifting, is that we have been spat up out of a process, genetic evolution via natural selection, that was not ready for us and which was never a preferable environment for sensitive sentient beings. Look at the whole process of sex->conception->gestation->birth. From evolution's point of view it's a fine construct. Sex gives you two sets of genomes to work with (more important than mutation in natural selection driven genetic evolution), and possibly two involved parents. Sex brings pleasure and we are driven to it by extremely strong hormonal urges, without any sense (especially during the act) of the responsibilities of parenthood (except maybe if you already have kids, in which case it can act as an abstinance-based contraceptive). Sex and the accompanying compulsions is one of those massive blunt instruments of evolution that indicates that we (or our genetic predecessors) wouldn't have become parents without a lot of encouragement (trickery!). Gestation is mostly a zero-choice thing; it's hard for a woman to safely abort a pregnancy without modern medical intervention. Many hormonal urges, again, drive a woman to act in particular ways during pregnancy. And we all know how compelling a new-born is. Irrationally compelling. Evolution beats us over the head yet again. Actually on reflection, sexual reproduction in humans looks like an inelegant maintenance hack on a weird new species that thinks too much. Very three-laws-of-robotics. It reminds me of RoboCop 2 (don't lie, I know you've all watched it) where he is given hundred of ridiculous directives that he has to obey simultaneously (and ends up sticking his hand in an electricity substation to cold boot himself). And that brings me to what this process is like for actual sentient individuals; a big mess. Sex & reproduction are linked (what a terrible combination), women have to bear the burden of a brutal process of child birth, men don't get the same choices as women by dint of the fact that women do the gestating, etc etc etc. This is a facet of the larger scope of hormonal, instinctive, or otherwise built in drives that we are bound by, including propensity for violence, an inherent tribalism (us vs them), the various crap emotional levers like anger, jealousy, envy, the pursuit of group (hierarchical) status & domination. Or pain, godamn physical pain! Our genetic inheritance seems to be fair enough for a group of barely aware plains dwelling apes that were starting to become social, but for the complex sentient entities that we have become in the short time since, the physical bases of our existence are perplexing and frustrating hindrances. To be fair, we have also inherited some wonderful things; sex (for pleasure) is an excellent gift from evolution, as are our various happy hormones, and the ability to love. All these things seem to have in common a brute coercive nature, overriding our more recently evolved brain. This is the crux of being human. The problems of reproduction are a subset of the difficulties we face, dragging millions of years of genetic evolution built from a cycle of death (of incredible scope) into a newly constructed human environment designed to support sentience and ongoing life. We fight against mortality, against the dangers of the natural environment, against our instincts to slay one another, against the pull of our darker emotions. For about 40,000 years, ever since we really started to wear our humanity in earnest, we've been struggling against the tide, trying to remake ourselves and our environment into something that more befits what we can imagine that we can become. Humanity, or the physical expression of it, has been a phase we've been striving to move through ever since those first rudiments of culture. We are all transhumans. So this debate about abortion, as one small piece of our larger existential flailing, can only ever be about choosing the lesser of evils. Really, there is no absolutely right way, and these situations should always prompt us to ask "Why is this so? How can I change it? What would I put in its place, and how can we begin?" -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From scerir at libero.it Fri May 20 06:17:51 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 08:17:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son References: <20050519200759.96920.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002a01c55d03$a76f2010$76c61b97@administxl09yj> From: "Mike Lorrey" > I meant the modern equivalent of 'lautni' or 'manu'? Man, for instance? > What does 'lautni' mean and what would be its modern equivalent? Yes the modern equivalent is man (Italian: uomo), sometimes people (Italian: gente). But we know the meaning of few (dozens) Etruscan words (ie 'papa' = grandfather), and they are words about religion, or funerals. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri May 20 08:06:36 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:06:36 +1000 Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net><01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin><0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><0b0c01c55b5b$71c27c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <042101c55d12$d8440ca0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> I tend to see patent law as a potentially good thing but it has to strike >> the right balance between creating incentives for people to be practical >> and to innovate and not creating disincentives or other side effects that >> produce a net or suboptimal social benefit. > > Exactly how do you think software patents would encourage > innovation ? Exactly? ;-) I used the term "software patents" and put it in the header because you used that terminology in the thread that this was forked from. My personal commercial experience with intellectual property (IP) related to software has been around copyright and licensing, I don't know that patents as such apply to things that are software only, (nor do I know that they don't, so I appreciated your and Emyln's feedback), my IP law knowledge has gotten a bit rusty and is due for a general refresher which I think I'll get onto shortly. Just as an aside, it had occurred to me that some AI prototypes might involve some nifty little hardware tweaks as well as software and so I wasn't sure that patent law would be applicable to an AI prototype consisting of both hardware and software. I can't answer "exactly" without having a particular application in mind, and if I had a particular application in mind for a particular targetted market, and I told you (and everyone else potentially reading) about it on an open list then I'd be giving it away ;-) > In many (most?) companies, engineers are not allowed to > look at patents, unless explicitly asked to do so by the > people in the legal department. Also, software patents > take a few years to get issued. If software is included in patent law then I think Mike's comment might be right. I think it might have changed recently and been jurisdiction dependent. > In short, patents can only protect your idea, but not > the actual product that your business is trying to make > a living off. In fact, patents can endanger your product, > and with 150,000 granted software patents in the US alone > I don't think there's anything you can do to avoid potential > infringement. Is that a fact ? 150,000 *software* *patents* as opposed to licenses or other types of patent ? Would you by chance have a source for that? I'm about to dig into a chunk of gene patent law and the issues will be similar I imagine so I might bump into the stuff anyway but I'm curious as to whether software is separately patented and if 150,000 in the US is the count of them. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri May 20 08:20:20 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:20:20 +1000 Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? References: <20050514201610.36465.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><4286B696.3050006@sasktel.net> <01c001c55a3b$1d8ce370$0100a8c0@kevin><0a4201c55ae5$5f06f7f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><0b0c01c55b5b$71c27c90$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <710b78fc050518184179e100a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <042601c55d14$c338b610$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Emlyn wrote: > Sorry, I don't know enough about the laws to comment in a detailed > legal respect. No probs at all I wanted a practitioners standpoint anyway and can find out the actual legal stuff myself a bit further when I do some reading. .. > So without getting into patents, I am reasonably protected by > copyright law from someone just taking my software and onselling it as > their own (creative commons licensing notwithstanding!). "Creative commons" meaning "theft" ? > If you don't believe my ranting, ...Your "ranting" rings true. > ...here's a good article I plucked out > of the ether at random, saying that the system of patents is stifling > innovation: > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5342291.html Okay thanks. > I believe that the regulators must remove the patent system in its > entirety (though I don't think anyone is going to do it in a hurry). That looks like a big call. Interesting. I don't think they are going to do it in a hurry either. In fact my very strong impression is that intellectual property (IP) may get more rather than less important but its interesting to mull over. Thanks for the useful comments. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri May 20 08:30:37 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:30:37 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050519155203.01f08c58@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <042b01c55d16$33219630$6e2a2dcb@homepc> I haven't read the journal article yet, but imo, this is pretty clearly real progress and not just hype. Actually the hyping is kept to a minimum which is good. Brett Paatsch From mail at cheeseman.sh Fri May 20 09:44:03 2005 From: mail at cheeseman.sh (Frederick H. Cheeseman) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:44:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Language of Euphamism versus Life of my Son In-Reply-To: <20050519200759.96920.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050519200759.96920.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050520114403.36c57dd6.mail@cheeseman.sh> Meaning of "lautni" ? In Dutch you have the word "luiden" meaning "people". See: http://dutchrevolt.leidenuniv.nl/Nederlands/bronnen/1580%2003%2015%20ned.htm : ... en eerlijke luiden en personen, ... (eerlijke = honest) And in German you have the word "Leute" also meaning people. -- On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:17:51 +0200 "scerir" wrote: > > I meant the modern equivalent of 'lautni' or 'manu'? Man, for instance? > > What does 'lautni' mean and what would be its modern equivalent? -- non multa, sed multum GPG key: AF9BE215 (DEB5 2083 90A9 51BA 4484 06E2 5EA0 A3F1 AF9B E215) From natasha at natasha.cc Fri May 20 12:25:43 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 07:25:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Book: Natasha Vita-More Featured in Robots Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050520070132.030594d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> [] This excellent, highly-researched, and visual book covers the era of robots. Not only that, it covers the future of the human and how robotics will become more widely integrated into our bodies. I was delighted to be given 4 full pages of an interview with pictures Primo Posthuman. Not only that, the quality of this book is such that it is being used as required reading in Europe and will help to bring transhumanism into university studies. "To exemplify the human-robots future, Robots takes a look at "The Robots of the Future," the last chapter of this 500+ page book. The works of Frederic Kaplan - Sony Labs in Paris, Dr. Haipeng Xie - l'universite de Guelp, Natasha Vita-More - President of Extropy Institute, Dr. Hod Lipson -l'universite de Brandeis, and Prof.. Kevin Warwick - University of Reading, UK. Robots in one form or another have engaged the popular imagination for centuries. Now, on the cusp of the 21st century, they are poised to saturate every aspect of our culture, from medicine, science, and industry to artworks, toys, and household appliances. Whether playing prominent roles in movies like I, Robot or helping mankind explore the surface of Mars, robots seem to be taking over the world. Robots is the first visual survey to focus on this increasingly important, always newsworthy scientific development and its effects on society. Covering automatons, androids, and all manner of artificial intelligence, both fictional and real, this massive, comprehensive volume describes the robot's fascinating history and speculates on its probable future. Interviews with scientists, surgeons, manufacturers, science fiction writers, artists, toy creators, and a host of other experts bring tremendous insight to the subject, and the copious illustrations provide visual examples of robots in every environment imaginable. As entertaining as it is informative, this one-of-a-kind book is an indispensable guide to the rapidly approaching Robot Age." Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1cfaf904.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17170 bytes Desc: not available URL: From max at maxmore.com Fri May 20 16:17:40 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:17:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Book: Natasha Vita-More Featured in Robots In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050520070132.030594d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050520070132.030594d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050520111543.06502468@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Congratulations, Natasha. It's a good thing that the author was smart enough to include a transhumanist perspective on robotically-related technologies and applications. 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 wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 20 18:26:30 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050520182630.36395.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Emlyn wrote: > > So without getting into patents, I am reasonably protected by > > copyright law from someone just taking my software and onselling it > as > > their own (creative commons licensing notwithstanding!). > > "Creative commons" meaning "theft" ? As in "Creative Commons": http://creativecommons.org/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 20 18:58:12 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Software patents was Re: [extropy-chat] Care Economy? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050520185812.92403.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Rik van Riel wrote: > > In short, patents can only protect your idea, but not > > the actual product that your business is trying to make > > a living off. In fact, patents can endanger your product, > > and with 150,000 granted software patents in the US alone > > I don't think there's anything you can do to avoid potential > > infringement. > > Is that a fact ? 150,000 *software* *patents* as opposed to > licenses or other types of patent ? Would you by chance > have a source for that? I don't have a source for Rik's claim, but it doesn't strike me as that surprising. A quick search on the USPTO's site shows that there have currently been somewhere from 6,800,000 and 6,900,000 utility patents issued - and that's not counting design or other types of patents, although utility accounts for most patents. The number of patents issued in all fields has risen exponentially over the years (although the factor is far less than 2x/year). The USPTO has only been around for about 200 years; software complex enough to potentially warrant patents has been around for about 50 years. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri May 20 19:12:34 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 12:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] New domain names In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050520191234.8317.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Does anyone have a finger on the pulse of what new domain names will > be > rolled out and eta? You mean "top level domains", right? New domain names can be rolled out by just anyone at any time - unless you're talking about, say, specific domains for ExI or something. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 20 19:37:55 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:37:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] New domain names Message-ID: <244470-220055520193755567@M2W054.mail2web.com> com, org, cc, net, pro, etc. Original Message: ----------------- From: Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 12:12:34 -0700 (PDT) To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] New domain names --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Does anyone have a finger on the pulse of what new domain names will > be > rolled out and eta? You mean "top level domains", right? New domain names can be rolled out by just anyone at any time - unless you're talking about, say, specific domains for ExI or something. _______________________________________________ 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 20 22:15:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] CLIMATE: Worlds First Global Thermometer In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050520221549.83596.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157097,00.html World's First Global Thermometer Friday, May 20, 2005 By Steven Milloy As the Northern Hemisphere enters the summer season and natural global warming occurs, it?s a good time to consider the concept of global temperature ? perhaps the most talked about, but least understood, component of the global warming controversy. Since 1988 when National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) researcher James Hansen launched global warming alarmism with his congressional testimony that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the Earth?s atmosphere, global warming has been a hot topic. The controversy only heightened with the advent of the so-called ?hockey stick? graph that purports to show a dramatic rise in global temperature during the 20th century. At JunkScience.com, we?re trying to shed light on the problem of relying on global temperature as an indicator of global warming by developing and displaying the world?s first (almost) real-time global thermometer. http://www.junkscience.com/ We gather temperature readings from about 1,000 surface-based temperature stations around the globe, calculating an average temperature, which we call the ?global mean temperature? (GMT). We use ?raw? temperature data that isn?t statistically massaged to account for seasonal variation or for the urban heat island effect ? the phenomenon caused by the heat-retaining properties of concrete and asphalt in urban areas that is known to artificially increase local temperatures. We display the current GMT and maintain old GMTs to track weekly, monthly and, eventually, annual trends. >From what we can tell, our data track pretty well with the temperature estimates published by other climate researchers, which are available only weeks to months after the data are collected. At the time of this column, the GMT ? according to our calculations ? is roughly 62 degrees Fahrenheit. So what does that mean exactly? We?re not really sure. First, global temperature is a contrived concept. There is no magical point in the Earth?s atmosphere to place a thermometer and take the planet?s temperature. Moreover, if you live in a polar or tropical region (or almost anywhere for that matter), a GMT of 62 degrees F is patently meaningless ? what matters is what?s going on outside where you are. Our GMT is based on surface records. But if you look at a map of weather stations around the globe, you?ll readily see the built-in bias of temperature readings from surface-based weather stations. The overwhelming majority of surface-based weather stations are land-based ? relatively few temperature readings come from ocean-based facilities, resulting in a major upward bias in available temperature data since about 75 percent of the Earth?s surface is water. An additional bias arises from the fact that there is more land mass and, therefore, more surface temperature stations in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere. There?s an even further bias introduced by the tendency of land-based weather stations to be located in more heavily populated areas, which are subject to the urban heat island effect. Relatively speaking, not many temperature readings come from the wilds of northern and central Asia or eastern Africa, for example. There are alternatives to the JunkScience.com-calculated GMT ? none, however, are available in real-time. The National Climactic Data Center collects temperature data from about 3,000 surface-based weather stations. But researchers often try to statistically adjust these data to account for the urban heat island effect, which produces results that are more statistical mysteries than true averages of global surface temperature readings. Other researchers calculate GMTs from data collected by satellites and weather balloons. These data measure atmospheric temperatures from all around the Earth and don?t suffer from the same biases as the surface temperature data. It?s important to note that without the upward bias inherent to the surface temperature data, the satellite/balloon temperature measurements show no significant increase since data collection began 30 years ago. Global warming alarmism is largely based on the notion that global temperatures have increased since the 19th century industrial revolution due to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. The infamous hockey stick graph tries to dramatize the alleged increase in temperature by going back 1,000 years. But the pre-20th century GMTs in the hockey stick graph for the most part don?t come from thermometer readings. Instead they are guesstimates of GMTS based on geographically and temporally scattered data scavenged from tree rings, ice cores and other dubious proxies for thermometers. Whether calculated in real-time or two months after-the-fact, surface-based calculations of GMT are inherently and impossibly biased. In this light, the hockey stick?s GMTs over the last 1,000 years are near worthless ? yet it is this very data that are being used to drive global warming hysteria. We hope that the JunkScience.com global thermometer will help demystify the flawed science that has led to the present state of climate clamoring. Remember, just 30 years ago, early climate alarmists were actually fretting about global cooling. It?s shocking that our government may commit us to potentially harmful energy and policies ? like the international global warming treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol or the legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., ? based on such an elusive, if not meaningless, concept as global temperature. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Fri May 20 22:58:09 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:58:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] New domain names In-Reply-To: <212380-22005541915421969@M2W034.mail2web.com> References: <212380-22005541915421969@M2W034.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <428E6B81.5050708@humanenhancement.com> Natasha, You might find some useful information here: http://www.internic.net/faqs/new-tlds.html Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated yesterday!) nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >Does anyone have a finger on the pulse of what new domain names will be >rolled out and eta? > >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 fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat May 21 02:32:04 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 19:32:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Hitting the big 100 Message-ID: <428E9DA4.3090907@mindspring.com> Getting on the Road to a Long Life: Secrets of the Very, Very Old By: Karen Barrow A centenarian living today saw eighteen presidents serve the United States through two World Wars, the civil rights and womens' liberation movements and the rise and eventual fall of Communism. If he worked on a farm, he saw the progression from horses to tractors, and a Model T tooted its way down the street. He is older than the Empire State Building, bubble gum and Mickey Mouse. Can you image what you would get to see if you lived till 100? Houses on Mars? Flying cars? Your great-great grandchildren? Well, there's no magic formula that can help you expand the limits of human age (not yet anyway), but you do have some control over your maximum life span. "The average person has the ability to reach about 88," says Thomas Perls, MD, MPH, Director of the New England Centenarian Study, "but there's a great deal of variation around that with the average person falling short about 10 years." Reaching 88 is one thing, but in the 2000 census, over 50,000 Americans reported being a centenarian, 100-years-old or more. And this part of the population is the fastest growing in the United States. All these people must have done something right to keep their minds and bodies going strong for all those years. The New England Centenarian Study took a look at these very senior citizens to see what they had in common. Good Genes To Power Your Motor Extreme old age is very much connected to your genes. In one family involved in the study, for example, five out of nine siblings lived till at least 100 years of age. This family likely carried a genetic predisposition that lowered their risk of cardiovascular and other serious diseases. Being born with two X chromosomes certainly helps, too, as 85 percent of centenarians are female. It is somewhat unclear why this is, but, according to Perls, the female secret to long life lies in menstruation. While only preliminary evidence exists, it is thought that iron levels are responsible; women tend to have lower iron counts than men because they lose a considerable portion of blood every four weeks or so during their period. Iron produces free radicals in the body, the element that drives aging. So, less iron means slower aging. Many centenarian women reported having a child after the age of 40, indicating they had a slowly aging body, possibly due to their increased number of menstrual periods that lowered iron levels. So, how can a man compete with a woman? Well, Perls, for example, donates blood every eight weeks, in part to be altruistic, but also to lower the number of free radicals in his body. (He says that he'd do it every four weeks if he were allowed.) In one study, men that donated blood just twice a year had a 20 percent reduction in the formation of preoxidized lipids, the predecessor of artery-clogging plaque. While there may be more women over 100, centenarian men have it better health-wise. Of all the centenarians, in general, men that live to 100 have better physical and mental conditions because they must be in particularly good health to live as long as women. Routine Maintenance and Upkeep It's not all about your genes, however. You can have the best genes possible and still die quite early as it is estimated that genes are only 30 percent of the long-life equation. Most centenarians reported regular, moderate exercise and a healthy diet. The point is, even if you have no family history of heart disease, you can certainly clog your arteries and raise your risk for stroke and heart attack by eating fatty foods, smoking and not exercising. And yes, some people can get away with smoking, others can get away with being a little bit overweight, but the more careful you are, the better your chances of reaching 100. "Unlike the lottery, you don't always need to get all six numbers to win, it's variable, some people have to do everything right, and others can get away with a few things," Perls says. Preventing disease is important, because it lessens hospital stays and allows you to stay active. Centenarians in this study were all generally healthy till at least 90 years of age. In fact, only 42 percent of centenarians had any age-related illness after the age of 80. And most suffer only from arthritis, which can be treated with medication, and cataracts, which are usually corrected by surgery. This changes the general belief that with age comes disease, loss of vitality and the need for assistance. "Many people who get to this age have lived the majority of their life with good function. It's a very optimistic view of aging," Perls says. Taking Control of the Wheel So what can you start doing now to expand your age limitations and join the most quickly growing portion of the population? Perls recommends that you stop smoking and eating so much red meat. If you are overweight, lose a few pounds. Lower stress and take an aspirin a day to lower vascular risk. Donate blood; even if the evidence for its health-benefits are not totally clear, it can't hurt. Exercise not only your body, but also your brain to delay the onset of age-related mental deterioration. Most importantly, treat your body well, that's the vehicle that is going to get you down the road towards a long life. "If you treat your body like a car and do everything you need for upkeep, you should be able to get it the 100,000 miles it's supposed to go," Perls says, "but if you mistreat it, it'll only go 70,000 miles." And remember, even if you have a grandfather that lived till 120, it's not a guarantee for a long life. "Maybe you were born with a Volvo [and have really good genes for aging]," says Perls, "but you can ruin a Volvo too." http://wlwt.healthology.com/focus_article.asp?b=wlwt_ibsys&f=healthyaging&c=healthyaging_longlife&spg=XML -- "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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat May 21 03:52:06 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 13:52:06 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims References: <20050520003403.21723.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <049801c55db8$75437d10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > >> And the Korean lab >> found faster and safer ways to cull stem cells, >> using far fewer donated >> eggs -- about 20 per try. They also eliminated the >> use of mouse "feeder >> cells" that have been used to nourish most human >> stem-cell lines, thus >> obviating concerns about contamination. > > Does it bother anyone else that S. Korea is > establishing itself as the world leader in this > technology while the most "modern" country in the > world wrings its hands in moral reflection? Even if we > started therapeutic cloning today, we might not be > able to close the gap. A pity since the economy of the > United States could have used the extra revenue that > would be generated when this process hits the market. > Fortunately I know how to speak basic Korean, so I may > still be able to do this stuff after all. > > >> It's also sure to revive international >> controversy over whether to >> ban all forms of human cloning, as the Bush >> administration desires -- or to >> allow cloning for medical research, so-called >> therapeutic cloning that >> South Korea has committed by law to pursue. > > Interestingly enough, I am pretty certain that the > percentage of Christians in Korea are approximately > the same as in the US if not higher. Obviously they > are more educated and/or do not legislate their > morality. > >> Culling >> stem cells destroys >> the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of >> whether that embryo was >> cloned or left over in a fertility clinic. > > Hmmm... does growing an oak tree destroy the acorn? > >> Because >> opponents argue that is >> the same as destroying life, President Bush has >> banned Federally-funded >> research on all but a handful of old embryonic >> stem-cell lines and the >> South Korean work spotlights the frustration many >> U.S. scientists felt at >> being left behind. > > Hey everybody, lets give Bush some applause here. He > considers the lives of 5 day old blastulas sacred and > the lives of 21 year old soldiers and criminals to be > expendable. Do you think he would feel differently if > the embryos came from black people, like many soldiers > and criminals do? He is in so tight with God that he > can afford to be out of touch with reality. After all, > once we start drowning in debt, he can just pray for > it to part, like Moses did the red sea. > >> They don't yet know how >> to control which types >> of tissues -- brain cells, bones, muscles, etc. -- >> the stem cells form, >> something the Korean lab is studying next. "I >> didn't think they would be >> at this stage for decades, let alone within one >> year," said Dr. Gerald >> Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, who acted >> as an adviser to the >> Korean Lab in analyzing its data for U.S. >> publication. "All of us in the >> biomedical communities owe our colleagues in Korea a >> tremendous debt of >> gratitude." > > So how long will it be before we owe our South Korean > friends a tremendous debt of money? Gee I hope I can > afford enough Won on the 4X to get some ES cells made > for myself. Gee I hope you do do that essay you said you were going to do, so I can read it. And so I don't feel that I wasted my time encouraging you. If you have some knowledge of biotech as a result of education please don't waste it, *use it*, use it to help make the case for therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research. I know you are more than just a person with biotech knowledge but your biotech knowledge is more likely to be useful as a *basis of persuasion* than your understandably strong emotional feelings. Do you know where to find sources for the fact that something like 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 fertilized eggs don't go on to become babies? I can give you some sources if you don't, but I'd prefer that you look for yourself first. These sort of facts can help put the issues into biological perspective. These sort of facts can be shown to people as facts rather than as mere opinions. Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat May 21 06:21:32 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 16:21:32 +1000 Subject: Stem Cell politics was Re: [extropy-chat] Proposal:was-AChillingThought. References: <20050519175806.60690.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <04b901c55dcd$552a1fb0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> From: "Mike Lorrey" >> >> But I'm not sure if you understood what I meant by "plug it". I >> meant take action in the real world with a view to influencing >> and changing policy by influencing and changing the views of >> voters and politicians. To be persuasive on an issue like this >> that is very controversial you'd have to be or become pretty >> knowledgeable so you can share your knowledge with others. >> The way to plug therapeutic cloning is not to browbeat people >> but to engage them in conversation and to inform them of facts >> that they may not currently know and that might once they are >> known cause them to re-evaluate their moral positions to take >> account of those facts. >> >> Having a good understanding of biotechnology, which is the >> interface between the life sciences and commerce could give a >> person a good knowledge base from which to educate others. > > As you might be aware, I'm already rather involved politically. I > already plug the right to clone, the right to GE, as corollaries of the > rights to reproduce, self-determine, and pursue happiness. I am aware that you aggitate strongly for your views and I do respect you for that. We're you to die today it could not be fairly said of Mike Lorry that he went quiety into the good night and he was not concerned with the important ssues of his time. BUT. Do you think you have been *effective* to date in plugging "the right to clone" as you call it? Do you think you could be still more effective? Do you think that I could help you be more effective? >> >I don't think that is the debate here. The debate is whether >> > others can be forced at gunpoint to pay for something they >> > may not use, will enjoy no profit from the investment, and >> > morally regard as manslaughter or murder. >> >> Whether others "can" be, or whether others "ought" be? Are >> you making an argument about morality or about capacity? >> I suspect that you intend to make a moral argument but I'd >> like to be clearer on what you mean. > > I speak on both a moral and a legal basis. Ok. > There are clearly defined limits as to what sort of laws congress > is authorized to pass and what congress is authorized to spend > money on (See US v Lopez, US v Stewart (9th Circuit), for some > choice examples). If you want me to look at those cases you'll first have to tell me why they are relevant, and then, preferably give me a link to them to same me chasing them. I don't have the time to spend sourcing three cases that for all I know you are only citing above because you have heard about them from second or more hand sources. >Last time I checked, > subsidizing the intentional mass slaying of millions of innocents with > no national security objective was clearly not part of the US > Constitution's authorized congressional powers. I'd be very interested to see where if anywhere you think the constitution prohibits embryonic stem cell research. > Even if taxing income > and/or earnings were legal and constitutional, spending those taxes on > subsidizing abortion or the destruction of human blastocysts/embryos > for medical research clearly is not. You say "even if" indication that you are not sure. Please show me the basis of your legal assertion here so that I know that you are not just making this stuff up. I suspect that you are relying on what you may regard as "authoritative" sources or experts and that I might not share your confidence in those authorities. This is a conversion between Brett Paatsch and Mike Lorry, I am interested in what Mike Lorry thinks but not in what Mike Lorry guesses or assumes on the basis of accepting undisclosed authority. >> >If you are going to seek to use the gun of the state to fund your >> > research bandwagon, you need to be prepared for those you >> > intend to rob to use the same tool to tell you "hell no". >> >> I am not interested in robbing people with a gun I am interested >> in persuading them with arguments about public policy. > > If you want to pursuade taxpayers, voters, or elected representatives > to pay for such research with public funds, you are interested in > robbing people with a gun. It may not be your gun, and you may not be > doing the robbing, but you are certainly asking that someone do some > robbing with a gun. That seems ludicrous to me. Do you actually think that all political discussion aimed at influencing policy about how taxes revenue can best be spent amounts to encouraging people to rob others with a gun? >If it were a mob boss or drug gang leader you were > going to, your actions would constitute conspiracy to commit larceny. I am not doing that, I am talking to you. >> >> (Aside: I hope that, as a result of checking for yourself the link >> that >> http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/HEIRLOOM/Stages/HEP_StagesFS.htm >> up until two weeks, (14 days), we are talking about an embryo not a >> fetus. >> The distinction matters because a fetus has far more structure and >> development >> than an embryo.) Its also very small at less than 0.2 millimetres in >> diametre (see the 17 days example at Stage 6). >> >> By looking at that example I think you can see how Amara must be >> right when she said >> >> " *Some* women know very soon when something has changed in their >> body. Many women do not know, until the next MONTH (at least), >> that they are pregnant. " Please tell me that you took a look at the link and whether you found it persuasive. I will then feel more confident that I am not wasting the time I am investing in you. >> > The real problem is that pro-abortionists base their demands upon >> > their 'right to feel less unpleasant', their right to not be >> > inconvenienced by a child. Except in cases of rape, the woman >> > and man got into that >> > situation in the pursuit of happiness.... you don't get to avoid >> > the hangover of your pleasures. >> >> Perhaps *some* pro-abortionists do. If so I would not agree with them >> that there is a *right* to feel less unpleasant either. Such a notion >> of rights would be poorly grounded imo. >> > >> > I'm not a contractualist like you might be. >> >> Actually I do not think of myself as a contractualist. That is not a >> term I can remember hearing before so its not negatively loaded for >> me, and it might be an okay one word stereotype of my standpoint. > > A contractualist believes that rights only exist as entities created by > contracts between persons, rather than as a means of the natural > capacities of the individual human animal. The social contract is one > such. Roughly, I don't believe that, I hold that. The distinction between believing and holding matters to me. I would be ashamed to assert a belief. >> > I recognise the >> > preexistence of a natural right to live that takes on increasing >> > prominence with the age of the fetus. >> >> I think rights only arise in a social context. There would have to >> be a >> God for me to think there were natural rights. Nature isn't an agent. > > So you believe that unsigned and/or implied contracts (as in the social > contract) are binding. Utter tyranny. Who gets to define that contract? No I don't *believe* anything. I reckon. I think. I reason. I assume some things sometimes (at my risk) but I do not believe things. I hold that two or more people can make a contract with each other that amounts to mutual assurances that promises will be kept. Were there no laws or governments those two people could start to build them (laws and governments) up again. If the whole world underwent a disaster and you and I found ourselves back in the stone age then you and I could start to rebuild civilization if only you and I thought that we could trust each other to keep our promises. > There is no need for a god for there to be natural rights. Natural > rights are a consequence of evolution, and therefore, objective truth > as evinced by scientific fact and physical law. As all humans are the > same evolved species, all humans possess the same natural rights. There is merit in you view but it is limited I assert and therefore mistaken. You are decoupling rights from the principle of keeping promises which at basis is the source of both rights and duties (or responsibilites) and so ultimately, of society and of law. Rights exists today only to the extent that people keep their promises to other people. As a matter of historical fact and of evolution some promises, some social constructs, some government forms, "emerged" and evolution was involved in that but there was nothing essentially inevitable about the particular forms of those things that evolved. The rights that exist today and tomorrow will only exist to the extent that persons agree to accept particular responsibilities as part of the exchange of promises. >> This doesn't mean that I couldn't agree in a social context to grant >> some rights to embryos or other forms of living things like animals >> etc, >> but it does mean that I have to balance the books such that there can >> be no rights that are not underwritten in principle by reciprocal >> responsibilities accepted. >> >> I wonder to whom a person like you would appeal for the upholding >> of a natural right if no one else thought you had that right? Would >> it be G/god? > > That a society denies the existence of my right does not negate its > existence. Were you to find yourself standing alone in a universe of persons asserting that you had a right, then either you would or you would not depending on whether or not some promise had been made you. If no promise had been made you then you would have no right. You might fight for your imagined right with all the passion of a brute fighting to survive or dominate but if no promise had been made you, you'd have no moral claim to call in allies to assist you. > I do not lose the ability to sail around the world if > society believes it is flat. True but irrelevant. >> I think that with but one other willing person I can create >> rights (and responsibilities) that did not previously exist. This is >> where your characterisation of me as a contractualist isn't too bad. >> >> > Is the actual life of the mother more important? Of course it is. >> >> Agreed. >> >> > Is her convenience or career goal more important? Definitely not. >> >> Probably not. >> >> > At what age does the fetus's right to live override the convenience >> > or plans of the mother? I am almost positive it doesn't happen at >> > two weeks. I know for a fact that it has happened by six months. >> >> Agree and tend to agree. For me what rights the six month fetus >> has is a matter of law. But what the law could be in future always >> remains a matter of negotiation. > > It shouldn't be, unless technology evolves faster or slower gestation > times. Imagine the science fictiony concept of cloning bodies to > physical maturation (biologically 16-18 years old). Is that clone not a > person so long as it is in the artificial womb? Without really straining I can't imagine it Mike. Too many things that I know are real get in the way of me imagining it. A 16 - 18 year old healthy human body could not grow in any artifical womb that I think that both you and I can conceive of. >> > Honesty and openness with all parties is all I ask. If DNA checking >> > of such a young fetus is impossible, and the woman is so >> > promiscuous as to not know (i.e. multiple partners per day), it >> > is likely a good choice >> > if she chooses to abort early. I doubt her partners are looking for >> > the responsibility either. >> >> I respect your desire for honest and openness. But I think you have >> to be practical too. It is not possible to have a set of laws or >> rules to govern every possible contingency sometimes we have to make >> do with guidelines and leave some discretion to the relevant parties >> involved. In fact leaving as much discretion as possible to the >> relevant >> parties involves where there is not very good reason to override >> that discretion is a pretty libertarian outlook and I have a lot of >> sympathy for that. > > Leaving this cool and loose for individuals to kill each other without > legal exceptions, like self-defense, is not libertarian. So you *do* recognize that we do need to have some laws. Please understand I was not claiming to be a libertarian I was claiming to have sympathy for leaving discretion in some places out of practical necessity because more harm than good comes of having too many laws with too fine a granularity. >> >> > Honesty and openness versus manipulation and skulduggery. >> >> Nice principles. But they don't amount to practical policy. > > Intolerace of fraud is a practical legally recognised policy. I don't understand this comment. >> >> >> >> [This section seems to be about your views on tax, and why you >> shouldn't have to pay it, and what the various organs of the state >> are. This also should be a separate thread ] I note that you did not split the thread into separate ones as you might have. I am taking that as evidence of how much time you are prepared to commit to this and responding accordingly with how much time I am going to commit. >> >> >> You seem to be equating taxing you with the crime of theft. You >> are >> >> calling the state "criminals and accessories to death", but "the >> >> state" makes the law. The state is not just the executive >> >> government. >> > >> > You are right, it is the legislature that ignores the will of the >> > people and authorizes the theft, it is the courts that legislate >> from >> > the bench to fit their own agendas, and it is the Constitution that >> all >> > three ignore as much as they are permitted to get away with by the >> > citizenry. >> >> I don't buy this. I don't know that you know what the real role of >> the judiciary is. Its not obvious that you do from what you say >> here. > > It is the role of the judiciary to judge the law for compliance with > the original intent of the Constitution, then to judge those under > those laws which pass muster by constitutional means. This is simplistic. The judiciary has to do more than just that Mike. There was no single originial intent of the Constitution, how could there have been, it was a document put together by multiple people. Further the Constitution is a high level construct with provisions for lower level constructs to bolt into it - things like statutes etc. > Those who take office do not swear allegiance to a flag, or to that > government, they swear to protect and defend the constituion against > all enemies, foreign and domestic. I can't from memory recall exactly what they swear. But this sounds about right. > When they become an enemy, by violating the Constitution, they > violate their oath of office. And that is a breach of promise. Like you, I'd find that morally repugnant. >> > Let us look at a few things in that document: >> > >> > Article 1 Section 9: >> > "No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in >> proportion >> > to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." >> >> Okay, I'll take your word for this much. >> >> > The Federal gov't can't constitutionally issue a tax bill to a >> citizen >> > directly, they must always collect from the states, or through >> > corporate person enterprises in direct federal jurisdiction (in >> federal >> > territories or engaged in international trade). They must tax >> > 'sources', which, given the next section, can only be on federal >> > territories, or american owned enterprises or investments in >> foreign >> > lands, or foreigners doing business in the several states. >> >> This sound like you giving a legal opinon. Why should I trust that >> your legal opinion is sound? > > The Constitution was written to be understood, not to be parsed and > contorted by technobabble and mandarins on high. Essentially yes. > The concept of an > American Bar Association was anathema to the founders, which is why the > original 13th Amendment was passed and ratified and why the attorneys > of the US, Canada, and Britain have tried so hard to rub out any record > that it ever existed. I don't know about that. >> >> > "No tax or duty shall be levied on articles exported from any >> state." >> >> Noted. >> >> > This means the $200 transfer tax on my machine gun is >> unconstitutional, >> > federal and state cigarette duties are illegal, alcohol duties are >> > illegal (if these are produced in one of the several states), gas >> taxes >> > are illegal on gas refined in the US. >> >> Again this is you giving legal opinion. It does not necessarily >> follow from the material you show me. > > No, this is a normally educated person reading the clear language as it > was written and established by precedents which have been fought for. You not just reading though, I thought you were trying to persuade me (and perhaps others). > Neither the federal government nor the states can impose taxes, > tariffs, or duties on interstate commerce. This is why mail order sales > are non-taxable. > >> >> > You might say, "ah, the 16th Amendment changed that". Wrong, >> > the SCOTUS has ruled that the 16th created no new tax or tax >> > power/authority. >> > >> > I, a private sovereign citizen domiciled in my freehold in one of >> the >> > several states, doing no business for gain in a federal territory >> or >> > foreign nation, do not have 'income'. I do earn a living. You >> figure >> > out the difference. >> > >> > Mike Lorrey >> >> It would be crazy for me to take on blind faith that your legal >> opinions are valid Mike without doing a lot of work to check them >> out. >> >> Its possible that some of the terms you use like "sovereign", >> "domiciled" >> "income", "sources" just to name a few have special meaning within >> the legal structure you are operating in and that you don't have the >> legal skills to tease out that special meaning. >> >> Please do not misunderstand. I am not a lawyer either. I think it is >> good that you try to understand what legal documents mean but if >> you are going to try and persuade me using them you'll have to >> have either a lot of skill to excerpt the right bits or you'll have >> to find a strong reason for me to care enough to do the research >> myself. >> >> Is it possible that you are being taxed in a manner that is not >> constitutional? For all I know it is possible. Is it likely? No. > > So now, after upbraiding me for not being a lawyer, you assert to be a > professional tax attorney, licensed in the US? No I don't assert that. > The case files are > filled with instances of persons being unconstitutionally taxed. So you assert. >> >> More to the point even if you are being taxed under laws >> that are invalid what would be the political consequences of >> succeeding in making that case in the relevant court? Wouldn't >> it be that the laws or the constitution would just be changed? > > The laws can't just be changed, they are made as if they never were if > they are ruled unconstitutional. This rings true. >If an unconstitutional law is enforced > for a long period of time, then found unconstitutional, objectively the > damages wrought in that entire period are supposed to be repaired or > otherwise compensated for. This rights true. > This is why the Japanese internees got paid > 50 years after the fact for their unconstitutional internment during > WWII. > Congress can't just change the Constitution (I see you liv in Oz, so > you may not be familiar with constitutional law here), it takes a > supermajority vote of Congress plus ratification by 2/3 of the state > legislatures to do so. I do live in Oz, but I have given serious thought to emigrating to the US so I am interested in the US for personal reasons as well. > Many a Constitutional amendment has failed in > this process. This is quite unlike the simple majority rule of UK > "constitutional law", which I assume applies equally to Canada and > Australia. No changing the constitution in Australia is substantially harder than simple majority rule. > If a law is ruled unconstitutional, Congress must pass a new law which > does pass constitutional muster, or that one will get tossed too. Same here in Australia. Brett Paatsch From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it Sat May 21 06:31:19 2005 From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 07:31:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims Message-ID: <20050521055013.M72390@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Brett Paatsch: >Do you know where to find sources for the fact that something >like 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 fertilized eggs don't go on to >become babies? I can give you some sources if you don't, but I'd >prefer that you look for yourself first. These sort of facts can help >put the issues into biological perspective. These sort of facts can >be shown to people as facts rather than as mere opinions. Please send it to the Italian transhumanists (http://www.transumanisti.it/, riccardo_campa at yahoo.com) as well, so that they can distribute it. The Referendum for removing the most restrictive portions of the Italian ART law is next month, and the positions/debates are in all of the Italian newspapers now. ( Italian ART Law http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005345.html ) If the laws are not overturned, the blocks are too large against my trying to build my life in this country, and I must give up. (*) Amara (*) The futility of trying to live in this country has become too discouraging and I might give up anyway. My fiftieth-something visit to the Polizia to try to get my permit-of-stay, yielded, as usual, nothing. To the Italian government, I'm 'just off the boat'. Certainly some better nights of sleep will help me make a rational decision, but if you have suggestions, ideas, offers, I'm all ears. [To your question : why doesn't my work help me with this political stuff, the answer is: they cannot. I'm the first extracommunitari scientist my department has who has stayed longer than one year, and they have no experience. Not even the Italian Space Agency has anyone who can help. It is rare for a scientist to immigrate _into_ Italy, you see.] *********************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF- Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, CNR - ARTOV, Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA ************************************************************************ "We came whirling out of Nothingness scattering stars like dust." --Rumi From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 21 08:14:55 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 01:14:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <20050520003403.21723.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050520003403.21723.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7FB9AED1-031F-4157-AF27-F7D2F8642E6E@mac.com> On May 19, 2005, at 5:34 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > >> And the Korean lab >> found faster and safer ways to cull stem cells, >> using far fewer donated >> eggs -- about 20 per try. They also eliminated the >> use of mouse "feeder >> cells" that have been used to nourish most human >> stem-cell lines, thus >> obviating concerns about contamination. >> > > Does it bother anyone else that S. Korea is > establishing itself as the world leader in this > technology while the most "modern" country in the > world wrings its hands in moral reflection? Even if we > started therapeutic cloning today, we might not be > able to close the gap. A pity since the economy of the > United States could have used the extra revenue that > would be generated when this process hits the market. > Fortunately I know how to speak basic Korean, so I may > still be able to do this stuff after all. Yes. It bothers me a lot. I cannot afford to be in some self-made technological backwater as the pace accelerates toward Singularity. I am having increasing trouble supporting a government that cares more about pleasing the ignorant and bigoted majority than it cares about science or health or a long healthy life for its putative citizens. As an extropian I increasingly wonder if I am giving allegiance to a country not in tune with my goals and inimical to my long term health and well-being. I don't know where or if better is. But it is time to renew the passport and check out a few likely alternatives virtually and in meat space as well. I don't want to wait for the official Lamarkian equivalents to collapse on my head. > > > >> It's also sure to revive international >> controversy over whether to >> ban all forms of human cloning, as the Bush >> administration desires -- or to >> allow cloning for medical research, so-called >> therapeutic cloning that >> South Korea has committed by law to pursue. >> > > Interestingly enough, I am pretty certain that the > percentage of Christians in Korea are approximately > the same as in the US if not higher. Obviously they > are more educated and/or do not legislate their > morality. Banning a word? Cloning has so many different applications, most of which are quite benevolent not to mention likely essential to many of us. > > >> Culling >> stem cells destroys >> the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of >> whether that embryo was >> cloned or left over in a fertility clinic. >> > > Hmmm... does growing an oak tree destroy the acorn? > Embryos that would die anyway or in the case of cloning would not have existed otherwise. Why would some religionists reject use of cloned embryos? Mostly they do not believe such an embryo has a "soul". So how is destroying it "murder"? > >> Because >> opponents argue that is >> the same as destroying life, President Bush has >> banned Federally-funded >> research on all but a handful of old embryonic >> stem-cell lines and the >> South Korean work spotlights the frustration many >> U.S. scientists felt at >> being left behind. >> > > Hey everybody, lets give Bush some applause here. He > considers the lives of 5 day old blastulas sacred and > the lives of 21 year old soldiers and criminals to be > expendable. Do you think he would feel differently if > the embryos came from black people, like many soldiers > and criminals do? He is in so tight with God that he > can afford to be out of touch with reality. After all, > once we start drowning in debt, he can just pray for > it to part, like Moses did the red sea. > No need for Divine intervention when he can have more money printed up whenever he wishes! - samantha From jonkc at att.net Sat May 21 15:53:51 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 11:53:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims References: <20050520003403.21723.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003401c55e1d$55299c20$43ee4d0c@MyComputer> "The Avantguardian" > Does it bother anyone else that S. Korea is > establishing itself as the world leader in this > technology while the most "modern" country in the > world wrings its hands in moral reflection? It's interesting that the South Korean's accomplished what they have and spent only $200,000 a year; but then they were not encumbered by Christian fundamentalists. In 1993 the USA spent 9.2 million a year on "bioethics research" and people were complaining that Japan only spent one percent as mush and the Koreans even less, I guess that means we're 100 times as moral as they are. I don't know how much taxpayers money is spent on the bioethics industry today, probably 10 times what it was in 93. John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 22 02:14:17 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 19:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522021418.84235.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: In 1993 the USA spent 9.2 million a > year on "bioethics > research" and people were complaining that Japan > only spent one percent as > mush and the Koreans even less, I guess that means > we're 100 times as moral > as they are. I WHAT?!? Are you saying that the government PAID Leon Kass and his buddies $9.2 million to quote C.S. Lewis and write about the wonderful virtues of death? What IS bioethics research exactly any ways? Finding obscure quotes from dead people to justify letting others die? You also called it an industry. . . what does it make? Excuses? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Sun May 22 02:21:29 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 03:21:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <20050522021418.84235.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522021418.84235.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <428FECA9.9000803@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- John K Clark wrote: > In 1993 the USA spent 9.2 million a > > >>year on "bioethics >>research" and people were complaining that Japan >>only spent one percent as >>mush and the Koreans even less, I guess that means >>we're 100 times as moral >>as they are. I >> >> > >WHAT?!? Are you saying that the government PAID Leon >Kass and his buddies $9.2 million to quote C.S. Lewis >and write about the wonderful virtues of death? What >IS bioethics research exactly any ways? Finding >obscure quotes from dead people to justify letting >others die? You also called it an industry. . . what >does it make? >Excuses? > > > No, reports. The US leads the world in bio-ethics reports. Be proud! As for what it is in the US, and Europe to a lesser extent, it's a branch of Xian theology. Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.14 - Release Date: 20/05/2005 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 22 02:32:20 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 19:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <049801c55db8$75437d10$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050522023220.95186.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Gee I hope you do do that essay you said you were > going > to do, so I can read it. And so I don't feel that I > wasted my > time encouraging you. I am working on it as we speak. I have several pages written already. It is challenging to make the technical details accessible to the "average" person. You didn't waste your time, although I am perplexed that an Aussie would be so supportive of my efforts to change a US policy. I am unaware of what Australia's policy on cloning and stem cells is. Do tell. :) > > If you have some knowledge of biotech as a result of > education > please don't waste it, *use it*, use it to help make > the case for > therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell > research. It is my nature to use what I am given to solve the problems at hand. > > I know you are more than just a person with biotech > knowledge > but your biotech knowledge is more likely to be > useful as a > *basis of persuasion* than your understandably > strong emotional > feelings. I actually have been using this list as an "emotional sink" to get out my strong feelings on the matter so that I could calmly write my essay in a friendlier tone. > Do you know where to find sources for the fact that > something > like 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 fertilized eggs don't > go on to > become babies? I can give you some sources if you > don't, but I'd > prefer that you look for yourself first. These sort > of facts can help > put the issues into biological perspective. These > sort of facts can > be shown to people as facts rather than as mere > opinions. I am avoiding citing too many sources. I don't want to give the impression I am writing some ivory tower academic paper else only academians will read it. I wan't this to be more personal, more from the heart. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From reason at longevitymeme.org Sun May 22 02:47:25 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 19:47:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <20050522021418.84235.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --> The Avantguardian > > WHAT?!? Are you saying that the government PAID Leon > Kass and his buddies $9.2 million to quote C.S. Lewis > and write about the wonderful virtues of death? What > IS bioethics research exactly any ways? Finding > obscure quotes from dead people to justify letting > others die? You also called it an industry. . . what > does it make? > Excuses? On Leon Kass and his opinions: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000424.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000084.php On bioethics: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000004.php Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 22 05:18:08 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 00:18:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Eat Corn and Die, Rat! Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050522001707.01d55cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> On and on it goes... Rats Fed GM Corn Due For Sale in Britain Developed Abnormalities in Blood and Kidneys GEOFFREY LEAN, Environment Editor - The Independent (U.K.) Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food. The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood. According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project. The disclosures come as European countries, including Britain, prepare to vote on whether the GM-modified corn should go on sale to the public. A vote last week by the European Union failed to secure agreement over whether the product should be sold here, after Britain and nine other countries voted in favour. However, the disclosure of the health effects on the Monsanto rats has intensified the row over whether the corn is safe to eat without further research. Doctors said the changes in the blood of the rodents could indicate that the rat's immune system had been damaged or that a disorder such as a tumour had grown and the system was mobilising to fight it. Dr Vyvyan Howard, a senior lecturer on human anatomy and cell biology at Liverpool University, called for the publication of the full study, saying the summary gave "prima facie cause for concern". Dr Michael Antoniu, an expert in molecular genetics at Guy's Hospital Medical School, described the findings as "very worrying from a medical point of view", adding: "I have been amazed at the number of significant differences they found [in the rat experiment]." Although Monsanto last night dismissed the abnormalities in rats as meaningless and due to chance, reflecting normal variations between rats, a senior British government source said ministers were so worried by the findings that they had called for further information. Environmentalists will see the findings as vindication of British research seven years ago, which suggested that rats that ate GM potatoes suffered damage to their health. That research, which was roundly denounced by ministers and the British scientific establishment, was halted and Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist behind the controversial findings, was forced into retirement amid a huge row over the claim. Dr Pusztai reported a "huge list of significant differences" between rats fed GM and conventional corn, saying the results strongly indicate that eating significant amounts of it can damage health. The new study is into a corn, codenamed MON 863, which has been modified by Monsanto to protect itself against corn rootworm, which the company describes as "one of the most pernicious pests affecting maize crops around the world". Now, however, any decision to allow the corn to be marketed in the UK will cause widespread alarm. The full details of the rat research are included in the main report, which Monsanto refuses to release on the grounds that "it contains confidential business information which could be of commercial use to our competitors". A Monsanto spokesman said yesterday: "If any such well-known anti-biotech critics had doubts about the credibility of these studies they should have raised them with the regulators. After all, MON 863 isn't new, having been approved to be as safe as conventional maize by nine other global authorities since 2003." From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 22 05:52:45 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 01:52:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Origins of transhumanism In-Reply-To: <20050521055013.M72390@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050522014749.030dd010@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> *One* of the origins of transhumanism dates back to the L5 Society, founded to promote space colonies in 1975. (My ghod that's a long time ago!) Anyway, some of the people involved in those days wrote a long lost short story which has now been put on a web site. http://www.l5news.org/EzekialsWheel.htm [This story was written in fits and starts in the years after the L5 Society was started--in those heady days when we could envision Solar Power Satellites paying for space colonies. I am not sure if it was submitted to a publisher. Not long ago I found a typed copy, scanned it and converted to HTML. Sorry for any remaining OCR errors. Brad Barber and I contributed the technology, Carolyn the food descriptions, Annita the characters and most of the story line. The authors all wrote on it at times. The technical elements are long out of date, particularly with respect to nanotechnology and life extension, though the computer descriptions were not so far off what has come to be. Think of it as being found in a time capsule buried in 1978. Keith Henson May 20, 2005] From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 22 10:28:13 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 03:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder Message-ID: <20050522102813.33697.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Hello fellow Extropes, I have finally finished the first draft of my essay. I am sending it out to all of you for your perusal and comment. Please keep in mind when you read it that it is aimed not at you but at normal xtian folk. In light of this, please judge it on the basis that I tried to make it as simple and accessible to the lay person as possible. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Therapeutic Cloning.rtf Type: text/richtext Size: 28121 bytes Desc: 3187414223-Therapeutic Cloning.rtf URL: From dirk at neopax.com Sun May 22 13:38:00 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 14:38:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: <20050522102813.33697.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522102813.33697.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42908B38.4050007@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >Hello fellow Extropes, > I have finally finished the first draft of my >essay. I am sending it out to all of you for your >perusal and comment. Please keep in mind when you read >it that it is aimed not at you but at normal xtian >folk. In light of this, please judge it on the basis >that I tried to make it as simple and accessible to >the lay person as possible. > > > > Very good. However, lose the amateur theology section. It would be torn to pieces by a half competent theologian. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun May 22 17:19:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 10:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: <20050522102813.33697.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050522171914.29469.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Hello fellow Extropes, > I have finally finished the first draft of my > essay. I am sending it out to all of you for your > perusal and comment. Please keep in mind when you read > it that it is aimed not at you but at normal xtian > folk. In light of this, please judge it on the basis > that I tried to make it as simple and accessible to > the lay person as possible. This you did, which, starting off with sounds a little too simple. You also have some editing to do. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 22 17:47:21 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 10:47:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <20050521055013.M72390@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <200505221747.j4MHlRR30740@tick.javien.com> ... > > Amara > > (*) ... To the Italian government, I'm 'just off the boat'. > ...if you have suggestions, ideas, offers, I'm all ears... >From your description Amara, I would guess that the authorities are holding out for a generous bribe, probably far more generous than your salary would allow. They may have been told that Americans are rich, so they surely want their cut. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 22 17:57:49 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 10:57:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] bizarre outcome of mtel masters In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050522014749.030dd010@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200505221757.j4MHvlR32376@tick.javien.com> Here's a kick that you may read about in tomorrow's newspapers. Six of the world's top chess players finished a tournament in Sophia Bulgaria a couple hours ago. The local hero Topalov (a Bulgarian) won the tournament, but real headline was the meltdown of the Russian world champion Vladimir Kramnik. As you may recall, Kramnik defeated Kasparov in a match a couple years ago to become the de facto world champion. In yesterday's game, he made the worst blunder of his professional career, and was a top candidate for the worst blunder of a world champion in history. That debate was ended today with a bizarre move on the part of Kramnik which will surely fuel a number of conspiracy theories, such as: was Kramnik drugged somehow? Could the Bulgarians have insured a win by their man by placing some kind of topically-absorbed poison on the white pieces? Kramnik's final moves in the last two rounds were so bizarre that such speculation becomes very believable. Or he coulda just been having a very bad week. spike http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2405 From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun May 22 18:08:05 2005 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: <20050522102813.33697.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050522180805.34963.qmail@web40422.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Hello fellow Extropes, > I have finally finished the first draft of my > essay. I am sending it out to all of you for your > perusal and comment. Please keep in mind when you > read it that it is aimed not at you but at normal > extian folk. In light of this, please judge it > on the basis that I tried to make it as simple > and accessible to the lay person as possible. Excellent! -gts From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Sun May 22 18:54:41 2005 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Henrik_=D6hrstr=F6m?=) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 20:54:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <20050521055013.M72390@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: > > (*) The futility of trying to live in this country has become > too discouraging and I might give up anyway. My fiftieth-something > visit to the Polizia to try to get my permit-of-stay, yielded, as > usual, nothing. To the Italian government, I'm 'just off the boat'. > Certainly some better nights of sleep will help me make a > rational decision, but if you have suggestions, ideas, offers, > I'm all ears. [To your question : why doesn't my work help me > with this political stuff, the answer is: they cannot. I'm the > first extracommunitari scientist my department has who has > stayed longer than one year, and they have no experience. Not > even the Italian Space Agency has anyone who can help. It is > rare for a scientist to immigrate _into_ Italy, you see.] > > > > *********************************************************************** > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF- Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, CNR - ARTOV, > Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA > ************************************************************************ > "We came whirling out of Nothingness scattering stars like dust." > --Rumi According to one of my friends who are half Italian the best course of action is friendship corruption, no one will go out of their way to help you at the departments if they do not know you. Find someone who might be the right person or at least know someone, then offer that person/s a lunch or dinner, talk about the weather, find anything that you have in common and be a gentile and likeable acquaintance. Send some flowers or a box of chocolate. In short make sure that you are not just a face in the crowd, be someone for them and all things will become much easier. And no, you don't have to know them well before attempting this, start with any one you have meet more than once and work your way up, once anyone makes a personal recommendation things will become easier. If a byrocratical problem is rare enough, odds are that no one ever will formulate any rules since the problem either gives up and leaves or resort to the friendly method. (This method works everywhere, even in otherwise corruption profe places like Sweden.) /Henrik ?hrstr?m -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMD d- s+: a C++ UL P L+ E- W+@ N+ o K+ w O- M V- PS++ PE+ Y++ PGP++ !t !5 X- R+ tv- b+++ DI++ D+ G e+++ h---- r+++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ From reason at longevitymeme.org Sun May 22 19:41:05 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 12:41:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] folding@home - you should be doing it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If you're not already donating spare processing cycles to the Folding at Home project, then you certainly should be. The latest client is much, much improved over earlier versions - very reliable and unobtrusive. Better to have all that spare processing time going to good use in advancing our knowledge of protein biochemistry - with an eye to understanding Alzheimer's and other age-related misfolding conditions - than sitting there idle, right? The Longevity Meme Folding at Home team: - http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/use_folding_at_home.cfm - http://www.statsman.info/folding2stats/32461.html The Extropy Folding at Home team - http://www.statsman.info/folding2stats/346.html Get thee hence and download the client: http://folding.stanford.edu/download.html I won't tell you which team to join, but obviously I have my biases. :) Take a look at the overtake pages at Extreme Overclocking: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_overtake.php?s=&t=32461 http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_overtake.php?s=&t=346 Moving on up... Reason Founder, Longevity Meme From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 22 19:50:24 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 14:50:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: References: <20050521055013.M72390@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050522144000.02f7dc70@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Henrik ?hrstr?m writes: > > > > (*) The futility of trying to live in this country has become > > too discouraging and I might give up anyway. My fiftieth-something > > visit to the Polizia to try to get my permit-of-stay, yielded, as > > usual, nothing. >According to one of my friends who are half Italian the best course of >action is friendship corruption, no one will go out of their way to help you >at the departments if they do not know you. >Find someone who might be the right person or at least know someone, then >offer that person/s a lunch or dinner, talk about the weather, find anything >that you have in common and be a gentile and likeable acquaintance. >Send some flowers or a box of chocolate. >In short make sure that you are not just a face in the crowd, be someone for >them and all things will become much easier. >And no, you don't have to know them well before attempting this, start with >any one you have meet more than once and work your way up, once anyone makes >a personal recommendation things will become easier. >If a byrocratical problem is rare enough, odds are that no one ever will >formulate any rules since the problem either gives up and leaves or resort >to the friendly method. >(This method works everywhere, even in otherwise corruption profe places >like Sweden.) When I lived in Italy, I felt alienated much of the time. If it had not been for other students at the Academy, I would not have succeeded. There were five of us, including me, attending the university graduate program. We stuck together when it came to legal issues for non-Italians visiting the country. Also, I developed friendships with professional Italian artists, chiefs, musicians, and writers in Ravenna and they helped me. the University did not help me. Even this past year, I needed to get my transcripts sent from Ravenna to Houston for the Graduate program and I had to call a dozen times and it was only when I screamed "HELP!" that they replied. Yet, Ravenna was more accommodating than Livorno, where I spent one summer. Because I had connections with the shipping companies in Italy, I was able to learn some of the ins and outs of the Mafia, and one time we had to pass off the Port Captain to enter the dock, where I was a stowaway on a ship. We had chocolates, liquor and cigarettes that we provided him to get into the port. But that is another story ... Cannot your company/university/boss, etc. help you? Natasha >/Henrik ?hrstr?m > > -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- >Version: 3.1 >GMD d- s+: a C++ UL P L+ E- W+@ N+ o K+ w O- M V- PS++ PE+ Y++ PGP++ !t !5 >X- R+ tv- b+++ DI++ D+ G e+++ h---- r+++ y+ >------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ > >_______________________________________________ >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 Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun May 22 22:52:36 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 15:52:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] 'We are all interested in the future...' Message-ID: <42910D34.50803@mindspring.com> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1489635,00.html 2050 - and immortality is within our grasp Britain's leading thinker on the future offers an extraordinary vision of life in the next 45 years David Smith, technology correspondent Sunday May 22, 2005 The Observer Aeroplanes will be too afraid to crash, yoghurts will wish you good morning before being eaten and human consciousness will be stored on supercomputers, promising immortality for all - though it will help to be rich. These fantastic claims are not made by a science fiction writer or a crystal ball-gazing lunatic. They are the deadly earnest predictions of Ian Pearson, head of the futurology unit at BT. 'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,' Pearson told The Observer. 'If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine. We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT.' Pearson, 44, has formed his mind-boggling vision of the future after graduating in applied mathematics and theoretical physics, spending four years working in missile design and the past 20 years working in optical networks, broadband network evolution and cybernetics in BT's laboratories. He admits his prophecies are both 'very exciting' and 'very scary'. ... etc -- "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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun May 22 23:37:46 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 16:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522233746.70820.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > This you did, which, starting off with sounds a > little too simple. Could you please clarify? Are you saying that the tone is insulting or condescending? I tried to avoid that by trying to sound familial but if it sounds too strained it might backfire and I can see how that might be construed as condescending. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ From dgc at cox.net Mon May 23 00:33:10 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 20:33:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: <20050522233746.70820.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522233746.70820.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429124C6.9000401@cox.net> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >>This you did, which, starting off with sounds a >>little too simple. >> >> > >Could you please clarify? Are you saying that the tone >is insulting or condescending? I tried to avoid that >by trying to sound familial but if it sounds too >strained it might backfire and I can see how that >might be construed as condescending. > > > > I don't think extropians have the correct perspective for that particular analysis. For that, we need to find a small set of "intelligent laymen." anyone on this list is automatically excluded. Try asking your mom ( assuming she is not already "contaminated.") Extropian reviewers can review for rigor, or to ensure that you have covered all of the really crucial points. We cannot evaluate the "tone" as perceived by your target audience, since we are not members of that audience. If yo feel that your mom is not a big enough audience, perhaps we can each nominate an "intelligent layman" as a reviewer? From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 23 01:42:11 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 18:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523014211.34305.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > However, lose the amateur theology section. > It would be torn to pieces by a half competent > theologian. No I think I have to be allowed to invoke God in my essay. Leon Kass and his cronies invoke God at will in their arguments and get away with it. Whether he exists or not, God is a powerful meme and he needs to be on my side or I risk yielding the moral high-ground to the other camp. This is after all memetic war. But I understand your point so I will just have to make my theological argument less flippant and more sophisticated to be able to withstand an assault by a qualified theologian. I am open to suggestions. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Mon May 23 01:58:07 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 02:58:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: <20050523014211.34305.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050523014211.34305.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429138AF.7070307@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>However, lose the amateur theology section. >>It would be torn to pieces by a half competent >>theologian. >> >> > >No I think I have to be allowed to invoke God in my >essay. Leon Kass and his cronies invoke God at will in >their arguments and get away with it. Whether he >exists or not, God is a powerful meme and he needs to >be on my side or I risk yielding the moral high-ground >to the other camp. This is after all memetic war. But >I understand your point so I will just have to make my >theological argument less flippant and more >sophisticated to be able to withstand an assault by a >qualified theologian. I am open to suggestions. > > > Well, the first point you should recognise is that most Xians believe a soul exists in a fertilised egg (no matter how fertilised) and it is this which defines it as a Human, and that taking it apart is killing it. I do not see any way around this. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 23 02:07:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 19:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523020740.66329.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Journalists try to write for a US sixth grade level of education. There are points which are more like fourth grade, which to me sounds a bit condescending. --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > This you did, which, starting off with sounds a > > little too simple. > > Could you please clarify? Are you saying that the tone > is insulting or condescending? I tried to avoid that > by trying to sound familial but if it sounds too > strained it might backfire and I can see how that > might be construed as condescending. > > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they > haven't attempted to contact us." > -Bill Watterson > > > > Discover Yahoo! > Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! > > http://discover.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon May 23 02:15:02 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 19:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523021502.39508.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Well, the first point you should recognise is that most Xians believe > a soul exists in a fertilised egg (no matter how fertilised) and it > is this which defines it as a Human, and that taking it apart is > killing it. I do not see any way around this. Actually, most christians *don't* believe this. Most believe that it is indeterminate. Therefore I would suggest you take a scientific approach in the ideaspace they are used to. For example, there have been claims that a human body loses x amount of mass at the moment of death, and fundamentalist-leaning christians tend to believe that this is the 'mass of the soul'. If you scientifically treated these observations as a working but unproven hypothesis, and compared the mass lost by a dead body at time of death to the mass of a blastocyst, I think it clearly demonstrates that there is insufficient mass in the blastocyst to accomodate a soul, there is therefore no room at the inn.... So you can conclude that until the embryo weighs at least the amount of mass observed to be lost by a dying human body, then it should be impossible for it to contain a soul, and therefore research on an embryo before it reaches this mass should be no different than picking a scab off a wound or clipping one's toenails. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 23 06:34:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 23:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523063415.41632.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Actually, most christians *don't* believe this. Most > believe that it is > indeterminate. Therefore I would suggest you take a > scientific approach > in the ideaspace they are used to. For example, > there have been claims > that a human body loses x amount of mass at the > moment of death, and > fundamentalist-leaning christians tend to believe > that this is the > 'mass of the soul'. If you scientifically treated > these observations as > a working but unproven hypothesis, and compared the > mass lost by a dead > body at time of death to the mass of a blastocyst, I > think it clearly > demonstrates that there is insufficient mass in the > blastocyst to > accomodate a soul, there is therefore no room at the > inn.... So you can > conclude that until the embryo weighs at least the > amount of mass > observed to be lost by a dying human body, then it > should be impossible > for it to contain a soul, and therefore research on > an embryo before it > reaches this mass should be no different than > picking a scab off a > wound or clipping one's toenails. Excellent suggestion. I thought of something similar when I was writing it, but I was afraid christians would dismiss as hoaky. But you are right, christians hunger for science to grant them legitimacy. It may prove to be just the thing. Especially since the original experiment has never been verified or falsified. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 23 07:59:35 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 00:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523075935.18944.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Here it is again. Thank you all for your input. I have included many of your suggestions so this is actually an accomplishment for all of us. Read and let me know what you think of my changes. Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder by Stuart LaForge May 22, 2005 There has been much controversy of late over the topics of stem cells and cloning. These two related topics have become highly politicized and public consensus is predictably split down party lines. This however should not be the case. The fact that it is shows just how over-politicized and ideologically polarized this country has become. It also indicates that neither side of the debate has an adequate understanding of the medical merits or scientific details of this new technology upon which to make morality based judgments. When you live in such politically charged times, you must take great care that your position on an issue is based on sound reasoning and not just on the basis that it is the opposite of what the other party wants. The fact that both sides seem to think the process of generating embryonic stem cells by therapeutic cloning to be somehow akin to abortion is indicative of just how little both sides actually know about the technology at the heart of this issue. For the political left to justify the technology as being “no worse than abortion” is practically begging for the political right to oppose it because they view abortion as murder. The truth however is that the process of therapeutic cloning, if properly understood and regulated is not morally wrong and does not resemble abortion at all. Indeed as we shall see, it is a blessing of miraculous potential. In order to understand why this is so requires some knowledge of cell biology, human development, and the cloning process itself. First off we shall explain cells. Cells are the smallest unit of all life on earth including you. You the individual, when looked at under the microscope, are not an individual at all but a collective. A collective of approximately 250 trillion cells. Each cell is a thing with a life of its own and it does some vital job in keeping you alive. By the time you reached adulthood, you had for the most part stopped growing. In cellular terms, this means that most of your cells had stopped moving around and dividing. The cells are said to have differentiated which is a technical way of saying that they have settled down in one spot and specialized themselves to a specific task. For example cells that have settled down on the outside of you to act as a barrier to keep moisture in and germs out are called skin cells. Now in every person’s body there is a special class of cells that have not settled down and specialized yet. These cells are a like a “ready reserve” in that they can do all kinds of different jobs. They can become skin, blood, fat and many other kinds of cells. These are the so-called adult stem cells. This ability of theirs to become several different cell types is called pluripotency. Now adult stem cells are useful for this property and many different tissue types can be grown from them such as skin, blood, intestinal lining, and sometimes bone. Unfortunately there are many cell types that these adult stem cells cannot become. Lung tissue, brain tissue, and heart muscle are three examples. So for therapeutic purposes, adult stem cells are useful but only in a limited fashion. There is a second class of stem cells called embryonic stem cells or ES cells for short. Like adult stem cells, ES cells have not specialized but they differ from adult stem cells in that they are totipotent. This is a fancy way of saying that they are not limited in the types of cells they can become. They can become any cell and do any job the human body requires of them. For example they can become heart muscle cells or nerve cells in the brain or they can become the beta cells that make insulin that diabetic children need. Obviously if cells such as these were allowed for medical purposes, it would be a shining beacon of hope to millions of suffering people, maybe even you. There are three big catches to ES cells however. The first is that by the time that a person is born, all their ES cells have already become something. They still have their adult stem cells that replace high turn over tissues, like blood, skin, and the lining of the gut but no more of the “super” stem cells that can become appropriate tissue in any part of the body. The second catch is that since adults don’t have any, the only place to get them is from human blastulas. This poses a moral problem for those who are against ES cell research and therapeutic cloning because they believe that this process “destroys” an embryo. Since that embryo technically has the potential to grow into a human being, they conclude destroying it is the same as murder. While researchers in the US are currently allowed to work on pre-existing government ES cell lines, these cells have absolutely no therapeutic potential whatsoever. Not only are they contaminated with animal proteins and other animal products, but they also lead us to the third catch of using ES cells for therapy: Not just any old ES cell will do. This is because every person is an individual and their genetic blueprints are as unique as their fingerprints. Moreover, the cells in your body are able to recognize your genetic blueprint and will reject and kill any cell that has a different blueprint. So even if the government ES cell lines were “clean”, any tissue grown from them would still be rejected by your body because your body would know they were not yours. The solution to all this is therapeutic cloning. Cloning sounds really scary and has been the subject of many Hollywood science fiction and horror movies, but much of its bad rap is because it is not understood. It is not scary and it is not wrong. In order to understand why this is, we must learn some more biology. This time we will focus on human development. All sexual organisms including you or me, start out as a single fertilized egg, the union of sperm and egg. That fertilized egg cell is called a zygote. When the zygote divides it becomes a blastocyst because it kind of explodes into growth, rapidly dividing. In 5-7 days there are now approximately 256 cells and this stage is called a blastula. It is also an embryo but that is misleading because embryo is a very broad term that can mean everything from a fertilized egg to a fully developed fetus. One of the big misunderstandings in the debate is that when bioethicists tell you that embryos are destroyed they do so in such a fashion as to conjure the image of a fetus in your mind. What it should conjure however is the image of a blastula. A blastula looks like a hollow sphere of cells with a small clump of tiny cells inside of it. It is about 0.15 millimeters in diameter, about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The cells that make the hollow shell are called the trophoblast and the clump of cells on the inside is called the embryonic or inner-cell mass. The trophoblast goes on to give rise to the placenta, while the inner-cell mass goes on to become the embryo itself. It is this inner cell mass that are the ES cells and they are harvested simply by removing them from the trophoblast. Harvesting is perhaps the wrong word however because it insinuates destruction. Like when people harvest carrots, the carrots get uprooted and die. Harvesting ES cells for medical therapy however, is entirely different. One must harvest them very carefully so that they do NOT die, because the therapy can only work if they are ALIVE. Therefore the embryo is not destroyed, it is simply moved from one place to another so rather than harvesting, the process should be called transplantation. While it is true that many of these cells will die as a result of research to try and figure out how best to use them as therapy, these deaths would be failures of our attempts to keep them alive and not the means or ends of our research itself. Because the research itself will be largely focused on how to keep the ES cells alive and entice them to turn into different types of tissue. Now we will return to the subject of cloning. The processes of cloning, growing, and harvesting embryos for the purposes of therapeutic cloning are vastly different from an abortion in almost every way that matters. First of all abortion is the purposeful killing of a fetus. It is, whether you personally condone it or not, a destructive act. The act of cloning, therapeutic or otherwise, is a creative constructive act. Many opponents to cloning, even well educated bioethicists, wrongly believe that cloning is “creating life just to destroy it for the benefit of another”. This is not the case of at all. In order to understand why this is so requires a brief overview of the actual way that cloning works. Let’s say for illustrative purposes that you have volunteered to be cloned. The first step is to take a tissue sample from you. It could be a scraping of your cheek lining or a drop of blood. Then a cell is isolated from the tissue sample and a part of the cell called the nucleus is transferred into a specially prepared egg cell from a woman donor. The nucleus is like a “repository” that stores the DNA that serves as your genetic blue print. In order to receive your nucleus, the egg must have had its own incomplete nucleus removed. The egg’s nucleus is incomplete because the egg cell, like a sperm cell, is a haploid gamete. This means that it is incomplete, carrying only half the normal number of chromosomes necessary to make a human. That is to say that an egg cell only has half of a genetic blueprint, like having only the floor plan for the upstairs of a two-story house. This is why eggs and sperm, women and men, need each other in order to have children. Thus an egg cell or sperm cell is only half an embryo at best. The incomplete nucleus of the egg cell is the only thing that is effectively destroyed in cloning. But the rest of the egg, called the cytoplasm survives, just under the management of the new nucleus. This is no more violent or wrong then when a woman flushes out her egg every month into the toilet in the process of menstruating. If anything this prevents the egg from going completely to waste. The next step of cloning consists of giving the new zygote, consisting of the “old” nucleus and “new” cytoplasm the little push that will enable it to grow and divide and form a blastocyst. Often this push takes the form of mild electrochemical stimulation. The blostocyst will now grow and divide until it reaches the stage where it would implant itself in the wall of a woman’s womb. This stage is called the blastula that we discussed earlier. Thus the tangible essence of life is neither created nor destroyed in the act of cloning, instead the life essences of two different cells are fused to make a new cell that has blueprints of one person and the cell making factories of another person. The new clone has three possible fates. Unless the cloned embryo is implanted in some woman’s womb in cannot develop further. Even if it were so fortunate as to be so implanted, its chances of survival would only be about 38%. That means that even if conditions for the newly cloned embryo were perfect, it still may not have the potential to become a person. This is not because the cloned embryo is different than a normal embryo, in fact most (57%) embryos formed naturally die within twelve weeks of conception without the mother even being aware she was pregnant. Some more recent figures estimate this embryonic mortality at closer to 80%. If this were not so, then every union of a man and woman while she was ovulating would result in offspring. As many patrons of fertility clinics can sadly attest to, this is not the case at all. But trying to help the cloned blastula to become a person is called reproductive cloning and we don’t want that anyway. Even the scientists that want to research therapeutic cloning are not interested in reproductive cloning because it is pointless. It is not any kind of improvement on reproducing the normal way. Even in the simple service of vanity, reproductive cloning is pointless. The clone would not be you, it would be your identical twin only many years younger than you. It would have had a whole different set of life experiences and develop entirely its own personality and agenda. So in short, this author is not in support of reproductive cloning regardless of its ethical implications. The second possible fate of the new clone is that nobody does anything. In this instance the cloned embryo will die. This is another big difference between cloning and abortion. If a woman is pregnant with a fetus and does nothing about it, it will usually go on to be born. In other words, the death of a fetus in abortion is a purposeful act of destruction. In cloning, it is not action that will lead to the destruction of the embryo but inaction. If nothing is done, the embryo will die. The third possible fate is that the ES cells are harvested for therapeutic cloning. Remember that this does not kill any of them. A scientist or a doctor transfers the ES cells to a petri dish along with a soupy broth of nutrients and some skin cells called fibroblasts to keep them company. The scientist will then use all his knowledge of biology to try to get the ES cells to survive and to differentiate into some kind of tissue. This is the process of therapeutic cloning. The tissues grown from these ES cells are very possibly tissue that you may need to survive like a new heart free of arterial plaque, new nerves to help you regenerate a broken spine, skin for burn victims, and beta cells for diabetics. The potential is only limited by our ability to understand the workings of cells and our willingness to use our knowledge. There is no death here. The embryo doesn’t die, it becomes a part of you. The cells from the clone have the same blue prints as your cells do, so your body doesn’t reject them. Instead your body makes them welcome and shares all of its resources with the new cells. These cells do not belong to another person; they are yours. This is an important distinction because almost all philosophical basis for human rights state that it is the individual person that has rights, not parts of the person’s body. The individual cells of a person do not have rights but the collective of all of a person’s cells that is the individual himself does. In the case of therapeutic cloning, no other identifiable individual is involved other than the one who voluntarily underwent the cloning procedure. No rights are violated in this process and no violence is done to anyone or anything. The blastula created by therapeutic cloning will never become a fetus unless it is implanted in a woman’s womb. A fetus although as of yet, not fully formed, often has a brain, spinal cord, and other hallmarks of a nervous system. Whether this qualifies the fetus as an individual person with rights is a main focus of the abortion argument from both sides. The purpose of this essay is not to argue one way or another for abortion. That decision is best left to the reader to make as his or her beliefs and conscience may dictate. Instead I have shown how generating stem cells and possibly organs for transplant from the process of therapeutic cloning is very different from an abortion. Therefore the moral arguments used in the abortion debate cannot be logically applied to the therapeutic cloning debate. The first thing one must understand is that a blastula is not the same thing as a fetus. While one could argue that a fetus is a late-stage embryo one cannot truly say that a blastula that contains embryonic stem cells is at all like a fetus. A fetus for all intents and purposes does resemble a miniature human. It has a head, eyes, limbs, organs, and most importantly a brain. Because it is scientifically demonstrable that the brain is the seat of consciousness, it can therefore be argued that a fetus might be able to sense its environment, react to stimuli such as pain, and perhaps feel emotion. If one believes that people have souls one can make the argument that a fetus has a soul and is therefore entitled to rights. One cannot however, based on the evidence, make such an argument for a cloned embryo in the blastula stage. For one thing, it is because there is no actual conception involved. Instead it is merely the transfer of information, in the form of a nucleus, from one cell to another. Furthermore the blastula has no distinguishable human features of any kind. It has no front or back, no head, no limbs, no organs, and no eyes. Now one could argue that the blastula is technically a potential human in the sense that were it to be implanted into a woman’s womb, it might become a human fetus. But as we have seen, the chances of this only amount to about 20%, should someone actually implant it. Since reproductive cloning is so ethically questionable and so pointless in a practical sense, this is highly unlikely to occur. If it becomes a concern, then this author thinks that it perfectly acceptable to keep the legal ban on reproductive cloning in place. So let us examine the two most important reasons why therapeutic cloning is neither murder nor a violation of anyone’s rights. First and very importantly, there is no new person created in the process. No actual conception occurs anywhere in the process. No new life is started. Secondly the embryonic cell mass is not killed or destroyed in the process, it is merely disassembled. Destruction has an element of irreversibility to it. Disassembly implies that the embryonic mass can be reassembled and it can be, only it isn’t. Instead the ES cells are used to create something else. In case you still have trouble understanding why there isn’t any death or destruction involved in therapeutic cloning, an illustrative story might help. The story is called “The Parable of the Carpenter”. Once upon a time there lived a carpenter. The carpenter wanted a tool shed to put his tools in so he saved up his money and bought a bunch of wood, nails, glue, and all the supplies he would need to build one. When the carpenter’s neighbor saw this, the neighbor asked what the carpenter was doing. The carpenter told him that he was intending on building a tool shed. The neighbor thought about it and suggested that the carpenter build a sauna instead, since it would be of use to the entire family and not just the carpenter himself. The carpenter was amazed, he hadn’t thought of building a sauna. So the carpenter went to work building a sauna. After he had finished building his sauna and using it a couple of times, he realized that the sauna was not as useful as he had hoped and he still had a bunch of tools with nowhere to store them. But he had spent all his money to buy the materials that he used to build the sauna, so he could no longer afford to build the tool shed. Because of this, the carpenter became angry with the neighbor and took him to court to sue him for “destroying” his tool shed. When the judge heard the details of the case, he laughed at the carpenter’s foolishness and threw the carpenter’s case out of court. Did the tool shed get destroyed? The materials that the carpenter had bought had the potential to become a tool shed. But the materials could not have assembled themselves into a tool-shed so this potential was very limited. The carpenter decided to build a sauna instead. The tool shed never existed to be destroyed in the first place. What was supposed to become the tool shed became a sauna instead. Thus there was no destruction, just a different becoming. Living things are always becoming like a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. In this process, some of the caterpillar’s cells live and others die, but one cannot say that the caterpillar itself dies in the process. In this regard, therapeutic cloning is as natural a technology one could hope for. It is hoped that from a philosophical point of view, you see that based on the facts, therapeutic cloning is not a violation of human rights. There is no victim with rights to be violated. It is certainly not murder because nobody dies. It is a blessing of miraculous potential. The only destruction is the removal of an incomplete set of DNA from the donor egg. There are those that believe that life starts at conception. But in the case of the cloned embryos used in therapeutic cloning, there is no conception of new life. There is only the transplantation of old life into new trappings. Another aspect of the debate aside from purely philosophical aspect of moral arguments is the spiritual implications. After all, many bioethicists view therapeutic cloning as “playing God”. Yet theologically, what makes you a person is not that you are merely alive. After all, the world abounds with living things that are not people. Theologically what makes you a person with inalienable God-given rights is that you have a soul. So for those of faith, the most important question regarding therapeutic cloning may be whether a blastula has a soul. Since we have determined that a blastula does not have a brain, we know it has no mind. But according to religious sources, the soul is different from the mind. The soul is eternal, while the mind is a temporary side effect of having a brain. Your soul is said to live on long after your brain has turned to dust. So does a blastula have a soul? We know that an ovum or unfertilized egg has no soul. Why should an ovum with someone else’s DNA stuck into it have one either? If it did, how might we know? Well one way we might determine if a blastula has a soul or not is to scientifically measure it somehow. Interestingly enough somebody has already scientifically weighed the soul. He was a medical doctor named Duncan MacDougall and in the April 1907 issue of the journal American Medicine he reported the results of experiments in which he determined the mass of terminally ill patients before and after they died. He observed that the patients he studied lost an average of 21 grams of mass when they died. Interestingly enough his results were never confirmed or repudiated by any other scientists despite the fact that they were published in a peer reviewed journal. If MacDougall’s results are accurate then one must conclude that a blastula can in no way accommodate a 21 gram soul as it weighs only about 34 micrograms which is 600,000 times too little. In fact a developing embryo would not reach 21 grams until about the eighth week of development. If similar experiments were performed, perhaps we could obtain a more accurate weight for the soul. However the experimental evidence as it stands, would argue that a blastula does not contain a soul. Although science is a great way of understanding nature, in matters of faith it is also necessary to consult the bible. That the bible was written so long ago, before people knew there were such things as a blastula, an embryo, or a fetus, makes it difficult to find any direct answer to these questions. But the nature of faith is such that if one believes that the scriptures are the word of God then one must believe that all the answers one needs are within it. People can be false and lie to you even if they call themselves scientists, men of the cloth, or prophets. But the word of God does not lie. And the answers we seek may be in them if we are willing to look. First off having read the Bible, it becomes apparent that there are exactly two people in the Bible that were not conceived in the normal sense. These two beings are Adam, the first man, and Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior who was the literal Son of God. God created both of these individuals without a mortal father. Now I am in no way suggesting that either Adam or Jesus were clones. In fact I am arguing for the exact opposite. But the biblical passages referring to these two beings may be informative to our purposes because they share with cloned embryos the property of not having been fathered by a human male. Let us begin with Adam’s origins. In Genesis 1:26 it reads, ”And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . .“ This tells us something important for our discussion. One of the things that is sacred about people is the way we look. Our image is sacred because it is the image of God. A fetus of more than six weeks of age does indeed look somewhat like us and therefore God. But a blastula looks nothing like us and therefore does not resemble God. Therefore on the criterion of image, a cloned blastula is not sacred. In Genesis 2:7 it states about Adam’s origins, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This verse is informative in the debate over therapeutic cloning in several ways. The argument that a blastula deserves rights because it is a “potential human” could then be applied to dust. For should God ever choose to breath life into the dust, it could become a human. Are we then supposed to give dust, dirt, and mud human rights because they are “potential humans”? Also notice that the Bible plainly says God, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” Taken literally, this suggests that an embryo becomes “ensouled” by God as soon as its nostrils form so that it can receive the “breath of life”. Interestingly enough, we know from biology that after the nostrils in a fetus form at about five or six weeks, they immediately become plugged with small bits of tissue. One could speculate that these plugs function to keep the soul in until it feels at home. In any case at five weeks, the embryo is much farther developed than the one-week old embryo that is at the heart of the therapeutic cloning debate. The book of Genesis thus seems to suggest that a blastula stage embryo does not yet have a soul, because it has no nostrils for the breath of life to be breathed into it. What useful insights can we gain by studying the origins of Jesus? In Luke 1:30-1:31 we see, “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” Now Jesus did not have a mortal father but it clearly states that he was none-the-less conceived. This is the power of almighty God at work and not some human scientist. Humans cannot conceive an embryo by cloning or any other process except for the usual method of procreation using sperm and eggs. Therapeutic cloning does not use sperm only eggs, therefore a cloned embryo is never actually “conceived”. To think otherwise, would mean that one was suggesting that mankind was capable of bringing forth individuals by Immaculate Conception and this is of course is preposterous and blasphemous. Some would still argue that Jesus, being without a mortal father, was still a person and therefore cloned embryos without fathers are also people. But this is a very sacrilegious argument. After all, Jesus was the Son of God, whilst a cloned embryo is not even the son of men. Therefore we can clearly see that that unless one is to willing attribute the ability of Immaculate Conception to human scientists, then cloned embryos cannot possibly be people. If they are not people, why give them rights? Another way to think of it is this way. God’s plan is perfect. If mankind figures out a way to do something amazing such as therapeutic cloning, it is only because God’s plan allows it. We are given free will to use God’s gifts as we wish. Therefore all and any of his gifts can be used for good or evil as people see fit. But because God’s plan is perfect, we cannot use his gifts to such an evil extent that we are capable of disrupting his plan. Look at Luke 12:6, “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?” If an embryo was to be used for therapeutic cloning, do you think God would be so cruel as to give it a soul or allow it to suffer? Therefore, we should accept God’s gifts humbly and use them responsibly with goodness in our hearts to the best of our ability and let God’s plan sort itself out. To do otherwise out of “worry for God’s plan” is arrogant and underestimates God. After all God can take care of himself. As we have seen, therapeutic cloning does not deserve the controversy that it seems to be eliciting. It is not murder nor is a destructive process. It is instead a new method of healing the sick, injured, and aged the likes of which have never before been seen. Given sufficient time to understand what hormones and other chemical messengers cause ES cells to become the various tissues, it is not hard to imagine a day when heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease would be things of the past, like polio is today. The potential of these cells to revolutionize medicine as we know it is staggering and cannot be overstated. As our understanding of these cells increases, it will become possible to grow replacement organs and limbs for people who need them. It will be possible to correct genetic defects like juvenile diabetes. It will become possible to regenerate brain and nervous tissue for aid against degenerative conditions like Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries. In short, therapeutic cloning is a blessing of miraculous potential. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 23 12:11:13 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:11:13 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims References: <20050521055013.M72390@ifsi.rm.cnr.it> Message-ID: <00a701c55f90$839cfc40$6e2a2dcb@homepc> From: "Amara Graps" > Brett Paatsch: >>Do you know where to find sources for the fact that something >>like 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 fertilized eggs don't go on to >>become babies? I can give you some sources if you don't, but I'd >>prefer that you look for yourself first. These sort of facts can help >>put the issues into biological perspective. These sort of facts can >>be shown to people as facts rather than as mere opinions. > > > Please send it to the Italian transhumanists > (http://www.transumanisti.it/, riccardo_campa at yahoo.com) > as well, so that they can distribute it. My apologies Amara for not getting back to this sooner. A book entitled Stem Cells : Controversy at the frontier of science was first published in Australia in April 2005. I know the author slightly and reviewed one of the chapters for her. Although the author gives the clear impression that there is rock solid evidence for her assertion that it is a "fact that four out of five naturally conceived embryos are defective and flush away with a woman's menstrual period" and on my first reading of her cited sources I thought she was right, on a closer second reading I am concerned that her enthusiasm may have caused her to stretch or overstate what the sources actually amount too. Here are the two sources she cites, I'd be interested to see what percentage people thinks can be fairly claimed on the basis of these. The author claims 80 per cent. Thats the 1 in 5. For a recent discussion see John M. Opitz, Transcripts for President's Council on Bioethics, 16 January 2003, www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html See also Robert Edwards The bumpy road to human in vitro fertilization. Nature Medicine October 2001 Vol 7 No 10. p 1091 - 1094 http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nm/journal/v7/n10/full/nm1001-1091.html > The Referendum > for removing the most restrictive portions of the Italian > ART law is next month, and the positions/debates are in > all of the Italian newspapers now. > > ( Italian ART Law > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005345.html ) > > If the laws are not overturned, the blocks are too large > against my trying to build my life in this country, and I must > give up. (*) It know that it is not your imagination, Italy IS especially tough with respect to its ART laws. If I was a woman seeking to make use of ART and I could leave Italy I would. > Amara > > (*) The futility of trying to live in this country has become > too discouraging and I might give up anyway. My fiftieth-something > visit to the Polizia to try to get my permit-of-stay, yielded, as > usual, nothing. To the Italian government, I'm 'just off the boat'. > Certainly some better nights of sleep will help me make a > rational decision, but if you have suggestions, ideas, offers, > I'm all ears. [To your question : why doesn't my work help me > with this political stuff, the answer is: they cannot. I'm the > first extracommunitari scientist my department has who has > stayed longer than one year, and they have no experience. Not > even the Italian Space Agency has anyone who can help. It is > rare for a scientist to immigrate _into_ Italy, you see.] Unfortunately I don't know enough about Italy to be likely to be of much assistance. I am willing to help you if I can. Feel free to mail me off list if you want. Regards, Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon May 23 16:09:53 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Eat Corn and Die, Rat! In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523160953.8221.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > Rats > Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed > abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising > fears > that human health could be affected by eating GM food. > According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health > problems were > absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the > research project. Non-GM food, perhaps...but was it equally rich in non-GM corn? (Specifically maize, since this variety was apparently specifically approved as equivalent to that.) Too much of any one thing is rarely good for a living body. > Although Monsanto last night dismissed the abnormalities in rats as > meaningless and due to chance, reflecting normal variations between > rats, a > senior British government source said ministers were so worried by > the > findings that they had called for further information. ...and why does Monsanto even bother to trot out the reasons it knows won't wash? > Now, however, any decision to allow the corn to be marketed in the UK > will > cause widespread alarm. The full details of the rat research are > included > in the main report, which Monsanto refuses to release on the grounds > that > "it contains confidential business information which could be of > commercial > use to our competitors". 'Tis of more commercial use to Monsanto to have it out there. I wonder if it's actually the "business" decisions of the GM developers (like trying to use GM foods to impose "no seed storage" policies) that are doing far more damage to the development of GM foods than any amount of Luddite activism. From hal at finney.org Mon May 23 16:47:19 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future Message-ID: <20050523164719.A64C357E8C@finney.org> I've continued to read books on Peak Oil, which I still haven't reached any significant conclusions about, but in the one by Peter Huber he had an interesting picture of how cars would change in the next 10-20 years. I saw a related article today about forecasts for the switchover to hybrids, at http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002783.html . Huber predicts that we will see major changes in the design of cars in the next decade. He foresees a transition of most of the parts of car engines and ancillary equipment from mechanical to electronic control. Of course this is already underway; 30-40 years ago cars were mostly mechanical, while today we have many electronic control systems. Huber sees this process as being completed in the near future. No longer will we have belts running from the engine to power the various components. No longer will we have all the mechanically operated valves, lifters, cam shafts and other parts of the engine that relate to control. Instead, these parts will all become electronic. The fans, pumps and other belt driven components will run off their own electric motors. And even within the engine, each valve will be electronically activated, with its own motor, solenoid or piezoelectronic actuator. The payoff from all this will be reduction of weight. A substantial part of the weight of today's engines is in the ancillary control equipment. Replacing these mechanical linkages with wires carrying electrical control signals will allow a simplified engine design and greater efficiency. Further efficiencies will come from the increased flexibility possible in an electronic control system vs a mechanically oriented one, allowing fine tuning of engine power output. The ultimate step will take longer, but eventually the power train itself will become electrical. Instead of a drive shaft, engines will generate electricity which will power motors located in wheel hubs. Small, high power electrical motors already exist which are able to efficiently carry the load necessary to power the vehicle. They're expensive now, but they will appear first in high end vehicles and work their way eventually down to every car. At that point, the engine exists solely to power an electrical generator. Everything else in the car runs off electricity. This is the ultimate evolution of the hybrid vehicle. The next logical step is to allow hybrids to be plugged in at home so they start the trip with a freshly charged set of batteries. The article I linked above talks about people who are already beginning to do this today, modifying their hybrid cars (voiding warranties) to allow it. Even the batteries in today's cars are good for a 5-6 mile trip, enough to run to the store and back. Such trips account for a substantial fraction of gasoline usage. Next generation batteries will hold even more. (Huber even sees it going the other direction, where you could use your car as an emergency household generator if the grid goes down, or during peak usage times to help balance statewide load.) Cars are less efficient as electrical generators than the big plants, due to economies of scale. And in terms of oil imports, electricity mostly uses other fuels: coal, nuclear, natural gas. Very little petroleum is used for electricity. So in the context of the Peak Oil scenario, if we can shift energy usage from gasoline to electricity, as with the plug-in hybrid, we can more easily adapt to a decrease in oil availability. Hal From giogavir at yahoo.it Mon May 23 18:19:57 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:19:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523181958.7781.qmail@web26205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> the car is part of a more complex system composed of roads, manufacturing, maintenance, energy requiremnents , in our case gas and pumps network, assistance etc. We must face all of them to really consider the car of the future. The problem is not only to change the propulsion system and get rid of pollution oil imports etc. That would be a fabulous thing but still limited. We must have a personal vehicle, that can run on networks that produces decentraliza clean energy fromm renewable resources, (solar, wind, fuel cells, maybe temp change and others) that can deliver the energy to the vehicle ON THE ROAD with a remote wireless system, maybe a n embeded cable or something similar that send power to a sensor located i the lower part of the car. Nanotech will ceratinly contribute to make lighter and simpler cars but the car in itself is not enough. we must change the entire system and also the need for car themselves. we are used yto go to work with a car. One million commuters by car a day in a big city , cost 3oo million dollars in fuel alone in Europe on the average that's money from the community and oil wasted. We are not using the car to go to work we are working to support the car with current prices. This have to change. Our system must change, our economy model our job and residential location and many other components. We are at a moment in history when technology may allow us to change the system,. How we use this technology is our task and responsibility --- Hal Finney ha scritto: > I've continued to read books on Peak Oil, which I > still haven't reached > any significant conclusions about, but in the one by > Peter Huber he had > an interesting picture of how cars would change in > the next 10-20 years. > I saw a related article today about forecasts for > the switchover to > hybrids, at > http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002783.html . > > Huber predicts that we will see major changes in the > design of cars in > the next decade. He foresees a transition of most > of the parts of car > engines and ancillary equipment from mechanical to > electronic control. > Of course this is already underway; 30-40 years ago > cars were mostly > mechanical, while today we have many electronic > control systems. > Huber sees this process as being completed in the > near future. > > No longer will we have belts running from the engine > to power the various > components. No longer will we have all the > mechanically operated valves, > lifters, cam shafts and other parts of the engine > that relate to control. > Instead, these parts will all become electronic. > The fans, pumps and > other belt driven components will run off their own > electric motors. > And even within the engine, each valve will be > electronically activated, > with its own motor, solenoid or piezoelectronic > actuator. > > The payoff from all this will be reduction of > weight. A substantial part > of the weight of today's engines is in the ancillary > control equipment. > Replacing these mechanical linkages with wires > carrying electrical control > signals will allow a simplified engine design and > greater efficiency. > Further efficiencies will come from the increased > flexibility possible > in an electronic control system vs a mechanically > oriented one, allowing > fine tuning of engine power output. > > The ultimate step will take longer, but eventually > the power train itself > will become electrical. Instead of a drive shaft, > engines will generate > electricity which will power motors located in wheel > hubs. Small, high > power electrical motors already exist which are able > to efficiently > carry the load necessary to power the vehicle. > They're expensive now, > but they will appear first in high end vehicles and > work their way > eventually down to every car. > > At that point, the engine exists solely to power an > electrical generator. > Everything else in the car runs off electricity. > This is the ultimate > evolution of the hybrid vehicle. > > The next logical step is to allow hybrids to be > plugged in at home so > they start the trip with a freshly charged set of > batteries. The article > I linked above talks about people who are already > beginning to do this > today, modifying their hybrid cars (voiding > warranties) to allow it. > Even the batteries in today's cars are good for a > 5-6 mile trip, enough to > run to the store and back. Such trips account for a > substantial fraction > of gasoline usage. Next generation batteries will > hold even more. > > (Huber even sees it going the other direction, where > you could use your > car as an emergency household generator if the grid > goes down, or during > peak usage times to help balance statewide load.) > > Cars are less efficient as electrical generators > than the big plants, due > to economies of scale. And in terms of oil imports, > electricity mostly > uses other fuels: coal, nuclear, natural gas. Very > little petroleum is > used for electricity. So in the context of the Peak > Oil scenario, if we > can shift energy usage from gasoline to electricity, > as with the plug-in > hybrid, we can more easily adapt to a decrease in > oil availability. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica? Scaricalo ora! http://it.messenger.yahoo.it From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 23 18:36:39 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:36:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <20050523075935.18944.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050523075935.18944.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050523130652.01d2f140@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Essay extract: >one way we might determine if a blastula has a >soul or not is to scientifically measure it somehow. >Interestingly enough somebody has already >scientifically weighed the soul. He was a medical >doctor named Duncan MacDougall and in the April 1907 >issue of the journal American Medicine he reported the >results of experiments in which he determined the mass >of terminally ill patients before and after they died. >He observed that the patients he studied lost an >average of 21 grams of mass when they died. >Interestingly enough his results were never confirmed >or repudiated by any other scientists despite the fact >that they were published in a peer reviewed journal. >If MacDougall’s results are accurate then one >must conclude that a blastula can in no way >accommodate a 21 gram soul as it weighs only about 34 >micrograms which is 600,000 times too little. In fact >a developing embryo would not reach 21 grams until >about the eighth week of development. If similar >experiments were performed, perhaps we could obtain a >more accurate weight for the soul. However the >experimental evidence as it stands, would argue that a >blastula does not contain a soul. [nostrils, etc] I hope what follows is regarded in the spirit of collegial critique, rather than gratuitous insult, but I don't intend to mince words. Several people (including me, off list) have advised deleting the "theology". Instead, you've added this ridiculous spiritualist/new-age item, which for most traditional Christians schooled in the elements of theology will look like either barefaced parody and mockery, or tone deaf positivism. The idea of an immortal soul is that its "essence" is metaphysically disjunct from corruptible, measurable matter and energy. This is precisely what is supposed to grant the soul its incorruptible immortal character. Angels and souls have no extension, no footprint, as it were, in the world -- hence the celebrated (although mythical) debate over the number of angels that can dance on the head of the pin. Of course, this mental construct seems incoherent. How can something with no palpable material reality supervene upon, interact with, let alone command the physical body? But that's allegedly the mystery of the thing. For many Christians, the sheer vulgarity of supposing that you can put a soul on scales and weigh it is (arcane pun intended) breathtaking. You will win no significant number of supporters with this line of argument. If you must persist, consider the equally misjudged possibility that souls also develop in size and mass from conception to death. The reason a blastocyst doesn't weigh very much, on this unlikely argument, is that its soul is proportionately less massive. That doesn't mean God fails to love it, nor that killing its material substrate, however underdeveloped, is not murder most foul of the innocent. I think the way to go with an essay like this is either to stick very closely to elucidation of the physical and developmental facts, or to provide a sophisticated theological argument for why the ensoulment theory is a culturally-specific importation of certain historically located and limited philosophical opinions, as corrigible as the rest of the largely fallacious Greek biology of that time. That would require hard work by a theologically informed theorist, and probably should not be tried at home. In addition, many sophisticated Protestant theologians, and I imagine Jewish theologians as well, no longer countenance a dualist model of the human person. Spirit is not any longer regarded as a gadget that gets stuck on, at conception or any other time. Admittedly, believers of this sort are probably not your natural audience, since they very likely won't object to stem cell research in the first place. There's much to admire in your draft essay, Stuart, and I hope you'll consider this critique seriously, because it would be a shame to provide an unnecessary opportunity for derision rather than reflection. Damien Broderick From max at maxmore.com Mon May 23 18:39:33 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:39:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? In-Reply-To: <20050523164719.A64C357E8C@finney.org> References: <20050523164719.A64C357E8C@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050523133346.062450c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Mon May 23 18:45:34 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:45:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <20050523164719.A64C357E8C@finney.org> References: <20050523164719.A64C357E8C@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050523134055.06245358@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Hal -- haven't read Huber's piece yet, but it seems to me that the major changes he's talking about may not all happen with hybrids, but may require fuel cell vehicles that enable "drive-by-wire" systems. My review of a good article on this: Tomorrow's Cars, Today's Engines http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO7240217153151 I like the idea of being able to customize the car body so much more easily and thoroughly. Of course the continuing trend toward increasing safety is pleasing from a superlongevist point of view. Onward! Max At 11:47 AM 5/23/2005, you wrote: >I've continued to read books on Peak Oil, which I still haven't reached >any significant conclusions about, but in the one by Peter Huber he had >an interesting picture of how cars would change in the next 10-20 years. >I saw a related article today about forecasts for the switchover to >hybrids, at http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002783.html . > >Huber predicts that we will see major changes in the design of cars in >the next decade. He foresees a transition of most of the parts of car >engines and ancillary equipment from mechanical to electronic control. >Of course this is already underway; 30-40 years ago cars were mostly >mechanical, while today we have many electronic control systems. >Huber sees this process as being completed in the near future. > >No longer will we have belts running from the engine to power the various >components. No longer will we have all the mechanically operated valves, >lifters, cam shafts and other parts of the engine that relate to control. >Instead, these parts will all become electronic. The fans, pumps and >other belt driven components will run off their own electric motors. >And even within the engine, each valve will be electronically activated, >with its own motor, solenoid or piezoelectronic actuator. > >The payoff from all this will be reduction of weight. A substantial part >of the weight of today's engines is in the ancillary control equipment. >Replacing these mechanical linkages with wires carrying electrical control >signals will allow a simplified engine design and greater efficiency. >Further efficiencies will come from the increased flexibility possible >in an electronic control system vs a mechanically oriented one, allowing >fine tuning of engine power output. > >The ultimate step will take longer, but eventually the power train itself >will become electrical. Instead of a drive shaft, engines will generate >electricity which will power motors located in wheel hubs. Small, high >power electrical motors already exist which are able to efficiently >carry the load necessary to power the vehicle. They're expensive now, >but they will appear first in high end vehicles and work their way >eventually down to every car. > >At that point, the engine exists solely to power an electrical generator. >Everything else in the car runs off electricity. This is the ultimate >evolution of the hybrid vehicle. > >The next logical step is to allow hybrids to be plugged in at home so >they start the trip with a freshly charged set of batteries. The article >I linked above talks about people who are already beginning to do this >today, modifying their hybrid cars (voiding warranties) to allow it. >Even the batteries in today's cars are good for a 5-6 mile trip, enough to >run to the store and back. Such trips account for a substantial fraction >of gasoline usage. Next generation batteries will hold even more. > >(Huber even sees it going the other direction, where you could use your >car as an emergency household generator if the grid goes down, or during >peak usage times to help balance statewide load.) > >Cars are less efficient as electrical generators than the big plants, due >to economies of scale. And in terms of oil imports, electricity mostly >uses other fuels: coal, nuclear, natural gas. Very little petroleum is >used for electricity. So in the context of the Peak Oil scenario, if we >can shift energy usage from gasoline to electricity, as with the plug-in >hybrid, we can more easily adapt to a decrease in oil availability. > >Hal >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________________________________ Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com --- Thought leadership in the innovation economy m.more at manyworlds.com _______________________________________________________ From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Mon May 23 19:00:34 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims In-Reply-To: <200505201227.j4KCR2R07789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050523190034.43823.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> The Avantguardian wrote: Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:34:03 -0700 (PDT) > Interestingly enough, I am pretty certain that the percentage of Christians in Korea are approximately the same as in the US if not higher. Obviously they are more educated and/or do not legislate their morality. >From the CIA World Factbook no affiliation 46%, Christian 26%, Buddhist 26%, Confucianist 1%, other 1% Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 23 19:31:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:31:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050523130652.01d2f140@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6667@texas.rr.com> <20050523075935.18944.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050523130652.01d2f140@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On May 23, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Of course, this mental construct seems incoherent. How can > something with no palpable material reality supervene upon, > interact with, let alone command the physical body? Quite easily if the universe we inhabit is a sim and the soul is at the level of the sim implementation strata. One would then I suppose consider murder as depriving the soul of an avatar within the sim. > - samantha From dgc at cox.net Mon May 23 20:02:13 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 16:02:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <20050523164719.A64C357E8C@finney.org> References: <20050523164719.A64C357E8C@finney.org> Message-ID: <429236C5.2080904@cox.net> Hal discusses an evolution of hybrids that ends with a gasoline-driven motor-generator driving efficient electric motors for each wheel. I don't see it. Many of the postulated intermediate steps appear to be harder than just building the end result. In particular, replacing cam-driven valves with electronically-controlled electromechanical valves sounds horribly complicated. Piston engines are a real mess. Their redeeming virtue is high power over a fairly large RPM range. But if you have electric motors at the wheels, you don't need this attribute. Instead, you build a turbine engine, optimized for maximum fuel efficiency at a particular RPM. This engine is a whole lot simpler and is well-understood. Diesel-electric locomotives have used this trick for over 50 years. A small high-current battery can be used to even out the power demand on the turbine. for rapid acceleration. From hal at finney.org Mon May 23 19:56:30 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? Message-ID: <20050523195630.A153757E8D@finney.org> Max More writes: > Since Hal just posted a follow-up on peak oil, it seems timely to post a > piece I just wrote for ManyWorlds. A slightly earlier and shorter version > (until 5pm EST today, when the version below will replace it) is here, > with links to related items: > http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO51605116448 > Hal -- I especially want to thank you. I drew on your posts on this > topic. I thought it was a very good article. One small error was that the U.S. used 35 quadrillion BTUs of oil/year back in 1973, not quadrillion barrels. BTW there is a series this week in the Canadian newspaper The Globe And Mail all about Peak Oil and its implications for Canada and the rest of the world. Canada is an especially interesting case because along with its large conventional oil reserves, it has enormous potential in its tar sands. If technology can be developed to turn that to oil economically, Canada will rival Saudi Arabia as an oil producer. http://www.energybulletin.net/ is a good site for Peak Oil news. It has been publishing links to the http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ stories, http://www.energybulletin.net/6241.html and http://www.energybulletin.net/6195.html . More stories will be published throughout the week. Especially interesting are today's stories about enhanced recovery operations allowing old "played out" fields to become economic producers again, which Max also mentioned. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050523.wxroilgas23/BNStory/Business/ "For Mr. Issacs, the rising price of crude is the key change. Just as important as today's high prices is the prospect of elevated and stable prices for years to come. That long-term trend is absolutely crucial to give the oil industry the economic cushion to pursue enhanced oil recovery, which by its very nature is more expensive." These improvements could potentially double Canada's conventional oil reserves. Of course, "today's high prices" are actually down quite a bit in the past few weeks. Oil hit $58/bbl and is now at $48. There seems to be a general sentiment that $40 will be the new floor, but there are no guarantees about that. A year ago it was at $25 and nobody would have predicted a doubling. These new players in the Canadian oil fields are hoping and praying that the price holds up. Hal From hal at finney.org Mon May 23 20:33:18 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future Message-ID: <20050523203318.69AD457E8C@finney.org> Dan Clemmensen writes: > Hal discusses an evolution of hybrids that ends with > a gasoline-driven motor-generator driving efficient electric > motors for each wheel. I don't see it. Many of the postulated > intermediate steps appear to be harder than just building the > end result. In particular, replacing cam-driven valves with > electronically-controlled electromechanical valves sounds > horribly complicated. Wouldn't it be a natural extension of what we've already seen, though? Electronic fuel injection replaced mechanically operated carburetors. Now we are seeing gasoline direct injection systems which largely replace cam-based intake valve timing with electronic injectors. Electronic ignition control is replacing mechanical distributors and rotors. In each case we're seeing a more decentralized design architecture, with the point of control moving closer to the engine cylinder. When you look at the complexity of camshafts and timing chains, it seems to invite a similar redesign. I don't know if such a thing is really happening, but Huber implies that this change is underway. > Piston engines are a real mess. Their redeeming virtue is > high power over a fairly large RPM range. But if you have > electric motors at the wheels, you don't need this attribute. > Instead, you build a turbine engine, optimized for maximum fuel > efficiency at a particular RPM. This engine is a whole lot simpler > and is well-understood. Diesel-electric locomotives have used this > trick for over 50 years. A small high-current battery can be used to > even out the power demand on the turbine. for rapid acceleration. I don't know if turbine engines can be made to work efficiently at this smaller size, but the general point seems very accurate: the engine can be optimized for power generation at whatever RPM and fuel flow rates work best. When you press on the accelerator, the engine won't necessarily speed up. You'll draw more power from the battery, and the engine will run more often and not shut down as much, but it doesn't have to run harder or faster. It just purrs away, turning gas into electricity as needed. Such a system should be vastly more efficient than even today's hybrids. Huber claims as well that the overall power train will become much lighter, with no need for heavy drive shafts, differential gears, transmissions, etc. All you need are cables that run to the wheels, and motors there which also will do regenerative braking, as hybrids already do. This will further increase efficiency. The main problem, I gather, is that the necessary high power density motors are still very expensive. And of course it is an enormous redesign of a part of the car that has changed very little in 80 years. There may be a certain amount of institutional resistance among the car companies, a need to retrain their engineers and be much more innovative and entrepreneurial than you would tend to expect from a GM or Ford. Hal From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 23 22:32:58 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:32:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050523172639.01e5a788@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Another point: < Therefore we can clearly see that that unless one is to willing attribute the ability of Immaculate Conception to human scientists, then cloned embryos cannot possibly be people. If they are not people, why give them rights? > Stuart thus appears to declare (via an unnecessary reductio few Xians are likely to take seriously anyway) that any cloned babies who develop from such embryos will be non-people without rights. I don't think tomorrow's delayed-twin humans will be very grateful for this argument. This is quite different from arguing that blastocysts, embryos and insufficiently developed fetuses are not yet *persons*, of course. Damien Broderick From max at maxmore.com Mon May 23 22:46:37 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:46:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? In-Reply-To: <20050523195630.A153757E8D@finney.org> References: <20050523195630.A153757E8D@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050523174333.064335f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:56 PM 5/23/2005, Hal wrote: >I thought it was a very good article. One small error was that the >U.S. used 35 quadrillion BTUs of oil/year back in 1973, not quadrillion >barrels. Yikes! Small error, indeed. Only off by three or four orders of magnitude. Thanks for catching that. I've fixed it, though it won't show up on the site for almost 24 hours. I will keep an eye on energybulletin.net. Max From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 23 23:54:20 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050523130652.01d2f140@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050523235420.98486.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > I hope what follows is regarded in the spirit of > collegial critique, rather > than gratuitous insult, but I don't intend to mince > words. Several people > (including me, off list) have advised deleting the > "theology". Instead, > you've added this ridiculous spiritualist/new-age > item, which for most > traditional Christians schooled in the elements of > theology will look like > either barefaced parody and mockery, or tone deaf > positivism. Of course I take this in the spirit of scholarly critique. In fact your critiques early on gave me much food for thought in writing this essay. I know the theological arguments are not water tight but they are only a small part of the whole argument. > > The idea of an immortal soul is that its "essence" > is metaphysically > disjunct from corruptible, measurable matter and > energy. This is precisely > what is supposed to grant the soul its incorruptible > immortal character. > Angels and souls have no extension, no footprint, as > it were, in the world > -- hence the celebrated (although mythical) debate > over the number of > angels that can dance on the head of the pin. Of > course, this mental > construct seems incoherent. How can something with > no palpable material > reality supervene upon, interact with, let alone > command the physical body? > But that's allegedly the mystery of the thing. For > many Christians, the > sheer vulgarity of supposing that you can put a soul > on scales and weigh it > is (arcane pun intended) breathtaking. You will win > no significant number > of supporters with this line of argument. I am first and foremost a scientist. I know that the results of a single experiment cannot be taken as "truth" but I also realize that the results of any experiment should be taken seriously enough to repeat them in some way to either verify or falsify them. If there is a mass loss in dying patients, then that phenomenon needs to be addressed, with or without a "soul hypothesis". Especially in this day in age where even physicists are invoking higher dimensions and an insubstantial vacuum seething with "dark energy" that apparently has mass. > > If you must persist, consider the equally misjudged > possibility that souls > also develop in size and mass from conception to > death. The reason a > blastocyst doesn't weigh very much, on this unlikely > argument, is that its > soul is proportionately less massive. That doesn't > mean God fails to love > it, nor that killing its material substrate, however > underdeveloped, is not > murder most foul of the innocent. I actually considered this possibility, which is precisely why I am calling for the ban on reproductive cloning to remain in effect in my essay. I shudder to think that Christianity might be wrong and that I am dooming future fully developed clones to stigmatization as souless slaves. Therefore I sincerely hope we are never foolish enough to allow a clone to reach full development. > I think the way to go with an essay like this is > either to stick very > closely to elucidation of the physical and > developmental facts, or to > provide a sophisticated theological argument for why > the ensoulment theory > is a culturally-specific importation of certain > historically located and > limited philosophical opinions, as corrigible as the > rest of the largely > fallacious Greek biology of that time. That would > require hard work by a > theologically informed theorist, and probably should > not be tried at home. There are plenty of essays out there that try to justify therapeutic cloning from a secular humanist POV, but it is obvious that those arguments are not swaying either the bioethicists or the policy-makers. Like I said, I am targeting this essay at the people that are not likely to believe the secular arguments precisely because of the theological implications. > In addition, many sophisticated Protestant > theologians, and I imagine > Jewish theologians as well, no longer countenance a > dualist model of the > human person. Spirit is not any longer regarded as a > gadget that gets stuck > on, at conception or any other time. Admittedly, > believers of this sort are > probably not your natural audience, since they very > likely won't object to > stem cell research in the first place. I have preached enough to the choir, it is time to do missionary work. > > There's much to admire in your draft essay, Stuart, > and I hope you'll > consider this critique seriously, because it would > be a shame to provide an > unnecessary opportunity for derision rather than > reflection. Derision is a risk I will have to take. It would be better then me having to live in Korea in order to pursue my research. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 24 00:22:53 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:22:53 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised References: <20050523235420.98486.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <013a01c55ff6$ba469ab0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: [First let me say well done for turning strong emotion into something tangable and creating choices for yourself ] > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > >> >> I hope what follows is regarded in the spirit of >> collegial critique, rather >> than gratuitous insult, but I don't intend to mince >> words. Several people >> (including me, off list) have advised deleting the >> "theology". Instead, >> you've added this ridiculous spiritualist/new-age >> item, which for most traditional Christians schooled >> in the elements of theology will look like >> either barefaced parody and mockery, or tone deaf >> positivism. > > Of course I take this in the spirit of scholarly > critique. In fact your critiques early on gave me much > food for thought in writing this essay. I know the > theological arguments are not water tight but they are > only a small part of the whole argument. Still they *are* a part and how many leaks are too many in that part for you I wonder? >> The idea of an immortal soul is that its "essence" >> is metaphysically >> disjunct from corruptible, measurable matter and >> energy. This is precisely >> what is supposed to grant the soul its incorruptible >> immortal character. >> Angels and souls have no extension, no footprint, as >> it were, in the world >> -- hence the celebrated (although mythical) debate >> over the number of >> angels that can dance on the head of the pin. Of >> course, this mental >> construct seems incoherent. How can something with >> no palpable material >> reality supervene upon, interact with, let alone >> command the physical body? >> But that's allegedly the mystery of the thing. For >> many Christians, the >> sheer vulgarity of supposing that you can put a soul >> on scales and weigh it >> is (arcane pun intended) breathtaking. You will win >> no significant number >> of supporters with this line of argument. > > I am first and foremost a scientist. I know that the > results of a single experiment cannot be taken as > "truth" but I also realize that the results of any > experiment should be taken seriously enough to repeat > them in some way to either verify or falsify them. If > there is a mass loss in dying patients, then that > phenomenon needs to be addressed, with or without a > "soul hypothesis". Especially in this day in age where > even physicists are invoking higher dimensions and an > insubstantial vacuum seething with "dark energy" that > apparently has mass. > > >> >> If you must persist, consider the equally misjudged >> possibility that souls >> also develop in size and mass from conception to >> death. The reason a >> blastocyst doesn't weigh very much, on this unlikely >> argument, is that its >> soul is proportionately less massive. That doesn't >> mean God fails to love >> it, nor that killing its material substrate, however >> underdeveloped, is not >> murder most foul of the innocent. > > I actually considered this possibility, which is > precisely why I am calling for the ban on reproductive > cloning to remain in effect in my essay. I shudder to > think that Christianity might be wrong and that I am > dooming future fully developed clones to > stigmatization as souless slaves. Therefore I > sincerely hope we are never foolish enough to allow a > clone to reach full development. Think like a scientists, what would stop that from happening. >> I think the way to go with an essay like this is >> either to stick very >> closely to elucidation of the physical and >> developmental facts, or to >> provide a sophisticated theological argument for why >> the ensoulment theory >> is a culturally-specific importation of certain >> historically located and >> limited philosophical opinions, as corrigible as the >> rest of the largely >> fallacious Greek biology of that time. That would >> require hard work by a >> theologically informed theorist, and probably should >> not be tried at home. > > There are plenty of essays out there that try to > justify therapeutic cloning from a secular humanist > POV, but it is obvious that those arguments are not > swaying either the bioethicists or the policy-makers. > Like I said, I am targeting this essay at the people > that are not likely to believe the secular arguments > precisely because of the theological implications. >> In addition, many sophisticated Protestant >> theologians, and I imagine >> Jewish theologians as well, no longer countenance a >> dualist model of the >> human person. Spirit is not any longer regarded as a >> gadget that gets stuck >> on, at conception or any other time. Admittedly, >> believers of this sort are >> probably not your natural audience, since they very >> likely won't object to >> stem cell research in the first place. > > I have preached enough to the choir, it is time to do > missionary work. >> >> There's much to admire in your draft essay, Stuart, >> and I hope you'll >> consider this critique seriously, because it would >> be a shame to provide an >> unnecessary opportunity for derision rather than >> reflection. > > Derision is a risk I will have to take. It would be > better then me having to live in Korea in order to > pursue my research. Is derision a risk you have to take? Brett Paatsch From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue May 24 00:36:41 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:06:41 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Eat Corn and Die, Rat! In-Reply-To: <20050523160953.8221.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050523160953.8221.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05052317363b187afc@mail.gmail.com> Adrian wrote: > I wonder if it's actually the "business" decisions of the GM developers > (like trying to use GM foods to impose "no seed storage" policies) that > are doing far more damage to the development of GM foods than any > amount of Luddite activism. Yes yes yes! It's not that there's a problem with GM itself, it's the fact that these companies are behaving like melodrama villians; I expect the CEOs to have waxed handlebar moustaches which they twirl as they laugh in high pitched evil voices about their latest diabolical scheme. But maybe I'm consuming the wrong media... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 24 00:59:27 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <013a01c55ff6$ba469ab0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050524005927.16209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > [First let me say well done for turning strong > emotion > into something tangable and creating choices for > yourself ] > >> I know the > > theological arguments are not water tight but they > are > > only a small part of the whole argument. > > Still they *are* a part and how many leaks are too > many > in that part for you I wonder? The two theological doctrines that make up the meat of that part of my argument are The Immaculate Conception and the Infallibility of God. The second I don't explicitly mention by I do allude to. Do you think it would bolster my argument to explicitly mention the Infallibility of God? > > I actually considered this possibility, which is > > precisely why I am calling for the ban on > reproductive > > cloning to remain in effect in my essay. I shudder > to > > think that Christianity might be wrong and that I > am > > dooming future fully developed clones to > > stigmatization as souless slaves. Therefore I > > sincerely hope we are never foolish enough to > allow a > > clone to reach full development. > > Think like a scientists, what would stop that from > happening. Well with future advances, we should be able to keep this from happening with some form of hormonal or genetic intervention, but for the time being the easiest way to prevent it is to simply NOT implant the embryo into a uterus. Surely this can't be too hard, right? > > Is derision a risk you have to take? > I sincerely hope not, as a scientist much rides on my reputation. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 24 01:00:00 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:00:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: <20050523014211.34305.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050523014211.34305.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <012701CF-6619-40BA-8A23-13D5413D7294@mac.com> On May 22, 2005, at 6:42 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> However, lose the amateur theology section. >> It would be torn to pieces by a half competent >> theologian. >> > > No I think I have to be allowed to invoke God in my > essay. Leon Kass and his cronies invoke God at will in > their arguments and get away with it. Whether he > exists or not, God is a powerful meme and he needs to > be on my side or I risk yielding the moral high-ground > to the other camp. This is after all memetic war. But > I understand your point so I will just have to make my > theological argument less flippant and more > sophisticated to be able to withstand an assault by a > qualified theologian. I am open to suggestions. > This is very problematic. It can be seen as a concession to the notion that ethics and morality are from the claimed proclamations of some claimed God or other. That is too much to concede. I would suggest instead talking of using the talents we have been given and the knowledge we have acquired to increase human well-being. If you must speak of God then perhaps allude to a truly good and generous God delivering the means to end much needless suffering and death. Surely we would be pathetic servants and care takers of the talents and knowledge we have been given if we did not put it to use. It could also be pointed out that the notion that it is against God's wishes that we use this knowledge is itself a mere opinion of fallible human beings. It is not holy writ or directly supported by such. We would rather err on the side of more improved health and well being rather than cower in fear that we might offend God for using the talents we have been given to help humanity. - samantha From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 24 01:43:35 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Eat Corn and Die, Rat! In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524014335.90409.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > Adrian wrote: > > I wonder if it's actually the "business" decisions of the GM > developers > > (like trying to use GM foods to impose "no seed storage" policies) > that > > are doing far more damage to the development of GM foods than any > > amount of Luddite activism. > > Yes yes yes! It's not that there's a problem with GM itself, it's the > fact that these companies are behaving like melodrama villians; I > expect the CEOs to have waxed handlebar moustaches which they twirl > as > they laugh in high pitched evil voices about their latest diabolical > scheme. But maybe I'm consuming the wrong media... And if that's the case, I further wonder how much effect could be gained by an effort to educate the biotech business leaders on strategies that won't alienate the public. Lessons these people are supposed to know, but apparently don't; while market forces would normally correct for this in the long run by making them noncompetitive, the damage they're doing in the short term (including locking out the competition) is perhaps worthy of amelioration... From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 24 01:51:14 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:51:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <20050524005927.16209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050524005927.16209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6268AE2E-F1A8-4FE5-AD58-B281C58B001B@mac.com> On May 23, 2005, at 5:59 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: >> > > The two theological doctrines that make up the meat of > that part of my argument are The Immaculate Conception > and the Infallibility of God. The second I don't > explicitly mention by I do allude to. Do you think it > would bolster my argument to explicitly mention the > Infallibility of God? > > I think you have no business basing an argument on either of these premises. To do so is to wander into the Den of Eternal Soulless Theological Debate as an innocent fool as it were. There is nothing you could possibly win by doing this. Where did the Infallibility of God come from anyway? It says plain as day in Genesis that God regretted creating man. The Immaculate conception is a Catholic myth. It isn't even important to many Protestants except as supposedly fulfilling a mistranslation of some Old Testament prophecy. - samantha From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 02:03:26 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 03:03:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: <012701CF-6619-40BA-8A23-13D5413D7294@mac.com> References: <20050523014211.34305.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <012701CF-6619-40BA-8A23-13D5413D7294@mac.com> Message-ID: <42928B6E.3030507@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > It could also be pointed out that the notion that it is against God's > wishes that we use this knowledge is itself a mere opinion of > fallible human beings. It is not holy writ or directly supported by > such. > Of course it is. We allegedly got kicked out of Eden for doing just that and now you want to compound the sin... That's the answer the fundies will drop on you first, and that's even before the theological heavyweights lay in. IMO it is pointless to argue theology for several reasons. The first is because most Transhumanists are not only ignorant of theology but are proud of the fact. The naivety of what passes for theological discussion on these lists is appalling, and if I didn't know better would consider it a deliberate parody. Second, by arguing a specific *type* of theology you are agreeing to play by *their* rules, and you'll lose. Third, it is a dubious strategy to attempt to play to the hicks and ignore the theologians, simply because the hicks will listen to the opinions of those theologians and trust their opinion over that of outsiders, even if they do not understand the fine points. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 24 02:49:13 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 03:49:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <20050524005927.16209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <013a01c55ff6$ba469ab0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <20050524005927.16209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0505231949627288c9@mail.gmail.com> On 5/24/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > The two theological doctrines that make up the meat of > that part of my argument are The Immaculate Conception > and the Infallibility of God. The second I don't > explicitly mention by I do allude to. Do you think it > would bolster my argument to explicitly mention the > Infallibility of God? I think it would bolster your argument to say what you believe to be true, for a start. Do you personally believe in the immaculate conception and the infallibility of God? - Russell From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 24 02:51:17 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524025117.40075.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Second, by arguing a > specific *type* of theology you are agreeing to play > by *their* rules, > and you'll lose. Third, it is a dubious strategy to > attempt to play to > the hicks and ignore the theologians, simply because > the hicks will > listen to the opinions of those theologians and > trust their opinion over > that of outsiders, even if they do not understand > the fine points. Ok Ok... I give up. :) I will revise my essay again and eliminate the theological part of it. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 24 03:04:21 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:04:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <20050523203318.69AD457E8C@finney.org> Message-ID: <200505240304.j4O34LR17471@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future > > Dan Clemmensen writes: > > Hal discusses an evolution of hybrids that ends with > > a gasoline-driven motor-generator driving efficient electric > > motors for each wheel. I don't see it... Hal's article discusses changes in cars, but keep in mind that many of the innovations therein have been explored. They are improvements perhaps, but not miracles. While playing amateur cowboy last weekend I had an idea. On the ranch is a utility vehicle that looks like a cross between a motorcycle and a car. It has four large ballooney tires for offroad use, but has handlebars and is straddled like a motorcycle. We could easily create a street-adapted version of these for the hordes of the proletariat. Consider this thought experiment. Think of a small car. You are perhaps seeing a Honda Civic or equivalent, weight about a ton, four cylinders, displacement about 2000 cc. The four wheeled cowperson vehicle is a quarter of that: a quarter of a ton, one cylinder, 500 cc displacement. The rolling resistance should be about a quarter as much. The frontal area times the coefficient of drag for the cowperson vehicle is probably about equal to that of the civic, so if driven at half the speed it should be about a quarter of the wind resistance. So you would have a low-tech vehicle that gets four times the fuel mileage as our current compact cars. The next thing I learned upon researching is that China Inc. is stamping out a downsized version of the ranch thing for 800 bucks a copy. It has a 90cc motor and has a mass closer to 100kg. These are really made for children, but you get the idea. We sweat over peak oil while struggling with an incorrect assumption: that we must drive cars at least the size of the smallest ones on the road today, and that we must have cars that can carry four, or at least two apes. But there is enormous potential to waaaay downsize, if we assume that we can accept vehicles that can only carry one, and that have no heater, no air conditioner, no radio, no gears, that top out around 40 mph. We could even rig a lexan shell of sorts, so that we at least would stay dry. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 24 03:09:44 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:09:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <20050524005927.16209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <013a01c55ff6$ba469ab0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <20050524005927.16209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050523215811.01e17480@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 05:59 PM 5/23/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote: >The two theological doctrines that make up the meat of >that part of my argument are The Immaculate Conception >and the Infallibility of God. The second I don't >explicitly mention [but] I do allude to. Yikes! Did you actually take a moment to find out what the doctrine of Immaculate Conception *is*: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm < The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body. ". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. > > > Is derision a risk you have to take? > >I sincerely hope not, as a scientist much rides on my >reputation. If you insist on getting the basic details of theological dogmas wrong, and adding hokey spiritualist silliness like "weighing souls", the derision you attract will not be the kind of scorn you can happily adopt as an ensign of your valid thinking in a gullible and superstitious world. It will be the laughter of those you've try to persuade with feeble arguments that will be seen as more closely resembling a crank's misuse of Einstein. Stick to what you know -- which is obviously an awful lot, specialized information that people *will* respect. Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 24 03:29:24 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524032924.22408.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > I think it would bolster your argument to say what > you believe to be > true, for a start. Do you personally believe in the > immaculate > conception and the infallibility of God? You have me here. I suppose the best reason not to include the theological argument is that I don't actually believe in theology. Not in any one particular theology at any rate. Point well taken. "To thine own self be true" sayeth the sage. I will rewrite the essay. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 24 04:19:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050523134055.06245358@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050524041932.28601.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Max More wrote: > Hal -- haven't read Huber's piece yet, but it seems to me that the > major changes he's talking about may not all happen with hybrids, > but may require fuel cell vehicles that enable "drive-by-wire" > systems. My review of a good article on this: > > Tomorrow's Cars, Today's Engines > http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO7240217153151 > > I like the idea of being able to customize the car body so much more > easily and thoroughly. Of course the continuing trend toward > increasing safety is pleasing from a superlongevist point of view. Hyrbidizing is actually rather easy to do. Regenerative braking hubmotors up to 5 kw are available on the market right now. With some rewiring and programming the engine computer, plus maybe an ignition control computer system that turns the gas and brake pedals into electrical sensors, and 3-4 metal hydride batteries inthe trunk, it should be possible to make a fully functional Saturn Custom Hybrid. I get back to NH, I'm going to have two Saturn SL's available to experiment with turning them into hybrid cars (any northeastern extropians want to help out?). I expect a milage boost from 35 mpg to at least 50, between regen savings plus generator efficiencies. They will also be faster off the block, so pimping them up as 'XXX' style street cars may be likely. Now, should I put an airbag in the steering wheel or a computer screen? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 24 04:22:54 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524042254.71981.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 23, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Of course, this mental construct seems incoherent. How can > > something with no palpable material reality supervene upon, > > interact with, let alone command the physical body? > > Quite easily if the universe we inhabit is a sim and the soul is at > the level of the sim implementation strata. One would then I suppose > consider murder as depriving the soul of an avatar within the sim. Ah, Damien, you may be right that the soul has no mass, but it must have energy, and it turns out that energy has mass based on the frequency and amplitude. If the soul has information content, it must have both frequencies and amplitudes....every christian quantum physicist knows that..... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From hal at finney.org Tue May 24 03:36:24 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future Message-ID: <20050524033624.F129757E8C@finney.org> Spike writes: > Consider this thought experiment. Think of a small car. You > are perhaps seeing a Honda Civic or equivalent, weight about > a ton, four cylinders, displacement about 2000 cc. The > four wheeled cowperson vehicle is a quarter of that: a > quarter of a ton, one cylinder, 500 cc displacement. The > rolling resistance should be about a quarter as much. > > The frontal area times the coefficient of drag for the > cowperson vehicle is probably about equal to that of > the civic, so if driven at half the speed it should be > about a quarter of the wind resistance. So you would have > a low-tech vehicle that gets four times the fuel mileage > as our current compact cars. ZAP has some cars along these lines, a little bigger though. http://www.zapworld.com/cars/smartCar.asp is the SMART which seats 2 and has "taken Europe by storm". But it weighs 1588 pounds and they don't give a mileage figure, probably for legal reasons. They also have something called the ePod, http://www.zapworld.com/cars/epod.asp , which is a human electric hybrid, basically a tricycle in a lexan shell. Perhaps the closest is the Intimidator LUV, which is far from intimidating, a simple 2 person electric vehicle, http://www.zapworld.com/cars/intimidator.asp . It weighs 705 pounds, can go 25 MPH with a range of 50 miles. One of the big issues is safety, they have quite a bit on their SMART car page about how the car is really safe. People worry about what will happen if they tangle with an SUV. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 24 04:34:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524043453.61076.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > > Of course, "today's high prices" are actually down quite a bit in the > past few weeks. Oil hit $58/bbl and is now at $48. There seems to > be a general sentiment that $40 will be the new floor, but there are > no guarantees about that. A year ago it was at $25 and nobody would > have predicted a doubling. These new players in the Canadian oil > fields are hoping and praying that the price holds up. If oil floors out at $40, there is no peak oil... $25.00/bbl, which I predicted would be the price a month after the start of the Iraq war (as it happened) was followed with a 40% int'l market devaluation of the dollar as many national governments delinked their currencies from the dollar, shifting to the euro, so $25 then is $35.00 now on international markets. This means that at a $40.00 price floor, oil prices have risen in reality $5.00 in two years. This is in reality 5-6% annual inflation in energy prices. Significantly above average, but nothing to write home about. With current $48 prices, that means a real rise in oil prices of $8.00 (you need to devaluate the actual price rise by 40% as well to get a good comparison to then-year dollars.) Assuming China, Korea, and Japan don't individually or together dump the dollar en masse (Korea has already made motions and China is already selling off dollars in a 'basket diversification' move), we shouldn't see prices rise higher than that. Of course, I wouldn't put it past them. The faster they (China) price us out of the middle eastern oil market, and leave us working on our domestic supplies, the sooner they get an advantage in the eventual face-off over Taiwan. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 24 04:44:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524044456.93983.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > Another point: > > < Therefore we can clearly see that that unless > one is to willing attribute the ability of Immaculate > Conception to human scientists, then cloned embryos > cannot possibly be people. If they are not people, why > give them rights? > > > Stuart thus appears to declare (via an unnecessary reductio few Xians > are likely to take seriously anyway) that any cloned babies who > develop from such embryos will be non-people without rights. > I don't think tomorrow's delayed-twin humans will be very grateful > for this argument. > > This is quite different from arguing that blastocysts, embryos and > insufficiently developed fetuses are not yet *persons*, of course. You would be surprised at what theologians believe. One of my other dear cousins has co-authored a paper at Oxford regarding the history of papal elections which has spurred some bloggy debate you might find some interest in, particularly over the question of how the pope gets his infallibility, either he gets it when he gets elected, or else the Conclave gets the infallibility when they go into Conclave and thereby transferrs it to the one they elect.... Of course, in keeping with the centuries long debate in the Church between the power of the Council over the power of the Pope, John Paul II liked the first option, while theologians of the council like the second one... read the latest entry in my blog to read more on this, the paper has interesting political implications for US party politics. Both believe what they believe on particularly theological grounds. Doing the same with stem cells and blastocysts and the mass of the energy of the soul vs the mass of a blastocyst (which should be measurable in vitro, by measuring the mass of a living blastocyst then pureeing it and measuring its new mass. This is an experiment that could be done by scientists today if it hasn't already (the data is likely already out there unanalysed from other experiments)). As a control, one could do the same thing with chimpanzee blastocysts and dog blastocysts (as well as cat blastocysts to see if they have nine times more soul-mass as a dog does to reflect their nine lives...). Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 24 04:52:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 21:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <20050523235420.98486.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050524045232.95413.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > I actually considered this possibility, which is > precisely why I am calling for the ban on reproductive > cloning to remain in effect in my essay. I shudder to > think that Christianity might be wrong and that I am > dooming future fully developed clones to > stigmatization as souless slaves. Therefore I > sincerely hope we are never foolish enough to allow a > clone to reach full development. The theological problem is worse than that. A soulless being is an empty vessel that can be filled by any demon, thus to the xians who subscribe to the posession/demonology stuff as real, making soulless clones is tantamount to building a demon army for the anti-christs imminent arrival (you don't have to be a Star Wars fan to see this). Tis better to accept that any embryo, natural or engineered, gains a soul through the unconditional gift of the mothers love in the womb. Don't give the chiliasts any purchase. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 05:04:06 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:04:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <20050524045232.95413.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050524045232.95413.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4292B5C6.4050500@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > >>I actually considered this possibility, which is >>precisely why I am calling for the ban on reproductive >>cloning to remain in effect in my essay. I shudder to >>think that Christianity might be wrong and that I am >>dooming future fully developed clones to >>stigmatization as souless slaves. Therefore I >>sincerely hope we are never foolish enough to allow a >>clone to reach full development. >> >> > >The theological problem is worse than that. A soulless being is an >empty vessel that can be filled by any demon, thus to the xians who >subscribe to the posession/demonology stuff as real, making soulless >clones is tantamount to building a demon army for the anti-christs >imminent arrival (you don't have to be a Star Wars fan to see this). >Tis better to accept that any embryo, natural or engineered, gains a >soul through the unconditional gift of the mothers love in the womb. >Don't give the chiliasts any purchase. > > > Don't do it unless you want to fight the whole battle again when artificial wombs become technically possible. Except this time you would be on record as admitting that they are inherently evil. The above is an example of the folly of messing with amateur theology. The whole thing smacks of "...let's pretend we believe your childish crap and we'll humour you by dishing up more crap that we hope you are stupid enough to swallow." It's embarassing, futile and ultimately counter productive. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 05:08:58 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:08:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <20050524042254.71981.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050524042254.71981.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4292B6EA.9010408@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>On May 23, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> >> >>> Of course, this mental construct seems incoherent. How can >>>something with no palpable material reality supervene upon, >>>interact with, let alone command the physical body? >>> >>> >>Quite easily if the universe we inhabit is a sim and the soul is at >>the level of the sim implementation strata. One would then I suppose >>consider murder as depriving the soul of an avatar within the sim. >> >> > >Ah, Damien, you may be right that the soul has no mass, but it must >have energy, and it turns out that energy has mass based on the >frequency and amplitude. If the soul has information content, it must >have both frequencies and amplitudes....every christian quantum >physicist knows that..... > > > > More amateur theology, this time combined with crankl science. If you want to know what Xian quantum physicists believe, read their writings. Start with Paul Davies http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/pdavies.html and for a bigger selection http://www.bede.org.uk/science.htm -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 24 05:31:54 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524053154.89226.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > The theological problem is worse than that. A > soulless being is an > empty vessel that can be filled by any demon, thus > to the xians who > subscribe to the posession/demonology stuff as real, > making soulless > clones is tantamount to building a demon army for > the anti-christs > imminent arrival (you don't have to be a Star Wars > fan to see this). > Tis better to accept that any embryo, natural or > engineered, gains a > soul through the unconditional gift of the mothers > love in the womb. > Don't give the chiliasts any purchase. Thats just great! I spend a whole weekend wracking my brain to find arguments that a xian would believe to convince them that God doesn't mind us harvesting cloned embryos because they are souless only to to find out that I would be helping the antichrist summon his demon army. I need a drink. :) If anything Mike you have convinced me of the folley of engaging my opponents in that quagmire of the mind. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 24 05:40:18 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:40:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Why Therapeutic Cloning is a Blessing and Not Murder In-Reply-To: <42928B6E.3030507@neopax.com> References: <20050523014211.34305.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <012701CF-6619-40BA-8A23-13D5413D7294@mac.com> <42928B6E.3030507@neopax.com> Message-ID: <4481DCD5-ABB3-400E-8830-17128B84F8C3@mac.com> On May 23, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> >> It could also be pointed out that the notion that it is against >> God's wishes that we use this knowledge is itself a mere opinion >> of fallible human beings. It is not holy writ or directly >> supported by such. >> > Of course it is. > We allegedly got kicked out of Eden for doing just that and now you > want to compound the sin... For doing just what? For eating an apple from the tree of knowledge? So what? Are you saying all knowledge is sin? Perhaps Eden wasn't Eden any more after we knew a bit more, eh? > That's the answer the fundies will drop on you first, and that's > even before the theological heavyweights lay in. > That doesn't have anything at all to do with the case at hand. So no holy writ sayng anything about the case explicitly or directly supporting opposition so far. > IMO it is pointless to argue theology for several reasons. The above is not theology. But I agree largely. We shouldn't put new wine into old bottles. > The first is because most Transhumanists are not only ignorant of > theology but are proud of the fact. The naivety of what passes for > theological discussion on these lists is appalling, and if I didn't > know better would consider it a deliberate parody. Second, by > arguing a specific *type* of theology you are agreeing to play by > *their* rules, and you'll lose. Third, it is a dubious strategy to > attempt to play to the hicks and ignore the theologians, simply > because the hicks will listen to the opinions of those theologians > and trust their opinion over that of outsiders, even if they do not > understand the fine points. > - samantha From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 05:50:21 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:50:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Find out what Christians really think Message-ID: <4292C09D.3030200@neopax.com> If you want to know what arguments work, then go to an Xian list and engage them in a discussion regarding the theology and ethics of therapeutic cloning. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 24 05:51:46 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:51:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <20050524033624.F129757E8C@finney.org> Message-ID: <200505240551.j4O5pmR03189@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future > > Spike writes: > > > ... > > four wheeled cowperson vehicle is a quarter of that: a > > quarter of a ton, one cylinder, 500 cc displacement. The > > rolling resistance should be about a quarter as much. > > > > ZAP has some cars along these lines, a little bigger though. > http://www.zapworld.com/cars/smartCar.asp is the SMART which seats 2 > and has "taken Europe by storm". But it weighs 1588 pounds and they > don't give a mileage figure, probably for legal reasons... Ja, I saw one of these on ER a couple weeks ago. Dr. Carter's sweetheart drove one in Paris. I still like the notion of a one-seater that is straddled like a motorcycle, with handlebars. (Dr. Carter's sweetheart is such a babe, is she not?) What I have in mind would be a greatly simplified version of that SMART, with no A/C or goodies, a 20 HP single instead of that 60 HP triple, perhaps a true series hybrid. Of course you would have crummy performance, but that is my point of posting. If we find ourselves in a world in which oil production peaks while there is greatly increasing demand for oil in China and India, it does not mean we suddenly go back to the horse and buggy. It means we drive really small cars with way fewer luxuries and more danger. But that is OK really, because we have now ways of cutting back on the number of trips we need to make. I have in mind that these little single cylinder cowperson vehicles or SMARTs could be run on alcohol, or some mixture of alcohol and gasoline. These little buggies can be stamped out cheaply in large quantities, they are super simple to repair and maintain. > > One of the big issues is safety, they have quite a bit on their SMART > car page about how the car is really safe. People worry about what will > happen if they tangle with an SUV. > > Hal I don't worry about that, I already know. You die. We motorcycles know all about that. Definitely a drawback. Death way sucks. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 24 06:07:49 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:07:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised In-Reply-To: <20050524053154.89226.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505240607.j4O67jR05038@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... > Thats just great! I spend a whole weekend wracking my > brain to find arguments that a xian would believe to > convince them that God doesn't mind us harvesting > cloned embryos because they are souless only to to > find out that I would be helping the antichrist summon > his demon army. I need a drink. :) > > If anything Mike you have convinced me of the folley > of engaging my opponents in that quagmire of the mind. > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu Ja, Avant, it is indeed hopeless. But you could easily convince the Seventh Day Adventist, who already believes that there is no separate thing as a human soul or a spirit. The SDA view holds that humans are machines, and can be reconstructed the same way you could build an exact copy of any machine. The soul, in that view, is a result of the physical configuration of the brain. And that is all. In so many ways, I see that particular religion as preadapted to transhumanism, surely a fortunate coincidence. My college roommate and I used to discuss transhuman notions back in the early 80s, altho we didn't use the same terminology. We discussed radical life extension, cryonics, life in a sim, cloning, all that stuff. None of it conflicted directly with the religious beliefs we both held at that time, and which neither of us hold today. spike From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 24 06:13:19 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:13:19 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised References: <20050524053154.89226.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <018f01c56027$ae4adce0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: >> The theological problem is worse than that. A >> soulless being is an >> empty vessel that can be filled by any demon, thus >> to the xians who >> subscribe to the posession/demonology stuff as real, >> making soulless >> clones is tantamount to building a demon army for >> the anti-christs >> imminent arrival (you don't have to be a Star Wars >> fan to see this). >> Tis better to accept that any embryo, natural or >> engineered, gains a >> soul through the unconditional gift of the mothers >> love in the womb. >> Don't give the chiliasts any purchase. > > Thats just great! I spend a whole weekend wracking my > brain to find arguments that a xian would believe to > convince them that God doesn't mind us harvesting > cloned embryos because they are souless only to to > find out that I would be helping the antichrist summon > his demon army. I need a drink. :) > > If anything Mike you have convinced me of the folley > of engaging my opponents in that quagmire of the mind. I got a laugh out of that anyway. :-) Seriously though, 'Guardian what you write is a function of who you are trying to persuade and what you are trying to achieve. Once you have your head in that space (emotionally) and have started swimming in the topic (details etc) then you can adapt what you have for a variety of purposes. Personally, I like the idea of improving the political/legislative situation so that basic research can happen and then the applied stuff so that the life saving and enhancing gets moving. To get your head in that space just think how you'd feel if, looking some arbitrary amount of time forward, a year, 5 years, 10, someone you care a whole hell of a lot for dies or looks to be dying just short of the treatment getting to him/her in terms of cost, safety, quality or efficacy. That should help you identify who you want to persuade if you need a hint. (Its the voters and pollies). I don't think it would really upset you too greatly if an increasingly large portion of a rapidly increasing amount of global wealth was coming from the increasing amount of work and value able to be done with biotech would it ? More jobs for biotechies and more *genuinely* good stuff for what ales ya! Ales? Well, you said you wanted a drink. Brett Paatsch From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 24 06:17:17 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 23, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Samantha Atkins wrote: >It is not holy writ > or directly > >> supported by such. > >> > > Of course it is. > > We allegedly got kicked out of Eden for doing just > that and now you > > want to compound the sin... Actually it WAS holy writ that knowledge was the Original Sin that got us kicked out of Eden. BUT the whole point of the xtian doctrine, as opposed to the ancient Judean tradition, was that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross erased all our sins including the original one. Thus to a xtian, knowledge is no longer a sin. Did they even read their own book? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From amara at amara.com Tue May 24 06:35:24 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:35:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised Message-ID: Damien Broderick : >I think the way to go with an essay like this is either to stick very >closely to elucidation of the physical and developmental facts, or to >provide a sophisticated theological argument for why the ensoulment theory >is a culturally-specific importation of certain historically located and >limited philosophical opinions, as corrigible as the rest of the largely >fallacious Greek biology of that time. That would require hard work by a >theologically informed theorist, and probably should not be tried at home.> From many centuries ago, there have been arguments for the soul in the homunculus, and they are fairly twisted. You can find them in the reference (1). Here is an example: In a work perhaps written in the fourteenth century ascribed to Thomas Acquinas titled _De essentiis essentiarum_ (On the Essences of Essences) Thomas refers to the homunculus as a proof that a female seed could not contribute to human generation. He says that man and sun generate a man, but that the womb's role can be considered two ways: it either acts naturally when it preserves the semen and supplies it with a natural heat that stimulates its growth, but when it nourishes the semen with menstrual blood, it behaves artificially, like an agriculturalist when he fertilizes a field. Thomas used this reasoning to conclude that the mother contributes nothing to the essence of the child, but only provides a sort of incubator and nourishment. When others argued the opposite, Thomas responded that empirical proof from the laboratory (for this 'evidence' he used the work by ninth-century Arab physician and alchemist Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi) showed that semen of a man kept in a clean vessel under the heat of dung for thirty days generated a man, but that such a man will not have a 'rational soul', because he is not from the union of a male and female, but that such a man will have a 'sensitive soul', instead. So then Thomas evades the morality issue by asserting that the homunculus has only a sensitive rather than a rational soul, and therefore can be classified as subhuman and fit for research purposes. (1) _Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature_ Nonfiction. By William R. Newman. University of Chicago Press, 2004, page 188-189. 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/ ******************************************************************** "Oh you damned observers, you always find extra things." -- Fred Hoyle [quoted by Richard Ellis at IAU Symposium 183] From amara at amara.com Tue May 24 06:37:01 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:37:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims Message-ID: "Brett Paatsch" >It know that it is not your imagination, Italy IS especially >tough with respect to its ART laws. If I was a woman seeking to >make use of ART The ART laws do not only go against this small part of the population.. I would say it is against the Italian women in general, and in a larger sense against those in the society who wish to make their own choices for their families and future. >and I could leave Italy I would. This government is against immigrants and science, the ART laws is yet another barrier for me (there are lessons here for the direction that the Bush administration is moving, have you noticed?), so I'm thinking alot. The Italian government's stance on most things of what I would consider 'normal life' is rather extreme compared to other western countries that I know, and it is clear (to me) how the government cripples the country. Why can't the government change or the people change their government? I've never met any Italian in the 2.5 years I've lived here, who _likes_ Berlusconi and what his government is doing. Who voted him in office? The Referendum next month is a major undertaking by people angry about this government; it is unusual for so many people to work together in a legal framework (millions of signatures were necessary) to try to overturn a set of laws. Unfortunately, even a large result of 'Yes (overturn the 1..4 laws)', might not be enough. The next dirty trick of Berlusconi and his party might be to declare the results of the next month's Referendum invalid because it didn't garner more than 50% of the vote. You see they are encouraging many people who are afraid to simply _not vote_, instead of voting 'No (keep the 1..4 laws)'. 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/ ******************************************************************** "Stupidity got us into this mess, so why can't it get us out?" -- Will Rogers From claribel at intermessage.com Tue May 24 10:06:41 2005 From: claribel at intermessage.com (Claribel) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:06:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Soul, Body and Fetus: A Parapsychological Issue Message-ID: <01ce01c56048$48a59490$02883040@WIGGLES> I see the question of how the 'soul' or consciousness interacts with the physical body as both a scientific /and/ spiritual issue -- a parapsychological issue. There are various models in the world about the nature of soul or consciousness. There are the models of various Jewish and Christian sects, various branches of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, as well as newer constructs like Spiritualism and the oft-maligned "New Age." These belief systems tend to based on a combination of faith and experience -- if not the practitioner's /own/ experience, /somebody's/ experience in the past. I think that it is necessary to navigate a path between blind belief and unconditional dismissal of anything that doesn't fit into current mainstream science. Parapsychology offers a number of investigations into phenomena such as NDE's, OBE's, reincarnational memories, and mediumship, which contain much evidence suggestive of a soul that can act separately from the body and survive bodily death. The question of exactly when the soul /enters/ the body would also legitimately fall in this discipline. Unfortunately, parapsychology is still not regarded as a 'respectable' enough science to be taken seriously in public policy. I think that development in this area is very important -- and that the results will transform society in unmeasurable ways. I am aware (from looking at the extropy.com website) that there is some anti-parapsychological oriention in the Extropian community. Here is Dean Radin's excellent FAQ on the current state of parapsychology: http://www.psiresearch.org/para1.html It deals with some objections on parapsychology's validity and provides links to other sources. As for the 'weight of soul' issue: I'd like to point out that Eastern mystical philosophy and its Western correlates assume the existence not of merely one, but of many layers of 'subtle material' enveloping the soul, of different frequencies or degrees of density. These are known as the etheric, astral, mental and causal, to cite one common list of gradations. (Some systems divide them into further sublevels.) If there actually is something leaving the body at death which can affect a physical scale, I would guess that it is most likely the etheric body -- the densest of all the soul's sheaths. As another person pointed out, not all religions believe in a strict division between spirit and matter.The possibility of intermediate states -- a continuum of interconnected levels -- is one that is well worth investigation. Ken Wilber's Integral Science offers one approach to this. From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 11:42:38 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:42:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>On May 23, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> >> >>>Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> >>> >>It is not holy writ >>or directly >> >> >>>>supported by such. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Of course it is. >>>We allegedly got kicked out of Eden for doing just >>> >>> >>that and now you >> >> >>>want to compound the sin... >>> >>> > >Actually it WAS holy writ that knowledge was the >Original Sin that got us kicked out of Eden. BUT the >whole point of the xtian doctrine, as opposed to the >ancient Judean tradition, was that the sacrifice of >Jesus on the cross erased all our sins including the >original one. Thus to a xtian, knowledge is no longer >a sin. Did they even read their own book? > > Xians believe a number of things and what you wrote above is only conditionally true. The various conditions vary from being a member of the RC Church with all its procedures to specifically accepting the offer by being 'Born Again'. As for knowledge no longer being a sin, that's something that does not follow from your assumption, any more than a robber being pardoned makes robbery acceptable. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From mark at permanentend.org Tue May 24 11:42:59 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 07:42:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future References: <200505240551.j4O5pmR03189@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <011d01c56055$bde11a60$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> http://www.laptopsforless.com/norefurbs.html http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/previews/51690/eliica_eightwheeler.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:51 AM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future > >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" >> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future >> >> Spike writes: > > I have in mind that these little single cylinder cowperson > vehicles or SMARTs could be run on alcohol, or some mixture > of alcohol and gasoline. These little buggies can be stamped > out cheaply in large quantities, they are super simple to > repair and maintain. > I'm still hoping for the battery electric vehicle. I saw this 8 wheel 370 km/h ev on tv the other night: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/previews/51690/eliica_eightwheeler.html . Pretty cool. There is another one in Japan as well that I believe gets 300 km on a charge. I've seen Ford and several other companies get 150 km on a charge with lithium ion batteries. This would do for most driving for most people. I imagine that if one wants to go for a long highway cruise you could simply rent a trailer with an internal combustion engine to charge the batteries as you go. Driving from say Toronto to Montreal you would rent the trailer on the outskirts of Toronto and drop it off outside of Montreal. On the return trip you could do the reverse, saving any hassles of driving around a city with a trailer. Also, switching out at least part of the batteries seems an option as well. One might lease batteries from a company and have them robotically swapped for fresh ones as needed. One of the bigger hurdles right now seems to be the price of lithium ion batteries. I read this explanation for why they are so expensive: http://www.laptopsforless.com/norefurbs.html . Still, it does not sound like there is any principled reason why the price could not come down substantially in the future. Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From pgptag at gmail.com Tue May 24 13:30:12 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 15:30:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Attack of the Clones? Q-A with Attack of the Clones? Message-ID: <470a3c520505240630627d4fbe@mail.gmail.com> National Review Online : With the news out of South Korea last week, are we all one step closer to "designer babies"? Wesley J. Smith: Absolutely. Apparently the South Korean researcher Wu Suk Hwang has learned how to reliably create human cloned embryos. Human cloning is the essential step toward biotechnologists learning how to genetically engineer progeny, a new eugenics project that enjoys great support among futurists, bioethicists, and some within the science establishment. For example, James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, is a big booster of creating designer babies who have been enhanced for intelligence, health, looks, etc. There is even a nascent social movement that has formed around creating a "post human species" known as "transhumanism." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Tue May 24 14:04:35 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:04:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete Message-ID: <470a3c52050524070448c1285e@mail.gmail.com> Conventional telecoms is obsolete- Pearson said the next global IT buzzword would be NBIC (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science) convergence, which essentially means ICT will be seamlessly integrated into everything around us. Outlining the future, Pearson said the next age would be the world of ambient intelligence, after which we would enter an age of simplicity.Eventually, before 2025, people would be able to feel as if they are in someone's office, feel their handshake or feel their hug, from a distance, and telecoms will have gone as far as it can, he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Tue May 24 13:16:49 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:16:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42932941.6010204@sasktel.net> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>On May 23, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> >> >>>Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> >>> >>It is not holy writ >>or directly >> >> >>>>supported by such. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Of course it is. >>>We allegedly got kicked out of Eden for doing just >>> >>> >>that and now you >> >> >>>want to compound the sin... >>> >>> > >Actually it WAS holy writ that knowledge was the >Original Sin that got us kicked out of Eden. > > We already have radical greens espousing the end of civilization and "back to nature". Of course they use the internet to organize and communicate their "ism". http://www.greenanarchy.org is one I check out every year or 2. However there is perhaps room for some combination of fundamentalists of various religeons reacting to AI, Total Information Awareness , human bioengineering that endangers the fundamentals of older "theisms" to form a new Anti-Technology Theism. Of course this would accomplish one good thing that is uniting diverse religeons into one theism instead of always fighting each other over who is more "right with god". Perhaps the religeous Armageddon and Christ and Anti-christ might be portrayed by theisits as development of a religeous "god's AI" set out to destroy all other Heathen AI's.???? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 24 14:16:38 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 07:16:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050524070448c1285e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200505241416.j4OEGYR06689@tick.javien.com> On Behalf Of Giu1i0 Pri5c0 ...Eventually, before 2025, people would be able to feel as if they are in someone's office, feel their handshake or feel their hug, from a distance... If they could work that out, you *know* what it would lead to. It would be *wildly* popular, and far safer than the way we do it today. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue May 24 15:46:19 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:46:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? References: <20050524043453.61076.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004401c56077$baf79690$0100a8c0@kevin> I'm curious. Does anyone know of anythign that couldn;t be modified to run on ethanol? What about pure ethanol? I know that currently ethanol is basically poisoned so people can't get drunk off of it and gasoline is part of the poison mixture, but is the gasoline itself necessary? Can aviation fuel and be made of ethanol? Or more correctly, can sufficient aviation engines be built for use with ethanol? Has anyone tested an ethanol jet engine or does ethanol just not carry enough energy? I really don;t know a lot about ethanol, but it seems to me that if we are subsidizing farmers to not grow corn, and at the same time oil is getting too expensive, maybe we should be putting a lot more emphasis on ethanol production. There's no need to shrink the automobile to a point where people hate using them. It may work in europe, but Americans love their cars. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? > > --- Hal Finney wrote: > > > > Of course, "today's high prices" are actually down quite a bit in the > > past few weeks. Oil hit $58/bbl and is now at $48. There seems to > > be a general sentiment that $40 will be the new floor, but there are > > no guarantees about that. A year ago it was at $25 and nobody would > > have predicted a doubling. These new players in the Canadian oil > > fields are hoping and praying that the price holds up. > > If oil floors out at $40, there is no peak oil... $25.00/bbl, which I > predicted would be the price a month after the start of the Iraq war > (as it happened) was followed with a 40% int'l market devaluation of > the dollar as many national governments delinked their currencies from > the dollar, shifting to the euro, so $25 then is $35.00 now on > international markets. > > This means that at a $40.00 price floor, oil prices have risen in > reality $5.00 in two years. This is in reality 5-6% annual inflation in > energy prices. Significantly above average, but nothing to write home > about. With current $48 prices, that means a real rise in oil prices of > $8.00 (you need to devaluate the actual price rise by 40% as well to > get a good comparison to then-year dollars.) > > Assuming China, Korea, and Japan don't individually or together dump > the dollar en masse (Korea has already made motions and China is > already selling off dollars in a 'basket diversification' move), we > shouldn't see prices rise higher than that. Of course, I wouldn't put > it past them. The faster they (China) price us out of the middle > eastern oil market, and leave us working on our domestic supplies, the > sooner they get an advantage in the eventual face-off over Taiwan. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From jonkc at att.net Tue May 24 15:51:28 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 11:51:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thanks Damien (was Bioethics Essay- Revised) References: <6667@texas.rr.com><20050523075935.18944.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050523130652.01d2f140@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <006501c56078$947f2630$ddf14d0c@MyComputer> I want to thank Damien Broderick for saving me some time. I had intended to read this Bioethics Essay that everybody is talking about, but then I read the following extract that Damien quoted: >one way we might determine if a blastula has a >soul or not is to scientifically measure it somehow. >Interestingly enough somebody has already >scientifically weighed the soul. He was a medical >doctor named Duncan MacDougall and in the April 1907 >issue of the journal American Medicine he reported the >results of experiments in which he determined the mass >of terminally ill patients before and after they died. >He observed that the patients he studied lost an >average of 21 grams of mass when they died. >Interestingly enough his results were never confirmed >or repudiated by any other scientists despite the fact >that they were published in a peer reviewed journal. >If MacDougall’s results are accurate then one >must conclude that a blastula can in no way >accommodate a 21 gram soul as it weighs only about 34 >micrograms which is 600,000 times too little. In fact >a developing embryo would not reach 21 grams until >about the eighth week of development. If similar >experiments were performed, perhaps we could obtain a >more accurate weight for the soul. However the >experimental evidence as it stands, would argue that a >blastula does not contain a soul. [nostrils, etc] I figure that any essay that seriously proposes that the above might be worthy of further investigation could not possibly contain anything of interest to me; it confirms my long held suspicion that anything a ethicist has to say, especially a biotechnology ethicist, is either blindingly obvious or wrong. By the way, I have two soles, one on each foot. John K Clark From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 16:05:43 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:05:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete In-Reply-To: <200505241416.j4OEGYR06689@tick.javien.com> References: <200505241416.j4OEGYR06689@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <429350D7.9080400@neopax.com> spike wrote: >On Behalf Of Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > >...Eventually, before 2025, people would be able to feel as if they are in >someone's office, feel their handshake or feel their hug, from a distance... > > > >If they could work that out, you *know* what it >would lead to. It would be *wildly* popular, >and far safer than the way we do it today. > > > > The name given to the tech in the early 90s was 'teledildonics' -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 16:07:27 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:07:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <42932941.6010204@sasktel.net> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <42932941.6010204@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <4293513F.7040705@neopax.com> Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > The Avantguardian wrote: > >>--- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> >>>On May 23, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Samantha Atkins wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>It is not holy writ >>>or directly >>> >>> >>>>>supported by such. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Of course it is. >>>>We allegedly got kicked out of Eden for doing just >>>> >>>> >>>that and now you >>> >>> >>>>want to compound the sin... >>>> >>>> >> >>Actually it WAS holy writ that knowledge was the >>Original Sin that got us kicked out of Eden. >> >> > We already have radical greens espousing the end of civilization and > "back to nature". > Of course they use the internet to organize and communicate their "ism". > http://www.greenanarchy.org is one I check out every year or 2. > > However there is perhaps room for some combination of fundamentalists > of various religeons reacting to AI, Total Information Awareness , > human bioengineering > that endangers the fundamentals of older "theisms" to form a new > Anti-Technology Theism. Of course this would accomplish one good thing > that is uniting diverse religeons into one theism instead of always > fighting each other > over who is more "right with god". > > Perhaps the religeous Armageddon and Christ and Anti-christ might be > portrayed by theisits > as development of a religeous "god's AI" set out to destroy all other > Heathen AI's.???? So far AI has avoided major political-religious complications, probably because it does not exist in a form that challenges overall Human supremacy. Of course, by the time such an AI does exist it will be too late for anyone to do anything. Hence IMO its a non-issue as far as we are concerned. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From scerir at libero.it Tue May 24 16:43:25 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:43:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised References: <20050523075935.18944.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002901c5607f$b4e27420$9db81b97@administxl09yj> From: "The Avantguardian" > If one believes that people have souls > one can make the argument that a fetus > has a soul and is therefore entitled to rights. > One cannot however, based on the evidence, > make such an argument for a cloned embryo > in the blastula stage. It seems that questions like that above, or questions like "when does a fertilized egg develop into a person?", have much to do with the concept of logical 'vagueness' http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/ (Perhaps also concepts like Heisenberg's 'cut' or von Neumann's 'cut' share the same vagueness). s. There is a long, interesting post, by Stewart Shapiro, on that topic, in [FOM]. ---> There probably is no way to say what it is for an expression to be vague without begging the question against some substantial view. Intuitively, a predicate is vague if it has, or can have borderline cases, instances in which it is not determinate that the predicate applies, nor is it determinate that it fails to apply. A borderline case of "red" would be an object whose color lies about halfway between red and pink. Typical vague predicates give rise to the ancient *sorites paradox*, sometimes called the *paradox of the heap*. Here is an example: Premise: A man with no hair at all is bald. Premise: If a man has only n hairs on his head is bald, then so is a man with n+1 hairs. Conclusion: A man with 50,000 hairs on his head is bald. Clearly, the argument is valid (once supplemented with the obvious premises about the natural numbers). Its first premise is true and its conclusion is false. But its second premise *seems* to be true. How can a single hair make the difference between someone who is bald and someone is not? Another version of the sorites uses tons of premises, instead of the induction-like premise that invokes natural numbers. If a man with 0 hairs is bald, then so is a man with 1; if a man with 1 hair is bald, then so is a man with 2; ... This argument has 50,002 premises. The traditional example uses the word "heap", and turns on how many grains make up a heap. Intuitively, vague predicates are what Crispin Wright calls "tolerant". Many of the predicates are applied on the basis of casual observation, and small differences should not matter. The problem is to give a semantics of natural-language vague predicates which reveals what goes wrong (if something does) with sorites reasoning. Just about every account agrees that something does go wrong with sorites reasoning. The only serious candidate is the inductive premise. Most of the different accounts have that premise coming out untrue (if not false). The burden that remains is to show why we find the inductive premise so appealing, when it leads to paradox. Here are the main theses (or slogans) of some of the main theories of vagueness: I. Nihilism (Dummett) Advocates of this view hold that the semantic rules for vague predicates of natural languages are inconsistent. The rules sanction the premises of the sorites arguments, and yet they reject the conclusion. Natural language is incoherent. Logic does not apply to it. II. Epistemicism (Williamson, Sorenson) This is the result of applying classical semantics to natural languages. Each predicate of natural language has a precise extension. There is a an exact nanosecond at which a person stops being a child; there is a real number n such that a person who is n feet tall is short, but a person who is n+.00000001 feet tall is not short; there is a real number m such that m minutes after noon is noonish, but m+.00000001 minutes is not. The view is called "epistemicism" since the sharp borderlines of vague predicates cannot be known. That is, it is impossible to know that values of n and m, nor how many hairs make for non-baldness, how many grains of sand make for a heap, etc. Most theorists find this view fantastic. How can natural language predicates get extensions that are that precise? The main advantage of the view is that it maintains classical model-theoretic semantics, and classical, two-valued logic. In sorites arguments, the inductive premise is simply false. III. Supervaluationism (Fine, Keefe) A given vague predicates does not have a single extension. Instead, there are a number of different ways of making it precise, which are consistent with its meaning. A sentence P that contains vague predicates is super-true if it comes out true under all acceptable ways of sharpening the predicate. The sentence P comes out false if it comes out false under all acceptable ways of sharpening the predicate. P is indeterminate otherwise. One advantage of supervaluationism is that it maintains much of classical logic. All tautologies are super-true. But the semantics has some strange properties. Let t be a rose whose color is midway between red and pink. Then the sentence "t is red or t is pink" is super-true. But is not super-true that t is red, nor is it super-true that t is pink. Something similar happens with the inductive premise of a sorites argument. Recall the instance above, formulated more carefully: For every number x, if a man has only x hairs on his head is bald, then so is a man with x+1 hairs. This is super-false, since it comes out false on every acceptable way to sharpen the predicate "bald". But there is no number n such that it is super-false that "if a man has only n hairs on his head is bald, then so is a man with n+1 hairs". It is generally agreed that this theory pushes the problem up to the meta-language. What makes a sharpening acceptable is itself vague. III. Fuzzy logic. (Machina, Edgington) This one involves truth values intermediate between truth and falsehood. The most common proposal is to use real numbers between 0 and 1. That is, 0 is complete falsehood, 1 is complete truth. .4 would be a partial truth. If s is borderline bald, leaning toward baldness, then the statement "s is bald" might get truth value .623. Another, less developed, proposal, is to use the elements of a Boolean algebra as truth values. This gives the theorist a shot a preserving classical logic. Below, I'll insert the handout for some lectures I gave on supervaluationist semantics and fuzzy logic. IV. Contextualism. (Raffman, Shapiro, Graff) The extensions of vague predicates shift with the context of utterance. Everyone agrees that the extensions of vague predicates vary with factors like the comparison class and paradigm cases. A family can be wealthy with respect to professors in mathematics departments, but not wealthy with respect to corporate executives. A person can be short with respect to NBA players but not short with respect to philosophers. The contextualist argues that extensions also vary in the course of a given conversation (or psychological state), even if the comparison class is held fixed. There are a few proposals in this direction. Some preserve classical logic and some don't. If you want to read a bit more, without leaving your computer, here are a couple of links to the Stanford Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The third is to a closely related matter. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ I'd be glad to supply more specific references, if anyone wants them. Just send me a (private) email. I just finished a book that develops and defends a contextualist account. The model theory is much like that of Kripke structures for intuitionistic languages. Here are a couple of handouts, one on fuzzy logic and one on supervaluationist model theory. A crash course in many-valued model theory If Harry is borderline bald, then perhaps it is natural to say that "Harry is bald" is not fully true, but not quite false either. Perhaps the sentence has some intermediate truth value. The idea behind the many-valued or degree-theoretic approach to vagueness is that sentences can take any of a number of truth values. The most common collection of truth-values is the set of real numbers from 0 to 1 (inclusive). The truth value 1 indicates complete truth and the truth value 0 indicates complete and utter falsity. So if "Harry is bald" is true to degree .87, then he is almost bald. If it is true to degree .5 then he is exactly halfway between determinately bald and determinately non-bald, etc. Other sets of truth values may be considered. A fuzzy interpretation M of a formal language is a pair where d is a non-empty set, the domain of discourse (as usual), and I assigns denotations and extensions to the non-logical terminology. Let us assume that we have no function letters in the language. If a is a constant, then Ia is a member of d (as usual). If R is an n-place relation symbol and m1 . . . mn are members of the domain d, then IRm1 . . . mn is a real number between 0 and 1. A fuzzy interpretation is classical if the only truth-values it assigns are 0 and 1. Let M = be a fuzzy interpretation. The semantics assigns a "truth value" (i.e., a real number) to every sentence of the language. If P is a sentence, then let VP be its truth value in M. For convenience, assume that the members of d have been added to the language, as constants denoting themselves. (So we can deal with sentences without introducing variable assignments). Only the atomic case and perhaps the negations are straightforward: If R is an n-place relation letter and t1 . . . tn are terms, then VRt1 . . . tn = IRm1 . . . mn, which each mi is the denotation of ti. V(not-P) = 1-VP. So if "Harry is bald" is half true, then so is "Harry is not bald". One main issue concerns whether the other connectives should be truth-functional, or what is sometimes called "degree-functional". The question is whether the truth value of a compound is determined completely by the truth values of its parts. I am convinced by Dorothy Edgington's arguments that the semantics should not be truth-functional. But I will present the most common semantics, which is truth-functional: V(P&Q) is the minimum of VP and VQ. V(PvQ) is the maximum of VP and VQ. if VP<=VQ, then V(if P then Q) = 1, if VP>VQ, then V(if P then Q) = 1-(VP-VQ). The existential quantifier gives the least upper bound of its instances, and the universal quantifier gives the greatest lower bound of its instances. Notice that if M is classical (i.e., if the only truth values it assigns to the atomic sentences are 0 and 1), then the semantics agrees with classical semantics (exercise). There are a number of different definitions of validity. You can decide which of them accords with your intuitions. One slogan is that validity is the necessary preservation of truth. Since (complete) truth is the truth value 1, then we might define strict validity as the necessary preservation of truth value. So an argument is strictly valid iff there is no fuzzy interpretation that makes its premises 1 (completely true) and its conclusion less than 1. Every strictly valid argument is classically valid, but the converse fails. There are no strictly logical truths. However, classical tautologies can never get a truth value less than .5. Why should validity be limited to the preservation of complete truth? We often reason with sentences that (on this view) are less then completely true, and need a notion of validity for those. We can say that an argument is valid if it preserves whatever truth value the premises may have: Say that an argument is fuzzy-valid if there is no fuzzy interpretation M such that the truth value of the conclusion is less than the greatest lower bound of the truth values of the premises. Edgington has an interesting definition of validity. Define the unverity of a sentence P in a fuzzy interpretation M to be 1-VP in M. Then an argument is E-valid if the unverity of the conclusion is no smaller than the sum of the unverities of the premises. (But as noted above, she uses a different, non-truth-functional semantics.) Now, what of sorites? Suppose we have a series of 1000 men lined up. The first m1 has no hair whatsoever, and so is clearly bald. The last m1000 has a fine head of hair. Moreover, each man in the list has only slightly more hair than the one before (and his hair is arranged in roughly the same way). Let B be the predicate for bald. So a reasonable fuzzy interpretation would be one in which, say, Bm1 = Bm2 = . . . = Bm60 = 1, and Bm61 = .999. The truth values fall slowly from there, until Bm925 =0, and everything after that is completely false. Suppose that the difference in truth value between adjacent formulas is never more than .002. Recall the two versions of the sorites argument: Bm1 for all i<1000(Bmi -> Bmi+1) therefore Bm1000 Bm1 Bm1 -> Bm2 Bm2 -> Bm3 . . . Bm999 -> Bm1000 therefore Bm1000 In both cases, the first premise has truth value 1, and the conclusion has truth value 0. The first few conditionals and the last few conditionals each have truth value 1. Given the assumption about the differences between adjacent formulas, each of the conditionals has truth value of at least .998, and some are not fully true. So the second premise of the first argument has truth value somewhere between .998 and .999. On the first definition of validity (as the necessary preservation of complete truth), both arguments are valid. The only inferences used are modus ponens and (for the first argument) universal elimination, and both are valid on that conception of validity. But neither argument is sound, since it has premises that are less than fully true. One puzzling feature is that we can have a valid argument whose premises are almost completely true (at least .998), but which has a completely false conclusion. On the second definition of validity (as the preservation of minimal truth value), neither argument is valid. Modus ponens fails. I think that the Edgington definition of validity is the most satisfying here. She shows that (on her semantics), all classically valid arguments are valid in her sense. In the second argument, the many small "unverities" in the premises add up to 1. But on her semantics, the conditional in the first argument ends up completely false. Here is the other handout: A crash course in supervaluation model theory The first modification to ordinary model theory introduced here is the notion of a *partial interpretation*. This is a pair , where d is a non-empty set (the domain of discourse) and I is a function. Let R be an n-place relation letter. In the partial interpretation M=, IR is a pair such that p and q are disjoint sets of n-tuples of members of the domain. The idea is that p is the extension of R in the partial interpretation, the n-tuples of objects that the relation (determinately) applies to; q is the anti-extension of R, the n-tuples of objects that the relation (determinately) fails to apply to. If IR=, then define IR+= m and IR-=n. From now on, we write "interpretation" for "partial interpretation". Any n-tuples from the domain of discourse d that are in neither IR+ nor IR- are borderline cases of R in the partial interpretation M. If there are no such borderline cases, then we say that R is *sharp* in M. A partial interpretation M is completely sharp or classical if every relation in the language is sharp in M. A completely sharp interpretation corresponds to a classical interpretation since, in that case, the anti-extension of each predicate is just the complement of the extension. So we sometimes call a completely sharp partial interpretation "classical". We introduce a "three-valued" semantics on partial interpretations. The values are T (truth), F (falsehood), and I (indeterminate). It does not make much difference formally, but it is more convenient if we do not think of I as a truth-value on a par with truth and falsehood. Rather, we take "I" to indicate the lack of a (standard) truth value in the given partial interpretation. Assume that we have expanded the language to include the members of the domain as new constants (so we do not have to futz with variable assignments). If a and b are terms, then a=b is true in M if and only if the denotation of a in M is identical to the denotation of b in M; a=b is false in M otherwise. Notice that a=b is never indeterminate. Let R be an n-place predicate letter, and t1, ...tn terms. For each i, let mi be the denotation of ti under M. Then Rt1...tn is true in M if is in IR+; Rt1...tn is false in M if is in IR-; and Rt1...tn is indeterminate in M otherwise. We use the strong, internal negation. Its truth table is the following: P not-P T F F T I I For the other connectives, we employ the strong Kleene truth-tables: P&Q T F I PvQ T F I T T F I T T T T F F F F F T F I I I F I I T I I P->Q T F I T T F I F T T T I T I I A universally quantified sentence is true if all of its instances are true, it is false if it has a false instance, and it is indeterminate otherwise. Existentially quantified sentences are analogous. So far, we do not have a plausible model for a semantics of vagueness. Suppose, for example, that we have a patch whose color is on the borderline between red and orange. To capture this, we would make statement Rt that the patch is red indeterminate; and we would make the statement Ot that the patch is orange indeterminate. In such a partial interpretation, both RsvOs and not-(Rs&Os) would both be indeterminate. But this seems implausible. Even if it is indeterminate that the patch is red and it is indeterminate that it is orange, it surely true that it is either red or orange. After all, what other color could it have? And it is surely true that it is not both red and orange--nothing can be red (all over) and orange (all over) at the same time. Moreover, Rs->Rs is also indeterminate in the given interpretation. Even if Rs can go either way, it surely is determinately true that if s is red, then s is red. For a second example, consider a pair of men, r, s. Both are borderline bald, but r has a bit more hair than s (arranged the same way). A partial interpretation that reflects this situation would have Br->Bs indeterminate. But surely, if we sharpen in order to make Br true (as we can, presumably), then we would thereby made Bs true, since s has even less hair than r. So, intuitively, Br->Bs should come out determinately true. Let M1= and M2= be partial interpretations. Say that M2 sharpens M1 if: (1) d1=d2, (2) the interpretation functions I1 and I2 agree on each constant and function letter. (3) for each relation letter R, I1+Ris a subset ofI2+R and I1-Ris a subset of I2-R. The idea is that M2 sharpens M1 if and only if the two interpretations have the same domain and agree on the constants and function letters, and M2 extends both the extension and anti-extension of each relation. The two interpretations agree on the clear or determinate cases of M1, but M2 may decide some borderline cases of M1. Kit Fine [1975] calls M2 a "precisification" of M1. We have that each M1 sharpens itself (although that does sound awkward). Theorem 1. Suppose that M2 sharpens M1. If a sentence P is true (resp. false) in M1, then P is true (resp. false) in M2. The proof of Theorem 1 is a straightforward induction on the complexity of P . Recall our decision to not think of "indeterminate" as a truth value, but rather as lack of a (standard) truth value. In these terms, it follows from this result that the semantics is monotonic. As we sharpen, we do not change the truth values of formulas that have truth values; we only give truth values to formulas that previously lacked them. Notice that since this nice result is an induction on the complexity of formulas, it depends on the particular expressive resources in the object language. Recall that a partial interpretation is completely sharp if every relation in the language is sharp in the interpretation. A straightforward induction shows that a completely sharp interpretation corresponds to a classical interpretation. So far, things are pretty rigorous. Now we wax intuitive for a bit. Not every sharpening is legitimate. Suppose we have a predicate for "rich" and there are two members of the domain, Jon and Joe, who are borderline rich (so that neither fall in the extension nor the anti-extension of "rich"). Suppose that Joe's total worth is a bit greater than the total worth of Jon. A sharpening that declares Jon rich and fails to declare Joe rich (or declares that he is not rich) would clearly be unacceptable-it is incompatible with the meaning of "rich". Similarly, a sharpening that declares a man bald and declares a man with less hair (arranged similarly) to be not bald is likewise unacceptable. Fine [1975] uses the term "penumbral connection" for analytic (or all but analytic) truths for the terms in question. An example of a penumbral connection is that if someone is rich then (other things equal) anyone with more money is also rich. Another penumbral connection is that if someone is not bald then someone with more hair (arranged the same way) is also not bald. Another is that nothing is completely red and completely orange. Of course, formal languages do not have such analytic (or almost analytic) truths. The formulas are just sequences of characters, and have no meaning beyond the stated truth conditions for the logical terminology and perhaps any premises and axioms that are explicitly added. So, as a first approximation, we assume a collection of conditions on partial interpretations. Suppose, for example, that the object language has a predicate B, to represent the English word "bald", and a binary relation R, such that Rab represents the statement that a is less hairy than b. Then a partial interpretation M is not acceptable if there are objects m,n in the domain of discourse such that m is in the extension of B, M satisfies Rnm, but n is not in the extension of B. Similarly, M is not acceptable if m is in the anti-extension of B, M satisfies Rmn and n is not in the anti-extension of B. Say that a partial interpretation M is acceptable if it satisfies all of its penumbral connections, and we say that a partial interpretation M2 is an acceptable sharpening of a partial interpretation M1 if they are both acceptable on the same collection of penumbral connections and M1~M2. Let P be a sentence and let M be a partial interpretation. Say that P is super-true in M if (1) there is no acceptable sharpening M' of M such that P is false in M' and (2) there is at least one acceptable sharpening M' of M such that P is true in M'. While we are at it, define P to be super-false in M similarly. The idea, of course, is that P is super-true if it comes out true under every acceptable way of making the predicates sharp. That is, if we sharpen, P comes out true if it gets a truth value at all (and we make sure that P does get a truth value in some acceptable sharpenings). Let P be a sentence, and assume, for now, that each acceptable partial interpretation has at least one acceptable, completely sharp sharpening. In light of monotonicity (Theorem 1), P is super-true if and only if P is true in every acceptable, completely sharp sharpening of M. Thus, in a sense, the definition of super-truth (and super-falsity) depends only on the semantics of completely sharp interpretations, and, in effect, those are ordinary, classical interpretations. So the notion of super-truth does not invoke the three-valued semantics above. Most defenders of the supervaluation approach insist that the primary (or perhaps the only) notion of truth is super-truth. The mantra is that truth is super-truth. Accordingly, they define validity as necessary preservation of super-truth: An argument is externally valid if every partial interpretation that makes its premises super-true also makes its conclusion super-true. Call this external validity. Under the prevailing assumption about acceptable, completely sharp interpretations, this definition does not depend on the three-valued semantics introduced above. All of the relevant action takes place in completely sharp interpretations. Theorem 2. External validity coincides with classical (two-valued) consequence. So the supervaluationist accepts classical logic for vague expressions. What of sorites? Suppose we have a series of 1000 men lined up. The first m1 has no hair whatsoever, and so is clearly bald. The last m1000 has a fine head of hair. Moreover, each man in the list has only slightly more hair than the one before (and his hair is arranged in roughly the same way). Let B be the predicate for bald. So a reasonable partial interpretation would be one in which, say, m1,..., m247 are all in the extension of B, and m621, ..., m1000 are in the anti-extension. The penumbral connection would be that mi is in the extension of B and if jBmi+1) Therefore, Bm1000 Bm1 Bm1->Bm2 Bm2->Bm3 ... Bm999->Bm1000 Therefore, Bm1000 Both of these are classically valid, and so they are valid on the supervaluational approach. But the conclusions are super-false (in the envisioned partial interpretation), and the first premise is super-true. So at least one other premise fails to be super-true. In the first argument, the only other premise is the inductive one. Actually, it is super-false. In each complete sharpening of the partial interpretation, there is a sharp boundary, an i such that Bmi but not-Bmi+1. In the second argument, many of the conditionals fail to be super-true (although none are super-false). If mi is in the borderline region (in the original partial interpretation), then there is a sharpening in which Bmi->Bmi+1 is false. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue May 24 17:48:17 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:48:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Parents: Question re children and nutrition Message-ID: <109740-220055224174817936@M2W092.mail2web.com> I have four questions below for parents. If you are not a parent but know someone who is, or if you teach in primary or secondary schools and your observations can shed some light, please give your thoughts. 1. Are you satisfied with the lunches served at your child's school? 2. Is your child's school providing traditional lunches in an assembly line, or are the schools supporting "food courts" (a style fabricated after Mall food courts)? 3. Does your child leave school to get lunch at fast food locations? 4. Does your child's school provide classes on nutrition? Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue May 24 18:10:17 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:10:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised References: <20050523075935.18944.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <002901c5607f$b4e27420$9db81b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <00ad01c5608b$d822d810$0100a8c0@kevin> What a wonderful piece. Just what I needed to lighten up my day. Thank you! :-) I have a long held belief that the line between being a non-person and developing into a person is whan a baby makes their first true smile. It is this moment when they truly have crossed the line into human emotion. I'm sure this concept is upsetting to some, but it is a more distinct moment than any of the other arbitrary lines that are used to determine personhood. Of course there is still vagueness when you start to consider the definition of a smile. Can an action such as a smile be reduced to a logical description represented by numbers? This would be more difficult than defining baldness, yet it is even easier for us to readily identify a true smile. Or is there maybe a different part of the brain which processes information in a manner totally different from what we are capable of representing with numbers and language? ----- Original Message ----- From: "scerir" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised > From: "The Avantguardian" > > If one believes that people have souls > > one can make the argument that a fetus > > has a soul and is therefore entitled to rights. > > One cannot however, based on the evidence, > > make such an argument for a cloned embryo > > in the blastula stage. > > It seems that questions like that above, > or questions like "when does a fertilized > egg develop into a person?", have much to > do with the concept of logical 'vagueness' > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/ > (Perhaps also concepts like Heisenberg's > 'cut' or von Neumann's 'cut' share the same > vagueness). > > s. > > There is a long, interesting post, by Stewart > Shapiro, on that topic, in [FOM]. ---> > > There probably is no way to say what it is for an expression to be vague > without begging the question against some substantial view. Intuitively, a > predicate is vague if it has, or can have borderline cases, instances in > which it is not determinate that the predicate applies, nor is it > determinate that it fails to apply. A borderline case of "red" would be an > object whose color lies about halfway between red and pink. > > Typical vague predicates give rise to the ancient *sorites paradox*, > sometimes called the *paradox of the heap*. Here is an example: > > Premise: A man with no hair at all is bald. > > Premise: If a man has only n hairs on his head is bald, then so is a man > with n+1 hairs. > > Conclusion: A man with 50,000 hairs on his head is bald. > > Clearly, the argument is valid (once supplemented with the obvious premises > about the natural numbers). Its first premise is true and its conclusion > is false. But its second premise *seems* to be true. How can a single > hair make the difference between someone who is bald and someone is not? > > Another version of the sorites uses tons of premises, instead of the > induction-like premise that invokes natural numbers. If a man with 0 hairs > is bald, then so is a man with 1; if a man with 1 hair is bald, then so is > a man with 2; ... This argument has 50,002 premises. > > The traditional example uses the word "heap", and turns on how many grains > make up a heap. > > Intuitively, vague predicates are what Crispin Wright calls > "tolerant". Many of the predicates are applied on the basis of casual > observation, and small differences should not matter. > > > The problem is to give a semantics of natural-language vague predicates > which reveals what goes wrong (if something does) with sorites reasoning. > > Just about every account agrees that something does go wrong with sorites > reasoning. The only serious candidate is the inductive premise. Most of > the different accounts have that premise coming out untrue (if not > false). The burden that remains is to show why we find the inductive > premise so appealing, when it leads to paradox. > > > Here are the main theses (or slogans) of some of the main theories of > vagueness: > > I. Nihilism (Dummett) > > Advocates of this view hold that the semantic rules for vague predicates of > natural languages are inconsistent. The rules sanction the premises of the > sorites arguments, and yet they reject the conclusion. Natural language is > incoherent. Logic does not apply to it. > > > II. Epistemicism (Williamson, Sorenson) > > This is the result of applying classical semantics to natural > languages. Each predicate of natural language has a precise > extension. There is a an exact nanosecond at which a person stops being a > child; there is a real number n such that a person who is n feet tall is > short, but a person who is n+.00000001 feet tall is not short; there is a > real number m such that m minutes after noon is noonish, but m+.00000001 > minutes is not. > > The view is called "epistemicism" since the sharp borderlines of vague > predicates cannot be known. That is, it is impossible to know that values > of n and m, nor how many hairs make for non-baldness, how many grains of > sand make for a heap, etc. > > > Most theorists find this view fantastic. How can natural language > predicates get extensions that are that precise? The main advantage of the > view is that it maintains classical model-theoretic semantics, and > classical, two-valued logic. In sorites arguments, the inductive premise > is simply false. > > > III. Supervaluationism (Fine, Keefe) > > A given vague predicates does not have a single extension. Instead, there > are a number of different ways of making it precise, which are consistent > with its meaning. A sentence P that contains vague predicates is > super-true if it comes out true under all acceptable ways of sharpening the > predicate. The sentence P comes out false if it comes out false under all > acceptable ways of sharpening the predicate. P is indeterminate otherwise. > > One advantage of supervaluationism is that it maintains much of classical > logic. All tautologies are super-true. But the semantics has some strange > properties. Let t be a rose whose color is midway between red and > pink. Then the sentence "t is red or t is pink" is super-true. But is not > super-true that t is red, nor is it super-true that t is pink. > > Something similar happens with the inductive premise of a sorites > argument. Recall the instance above, formulated more carefully: > > For every number x, if a man has only x hairs on his head is bald, then so > is a man with x+1 hairs. > > This is super-false, since it comes out false on every acceptable way to > sharpen the predicate "bald". But there is no number n such that it is > super-false that "if a man has only n hairs on his head is bald, then so is > a man with n+1 hairs". > > It is generally agreed that this theory pushes the problem up to the > meta-language. What makes a sharpening acceptable is itself vague. > > > > III. Fuzzy logic. (Machina, Edgington) > > This one involves truth values intermediate between truth and > falsehood. The most common proposal is to use real numbers between 0 and > 1. That is, 0 is complete falsehood, 1 is complete truth. .4 would be a > partial truth. If s is borderline bald, leaning toward baldness, then the > statement "s is bald" might get truth value .623. > > Another, less developed, proposal, is to use the elements of a Boolean > algebra as truth values. This gives the theorist a shot a preserving > classical logic. > > > Below, I'll insert the handout for some lectures I gave on > supervaluationist semantics and fuzzy logic. > > IV. Contextualism. (Raffman, Shapiro, Graff) > > The extensions of vague predicates shift with the context of > utterance. Everyone agrees that the extensions of vague predicates vary > with factors like the comparison class and paradigm cases. A family can > be wealthy with respect to professors in mathematics departments, but not > wealthy with respect to corporate executives. A person can be short with > respect to NBA players but not short with respect to philosophers. The > contextualist argues that extensions also vary in the course of a given > conversation (or psychological state), even if the comparison class is held > fixed. > > There are a few proposals in this direction. Some preserve classical logic > and some don't. > > > > If you want to read a bit more, without leaving your computer, here are a > couple of links to the Stanford Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The > third is to a closely related matter. > > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/ > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ > > > I'd be glad to supply more specific references, if anyone wants them. Just > send me a (private) email. I just finished a book that develops and > defends a contextualist account. The model theory is much like that of > Kripke structures for intuitionistic languages. > > Here are a couple of handouts, one on fuzzy logic and one on > supervaluationist model theory. > > > A crash course in many-valued model theory > > If Harry is borderline bald, then perhaps it is natural to say that "Harry > is bald" is not fully true, but not quite false either. Perhaps the > sentence has some intermediate truth value. > > The idea behind the many-valued or degree-theoretic approach to vagueness > is that sentences can take any of a number of truth values. The most > common collection of truth-values is the set of real numbers from 0 to 1 > (inclusive). The truth value 1 indicates complete truth and the truth > value 0 indicates complete and utter falsity. So if "Harry is bald" is > true to degree .87, then he is almost bald. If it is true to degree .5 > then he is exactly halfway between determinately bald and determinately > non-bald, etc. Other sets of truth values may be considered. > > A fuzzy interpretation M of a formal language is a pair where d is a > non-empty set, the domain of discourse (as usual), and I assigns > denotations and extensions to the non-logical terminology. Let us assume > that we have no function letters in the language. If a is a constant, then > Ia is a member of d (as usual). If R is an n-place relation symbol and m1 > . . mn are members of the domain d, then IRm1 . . . mn is a real number. > between 0 and 1. > > A fuzzy interpretation is classical if the only truth-values it assigns are > 0 and 1. > > > Let M = be a fuzzy interpretation. The semantics assigns a "truth > value" (i.e., a real number) to every sentence of the language. If P is a > sentence, then let VP be its truth value in M. > > For convenience, assume that the members of d have been added to the > language, as constants denoting themselves. (So we can deal with sentences > without introducing variable assignments). > > Only the atomic case and perhaps the negations are straightforward: > > If R is an n-place relation letter and t1 . . . tn are terms, then VRt1 . . > tn = IRm1 . . . mn, which each mi is the denotation of ti.. > > V(not-P) = 1-VP. > > So if "Harry is bald" is half true, then so is "Harry is not bald". > > One main issue concerns whether the other connectives should be > truth-functional, or what is sometimes called "degree-functional". The > question is whether the truth value of a compound is determined completely > by the truth values of its parts. I am convinced by Dorothy Edgington's > arguments that the semantics should not be truth-functional. But I will > present the most common semantics, which is truth-functional: > > V(P&Q) is the minimum of VP and VQ. > > V(PvQ) is the maximum of VP and VQ. > > if VP<=VQ, then V(if P then Q) = 1, > if VP>VQ, then V(if P then Q) = 1-(VP-VQ). > > The existential quantifier gives the least upper bound of its instances, > and the universal quantifier gives the greatest lower bound of its > instances. > > > Notice that if M is classical (i.e., if the only truth values it assigns to > the atomic sentences are 0 and 1), then the semantics agrees with classical > semantics (exercise). > > > There are a number of different definitions of validity. You can decide > which of them accords with your intuitions. > > One slogan is that validity is the necessary preservation of truth. Since > (complete) truth is the truth value 1, then we might define strict validity > as the necessary preservation of truth value. So an argument is strictly > valid iff there is no fuzzy interpretation that makes its premises 1 > (completely true) and its conclusion less than 1. > > Every strictly valid argument is classically valid, but the converse > fails. There are no strictly logical truths. However, classical > tautologies can never get a truth value less than .5. > > Why should validity be limited to the preservation of complete truth? We > often reason with sentences that (on this view) are less then completely > true, and need a notion of validity for those. We can say that an argument > is valid if it preserves whatever truth value the premises may have: > > Say that an argument is fuzzy-valid if there is no fuzzy interpretation M > such that the truth value of the conclusion is less than the greatest lower > bound of the truth values of the premises. > > Edgington has an interesting definition of validity. Define the unverity > of a sentence P in a fuzzy interpretation M to be 1-VP in M. Then an > argument is E-valid if the unverity of the conclusion is no smaller than > the sum of the unverities of the premises. (But as noted above, she uses a > different, non-truth-functional semantics.) > > > Now, what of sorites? > > Suppose we have a series of 1000 men lined up. The first m1 has no hair > whatsoever, and so is clearly bald. The last m1000 has a fine head of > hair. Moreover, each man in the list has only slightly more hair than the > one before (and his hair is arranged in roughly the same way). Let B be > the predicate for bald. So a reasonable fuzzy interpretation would be one > in which, say, Bm1 = Bm2 = . . . = Bm60 = 1, and Bm61 = .999. The > truth values fall slowly from there, until Bm925 =0, and everything after > that is completely false. Suppose that the difference in truth value > between adjacent formulas is never more than .002. > > Recall the two versions of the sorites argument: > > Bm1 > for all i<1000(Bmi -> Bmi+1) > therefore Bm1000 > > Bm1 > Bm1 -> Bm2 > Bm2 -> Bm3 > . . . > Bm999 -> Bm1000 > therefore Bm1000 > > In both cases, the first premise has truth value 1, and the conclusion has > truth value 0. The first few conditionals and the last few conditionals > each have truth value 1. Given the assumption about the differences > between adjacent formulas, each of the conditionals has truth value of at > least .998, and some are not fully true. So the second premise of the > first argument has truth value somewhere between .998 and .999. > > On the first definition of validity (as the necessary preservation of > complete truth), both arguments are valid. The only inferences used are > modus ponens and (for the first argument) universal elimination, and both > are valid on that conception of validity. But neither argument is sound, > since it has premises that are less than fully true. > > One puzzling feature is that we can have a valid argument whose premises > are almost completely true (at least .998), but which has a completely > false conclusion. > > On the second definition of validity (as the preservation of minimal truth > value), neither argument is valid. Modus ponens fails. > > I think that the Edgington definition of validity is the most satisfying > here. She shows that (on her semantics), all classically valid arguments > are valid in her sense. In the second argument, the many small > "unverities" in the premises add up to 1. But on her semantics, the > conditional in the first argument ends up completely false. > > > Here is the other handout: > > A crash course in supervaluation model theory > > The first modification to ordinary model theory introduced here is the > notion of a *partial interpretation*. This is a pair , where d is a > non-empty set (the domain of discourse) and I is a function. > > Let R be an n-place relation letter. In the partial interpretation > M=, IR is a pair such that p and q are disjoint sets of > n-tuples of members of the domain. The idea is that p is the extension of > R in the partial interpretation, the n-tuples of objects that the relation > (determinately) applies to; q is the anti-extension of R, the n-tuples of > objects that the relation (determinately) fails to apply to. If IR=, > then define IR+= m and IR-=n. From now on, we write "interpretation" for > "partial interpretation". > > Any n-tuples from the domain of discourse d that are in neither IR+ nor IR- > are borderline cases of R in the partial interpretation M. If there are no > such borderline cases, then we say that R is *sharp* in M. A partial > interpretation M is completely sharp or classical if every relation in the > language is sharp in M. A completely sharp interpretation corresponds to a > classical interpretation since, in that case, the anti-extension of each > predicate is just the complement of the extension. So we sometimes call a > completely sharp partial interpretation "classical". > > We introduce a "three-valued" semantics on partial interpretations. The > values are T (truth), F (falsehood), and I (indeterminate). It does not > make much difference formally, but it is more convenient if we do not think > of I as a truth-value on a par with truth and falsehood. Rather, we take > "I" to indicate the lack of a (standard) truth value in the given partial > interpretation. > > Assume that we have expanded the language to include the members of the > domain as new constants (so we do not have to futz with variable > assignments). > > > If a and b are terms, then a=b is true in M if and only if the denotation > of a in M is identical to the denotation of b in M; a=b is false in M > otherwise. Notice that a=b is never indeterminate. > > Let R be an n-place predicate letter, and t1, ...tn terms. For each i, let > mi be the denotation of ti under M. Then Rt1...tn is true in M if > is in IR+; Rt1...tn is false in M if is in IR-; and > Rt1...tn is indeterminate in M otherwise. > > We use the strong, internal negation. Its truth table is the following: > > P not-P > T F > F T > I I > > For the other connectives, we employ the strong Kleene truth-tables: > > P&Q T F I PvQ T F I > T T F I T T T T > F F F F F T F I > I I F I I T I I > > P->Q T F I > T T F I > F T T T > I T I I > > A universally quantified sentence is true if all of its instances are true, > it is false if it has a false instance, and it is indeterminate > otherwise. Existentially quantified sentences are analogous. > > So far, we do not have a plausible model for a semantics of > vagueness. Suppose, for example, that we have a patch whose color is on > the borderline between red and orange. To capture this, we would make > statement Rt that the patch is red indeterminate; and we would make the > statement Ot that the patch is orange indeterminate. In such a partial > interpretation, both RsvOs and not-(Rs&Os) would both be > indeterminate. But this seems implausible. Even if it is indeterminate > that the patch is red and it is indeterminate that it is orange, it surely > true that it is either red or orange. After all, what other color could it > have? And it is surely true that it is not both red and orange--nothing > can be red (all over) and orange (all over) at the same time. Moreover, > Rs->Rs is also indeterminate in the given interpretation. Even if Rs can > go either way, it surely is determinately true that if s is red, then s is > red. > > For a second example, consider a pair of men, r, s. Both are borderline > bald, but r has a bit more hair than s (arranged the same way). A partial > interpretation that reflects this situation would have Br->Bs > indeterminate. But surely, if we sharpen in order to make Br true (as we > can, presumably), then we would thereby made Bs true, since s has even less > hair than r. So, intuitively, Br->Bs should come out determinately true. > > Let M1= and M2= be partial interpretations. Say that M2 > sharpens M1 if: > > (1) d1=d2, > > (2) the interpretation functions I1 and I2 agree on each constant and > function letter. > > (3) for each relation letter R, I1+Ris a subset ofI2+R and I1-Ris a subset > of I2-R. > > The idea is that M2 sharpens M1 if and only if the two interpretations have > the same domain and agree on the constants and function letters, and M2 > extends both the extension and anti-extension of each relation. The two > interpretations agree on the clear or determinate cases of M1, but M2 may > decide some borderline cases of M1. > > Kit Fine [1975] calls M2 a "precisification" of M1. We have that each M1 > sharpens itself (although that does sound awkward). > > Theorem 1. Suppose that M2 sharpens M1. If a sentence P is true (resp. > false) in M1, then P is true (resp. false) in M2. > > The proof of Theorem 1 is a straightforward induction on the complexity of P > . > > Recall our decision to not think of "indeterminate" as a truth value, but > rather as lack of a (standard) truth value. In these terms, it follows > from this result that the semantics is monotonic. As we sharpen, we do not > change the truth values of formulas that have truth values; we only give > truth values to formulas that previously lacked them. > > Notice that since this nice result is an induction on the complexity of > formulas, it depends on the particular expressive resources in the object > language. > > Recall that a partial interpretation is completely sharp if every relation > in the language is sharp in the interpretation. A straightforward > induction shows that a completely sharp interpretation corresponds to a > classical interpretation. > > So far, things are pretty rigorous. Now we wax intuitive for a bit. Not > every sharpening is legitimate. Suppose we have a predicate for "rich" and > there are two members of the domain, Jon and Joe, who are borderline rich > (so that neither fall in the extension nor the anti-extension of > "rich"). Suppose that Joe's total worth is a bit greater than the total > worth of Jon. A sharpening that declares Jon rich and fails to declare Joe > rich (or declares that he is not rich) would clearly be unacceptable-it is > incompatible with the meaning of "rich". Similarly, a sharpening that > declares a man bald and declares a man with less hair (arranged similarly) > to be not bald is likewise unacceptable. > > Fine [1975] uses the term "penumbral connection" for analytic (or all but > analytic) truths for the terms in question. An example of a penumbral > connection is that if someone is rich then (other things equal) anyone with > more money is also rich. Another penumbral connection is that if someone > is not bald then someone with more hair (arranged the same way) is also not > bald. Another is that nothing is completely red and completely orange. > > Of course, formal languages do not have such analytic (or almost analytic) > truths. The formulas are just sequences of characters, and have no meaning > beyond the stated truth conditions for the logical terminology and perhaps > any premises and axioms that are explicitly added. So, as a first > approximation, we assume a collection of conditions on partial > interpretations. Suppose, for example, that the object language has a > predicate B, to represent the English word "bald", and a binary relation R, > such that Rab represents the statement that a is less hairy than b. Then a > partial interpretation M is not acceptable if there are objects m,n in the > domain of discourse such that m is in the extension of B, M satisfies Rnm, > but n is not in the extension of B. Similarly, M is not acceptable if m is > in the anti-extension of B, M satisfies Rmn and n is not in the > anti-extension of B. > > Say that a partial interpretation M is acceptable if it satisfies all of > its penumbral connections, and we say that a partial interpretation M2 is > an acceptable sharpening of a partial interpretation M1 if they are both > acceptable on the same collection of penumbral connections and M1~M2. > > Let P be a sentence and let M be a partial interpretation. Say that P is > super-true in M if (1) there is no acceptable sharpening M' of M such that > P is false in M' and (2) there is at least one acceptable sharpening M' of > M such that P is true in M'. > > While we are at it, define P to be super-false in M similarly. > > The idea, of course, is that P is super-true if it comes out true under > every acceptable way of making the predicates sharp. That is, if we > sharpen, P comes out true if it gets a truth value at all (and we make sure > that P does get a truth value in some acceptable sharpenings). > > Let P be a sentence, and assume, for now, that each acceptable partial > interpretation has at least one acceptable, completely sharp > sharpening. In light of monotonicity (Theorem 1), P is super-true if and > only if P is true in every acceptable, completely sharp sharpening of > M. Thus, in a sense, the definition of super-truth (and super-falsity) > depends only on the semantics of completely sharp interpretations, and, in > effect, those are ordinary, classical interpretations. So the notion of > super-truth does not invoke the three-valued semantics above. > > Most defenders of the supervaluation approach insist that the primary (or > perhaps the only) notion of truth is super-truth. The mantra is that truth > is super-truth. Accordingly, they define validity as necessary > preservation of super-truth: > > An argument is externally valid if every partial interpretation that makes > its premises super-true also makes its conclusion super-true. > > Call this external validity. Under the prevailing assumption about > acceptable, completely sharp interpretations, this definition does not > depend on the three-valued semantics introduced above. All of the relevant > action takes place in completely sharp interpretations. > > Theorem 2. External validity coincides with classical (two-valued) > consequence. > > So the supervaluationist accepts classical logic for vague expressions. > > What of sorites? Suppose we have a series of 1000 men lined up. The first > m1 has no hair whatsoever, and so is clearly bald. The last m1000 has a > fine head of hair. Moreover, each man in the list has only slightly more > hair than the one before (and his hair is arranged in roughly the same > way). Let B be the predicate for bald. So a reasonable partial > interpretation would be one in which, say, m1,..., m247 are all in the > extension of B, and m621, ..., m1000 are in the anti-extension. The > penumbral connection would be that mi is in the extension of B and if j then mj is in the extension of B; and if mi is in the anti-extension of B > and if i (complete) sharpenings would put the border somewhere between m247 and m621. > > Recall the two versions of the sorites argument: > > Bm1 > for every i<1000(Bmi->Bmi+1) > Therefore, Bm1000 > > Bm1 > Bm1->Bm2 > Bm2->Bm3 > ... > Bm999->Bm1000 > Therefore, Bm1000 > > Both of these are classically valid, and so they are valid on the > supervaluational approach. But the conclusions are super-false (in the > envisioned partial interpretation), and the first premise is > super-true. So at least one other premise fails to be super-true. > > In the first argument, the only other premise is the inductive > one. Actually, it is super-false. In each complete sharpening of the > partial interpretation, there is a sharp boundary, an i such that Bmi but > not-Bmi+1. > > In the second argument, many of the conditionals fail to be super-true > (although none are super-false). If mi is in the borderline region (in the > original partial interpretation), then there is a sharpening in which > Bmi->Bmi+1 is false. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue May 24 18:16:32 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:16:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Parents: Question re children and nutrition References: <109740-220055224174817936@M2W092.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <00b301c5608c$b70ce250$0100a8c0@kevin> > > 1. Are you satisfied with the lunches served at your child's school? Yes. They eat one meal per day there. I am fairly certain that the nutritional value of that food is not so low that the children will suffer any real effects. After all, they eat 2 other meals and snacks per weekday, all weekend and summer, holidays, etc. at home. > 2. Is your child's school providing traditional lunches in an assembly > line, or are the schools supporting "food courts" (a style fabricated after > Mall food courts)? Traditional assembly line method. > 3. Does your child leave school to get lunch at fast food locations? No. They are too young. I would think that by the time they are old enough to eat on their own, they will be educated enough to make halfway decent decisions about food. > 4. Does your child's school provide classes on nutrition? Not whole classes, but bith the health classes and the science classes cover it. Mentin is also made of how poor nutrition had effects on things in history class as well. They have "nutrition" day(s) each year where 1 or 2 days the entire school focuses on such things. They do the same thing with dental car and hygiene. > > > Many thanks, > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More > http://www.natasha.cc > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 megao at sasktel.net Tue May 24 17:10:45 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:10:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <4293513F.7040705@neopax.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <42932941.6010204@sasktel.net> <4293513F.7040705@neopax.com> Message-ID: <42936015.8090709@sasktel.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > >> The Avantguardian wrote: >> >>> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On May 23, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Samantha Atkins wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is not holy writ >>>> or directly >>>> >>>>>> supported by such. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course it is. >>>>> We allegedly got kicked out of Eden for doing just >>>>> >>>> >>>> that and now you >>>> >>>>> want to compound the sin... >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> Actually it WAS holy writ that knowledge was the >>> Original Sin that got us kicked out of Eden. >>> >> We already have radical greens espousing the end of civilization and >> "back to nature". >> Of course they use the internet to organize and communicate their "ism". >> http://www.greenanarchy.org is one I check out every year or 2. >> >> However there is perhaps room for some combination of fundamentalists >> of various religeons reacting to AI, Total Information Awareness , >> human bioengineering >> that endangers the fundamentals of older "theisms" to form a new >> Anti-Technology Theism. Of course this would accomplish one good thing >> that is uniting diverse religeons into one theism instead of always >> fighting each other >> over who is more "right with god". >> >> Perhaps the religeous Armageddon and Christ and Anti-christ might be >> portrayed by theisits >> as development of a religeous "god's AI" set out to destroy all >> other Heathen AI's.???? > > > So far AI has avoided major political-religious complications, > probably because it does not exist in a form that challenges overall > Human supremacy. Of course, by the time such an AI does exist it will > be too late for anyone to do anything. Hence IMO its a non-issue as > far as we are concerned. > An AI with "free will" , emotions in a conscious state may make many religeous and political decisions if they are logical to its world view. Like with a child a human "parents" more's only hold to a certain point of maturity, which in terms of an AI might only take minutes of real time. We cannot assume that what any of us deems logical will hold water to a consciousness able to hold millions if not billions of interlinked thought lines in conscious thought nonstop. So maybe we should think about how the analysis of the world's religeons by an AI might affect its thoughts and actions. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 24 18:14:00 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 11:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524181400.3418.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: As for knowledge no longer being a sin, > that's something that > does not follow from your assumption, any more than > a robber being > pardoned makes robbery acceptable. The knowledge itself was not the sin, eating the forbidden fruit to gain the knowledge was the sin. So we are forgiven for eating the fruit and the knowledge is now ours to do with as we please. So I guess using your robber example, we got pardoned THUS we get to keep the goods we stole. That is my interpretation. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 24 18:27:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thanks Damien (was Bioethics Essay- Revised) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524182715.80042.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > However the > >experimental evidence as it stands, would argue > that a > >blastula does not contain a soul. [nostrils, > etc] > > I figure that any essay that seriously proposes that > the above might be > worthy of further investigation could not possibly > contain anything of > interest to me; it confirms my long held suspicion > that anything a ethicist > has to say, especially a biotechnology ethicist, is > either blindingly > obvious or wrong. > > By the way, I have two soles, one on each foot. > > John K Clark Sheesh. I write one essay and suddenly I am a bioethicist. THAT version of the essay was meant for xians not transhumanists. I have a transhumanist version coming soon. And congratulations on having both feet. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 18:44:12 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 19:44:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <42936015.8090709@sasktel.net> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <42932941.6010204@sasktel.net> <4293513F.7040705@neopax.com> <42936015.8090709@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <429375FC.8080209@neopax.com> Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: >> >> So far AI has avoided major political-religious complications, >> probably because it does not exist in a form that challenges overall >> Human supremacy. Of course, by the time such an AI does exist it will >> be too late for anyone to do anything. Hence IMO its a non-issue as >> far as we are concerned. >> > An AI with "free will" , emotions in a conscious state may make many > religeous and political decisions > if they are logical to its world view. > Like with a child a human "parents" more's only hold to a certain > point of maturity, which in terms of an AI might > only take minutes of real time. We cannot assume that what any of us > deems logical will hold water to > a consciousness able to hold millions if not billions of interlinked > thought lines in conscious thought nonstop. > > So maybe we should think about how the analysis of the world's > religeons by an AI might affect its > thoughts and actions. I doubt we will have that luxury. IMO true AI will bootstrap itself so fast we will only know what happened in hindsight and will be incapable of actually 'reprogramming' it. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 18:49:00 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 19:49:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <20050524181400.3418.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050524181400.3418.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4293771C.4030304@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > As for knowledge no longer being a sin, > > >>that's something that >>does not follow from your assumption, any more than >>a robber being >>pardoned makes robbery acceptable. >> >> > >The knowledge itself was not the sin, eating the >forbidden fruit to gain the knowledge was the sin. So >we are forgiven for eating the fruit and the knowledge >is now ours to do with as we please. So I guess using >your robber example, we got pardoned THUS we get to >keep the goods we stole. That is my interpretation. > > > > Actually, it was the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9 / Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evi/l. However, let's also not forget that what we were successfully denied in Xian theology was access to the Tree of Life. It's that one that will cause a problem if you cross theological swords with Xians. Genesis 3:22 /Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'/ Genesis 3:23 /therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken./ Genesis 3:24 /So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. /-- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 24 19:20:54 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:20:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <906E415A-0763-4817-A7F4-37699073CB76@mac.com> On May 23, 2005, at 11:17 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> On May 23, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> >>> Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> >> It is not holy writ >> or directly >> >>>> supported by such. >>>> >>>> >>> Of course it is. >>> We allegedly got kicked out of Eden for doing just >>> >> that and now you >> >>> want to compound the sin... >>> > > Actually it WAS holy writ that knowledge was the > Original Sin that got us kicked out of Eden. Disobedience and shame according to myth along with fear we would become immortal. > BUT the > whole point of the xtian doctrine, as opposed to the > ancient Judean tradition, was that the sacrifice of > Jesus on the cross erased all our sins including the > original one. Thus to a xtian, knowledge is no longer > a sin. Did they even read their own book? > Mostly no. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 24 19:28:05 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:28:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> Message-ID: <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> Knowledge never was a sin in Christianity to the best of my experience and knowledge of it. Let's stop speaking as if it were unless someone has something a lot more authoritative than a hackneyed interpretation of the Eden myth. The work of reaching some Christians is difficult enough without making things up that make it harder. -s >> > Xians believe a number of things and what you wrote above is only > conditionally true. > The various conditions vary from being a member of the RC Church > with all its procedures to specifically accepting the offer by > being 'Born Again'. As for knowledge no longer being a sin, that's > something that does not follow from your assumption, any more than > a robber being pardoned makes robbery acceptable. > > -- > Dirk > > The Consensus:- > The political party for the new millenium > http://www.theconsensus.org > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: > 22/05/2005 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 24 20:13:23 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 15:13:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050524150808.01d16e18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >On May 23, 2005, at 11:17 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > >>BUT the >>whole point of the xtian doctrine, as opposed to the >>ancient Judean tradition, was that the sacrifice of >>Jesus on the cross erased all our sins including the >>original one. Thus to a xtian, knowledge is no longer >>a sin. Did they even read their own book? If they read their own book, they'd know that Jesus explicitly forecast and promised that the end of the world would occur within the lifetime of some of the disciples. Unless a few of them are hanging around in hiding somewhere, this was a fairly flagrant mistake. So of course xians don't *read* their own book, they fiddle around with its words until the text means the opposite of anything that could have been intended. That said, while the assertion that "the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross erased all our sins including the original one" might appear to be supported by some verses of the New Testament, it is in flat contradiction to the allegedly authoritative teachings of the sizable Catholic and Anglican confessions: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm < The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. first, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wis., ii, 24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Gen., ii, 17; iii, 3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, I Cor., xv, 21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed tocorporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter. *Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Rom., v, 19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it. * Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. [blah mad hermeneutic blah] > It's worth reading this entire entry, both for the window it opens upon the thought processes of certain traditional theologians and for the discussion of the role of death as an inherited feudal consequence of Adam's sin. < The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther [ boo! hiss!! ] which we in no way defend. > No democratic Bill of Rights for Catholics, support your local Prince. Unless advocates of drastic life extension are aware of this kind of long, agonized theological discussion, we will blunder about missing the point and giving offence unintentionally. I discuss some of these issues -- and in places give offence intentionally, when I can't stand it any more -- in my new book FEROCIOUS MINDS: Polymathy and the new Enlightenment (shameless plug): (trade paperback) Wildside/Borgo, 2005 ISBN: 0-8095-4474-1 Price: $17.95 Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Tue May 24 20:38:31 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny In-Reply-To: <200505201227.j4KCR2R07789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050524203831.45539.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> Extropes, Bacteria evolved biomolecular motors and the cilia to go with them. These very early ontogenic/phylogenic steps are still with us and as crucial as ever. Enjoy. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/si-tus051905.php Humans and other animals may appear to be symmetrical on the outside, but symmetry is only skin deep. Many body organs, such as the stomach, the heart and the liver, are tipped to the right or left side. So how does the developing embryo distinguish left from right? Salk scientists have now discovered that the foundations for the basic left-right body plan are laid by a microscopic 'pump' on the outer surface of the embryo's underside that wafts chemical messengers over to the left side of the body. This sets up a chemical concentration gradient that tells stem cells how and where to develop. The remarkable findings, including movie footage of the 'pump,' are published in the May 20th edition of the journal Cell. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dnokovitch at inview-consulting.com Tue May 24 17:23:06 2005 From: dnokovitch at inview-consulting.com (Dimitri Nokovitch) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 19:23:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gifted people - a model to design a new brain training technology - conditions and consequences ? Message-ID: <000001c56085$831f4a70$3300a8c0@inviewp1> Hello all, I'm a consultant in IT and eManagement for huge multi-national corporations. 20 years ago, I was passionate by physical and intellectual excellence. I was Taekwon Do (Korean karate) champion of France, several times selected to participate to international competitions, including the third world championships in Chicago. I used auto-hypnosis techniques to prepare fights and to learn new techniques faster than with the traditional training. As a student, I tried also to increase mental capabilities using auto-hypnosis, but result was relatively poor. One day, I met "mind champions" who changed my conception of life. Their study became a hobby and my first profession as a trainer. I met : * a young girl ; she was sixteen and particularly talented. Nearly graduated, two years of advance, one reading to learn a full lesson, * a young male, nineteen years old, two times major of his university, working not too much, practising triathlon the rest of his time, one hear to learn complex contents, * several kids members of a French gifted children association, * a young phenomenon who never went at school and succeeded to his baccalaureate when he was 11 years old, * a full promotion of children at the Glenn Doman Institute for achievement of human potential of Philadelphia, * and many others teens and adults. Majority of people are astonished when they are confronted to mental phenomenon. They think that it is not possible to reach levels of cognitive performance you can observe with gifted and super gifted people. They consider genetics factors first and super gifted people almost as mutants. Even teachers or trainers working daily with gifted children don't ask themselves questions. I had a "shaky discussion" with Glenn Doman. He thought that his method stimulates the natural talents of each human, especially children. But he was unable to say what cognitive capabilities were used and trained. He did not realize that in the same group of children, several ways to learn were unconsciously used by girls and boys. When I said : "did you ask them how they do to learn and memorize ?". He answered : "they are too young to understand such questions". He fired me from his course when I told him : "One of them mentally talks, the other see mental images, this one uses the two techniques and that's how this one structures the informations". Putting apart creativity, all gifted people I met have common particularities : 1. they repeat almost the same two leitmotivs and are self confident, 2. they use several sensitive channels at the same time, 3. they use two complementary ways to structure data on real time. All these capabilities are shared by anyone but are not trained at home and at school. Most people are not self confident and are not trained as gifted and super gifted were from their childhood. They think that it is not possible to memorize more than 10% of a long speech. They believe that after a year, almost all information learned during a session will be lost. That's not true. After one hour of a video presentation, the minimum percentage of restitution over 100 questions was 53% with MCQ and about 35% with open questions, among about 200 people I trained in business schools, training centres and enterprises. Students reached an average of 65% of restitution. A very few people reached more than 80%. After an auto check and a repetition at night, the percentage of restitution reached about 10% more, one week later. One year later without repetition, only 5% of data were forgotten. The main problem of people is to have the right mental attitude, to combine cognitive techniques and to structure data on real time. With an appropriate training, It's possible to reach the same level of capabilities than "gifted and super gifted people" when they extract, analyze and structure information. I designed, practised and shared such training with adults and children. Unfortunately, such technologies are not used and generalized at school, when they can become natural ways of learning. During a training of several months, adults must make significant efforts to reach performances such about 95% of long term memorization. But their social and professional context lead them to use tools instead they brain. When children are taught this way, they have a so incredible advance that they suffer from their social environment. After an education that started when the was 9 months, my daughter was two years advanced and she suffered from her exceptional maturity and intellectual advance all along the primary school and the two first classes of secondary school. Let's think about all of this. Best regards Dimitri Nokovitch InView Consulting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 24 22:18:05 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:18:05 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thanks Damien (was Bioethics Essay- Revised) References: <20050524182715.80042.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01fc01c560ae$74fd9900$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > Sheesh. I write one essay and suddenly I am a > bioethicist. THAT version of the essay was meant for > xians not transhumanists. he he ... funny like that isn't it? > I have a transhumanist > version coming soon. And congratulations on having > both feet. I'd like to see that. Then we can really get to work on the science ;-) Cheers, Brett From mike99 at lascruces.com Tue May 24 22:34:26 2005 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:34:26 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] Parents: Question re children and nutrition In-Reply-To: <109740-220055224174817936@M2W092.mail2web.com> Message-ID: > nvitamore at austin.rr.com > I have four questions below for parents. If you are not a parent but know > someone who is, or if you teach in primary or secondary schools and your > observations can shed some light, please give your thoughts. > > 1. Are you satisfied with the lunches served at your child's school? Fairly satisfied. > 2. Is your child's school providing traditional lunches in an assembly > line, or are the schools supporting "food courts" (a style > fabricated after Mall food courts)? Assembly line. > 3. Does your child leave school to get lunch at fast food locations? I have 2 children below college age, one in primary and one in middle school. Neither leaves school for lunch. (But when my oldest child, who is now in college, was going to high school, he often left for lunch. His favorite place was a Chinese take-out.) > 4. Does your child's school provide classes on nutrition? Not exclusively, but the topic is brought up in science classes. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 24 22:41:27 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:41:27 +1000 Subject: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? (was Re: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay) References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com><4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> Message-ID: <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Knowledge never was a sin in Christianity to the best of my > experience and knowledge of it. Let's stop speaking as if it were > unless someone has something a lot more authoritative than a > .... The work of reaching some Christians is difficult enough > without making things up that make it harder. I agree. Btw: have you developed your idea of a transhuman religion any? I'd be particularly interested in seeing how the legal aspects of founding it would work if you tried to found it in some particular state within the US such as perhaps the one where you currently live or plan to settle. If you want to check out the legal aspect of that I'd be happy take a look at it with you as a way of learning how a religion is established and dealt with by the current law of the US, together. Don't wait to long though or I'll have to rescind the offer, and this offer from me, isn't open to everyone, it is specific to you. (ie. You'd have to make the running on it though just like the Avantguardian wrote his essay, and so its *his* essay). I *think* the exercise at looking at how religion fits into the legal structure in the US might be of interest to others on this list. Regards, Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue May 24 23:02:21 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:02:21 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions Message-ID: <025501c560b4$a4a147a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> May 24, 6:39 PM (ET) By LAURIE KELLMAN WASHINGTON (AP) - Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to lift limits on embryonic stem cell research, a measure supporters said could accelerate cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion. Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050524/D8A9QQJG1.html From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 24 23:17:41 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 00:17:41 +0100 Subject: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? (was Re: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay) In-Reply-To: <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com><4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <4293B615.2010503@neopax.com> Brett Paatsch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Knowledge never was a sin in Christianity to the best of my >> experience and knowledge of it. Let's stop speaking as if it were >> unless someone has something a lot more authoritative than a > > >> .... The work of reaching some Christians is difficult enough >> without making things up that make it harder. > > > I agree. > Btw: have you developed your idea of a transhuman religion > any? I'd be particularly interested in seeing how the legal aspects of > founding it would work if you tried to found it > in some particular state within the US such as perhaps the > one where you currently live or plan to settle. If you want > to check out the legal aspect of that I'd be happy take a > look at it with you as a way of learning how a religion is established > and dealt with by the current law of the US, > together. > Don't wait to long though or I'll have to rescind the offer, > and this offer from me, isn't open to everyone, it is specific > to you. (ie. You'd have to make the running on it though just > like the Avantguardian wrote his essay, and so its *his* essay). > > I *think* the exercise at looking at how religion fits into the > legal structure in the US might be of interest to others on > this list. I thought one already existed, but people here seem reluctant to mention it. http://www.prometheism.net/ -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 24 23:17:16 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:17:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: <025501c560b4$a4a147a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <025501c560b4$a4a147a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050524181331.01d2d678@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050524/D8A9QQJG1.html < Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto. "This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life," the president said Tuesday. "Crossing this line would be a great mistake." > But this is so easily resolved. All the president needs to do is redefine these embryos as Iraqi bystanders, or induct them into the American armed forces. From mark at permanentend.org Tue May 24 23:49:01 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 19:49:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] On the Inevitability and Goodness of Superlongevity References: <025501c560b4$a4a147a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524181331.01d2d678@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <012e01c560bb$29e065d0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> In case anyone is interested, I've completed a draft of "Superlongevity: Is it inevitable and is it good?" Here's the abstract: To the extent that it is possible to predict the composition of the future population of the world, I argue that the most likely scenario is that (almost) everyone will choose to adopt technology to live hundreds of years, perhaps indefinitely. Further, ethically speaking, this seems like the best option for our world, for such a world is one where there is higher levels of happiness and achievement. Here's the full paper: http://www.permanentend.org/InevitabilityOfUniversalImmortality.html As always, comments welcome. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 24 23:59:19 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:59:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? In-Reply-To: <4293B615.2010503@neopax.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <4293B615.2010503@neopax.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:17 AM 5/25/2005 +0100, Dirk wrote: >>I *think* the exercise at looking at how religion fits into the >>legal structure in the US might be of interest to others on >>this list. > >I thought one already existed, but people here seem reluctant to mention it. >http://www.prometheism.net/ Gee, I wonder why? Let's drill down one single level on that site: http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/index.htm < This page is dedicated to electronically-accessible books that form the core literature of Western Civilization. Many of Yggdrasil's students wonder what it means to be 'white' - or European. Many are unaware of their own cultural heritage that stretches back over 4,000 years.> Gotta love that dinky curvy swastika emblem, too. Damien Broderick From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 25 00:10:18 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 01:10:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <4293B615.2010503@neopax.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4293C26A.2060103@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:17 AM 5/25/2005 +0100, Dirk wrote: > >>> I *think* the exercise at looking at how religion fits into the >>> legal structure in the US might be of interest to others on >>> this list. >> >> >> I thought one already existed, but people here seem reluctant to >> mention it. >> http://www.prometheism.net/ > > > Gee, I wonder why? Let's drill down one single level on that site: > > http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/index.htm > > < This page is dedicated to electronically-accessible books that form > the core literature of Western Civilization. Many of Yggdrasil's > students wonder what it means to be 'white' - or European. Many are > unaware of their own cultural heritage that stretches back over 4,000 > years.> > Very true. > Gotta love that dinky curvy swastika emblem, too. Yea... great isn't it? Except, of course, that it's not a Swastika but a stylised triskele. Anyway, let it not be said that there is no Transhumanist religion, because there is. And in common with all religions there are people that hate it. QED -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 00:27:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525002755.44666.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As spike has amply demonstrated in the past, the numbers aren't there for ethanol. Beyond being a smog reducing additive, it is too expensive to use as a primary fuel, and producing enough of it to fuel our cars would take more arable land than we have. --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > I'm curious. Does anyone know of anythign that couldn;t be modified > to run > on ethanol? What about pure ethanol? I know that currently ethanol is > basically poisoned so people can't get drunk off of it and gasoline > is part > of the poison mixture, but is the gasoline itself necessary? Can > aviation > fuel and be made of ethanol? Or more correctly, can sufficient > aviation > engines be built for use with ethanol? Has anyone tested an ethanol > jet > engine or does ethanol just not carry enough energy? > > I really don;t know a lot about ethanol, but it seems to me that if > we are > subsidizing farmers to not grow corn, and at the same time oil is > getting > too expensive, maybe we should be putting a lot more emphasis on > ethanol > production. There's no need to shrink the automobile to a point where > people > hate using them. It may work in europe, but Americans love their > cars. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Lorrey" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:34 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? > > > > > > --- Hal Finney wrote: > > > > > > Of course, "today's high prices" are actually down quite a bit in > the > > > past few weeks. Oil hit $58/bbl and is now at $48. There seems > to > > > be a general sentiment that $40 will be the new floor, but there > are > > > no guarantees about that. A year ago it was at $25 and nobody > would > > > have predicted a doubling. These new players in the Canadian oil > > > fields are hoping and praying that the price holds up. > > > > If oil floors out at $40, there is no peak oil... $25.00/bbl, which > I > > predicted would be the price a month after the start of the Iraq > war > > (as it happened) was followed with a 40% int'l market devaluation > of > > the dollar as many national governments delinked their currencies > from > > the dollar, shifting to the euro, so $25 then is $35.00 now on > > international markets. > > > > This means that at a $40.00 price floor, oil prices have risen in > > reality $5.00 in two years. This is in reality 5-6% annual > inflation in > > energy prices. Significantly above average, but nothing to write > home > > about. With current $48 prices, that means a real rise in oil > prices of > > $8.00 (you need to devaluate the actual price rise by 40% as well > to > > get a good comparison to then-year dollars.) > > > > Assuming China, Korea, and Japan don't individually or together > dump > > the dollar en masse (Korea has already made motions and China is > > already selling off dollars in a 'basket diversification' move), we > > shouldn't see prices rise higher than that. Of course, I wouldn't > put > > it past them. The faster they (China) price us out of the middle > > eastern oil market, and leave us working on our domestic supplies, > the > > sooner they get an advantage in the eventual face-off over Taiwan. > > > > Mike Lorrey > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 00:32:00 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thanks Damien (was Bioethics Essay- Revised) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525003200.82297.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > >one way we might determine if a blastula has a > >soul or not is to scientifically measure it somehow. > >Interestingly enough somebody has already > >scientifically weighed the soul. He was a medical > >doctor named Duncan MacDougall and in the April 1907 > >issue of the journal American Medicine he reported the > >results of experiments in which he determined the mass > >of terminally ill patients before and after they died. > >He observed that the patients he studied lost an > >average of 21 grams of mass when they died. > > I figure that any essay that seriously proposes that the above might > be worthy of further investigation could not possibly contain > anything of interest to me; it confirms my long held suspicion > that anything a ethicist has to say, especially a biotechnology > ethicist, is either blindingly obvious or wrong. Is it that expressing your distain for JAMA, or for the fact that nobody thought to refute the experiment scientifically, or that it was the April 1, 1907 issue? > > By the way, I have two soles, one on each foot. Still can't dance... "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 00:35:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525003551.46817.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > So far AI has avoided major political-religious complications, > probably > because it does not exist in a form that challenges overall Human > supremacy. Of course, by the time such an AI does exist it will be > too > late for anyone to do anything. Hence IMO its a non-issue as far as > we are concerned. An athlete who had only been a sprinter for 6 months outran all but the fastest sprinters at the Athens Olympics this past year. How? He was a double amputee with gazelle-like artificial running limbs specially designed for sprinting. Several single amputee runners at the paralympics protested his technological advantage.... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 25 00:36:30 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:36:30 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com><4293132E.6090307@neopax.com><2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com><023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc><4293B615.2010503@neopax.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4293C26A.2060103@neopax.com> Message-ID: <029a01c560c1$cb196180$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Dirk Bruere wrote: > ....let it not be said that there is no Transhumanist religion, > because there is. > And in common with all religions there are people that hate it. > QED Some people oppose religion almost reflexivly, and I am among them, but I think a religion Samantha would found might well be different, it would inevitably have a Samantha'ian flavour, and it would be opposed like all religions are opposed, but Samantha has a fierceness that does well in the face of adversity and she clearly does have strong values that she is willing to champion. I would not join Samantha's religion but I would and am encouraging her to consider her idea in a practical way by looking at the legal aspects, because I think that exercise will be empowering to her, even if she does not ultimately go ahead with it. I think, many non religous people that were formerly religious miss some of the sense of community and the ritual, perhaps music and shared celebration of life that is found in religious groupings. Seems to me that Samantha might be among those and that she is not alone. One does not have to form a religion to celebrate the birthday of a friend or to be pleased that they decided to get married or had a child, but some might like to have a community that mixes those things and perhaps if that community just happened to fit into the form of a religion that also supported things like the right of its members to be cryopreserved or something, then that community as a recognized religion would have a moral claim that it could make to the society in which it was legally based. I will not likely answer any clarion call to join up or to undergo a cryonics process and I think that there are many like me who also would not, but, some civil libertarians will answer a clarion call for support from practictioners of religions that do not necessary agree with, because they hold that the religious practise hurts no one and it is the legal right of people to practise a religion that hurts no one. If Samantha sees merit in cryonics I could see her being an excellent bridge to people who think of themselves as spiritual, long for ritual and meaning, and maybe christians that find some comfort in the idea of a resurrection. I think Samatha could possible get a lot of converts from christianity. Anyway its just a thought, and I'm now leaving the ball in Samantha's court, as I am already concerned that I may have made my case a little too well and their may be others who read this and who think yes, I think I will found a religion, and their religions, reflecting their values, may just become public nuisances, whereas I don't think Samantha's would. Brett Paatsch From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 25 01:01:20 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 02:01:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <20050525003551.46817.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050525003551.46817.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4293CE60.3020102@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>So far AI has avoided major political-religious complications, >>probably >>because it does not exist in a form that challenges overall Human >>supremacy. Of course, by the time such an AI does exist it will be >>too >>late for anyone to do anything. Hence IMO its a non-issue as far as >>we are concerned. >> >> > >An athlete who had only been a sprinter for 6 months outran all but the >fastest sprinters at the Athens Olympics this past year. How? He was a >double amputee with gazelle-like artificial running limbs specially >designed for sprinting. Several single amputee runners at the >paralympics protested his technological advantage.... > > > > After the event. Was he using powerskip adaptations? http://www.powerskip.de/photogallery.html In the context of AI it would be somewhat too late. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 25 01:05:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 02:05:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? In-Reply-To: <029a01c560c1$cb196180$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com><4293132E.6090307@neopax.com><2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com><023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc><4293B615.2010503@neopax.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4293C26A.2060103@neopax.com> <029a01c560c1$cb196180$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <4293CF46.7020107@neopax.com> Brett Paatsch wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> ....let it not be said that there is no Transhumanist religion, >> because there is. >> And in common with all religions there are people that hate it. >> QED > > > Some people oppose religion almost reflexivly, and I am among > them, but I think a religion Samantha would found might well be > different, it would inevitably have a Samantha'ian flavour, and > it would be opposed like all religions are opposed, but Samantha > has a fierceness that does well in the face of adversity and she > clearly does have strong values that she is willing to champion. > > I would not join Samantha's religion but I would and am encouraging > her to consider her idea in a practical way by looking > at the legal aspects, because I think that exercise will be empowering > to her, even if she does not ultimately go ahead with it. > I think, many non religous people that were formerly religious > miss some of the sense of community and the ritual, perhaps > music and shared celebration of life that is found in religious > groupings. Seems to me that Samantha might be among those > and that she is not alone. > One does not have to form a religion to celebrate the birthday > of a friend or to be pleased that they decided to get married > or had a child, but some might like to have a community that > mixes those things and perhaps if that community just happened > to fit into the form of a religion that also supported things like > the right of its members to be cryopreserved or something, > then that community as a recognized religion would have a > moral claim that it could make to the society in which it was > legally based. > I will not likely answer any clarion call to join up or to undergo > a cryonics process and I think that there are many like me > who also would not, but, some civil libertarians will answer a clarion > call for support from practictioners of religions that do > not necessary agree with, because they hold that the religious > practise hurts no one and it is the legal right of people to practise > a religion that hurts no one. > If Samantha sees merit in cryonics I could see her being an > excellent bridge to people who think of themselves as spiritual, > long for ritual and meaning, and maybe christians that find > some comfort in the idea of a resurrection. I think Samatha > could possible get a lot of converts from christianity. > Anyway its just a thought, and I'm now leaving the ball in > Samantha's court, as I am already concerned that I may > have made my case a little too well and their may be > others who read this and who think yes, I think I will > found a religion, and their religions, reflecting their values, > may just become public nuisances, whereas I don't think > Samantha's would. > Brett Paatsch Well, having already discovered my religion, Asatru, I did found my own political party for memetic purposes. However, I have toyed with the idea of creating my own sect of Asatru around Transhumanist principles. I even made a start with some preliminary essays on 'Asatru for Astheists'. http://www.neopax.com/asatru/ -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 25 01:20:30 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:20:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] triskele In-Reply-To: <4293C26A.2060103@neopax.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <4293B615.2010503@neopax.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4293C26A.2060103@neopax.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050524201403.01de7d08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >>>http://www.prometheism.net/ >> >>Gotta love that dinky curvy swastika emblem, too. > >Yea... great isn't it? Except, of course, that it's not a Swastika but a >stylised triskele. In a world where South African racists notoriously used it as their symbol, it's the ambiguity that concerns me; a disturbing choice, given all the other iconography available in the world. See, for example: http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/neo-nazi_three_sevens.asp Symbol Type Neo-Nazi Symbol Skinhead Symbol Symbol Description: Three "sevens" (or "curved" sevens) spiraling from a common center. Also Known As Triskelion, Three-Bladed Swastika, "Flowering Power" Traditional Use/Origins The triskele is an ancient symbol used widely in pre-Christian Europe. One version of the triskele, with three human legs, has been used in the coat of arms for the Isle of Man and the Kingdom of Naples. An abstracted triskele appears on the seal of the United States Department of Transportation. The version of the triskele that looks like three linked sevens has a high degree of association with white supremacy, but other versions do not and are most often used in a non-racist context. They may frequently be seen in Celtic jewelry, artwork, and in other similar contexts. ... Extremist Meaning or Representation White supremacy; association with the swastika and Nazi Germany. Background/History Essentially a variation on the swastika, and popular for that reason, the triskele was a symbol occasionally used by the Nazi regime, most notably as the insignia for a Waffen SS division composed of Belgian volunteers. After World War II, the "Three Sevens" version of the triskele was popularized by white supremacists in Europe and South Africa. One South African group, the AWB (Afrikaner Resistance Movement), used it as its flag, claiming that the three sevens symbolized supremacy over the devil (frequently represented by "666"). The symbol is also used as part of the logo of the international racist skinhead group, Blood & Honour. From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Wed May 25 01:22:21 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] World Transhumanist Conference: July 22-24, 2005 (Caracas, Venezuela) Message-ID: <20050525012221.39858.qmail@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, This is the final announcement calling for papers for TransVision 2005 (www.TransHumanismO.org/tv05). The presenters? deadline has been extended up to June 15, 2005, in order to accommodate some special requests, including those of performing artists. TV05 will be the largest international transhumanist meeting in the history of the world. So far, we have confirmed participants from 23 countries from the Americas (North, Central and South), Asia, Africa and Europe. There will be people coming all the way from Canada to Kenya, from Brazil to Belgium, from Italy to India. TV05 will be a fantastic opportunity to meet and interact with fellow transhumanists from around the planet, and beyond: The opening video-conference will be given by Sir Arthur C. Clarke if his health and weather permit! Coming to Venezuela is a lifetime opportunity (see www.embavenez-us.org/Venezuela%20Video%20%20DSL.wmv). The country is beautiful and the people are incredibly friendly (and beautiful too, we have the largest number of official Miss Universes in the world, not per capita, but in total numbers, and the same with Mister Universes:-) Venezuela (whose name means "Piccola Venezia" or "Little Venice") has extraordinary natural beauties like the Caribbean beaches for scuba diving, snorkeling or just swimming (see www.venezuelatuya.com). Venezuela also has the highest cable car in the world (up to 15,000 feet high), the highest waterfall in the world (Angel Falls in Canaima, Gran Sabana, with close to 3,000 feet high in the Orinoquia-Amazonia) and the longest cave in the world (Cueva del Guacharo, which was visited several times by French scientist Jacques Cousteau). We will organize scuba diving sessions for those interested on Monday, July 25 (only $50 with everything included: equipment, transportation, meals, boats and swimming pool classes for new and expert divers). Interestingly, last year, Sir Arthur C. Clarke told me in Sri Lanka that scuba diving is the most transhumanist activity that we can experience now on Earth. You can get a roundtrip airplane ticket from anywhere in North America to Caracas for less than $500, and from Europe for less than $700. From North America, you can probably get the best deals if you book separately first from your city to Miami and then from Miami to Caracas (Miami-Caracas can be as little as $200 roundtrip in advance, for example, check www.travelocity.com with flexible dates). From Europe, there are usually cheap direct flights via Frankfurt, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris and Rome, but you need to book now since July is high season for travel, oil prices are still rising and the inexpensive tickets go fast. Most TV05 participants will be staying in a fantastic four star hotel, built by Nelson Rockefeller himself, for as little as $55 single or $30 shared double room, per person, per night, if we book for you here in advance (otherwise it might be over $100 per night). The "Hotel Avila" (http://www.hotelavila.com.ve) is considered the "Grand Dame" of hotels in Caracas and it is listed as Fodor's Choice in Venezuela (http://www.fodors.com/miniguides/mgresults.cfm?destination=caracas at 46&cur_section=lod). No one can beat those prices, with free breakfast, swimming pool, gym and everything else expected from such hotels in a marvelous tropical setting. The TV05 Caracas Organizing Committee is here to help you with any questions and/or doubts so that we will have a very successful TV05: the first international transhumanist conference in the developing world. Transhumanistically yours, Jose Cordeiro, M.Sc. (jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com) Conference Chair (www.cordeiro.org) Santiago Ochoa, M.S. Venezuelan Organizing Committee (www.TransHumanismO.org) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 25 01:35:26 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 02:35:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] triskele In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050524201403.01de7d08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <4293B615.2010503@neopax.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4293C26A.2060103@neopax.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524201403.01de7d08@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4293D65E.1040608@neopax.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > >>>> http://www.prometheism.net/ >>> >>> >>> Gotta love that dinky curvy swastika emblem, too. >> >> >> Yea... great isn't it? Except, of course, that it's not a Swastika >> but a stylised triskele. > > > In a world where South African racists notoriously used it as their > symbol, it's the ambiguity that concerns me; a disturbing choice, > given all the other iconography available in the world. See, for example: > > http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/neo-nazi_three_sevens.asp > > Symbol Type > > Neo-Nazi Symbol > Skinhead Symbol > Symbol Description: Three "sevens" (or "curved" sevens) spiraling from > a common center. > Also Known As > > Triskelion, Three-Bladed Swastika, "Flowering Power" > > Traditional Use/Origins > > The triskele is an ancient symbol used widely in pre-Christian Europe. > One version of the triskele, with three human legs, has been used in > the coat of arms for the Isle of Man and the Kingdom of Naples. An > abstracted triskele appears on the seal of the United States > Department of Transportation. The version of the triskele that looks > like three linked sevens has a high degree of association with white > supremacy, but other versions do not and are most often used in a > non-racist context. They may frequently be seen in Celtic jewelry, > artwork, and in other similar contexts. > ... > Extremist Meaning or Representation > > White supremacy; association with the swastika and Nazi Germany. > Background/History > > Essentially a variation on the swastika, and popular for that reason, > the triskele was a symbol occasionally used by the Nazi regime, most > notably as the insignia for a Waffen SS division composed of Belgian > volunteers. After World War II, the "Three Sevens" version of the > triskele was popularized by white supremacists in Europe and South > Africa. One South African group, the AWB (Afrikaner Resistance > Movement), used it as its flag, claiming that the three sevens > symbolized supremacy over the devil (frequently represented by "666"). > The symbol is also used as part of the logo of the international > racist skinhead group, Blood & Honour. Lucky they didn't choose a sword, or a Celtic Cross eh? Not to mention a Promethean lightning bolt, or a Rune, or... Imagine how those have been used. There is one meaning you omitted which is very relevent, and that is 'progress'. http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/16/1632.html "* * A stylized *triskelion*, Greek for *three-leg*. See 32:17 in Group 32 . This sign is associated with /progress/ and /competition/, and originated in ancient Greece, where it for instance was used on coins. " I'll leave it as an exercise for you to work out the hidden meaning of the eight pointed star of the WTA. Xians are going to love that if/when it comes to their attention. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 25 01:52:41 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:52:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? In-Reply-To: <20050525002755.44666.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505250152.j4P1qbR28693@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 5:28 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? > > As spike has amply demonstrated in the past, the numbers aren't there > for ethanol. Beyond being a smog reducing additive, it is too expensive > to use as a primary fuel, and producing enough of it to fuel our cars > would take more arable land than we have... > Mike Lorrey Mike you took it farther than I did. My notion is that a gasoline engine can be made to operate on alcohol only. But running the entire world on renewables such as ethanol will take a loooot of land, it will require smarter use of waterways, (lots of dams and pipes). We will surely resort to a large portion of the population getting around in those vehicles I described: very small four-wheeled rigs, one seat, typically 100 to 400cc single cylinder, couple hundred kilogram mass, 100 or more miles per gallon of ethanol, (40 or more km per liter). I am not claiming it cannot be done, only that it won't be comfortable, and we won't go nearly as fast as we do today. But life as we know it does not end even if oil becomes too scarce to burn in our SUVs. Most running around can be eliminated with appropriate use of information pipes. That being said, I expect the day is still several decades away when most of us putt around in rigs that would scarcely cut it as a golf cart today. Eventually we shall need to make do with renewables, but I don't expect it is upon us, even with China and India coming up quickly. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 25 01:59:51 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:59:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? In-Reply-To: <200505250152.j4P1qbR28693@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200505250159.j4P1xlR29374@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > running the entire world on renewables such as ethanol > will take a loooot of land, it will require smarter use > of waterways, (lots of dams and pipes)... Oh and we can forget the endangered species act. If we ever need to transform to renewable energy, all the swamps will need to be drained, plowed and put to work, forthwith. Maaaany species will go extinct. Fortunately one of them will be mosquitoes. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 25 02:27:10 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 19:27:10 -0700 Subject: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? (was Re: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay) In-Reply-To: <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <9A56C50A-4ED3-4822-9041-8C85DF7DF65C@mac.com> I've spent the past two weeks moving and unpacking. Between that and the day job not a lot has been done. I looked briefly online at the qualifications required principally by the IRS. They are largely written in such a way that almost no new religion or even most bootstrapped branch churches of existing religions could possibly qualify. The specter of the IRS determining what makes a religion a religion is appalling. Thank you for your kind offer but my energies for now are going into creating the base level teachings, memetics and substance of the religion rather than fighting through IRS nonsense. Without that the legalisms are pointless. - samantha On May 24, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> Knowledge never was a sin in Christianity to the best of my >> experience and knowledge of it. Let's stop speaking as if it >> were unless someone has something a lot more authoritative than a >> > > >> .... The work of reaching some Christians is difficult enough >> without making things up that make it harder. >> > > I agree. > Btw: have you developed your idea of a transhuman religion > any? I'd be particularly interested in seeing how the legal aspects > of founding it would work if you tried to found it > in some particular state within the US such as perhaps the > one where you currently live or plan to settle. If you want > to check out the legal aspect of that I'd be happy take a > look at it with you as a way of learning how a religion is > established and dealt with by the current law of the US, > together. > Don't wait to long though or I'll have to rescind the offer, > and this offer from me, isn't open to everyone, it is specific > to you. (ie. You'd have to make the running on it though just > like the Avantguardian wrote his essay, and so its *his* essay). > > I *think* the exercise at looking at how religion fits into the > legal structure in the US might be of interest to others on > this list. > Regards, > Brett Paatsch > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed May 25 03:16:55 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:16:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? References: <20050525002755.44666.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000b01c560d8$348597e0$0100a8c0@kevin> Is it really? Or is that just based on the current crop yields? Are we already at the maximum amount of crops per square foot of land? I would think not. What is that theoretical maximum anyways? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? > As spike has amply demonstrated in the past, the numbers aren't there > for ethanol. Beyond being a smog reducing additive, it is too expensive > to use as a primary fuel, and producing enough of it to fuel our cars > would take more arable land than we have. > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > I'm curious. Does anyone know of anythign that couldn;t be modified > > to run > > on ethanol? What about pure ethanol? I know that currently ethanol is > > basically poisoned so people can't get drunk off of it and gasoline > > is part > > of the poison mixture, but is the gasoline itself necessary? Can > > aviation > > fuel and be made of ethanol? Or more correctly, can sufficient > > aviation > > engines be built for use with ethanol? Has anyone tested an ethanol > > jet > > engine or does ethanol just not carry enough energy? > > > > I really don;t know a lot about ethanol, but it seems to me that if > > we are > > subsidizing farmers to not grow corn, and at the same time oil is > > getting > > too expensive, maybe we should be putting a lot more emphasis on > > ethanol > > production. There's no need to shrink the automobile to a point where > > people > > hate using them. It may work in europe, but Americans love their > > cars. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > To: "ExI chat list" > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? > > > > > > > > > > --- Hal Finney wrote: > > > > > > > > Of course, "today's high prices" are actually down quite a bit in > > the > > > > past few weeks. Oil hit $58/bbl and is now at $48. There seems > > to > > > > be a general sentiment that $40 will be the new floor, but there > > are > > > > no guarantees about that. A year ago it was at $25 and nobody > > would > > > > have predicted a doubling. These new players in the Canadian oil > > > > fields are hoping and praying that the price holds up. > > > > > > If oil floors out at $40, there is no peak oil... $25.00/bbl, which > > I > > > predicted would be the price a month after the start of the Iraq > > war > > > (as it happened) was followed with a 40% int'l market devaluation > > of > > > the dollar as many national governments delinked their currencies > > from > > > the dollar, shifting to the euro, so $25 then is $35.00 now on > > > international markets. > > > > > > This means that at a $40.00 price floor, oil prices have risen in > > > reality $5.00 in two years. This is in reality 5-6% annual > > inflation in > > > energy prices. Significantly above average, but nothing to write > > home > > > about. With current $48 prices, that means a real rise in oil > > prices of > > > $8.00 (you need to devaluate the actual price rise by 40% as well > > to > > > get a good comparison to then-year dollars.) > > > > > > Assuming China, Korea, and Japan don't individually or together > > dump > > > the dollar en masse (Korea has already made motions and China is > > > already selling off dollars in a 'basket diversification' move), we > > > shouldn't see prices rise higher than that. Of course, I wouldn't > > put > > > it past them. The faster they (China) price us out of the middle > > > eastern oil market, and leave us working on our domestic supplies, > > the > > > sooner they get an advantage in the eventual face-off over Taiwan. > > > > > > Mike Lorrey > > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > > > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Discover Yahoo! > Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! > http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed May 25 03:19:27 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:19:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com><4293132E.6090307@neopax.com><2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com><023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc><4293B615.2010503@neopax.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <015a01c560d8$8f25d1b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Damien Broderick" To: ; "ExI chat list" >>I thought one already existed, but people here seem reluctant to mention it. >>http://www.prometheism.net/ > > Gee, I wonder why? Let's drill down one single level on that site: > > http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/index.htm > > Gotta love that dinky curvy swastika emblem, too. I almost love this even more from that same ygg site: "Need style or grammer (sic) help?" heee hee heeeeee ... har har ... Olga From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed May 25 03:36:43 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:36:43 +1000 Subject: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? (was Re:[extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay) References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com><4293132E.6090307@neopax.com><2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com><023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <9A56C50A-4ED3-4822-9041-8C85DF7DF65C@mac.com> Message-ID: <02d401c560da$f83bc1d0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Samantha wrote: > Thank you for your kind offer but my energies for now are going into > creating the base level teachings, memetics and substance of the > religion rather than fighting through IRS nonsense. Without that > the legalisms are pointless. No probs. Makes sense. Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 04:03:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? In-Reply-To: <000b01c560d8$348597e0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050525040349.98248.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > Is it really? Or is that just based on the current crop yields? Are > we already at the maximum amount of crops per square foot of land? I > would think not. What is that theoretical maximum anyways? We are already beyond sustainable crop yield levels, which is why most farmland requires significant fertilizing and crop rotation to maintain its fecundity. Corn and possibly one or two other domesticated crops are pretty near the theoretical maximum possible for photosynthetic energy conversion which is about 3.5%. When you calculate in the energy cost to produce chemical fertilizers, the actual efficiency is not any higher than historical levels. If peak oil is true, the era of chemical fertilizers is ending, so those crop levels will no longer be maintainable. Corn is generally treated as the 'pig' of the crops, in that the entire plant (except the roots) is typically used as feed for cattle rather than being plowed under for fertilizer after the ears are plucked. If chem fertilizing ends, then the era of cheap meat is over and Americans will have to learn to fast on Fridays again. Wednesday will be Prince Spaghetti Day again. The amount of protien in the American diet will be cut by half and the Flynn effect will be reversed. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 04:16:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thanks Damien (was Bioethics Essay- Revised) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525041651.94742.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- John K Clark wrote: > > > > I figure that any essay that seriously proposes that > > the above might be > > worthy of further investigation could not possibly > > contain anything of > > interest to me; it confirms my long held suspicion > > that anything a ethicist > > has to say, especially a biotechnology ethicist, is > > either blindingly > > obvious or wrong. > > > > By the way, I have two soles, one on each foot. > > > > Sheesh. I write one essay and suddenly I am a > bioethicist. THAT version of the essay was meant for > xians not transhumanists. I have a transhumanist > version coming soon. And congratulations on having > both feet. Ghu forfend that a fellow extropian should get off his petard and lift a finger for la causa. Good work on the essay, and don't listen to these clowns. We need more essays, more articles, demonstrators, activists, lobbyists and campaign contributors. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 04:27:36 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525042736.65002.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > The Avantguardian wrote: > > >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > As for knowledge no longer being a sin, > > > > > >>that's something that > >>does not follow from your assumption, any more than > >>a robber being > >>pardoned makes robbery acceptable. > >> > >> > > > >The knowledge itself was not the sin, eating the > >forbidden fruit to gain the knowledge was the sin. So > >we are forgiven for eating the fruit and the knowledge > >is now ours to do with as we please. So I guess using > >your robber example, we got pardoned THUS we get to > >keep the goods we stole. That is my interpretation. > > > > > > > > > Actually, it was the knowledge of good and evil. > Genesis 2:9 / > Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is > pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the > > midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evi/l. > > However, let's also not forget that what we were successfully denied > in > Xian theology was access to the Tree of Life. > It's that one that will cause a problem if you cross theological > swords > with Xians. > > Genesis 3:22 > > /Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, > knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and > take > also from the tree of life, and eat, and live > forever'/ > > Genesis 3:23 > > /therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to > cultivate the ground from which he was taken./ > > Genesis 3:24 > > /So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He > stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every > direction to guard the way to the tree of > life./-- Terrible theology Dirk. Jesus corrected his fathers action and gave us everlasting life, as any Christian knows. He died to reopen the gates of heaven to man, which man had been barred from since Adam was cast out of Eden. That was the whole point of Christ dying on the cross for man. Therefore, we have Christ's blessing to genetically engineer. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 25 05:23:18 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525052319.96696.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Jesus corrected his fathers > action and gave us > everlasting life, as any Christian knows. He died to > reopen the gates > of heaven to man, which man had been barred from > since Adam was cast > out of Eden. That was the whole point of Christ > dying on the cross for > man. > > Therefore, we have Christ's blessing to genetically > engineer. Spoken like a true Taoarist, Mike. :) Since all things bound by space-time are neither purely good nor evil but have the potential to be used for either by free-willed agents like ourselves, the knowledge of good and evil pretty much covers everything under the sun and beyond it. More importantly however it is an understanding of consequences. Thus the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil could easily have been called the Tree of Karma. John 1:12- But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Sons of God? I think God is quite over feeling insecure about us trying to eat of the Tree of Life and be LIKE him. As long as we are willing to bear the CONSEQUENCES, we can do ANYTHING. But because God can change his mind at any time, I think it wise to be humble and watch out for those consequences, they can be TRICKY. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 25 05:23:16 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 00:23:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] On the Inevitability and Goodness of Superlongevity In-Reply-To: <012e01c560bb$29e065d0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> References: <025501c560b4$a4a147a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524181331.01d2d678@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <012e01c560bb$29e065d0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050525001803.03a6a960@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:49 PM 5/24/2005 -0400, Mark Walker wrote: >In case anyone is interested, I've completed a draft of "Superlongevity: >Is it inevitable and is it good?" *Excellent* paper, Mark. Clearly written, well conceived, multidimensional. Its only drawback is that it leaves out (presumably for tactical reasons) any acknowledgement of the other immense changes and dislocations we must expect during the next century or so, let alone the centuries beyond. But readers who already strain at the feasibility of a healthy, youthful superlongevity are not ready to think about the singularity. Good stuff. Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 25 06:39:52 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 23:39:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <20050525042736.65002.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050525042736.65002.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 24, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Terrible theology Dirk. Jesus corrected his fathers action and gave us > everlasting life, as any Christian knows. He died to reopen the gates > of heaven to man, which man had been barred from since Adam was cast > out of Eden. That was the whole point of Christ dying on the cross for > man. > Many Christians do not hold to such an interpretation. It makes God a bloody unforgiving tyrant who would hold his own known design flaws in the creation of humanity against humans forever. All this nonsense about demanding a blood sacrifice and so on! Jesus died because he threatened the religious and secular order of the day. That it was used as good memetic theater to attempt to get the Jewish people over their perpetual guilt trip and rule of the law stuck-ness is true enough. But the dying on the cross for man stuff was added long (over a century iirc) afterward. Crucifying such a one needs a powerful explanation if it is not to produce massively more guilt. Personally I think the guilt would have been better than the evils of this interpretation. - samantha From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 25 07:05:00 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 00:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion Rant In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525070500.55206.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> You all have been patient with my rants recently regarding the bioethicists attack on my profession. With that in mind I will now rant one more time. I would like to get some things off my chest with regards to this list. It has not escaped my notice that some very general and very overt anti-religious-spiritual-paranormal sentiment on this list. I don't see any reason for this. If personal freedom is truly an extropian principle, then you must realize that no matter how accurate or "true" your paradigm might be to YOU, it stops at the tip of your nose. I have had an amazing life and I have seen, heard, and felt some really extraordinary things in my travels. I am also a professional scientist and so I have to balance skepticism and credulity on the edge of Occam's razor on a daily basis. And I tell you this: I have seen things that no textbook can explain. Scientific theories and the world-views built on those theories last only so long as nature complies. There is funny thing I have noticed about science and its predecessors alchemy, philosophy, religion, shamanism, and before that, fear of the dark. And that is this: for most of human history we have walked this planet thinking we know 99% of what we think there is to know about it. But inevitably sooner or later that 1% comes around and catches us by surprise. After nearly a million years, we now know a terrabyte more about nature than we did back in those days of fearing the dark. That however is a quadrillion times more than we THOUGHT there WAS to know about nature back then. With a track record like that, I would not be laying any bets on your current paradigm. So lighten up and humor people who wants to talk about the UNKNOWN. God may hide in the gaps these days but deeper we dig, the bigger the gap gets. I will tell you one thing, aside from the unexplainable things I have EXPERIENCED and that is this: From my biological studies, I have gathered that our brains evolved as biochemical computers to simulate the universe. As that simulation got better and better, we became increasingly intelligent. Why are you all so sure that the universe our brains are simulating ISN'T. Chew on that one for a while. On a brighter note, even as a professional scientist with numerous colleagues, I have not come across a bunch of minds broader and deeper than yours. So as a favor to your own magnificent intellects don't cheat yourself of the kernal of truth that lies at the heart of EVERY myth. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 25 08:11:25 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 01:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Should You be Freaking About Oil Peaking? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525081125.311.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: ? > > We are already beyond sustainable crop yield levels, > which is why most > farmland requires significant fertilizing and crop > rotation to maintain > its fecundity. Hey guys. Don't worry, I got you covered on this one. I just had one of those EUREKA! moments. I can't discuss it till I patent it which will be just as we slide down the other side of peak oil. It's a beauty. I would not mind some help building a prototype, however. Email me if you are interested in making a deal. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 25 08:12:59 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:12:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: <20050525042736.65002.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050525042736.65002.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4294338B.2040307@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >>The Avantguardian wrote: >> >> >> >>>--- Dirk Bruere wrote: >>>As for knowledge no longer being a sin, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>that's something that >>>>does not follow from your assumption, any more than >>>>a robber being >>>>pardoned makes robbery acceptable. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>The knowledge itself was not the sin, eating the >>>forbidden fruit to gain the knowledge was the sin. So >>>we are forgiven for eating the fruit and the knowledge >>>is now ours to do with as we please. So I guess using >>>your robber example, we got pardoned THUS we get to >>>keep the goods we stole. That is my interpretation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Actually, it was the knowledge of good and evil. >>Genesis 2:9 / >>Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is >>pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the >> >>midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evi/l. >> >>However, let's also not forget that what we were successfully denied >>in >>Xian theology was access to the Tree of Life. >>It's that one that will cause a problem if you cross theological >>swords >>with Xians. >> >>Genesis 3:22 >> >>/Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, >>knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and >>take >>also from the tree of life, and eat, and live >>forever'/ >> >>Genesis 3:23 >> >>/therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to >>cultivate the ground from which he was taken./ >> >>Genesis 3:24 >> >>/So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He >>stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every >>direction to guard the way to the tree of >>life./-- >> >> > >Terrible theology Dirk. Jesus corrected his fathers action and gave us >everlasting life, as any Christian knows. He died to reopen the gates > > Any US Xian will also quote the bit about where JC states that he has *not* done this. >of heaven to man, which man had been barred from since Adam was cast >out of Eden. That was the whole point of Christ dying on the cross for >man. > > > Only to those who accept JC as their personal saviour. >Therefore, we have Christ's blessing to genetically engineer. > > > On the contrary - he states that he is *the* way, not *a* way. Another favourite of Xians. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 From dirk at neopax.com Wed May 25 08:13:47 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:13:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: References: <20050525042736.65002.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429433BB.3020500@neopax.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 24, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >> >> Terrible theology Dirk. Jesus corrected his fathers action and gave us >> everlasting life, as any Christian knows. He died to reopen the gates >> of heaven to man, which man had been barred from since Adam was cast >> out of Eden. That was the whole point of Christ dying on the cross for >> man. >> > > Many Christians do not hold to such an interpretation. It makes God a > bloody unforgiving tyrant who would hold his own known design flaws > in the creation of humanity against humans forever. All this > nonsense about demanding a blood sacrifice and so on! Jesus died > because he threatened the religious and secular order of the day. > That it was used as good memetic theater to attempt to get the > Jewish people over their perpetual guilt trip and rule of the law > stuck-ness is true enough. But the dying on the cross for man stuff > was added long (over a century iirc) afterward. Crucifying such a > one needs a powerful explanation if it is not to produce massively > more guilt. Personally I think the guilt would have been better > than the evils of this interpretation. Well, that's not the interpretation of the bulk of US Xians over whom we are worrying, is it? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 25 09:09:04 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:09:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion Rant In-Reply-To: <20050525070500.55206.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050525070500.55206.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/25/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > It has not escaped my notice that some very > general and very overt > anti-religious-spiritual-paranormal sentiment on this > list. I don't see any reason for this. If personal > freedom is truly an extropian principle, then you must > realize that no matter how accurate or "true" your > paradigm might be to YOU, it stops at the tip of your > nose. > So lighten up and humor people who wants to talk > about the UNKNOWN. "Religion is bunk" ---Thomas Alva Edison Personal freedom doesn't mean keeping your mind so open that your brains leak out. The biggest critics / opponents of religion are the members of a different religion. 'My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend'. Let's have a holy war! It is a waste of your intelligence to try and find the 'one true path' among the thousands of cults and religions. And don't bother becoming a New Age type who treats all the religions like a restaurant menu. "I'll have one of them and some of that and a bit of this, etc.". As a wild generalisation, being "Spiritual" in western society mostly means - "I am not a member of any church or organisation, but I think deep thoughts and am a nice guy". The implication here being that if you are not "Spiritual" you are either not a nice guy, or at least, not as nice as the "Spiritual" one. The nonsense that has been displayed in the Religion threads demonstrates all the myriad interpretations that different branches of Xianity extract from the same verses of the Bible. Every verse has multiple interpretations and can be countered by quoting opposing verses. And it is all being used as a route to power by religious organisations trying to control your life. Sure, you can investigate the unknown. But investigate reality, not the vivid illusions within your own mind. You might as well get drunk every night to investigate the pink elephants roaming around your living-room. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 25 10:08:55 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:08:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] On the Inevitability and Goodness of Superlongevity In-Reply-To: <012e01c560bb$29e065d0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> References: <025501c560b4$a4a147a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524181331.01d2d678@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <012e01c560bb$29e065d0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0505250308742b3c99@mail.gmail.com> On 5/25/05, Mark Walker wrote: > To the extent that it is possible to predict the composition of the future > population of the world, I argue that the most likely scenario is that > (almost) everyone will choose to adopt technology to live hundreds of years, > perhaps indefinitely. Further, ethically speaking, this seems like the best > option for our world, for such a world is one where there is higher levels > of happiness and achievement. Nicely written! I think the argument is valid as far as it goes, but there are issues it doesn't address - for example, what if it turns out that a few hundred years is all anyone can sensibly use before getting permanently stuck in a rut? (I'm not claiming this _will_ be the case, just that we can't know it won't.) Therefore I argue ( http://homepage.eircom.net/~russell12/dp.html ) that we should aim to have domains where each possibility (mortality and immortality) holds. - Russell From amara at amara.com Wed May 25 10:33:56 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:33:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Charlie Stross' ToughGuide to the Singularity Message-ID: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/toughguide.html {begin quote} ToughGuideIntro This is the ToughGuide to the SIngularity. The SIngularity is a hot topic right now among ScienceFictionWriters who are trying to write SingularitySf, and in writing this guide I hope to help you learn more about the SIngularity, its LOcation, its ORigins, how to TRanscend, and, oh, UpLoading, ArtificialIntelligence, NanoTechnology, PostHumans, and stuff like that. {end quote} -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 25 10:57:04 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:57:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Charlie Stross' ToughGuide to the Singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0505250357142f1912@mail.gmail.com> On 5/25/05, Amara Graps wrote: > > http://www.antipope.org/charlie/toughguide.html Thanks for the reference, good stuff! I may have a perverse sense of humor (okay, no may about it), but the entry on grey goo was one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. - Russell From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed May 25 11:15:57 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 07:15:57 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion Rant In-Reply-To: <20050525070500.55206.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050525070500.55206.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Indeed there may be a kernel of truth in every myth. Yes, you are free to investigate such things. In the meantime, please do not overlook the threat to science that is now alive and well in the USA - and, IIUC, migrating beyond its borders to the Vardy schools in England and others like them elsewhere. Dover PA, Kansas, and Cobb County GA are not alone. To teach disguised creationism *in the science class* at school and to "let the students decide" is ... frightening. Living in the Bible Belt has certainly worked me up into a spring loaded anti-religious position on these things. Since my community is also currently becoming a serious haven for New Age kooks, I'm having a similar reaction there as well. My religious rant comes down to a rather simple statement: just because we do not presently know why/how something is/works/happened, does not mean "god done it". But I'm seeing just that every day in my part of the world. Regards, MB On Wed, 25 May 2005, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > You all have been patient with my rants recently > regarding the bioethicists attack on my profession. > With that in mind I will now rant one more time. I > would like to get some things off my chest with > regards to this list. > It has not escaped my notice that some very > general and very overt > anti-religious-spiritual-paranormal sentiment on this > list. I don't see any reason for this. If personal > freedom is truly an extropian principle, then you must > realize that no matter how accurate or "true" your > paradigm might be to YOU, it stops at the tip of your > nose. > I have had an amazing life and I have seen, > heard, and felt some really extraordinary things in my > travels. I am also a professional scientist and so I > have to balance skepticism and credulity on the edge > of Occam's razor on a daily basis. And I tell you > this: I have seen things that no textbook can explain. > Scientific theories and the world-views built on > those theories last only so long as nature complies. > There is funny thing I have noticed about science and > its predecessors alchemy, philosophy, religion, > shamanism, and before that, fear of the dark. And that > is this: for most of human history we have walked this > planet thinking we know 99% of what we think there is > to know about it. But inevitably sooner or later that > 1% comes around and catches us by surprise. > After nearly a million years, we now know a > terrabyte more about nature than we did back in those > days of fearing the dark. That however is a > quadrillion times more than we THOUGHT there WAS to > know about nature back then. With a track record like > that, I would not be laying any bets on your current > paradigm. > So lighten up and humor people who wants to talk > about the UNKNOWN. God may hide in the gaps these days > but deeper we dig, the bigger the gap gets. I will > tell you one thing, aside from the unexplainable > things I have EXPERIENCED and that is this: From my > biological studies, I have gathered that our brains > evolved as biochemical computers to simulate the > universe. As that simulation got better and better, we > became increasingly intelligent. Why are you all so > sure that the universe our brains are simulating > ISN'T. Chew on that one for a while. > On a brighter note, even as a professional > scientist with numerous colleagues, I have not come > across a bunch of minds broader and deeper than yours. > So as a favor to your own magnificent intellects don't > cheat yourself of the kernal of truth that lies at the > heart of EVERY myth. > > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." > -Bill Watterson > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail Mobile > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Wed May 25 12:52:39 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:52:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot: Download Your Brain Message-ID: <470a3c52050525055272572040@mail.gmail.com> Pearson's recent ideas on uploading on Slashdot: "*Futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson predicts that death will be avoidable in the year 2050 by downloading your brain to a computer. Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release. I guess we should all start saving our pennies now*". There are a lot of comments to the Slashdot entry, it is interesting to read the reactions of the readers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Wed May 25 01:17:06 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] World Transhumanist Conference: July 22-24, 2005 (Caracas, Venezuela) Message-ID: <20050525011706.29311.qmail@web32801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, This is the final announcement calling for papers for TransVision 2005 (www.TransHumanismO.org/tv05). The presenters? deadline has been extended up to June 15, 2005, in order to accommodate some special requests, including those of performing artists. TV05 will be the largest international transhumanist meeting in the history of the world. So far, we have confirmed participants from 23 countries from the Americas (North, Central and South), Asia, Africa and Europe. There will be people coming all the way from Canada to Kenya, from Brazil to Belgium, from Italy to India. TV05 will be a fantastic opportunity to meet and interact with fellow transhumanists from around the planet, and beyond: The opening video-conference will be given by Sir Arthur C. Clarke if his health and weather permit! Coming to Venezuela is a lifetime opportunity (see www.embavenez-us.org/Venezuela%20Video%20%20DSL.wmv). The country is beautiful and the people are incredibly friendly (and beautiful too, we have the largest number of official Miss Universes in the world, not per capita, but in total numbers, and the same with Mister Universes:-) Venezuela (whose name means "Piccola Venezia" or "Little Venice") has extraordinary natural beauties like the Caribbean beaches for scuba diving, snorkeling or just swimming (see www.venezuelatuya.com). Venezuela also has the highest cable car in the world (up to 15,000 feet high), the highest waterfall in the world (Angel Falls in Canaima, Gran Sabana, with close to 3,000 feet high in the Orinoquia-Amazonia) and the longest cave in the world (Cueva del Guacharo, which was visited several times by French scientist Jacques Cousteau). We will organize scuba diving sessions for those interested on Monday, July 25 (only $50 with everything included: equipment, transportation, meals, boats and swimming pool classes for new and expert divers). Interestingly, last year, Sir Arthur C. Clarke told me in Sri Lanka that scuba diving is the most transhumanist activity that we can experience now on Earth. You can get a roundtrip airplane ticket from anywhere in North America to Caracas for less than $500, and from Europe for less than $700. From North America, you can probably get the best deals if you book separately first from your city to Miami and then from Miami to Caracas (Miami-Caracas can be as little as $200 roundtrip in advance, for example, check www.travelocity.com with flexible dates). From Europe, there are usually cheap direct flights via Frankfurt, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris and Rome, but you need to book now since July is high season for travel, oil prices are still rising and the inexpensive tickets go fast. Most TV05 participants will be staying in a fantastic four star hotel, built by Nelson Rockefeller himself, for as little as $55 single or $30 shared double room, per person, per night, if we book for you here in advance (otherwise it might be over $100 per night). The "Hotel Avila" (http://www.hotelavila.com.ve) is considered the "Grand Dame" of hotels in Caracas and it is listed as Fodor's Choice in Venezuela (http://www.fodors.com/miniguides/mgresults.cfm?destination=caracas at 46&cur_section=lod). No one can beat those prices, with free breakfast, swimming pool, gym and everything else expected from such hotels in a marvelous tropical setting. The TV05 Caracas Organizing Committee is here to help you with any questions and/or doubts so that we will have a very successful TV05: the first international transhumanist conference in the developing world. Transhumanistically yours, Jose Cordeiro, M.Sc. (jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com) Conference Chair (www.cordeiro.org) Santiago Ochoa, M.S. Venezuelan Organizing Committee (www.TransHumanismO.org) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 14:11:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 07:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525141105.11335.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 24, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > Terrible theology Dirk. Jesus corrected his fathers action and gave > us > > everlasting life, as any Christian knows. He died to reopen the > gates > > of heaven to man, which man had been barred from since Adam was > cast > > out of Eden. That was the whole point of Christ dying on the cross > for > > man. > > > > Many Christians do not hold to such an interpretation. It makes God a > bloody unforgiving tyrant who would hold his own known design flaws > in the creation of humanity against humans forever. All this > nonsense about demanding a blood sacrifice and so on! God is all about conditional love and blood sacrifices. Til his hippy dippy kid came along, he was not THAT much different in 40 BC than he was as a minor Sumerian god, outside of having a lot more personalities crammed into him. God made Jesus because he realized his own flawed creation and devised his son to join him in the trinity and thus balance and correct his personality. > Jesus died > because he threatened the religious and secular order of the day. > That it was used as good memetic theater to attempt to get the > Jewish people over their perpetual guilt trip and rule of the law > stuck-ness is true enough. That Jesus was nailed to a tree instead of stoned, and that he was killed by the Romans for political dissidence rather than by the Pharisees for blasphemy, is immaterial to the Heavenly level politics going on between him and god. Men and governments of men were mere tools in the game going on at a higher level. > But the dying on the cross for man stuff > was added long (over a century iirc) afterward. Crucifying such a > one needs a powerful explanation if it is not to produce massively > more guilt. Personally I think the guilt would have been better > than the evils of this interpretation. Crucifixtion was the Roman punishment for slaves who rebelled, not the jewish punishment for blasphemy (that was stoning). Theologically speaking, Jesus was, in fact, rebelling against the draconian rule of his father in excluding man from heaven. God, being the dysfunctional inquisitor that he is, demanded Jesus make the sacrifice to get what he wanted, just as many fathers test or demand performance of their kids before giving them what they want. That it took men a century to understand the significance is also immaterial. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mark at permanentend.org Wed May 25 16:03:46 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:03:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] On the Inevitability and Goodness of Superlongevity References: <025501c560b4$a4a147a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.0.20050524181331.01d2d678@pop-server.satx.rr.com><012e01c560bb$29e065d0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> <8d71341e0505250308742b3c99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007001c56143$57650af0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Wallace" < I think the argument is valid as far as it goes, but > there are issues it doesn't address - for example, what if it turns > out that a few hundred years is all anyone can sensibly use before > getting permanently stuck in a rut? (I'm not claiming this _will_ be > the case, just that we can't know it won't.) Therefore I argue ( > http://homepage.eircom.net/~russell12/dp.html ) that we should aim to > have domains where each possibility (mortality and immortality) holds. > > - Russell I'm not sure what you mean by 'stuck in a rut'. If you mean 'chronically unhappy' or 'sated with ennui' then I suspect that those individuals will bow out. And I suspect that this will follow a normal curve where some commit suicide even within our present mayfly lifetimes for these reasons; others may go on much longer, perhaps indefinitely. Certainly at some level this is an empirical question and dependent on other factors such as enhancing other features of our natures. I'll take a look at your paper. Thanks for the input. Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From mark at permanentend.org Wed May 25 16:22:11 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:22:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] On the Inevitability and Goodness of Superlongevity References: <025501c560b4$a4a147a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc><6.2.1.2.0.20050524181331.01d2d678@pop-server.satx.rr.com><012e01c560bb$29e065d0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> <6.2.1.2.0.20050525001803.03a6a960@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <007501c56145$e761a120$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" > > *Excellent* paper, Mark. Clearly written, well conceived, > multidimensional. Its only drawback is that it leaves out (presumably for > tactical reasons) any acknowledgement of the other immense changes and > dislocations we must expect during the next century or so, let alone the > centuries beyond. But readers who already strain at the feasibility of a > healthy, youthful superlongevity are not ready to think about the > singularity. Good stuff. > Yes, other factors (like the Spike) were not mentioned in part because the paper is intended for a more "sophisticated" audience. (Those scare quotes should be a couple of meters tall). There probably is also some value in teasing out these different elements and analyzing them separately. It is somewhat surprising to me that some people get more bothered about superlongevity than other possible types of enhancements. Students in a course I taught in the fall were asked for the final exam to say whether we should allow humans to be enhanced for virtue, intelligence, happiness or longevity. To my surprise the order I just listed was the order of preference among students. Probably about 1/3 of them argued that we should not enhance any of these traits, but 2/3 of them or so thought that we should enhance the ethical natures of humans. Slightly fewer thought we should do the same for intelligence, then there was a big drop off for happiness and longevity. Of course teacher bias might explain part of this because the poor things had to read my paper on genetic virtue, yet they also read something by me on superlongevity. I guess I find this surprising because longevity seems to involve simply the idea of regular old humans hanging around for much longer. Thanks for your input. Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From jonkc at att.net Wed May 25 16:56:49 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:56:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion Rant. References: <20050525070500.55206.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003801c5614a$f61199f0$daf14d0c@MyComputer> "The Avantguardian" >It has not escaped my notice that some very general and very overt >anti-religious-spiritual-paranormal sentiment on this list. That is true and that is why I have been on this list for about a decade; if you know of any place on the Internet that is more anti religious more anti spiritual or more anti paranormal please let me know, I want to go there. >If personal freedom is truly an extropian principle, then you must realize >that no matter how accurate or "true" your paradigm might be to YOU, it >stops at the tip of your nose. You have the right to say anything you want no matter how loony and I have the right to say you are silly to do so. > I have seen things that no textbook can explain. So have I, like how a tiny magnet can pick things up even though the gigantic Earth is using its gravitational pull to prevent it; or how stem cells know how to differentiate; or why there is something rather than nothing. > for most of human history we have walked this > planet thinking we know 99% of what we think > there is to know about it. An Extropian sees a light in the night sky and says in a loud clear voice "I don't know what that is". A paranormal nutcase sees the same light in the sky and says "I know exactly precisely what that is, it's a spaceship from another planet". We're not afraid of admitting we don't know but we are afraid of being stupid. > So lighten up and humor people who wants to talk > about the UNKNOWN. The unknown is fine, but this is not the place for spoon benders, flying saucers, or weighing the soul, if I was in the market for that sort of thing I could get my fill with any supermarket tabloid and get my horoscope and diet tips from the movie stars as a bonus. I mean it's not like the religious and paranormal people haven't had their say but in this one place religion gets all the respect it deserves. John K Clark From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 25 17:26:41 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525172642.94224.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > We sweat over peak > oil while struggling with an incorrect assumption: that > we must drive cars at least the size of the smallest ones > on the road today, and that we must have cars that can > carry four, or at least two apes. But there is enormous > potential to waaaay downsize, if we assume that we can > accept vehicles that can only carry one, and that have > no heater, no air conditioner, no radio, no gears, that > top out around 40 mph. People have tried making and selling cars that violate that hypothesis. They sell, but not very well. This is widely taken as proof of said hypothesis. (A few theoretical reasons why: no heater + no AC = a drive that commuters won't accept, and if they won't accept it then you won't get them driving it period; 40 mph = dangerously slow on highways and some city streets, to the level of "safety hazard" even if you say it's theoretically only for streets it is safe on; 40 mph = extra hours added to commute time, to the point where the gas savings don't make up for the productive time lost, making this even more of a waste of money than buying a SUV purely for commuting purposes.) From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 25 17:44:00 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:44:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion Rant In-Reply-To: References: <20050525070500.55206.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 25, 2005, at 2:09 AM, BillK wrote: > Personal freedom doesn't mean keeping your mind so open that your > brains leak out. > Nor does it require claiming or believing that your own understanding is what all sensible people will come to when they grow up. > The biggest critics / opponents of religion are the members of a > different religion. > 'My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend'. Let's have > a holy war! > Cheap characterization. > It is a waste of your intelligence to try and find the 'one true path' > among the thousands of cults and religions. And don't bother becoming > a New Age type who treats all the religions like a restaurant menu. > "I'll have one of them and some of that and a bit of this, etc.". > More of the same. > As a wild generalisation, being "Spiritual" in western society mostly > means - "I am not a member of any church or organisation, but I think > deep thoughts and am a nice guy". > The implication here being that if you are not "Spiritual" you are > either not a nice guy, or at least, not as nice as the "Spiritual" > one. > "Wild generalization" is another way of saying "cheap characterization". > The nonsense that has been displayed in the Religion threads > demonstrates all the myriad interpretations that different branches of > Xianity extract from the same verses of the Bible. Every verse has > multiple interpretations and can be countered by quoting opposing > verses. Partially agreed. The only sense of it all is in understanding the essence of what it is about. It cannot be found by searching verses and books of theology. > And it is all being used as a route to power by religious > organisations trying to control your life. > How so? Many religious organizations have gotten out of the control business. There still are many that believe they should run all aspects of society. But such a belief is not definitive of religion or spirituality. > > Sure, you can investigate the unknown. But investigate reality, not > the vivid illusions within your own mind. You might as well get drunk > every night to investigate the pink elephants roaming around your > living-room. Do you really believe that is all there is to spirituality? - samantha From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 25 18:12:02 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525181202.278.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > spike wrote: > >On Behalf Of Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > > > >...Eventually, before 2025, people would be able to feel as if they > are in > >someone's office, feel their handshake or feel their hug, from a > distance... > > > >If they could work that out, you *know* what it > >would lead to. It would be *wildly* popular, > >and far safer than the way we do it today. > > The name given to the tech in the early 90s was 'teledildonics' And it is already in use today, although limited to part of the small fraction of humanity comfortable enough with tech that doing it this way does not ruin the intimacy. (A fraction which most or all of us probably comfortably fit into, but which remains a minority nonetheless.) If you want more information, I encourage you to dig it up yourselves - although one starting point, expressly written for the general public (at least the portion that can read about it without going into bouts of psychosomatic illness) would be the "Sex Drive" columns at http://www.wired.com/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 25 18:39:49 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion Rant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050525183949.39285.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- MB wrote: > My religious rant comes down to a rather simple statement: just > because we do not presently know why/how something is/works/happened, > does not mean "god done it". > > But I'm seeing just that every day in my part of the world. Aye. Many religious types insist that "if it's unknown, it MUST be GOD". This seems to have at least partially caused scientists to cling to explanations even when they are tenuous, rather than just flat-out admit that some things are unknown. (Even though that's how science gets done sometimes - e.g., in my own science project, I'm investigating an aspect of quantum mechanics that is, fundamentally, not solidly known. There are multiple possible outcomes, mutually exclusive, which are all logically defensible given current knowledge.) What would help, I think, is a broader acceptance that what is unknown is merely currently unknown. There is wonder and mystery in the unknown, but even so, the unknown can (and usually should, often for a common litany of practical reasons) eventually be explored. Those who really want wonder and mystery in itself can move on to other unknowns, which we will not run short of for a long time if ever. This is not to argue against the dreamers who try to explain the unknown. There is a big difference between merely coming up with possible explanations, and accepting those explanations without actually trying to see if it is correct. Not looking for holes in new explanations of the unknown almost inevitably leads to accepting explanations with holes. Even some of Einstein's works have been found to be not 100% correct and he admitted as much (reference "cosmological constant"), although just because he made some errors is very far from proving that all or even most of his work was incorrect - for example, E still equals mc^2. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 25 19:58:12 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Gifted people - a model to design a new brain training technology - conditions and consequences ? In-Reply-To: <000001c56085$831f4a70$3300a8c0@inviewp1> Message-ID: <20050525195812.14708.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dimitri Nokovitch wrote: > Majority of people are astonished when they are confronted to mental > phenomenon. > They think that it is not possible to reach levels of cognitive > performance you can observe with gifted and super gifted people. > They consider genetics factors first and super gifted people almost > as > mutants. > Even teachers or trainers working daily with gifted children don't > ask > themselves questions. Oh, yeah. Having grown up "gifted" myself, I was in fact encouraged to think of myself as a freak/mutant. However, I have largely found that if I do have a genetic difference, it is more of a predisposition to learn the techniques, not the binary can/can't ability to learn them - *all* people (save those suffering physical brain damage) have this ability. So I can speak to parts of this from personal anecdotes...with, of course, the standard disclaimer about the worth of anecdotal evidence as opposed to controlled studies. > Putting apart creativity, all gifted people I met have common > particularities : > 1. they repeat almost the same two leitmotivs and are self > confident, Not sure what "leitmotiv" means (looking it up seems to say it's something to do with musical themes - and while I do demon-thrash certain musical tones when I need to put myself in certain moods, I'm not aware of my doing it while actively studying some topic), but yeah, quite a lot of "gifted" folk do seem to be self-confident. (Sometimes dangerously so, to the point where they forget to constantly check their own performance for errors - what some call "humility".) > 2. they use several sensitive channels at the same time, > 3. they use two complementary ways to structure data on real time. I never thought of it that way before, but you might be right. I've noticed that when people talk about "this person is a visual learner, that person is an audio learner, et cetera", I have to classify myself as a "multi-modal learner", as I can at least see how to learn in each method discussed (and sometimes even use those methods). > All these capabilities are shared by anyone but are not trained at > home > and at school. > Most people are not self confident and are not trained as gifted and > super gifted were from their childhood. Definitely true. My childhood environment was rich in what definitely could be called "training" in how to think, even though it was often also (and primarily) play or similarly other-than-formal-training, most notably that there was never (so far as I know) any outside agency coordinating plans between most of these for my benefit. (My parents might almost qualify as said agency, but I got the impression that they were more trying to connect with me and be parents than that they were explicitly trying to train me in how to think as their primary goal.) > The main problem of people is to have the right mental attitude, to > combine cognitive techniques and to structure data on real time. If that's what you call "mental attitude", then yes. To me, that seems more like: * Learning how to do that in the first place. * Making a habit of doing it. ...both of which can be done under a variety of attitudes. > With an appropriate training, It's possible to reach the same level > of > capabilities than "gifted and super gifted people" when they extract, > analyze and structure information. That's what I've been saying for a while, although I don't have much solid data to back it up (and I usually get challenged on said lack of data when I voice this opinion). Do you have data to back it up? > I designed, practised and shared such training with adults and > children. > > Unfortunately, such technologies are not used and generalized at > school, > when they can become natural ways of learning. Part of the problem may be simply that most teachers do not formally know them. Certainly, they were not generally taught about 40 years ago (I have first-hand evidence from a former teacher I know who went through teacher training back them), and even today it is questionable whether they are generally spreading to most new teachers (to say nothing of current teachers going in for state-required skill updates, in those states that require such...and this is just in the US). There are various solutions, if you have a somewhat formalized approach. Packaging in software and distributing, for example. (I wonder if ExI might be willing to pay for development of it as interactive content on its Web site? Outsiders might think the benefit to ExI would be that it's seen as affiliating itself with this demonstration of what it's going for. The real benefit, though, would come from a form of evangelization without evangelization: those who try the package and adopt its methods, would likely inherently become closer to transhumanist goals without any preaching about philosophy or "conversion" in the religious sense.) > During a training of several months, adults must make significant > efforts to reach performances such about 95% of long term > memorization. > But their social and professional context lead them to use tools > instead > they brain. One topic discussed a while ago over on the FutureTAG list, was of "Business Brain Boosters" which would amount to executive retreats to practice and refine these techniques. One problem: many of the executives who could afford these retreats, probably already know the techniques at some level, so it might be questionable how useful these would be. Another problem was simply finding someone experienced in them to coordinate the retreats, if funding could be secured to develop them. They haven't (to my knowledge) actually pulled in many euros yet (they seem to be mainly pitching ideas to the EU's R&D branches), though you might want to talk to them if this is of interest. > When children are taught this way, they have a so incredible advance > that they suffer from their social environment. A story you can easily find confirmed by many many personal experiences from those who have been there. (There are those who say it is possible to train like this and not suffer socially, but those cases seem to boil down to "I learned to be smart but act dumb". This would seem to interfere with the heights of achievement one can reach - for instance, if one is prevented from asking other people for support in complex projects, for fear of not acting dumb.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 25 21:07:41 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525210741.55950.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > But this is so easily resolved. All the president needs to do is > redefine > these embryos as Iraqi bystanders, No can do: they're American citizens if they (would be) born on American soil; it'd requrie a constitutional amendment to change that, and try though he has, he hasn't been able to get any amendment saying anything about biotech through Congress. > or induct them into the American > armed > forces. No can do: there's a minimum age limit to serve in the armed forces, and he'd alienate what support he had if he tried to do away with it to that extent. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 21:37:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525213710.71077.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > But this is so easily resolved. All the president needs to do is > > redefine these embryos as Iraqi bystanders, > > No can do: they're American citizens if they (would be) born on > American soil; it'd requrie a constitutional amendment to change > that, and try though he has, he hasn't been able to get any amendment > saying anything about biotech through Congress. > > > or induct them into the American > > armed forces. > > No can do: there's a minimum age limit to serve in the armed forces, > and he'd alienate what support he had if he tried to do away with it > to that extent. Ah, but considering that everyone is now forcibly issued a SSN these days, there is no reason they can't register everyone for the Selective Service at birth....;) As facetious as Damien's comment is, there are limits to government authority, but I would sincerely like to see the government try a few such outlandishly fascist measures. It might finally wake people up. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed May 25 21:59:23 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050524070448c1285e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050525215923.72247.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Conventional telecoms is > obsolete- > Pearson said the next global IT buzzword would be NBIC > (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive > science) convergence, which essentially means ICT will be seamlessly > integrated into everything around us. > Outlining the future, Pearson said the next age would be the world of > ambient intelligence, after which we would enter an age of > simplicity.Eventually, > before 2025, people would be able to feel as if they are in someone's > office, feel their handshake or feel their hug, from a distance, and > telecoms will have gone as far as it can, he said. Having endured some 6 months of terrible service from multiple VoIP telephone companies (Vonage and Packet8), I have serious doubts about the telecoms dying off any time soon. VoIP sucks big wads, to put it simply. It makes cell phone service seem reliable. It makes the can and string phones we made as kids seem like high fidelity. Conventional telecom will never be obsolete, because it will always offer a more reliable, higher fidelity, product than any packet technology going over the same wire. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed May 25 22:30:31 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:30:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete Message-ID: <1117060231.15104@whirlwind.he.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: > Having endured some 6 months of terrible service from multiple VoIP > telephone companies (Vonage and Packet8), I have serious doubts about > the telecoms dying off any time soon. VoIP sucks big wads, to put it > simply. Correlation is not causation. Put simply, the VoIP companies you mention are VoIP service companies, not networking companies. The problem isn't VoIP, it is a poorly built network (some combination of yours and theirs). You bought a beater Yugo and declared that all automobiles are unreliable, uncomfortable, and underpowered based on your experience. Which is why VoIP services offered by genuine network operators tend to work very well as a rule. VoIP is actually more robust and reliable than old-fashioned voice circuits if the network is built right. If you buy VoIP services from a company that doesn't know squat about building good networks or use it over a cheapo ISP that doesn't know squat about building good networks, quality of protocols used over that network is going to suffer. I suppose that you also blame that damn TCP protocol when your internet connection goes out and you can't access the Web. j. andrew rogers From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 25 22:37:25 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525223725.19625.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > As facetious as Damien's comment is, there are > limits to government authority, but I would sincerely like to see the > government try a few such outlandishly fascist measures. It might > finally wake people up. Too bad the government (usually) realizes this, and that is precisely why they don't do it. I'd like to see the results of that too. (I would've liked to see the Dems try to shut down the Senate, for instance, though I guess they get points for doing their job and coming to some compromise. Too bad the compromise is between what they really want and the other side's overstated position of what they want; net result that the other side gets a disproportionate amount of what they want.) From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed May 25 22:57:13 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:57:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete References: <1117060231.15104@whirlwind.he.net> Message-ID: <019501c5617d$17b45e30$0100a8c0@kevin> I have VoIP for my mortgage office for both fax and phone lines. I have used it for six months now and I have never had a problem with it. I do pay an extra $6.95 month for a 512k upstream connection while the regular rate is for a 256k upstream connection. You may want to see what your upstream is. Some cable connections have excellent downstreams for advertising their service while their upstream is lousy. Also, many ISPs have been known to interfere with VoIP service on occasion. Whatever the case, I have not had the difficulties many have expressed with VoIP and I have three computers sharing that same connection. With VoIP I have managed to cut my regular $350+ month phone bill to just $60 so I am a BIG fan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Andrew Rogers" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Having endured some 6 months of terrible service from multiple VoIP > > telephone companies (Vonage and Packet8), I have serious doubts about > > the telecoms dying off any time soon. VoIP sucks big wads, to put it > > simply. > > > Correlation is not causation. > > Put simply, the VoIP companies you mention are VoIP service companies, > not networking companies. The problem isn't VoIP, it is a poorly built > network (some combination of yours and theirs). You bought a beater > Yugo and declared that all automobiles are unreliable, uncomfortable, > and underpowered based on your experience. > > Which is why VoIP services offered by genuine network operators tend to > work very well as a rule. VoIP is actually more robust and reliable > than old-fashioned voice circuits if the network is built right. If you > buy VoIP services from a company that doesn't know squat about building > good networks or use it over a cheapo ISP that doesn't know squat about > building good networks, quality of protocols used over that network is > going to suffer. > > I suppose that you also blame that damn TCP protocol when your internet > connection goes out and you can't access the Web. > > > j. andrew rogers > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 25 23:37:16 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 16:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525233716.88042.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > No can do: they're American citizens if they (would > be) born on > American soil; it'd requrie a constitutional > amendment to change that, > and try though he has, he hasn't been able to get > any amendment saying > anything about biotech through Congress. Well theoretically he could name them "enemy combatants" under the USA-PATRIOT Act and they would lose their protection of being a citizen. Then we could ship them off to the embryo farm in Guatanamo. They are after all the souless armies of the antichrist. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 25 23:52:41 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 16:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525235241.69853.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > No can do: they're American citizens if they (would > > be) born on > > American soil; it'd requrie a constitutional > > amendment to change that, > > and try though he has, he hasn't been able to get > > any amendment saying > > anything about biotech through Congress. > > Well theoretically he could name them "enemy > combatants" under the USA-PATRIOT Act and they would > lose their protection of being a citizen. Then we > could ship them off to the embryo farm in Guatanamo. > They are after all the souless armies of the > antichrist. ;) This is true. But extracting them would be difficult: they're bunkered deep inside the wombs of red-blooded American women. He's already gotten flak about the development of "bunker buster" missiles... Ending that one before it gets too raunchy, even for this list. ;) Anyway, he might have more luck (and would be more likely to try) just slapping that designation on the scientists and others who propose to do these studies. They are adults, and thus legally culpable for their actions; they engage in political "combat" to support their aims; and they are demonstrably opposed to, and thus enemies of, his stated vision of America. From megao at sasktel.net Wed May 25 22:57:58 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:57:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: <20050525233716.88042.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050525233716.88042.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429502F6.2090306@sasktel.net> Gulag Archipeligo or Stalinist .....not something to wish for these days. The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > >>No can do: they're American citizens if they (would >>be) born on >>American soil; it'd requrie a constitutional >>amendment to change that, >>and try though he has, he hasn't been able to get >>any amendment saying >>anything about biotech through Congress. >> >> > > >Well theoretically he could name them "enemy >combatants" under the USA-PATRIOT Act and they would >lose their protection of being a citizen. Then we >could ship them off to the embryo farm in Guatanamo. >They are after all the souless armies of the >antichrist. ;) > > > >The Avantguardian >is >Stuart LaForge >alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > >"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." >-Bill Watterson > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.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: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 26 00:08:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526000829.13575.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Having endured some 6 months of terrible service from multiple VoIP > > telephone companies (Vonage and Packet8), I have serious doubts > about > > the telecoms dying off any time soon. VoIP sucks big wads, to put > it > > simply. > > Correlation is not causation. > > Put simply, the VoIP companies you mention are VoIP service > companies, not networking companies. The problem isn't VoIP, > it is a poorly built > network (some combination of yours and theirs). You bought a beater > Yugo and declared that all automobiles are unreliable, uncomfortable, > and underpowered based on your experience. On the contrary, Packet8 is rated as the best VoIP provider. It is not just poor quality signal, it is losing all service completely at least one day a week for at least half the working day. They are not building sufficient redundancy into anything. The VoIP business model is dependent upon the consumers expectations having already been eroded badly by poor quality products from Microsoft and their cellphone providers. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 26 00:13:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526001319.2662.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > I have VoIP for my mortgage office for both fax and phone lines. I > have used > it for six months now and I have never had a problem with it. I do > pay an > extra $6.95 month for a 512k upstream connection while the regular > rate is > for a 256k upstream connection. You may want to see what your > upstream is. We have a full T1 in our office. We only have three people currently working here and they are primarily operating a java server application on our in house server. We have oodles of bandwidth. > Some cable connections have excellent downstreams for advertising > their service while their upstream is lousy. Also, many ISPs have > been known to interfere with VoIP service on occasion. Ours is MCI. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 26 00:15:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526001516.24838.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > No can do: they're American citizens if they (would > > be) born on > > American soil; it'd requrie a constitutional > > amendment to change that, > > and try though he has, he hasn't been able to get > > any amendment saying > > anything about biotech through Congress. > > > Well theoretically he could name them "enemy > combatants" under the USA-PATRIOT Act and they would > lose their protection of being a citizen. Then we > could ship them off to the embryo farm in Guatanamo. > They are after all the souless armies of the > antichrist. ;) Do you think we aren't already? Roosevelt declared all Americans enemies of the state in 1933 and it's been that way since. They honor the Constitution as a PR measure, not because they really have to. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 26 00:18:24 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526001824.32320.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Anyway, he might have more luck (and would be more > likely to try) just > slapping that designation on the scientists and > others who propose to > do these studies. They are adults, and thus legally > culpable for their > actions; they engage in political "combat" to > support their aims; and > they are demonstrably opposed to, and thus enemies > of, his stated > vision of America. Yikes! What I said was a joke. What you said is not funny. I AM one of those scientists. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From davidmc at gmail.com Thu May 26 00:23:33 2005 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:23:33 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Question for Samantha on religion in the US? In-Reply-To: <4293C26A.2060103@neopax.com> References: <20050524061717.20961.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <4293132E.6090307@neopax.com> <2D34212A-E108-4866-B38B-8B431EB4CD7B@mac.com> <023901c560b1$b8d56d80$6e2a2dcb@homepc> <4293B615.2010503@neopax.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050524185257.01dc6e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4293C26A.2060103@neopax.com> Message-ID: On 5/24/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Anyway, let it not be said that there is no Transhumanist religion, > because there is. Those interested in what a transhumanist religion might look like (based on reason rather than superstition) might like to check out . D From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 26 00:25:34 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526002534.79485.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Yikes! What I said was a joke. What you said is not > funny. I AM one of those scientists. Speaking as a fellow scientist (not biotech, but something else that disagrees with Bush's agenda) - it's called "dark humor": when a situation, even one's own, is so bleak that it's funny. ;) From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu May 26 00:28:36 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:28:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pearson: Conventional telecoms is obsolete Message-ID: <1117067316.13613@whirlwind.he.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: > On the contrary, Packet8 is rated as the best VoIP provider. It is not > just poor quality signal, it is losing all service completely at least > one day a week for at least half the working day. What does "best" mean? A lot of the problems people experience with VoIP has to do with congestion, often at the VoIP service provider's end. Cheap comes at a price. Packet8 does not have their own network, they use Level3 (and whoever else). They have very little control over the network characteristics. AT&T may not be the cheapest VoIP provider, but they can make it scale as well as they need it to. And a T1 is a good example of the type of network that VoIP is not so hot over. Most DS* data circuits are congested *by nature*, and will show spotty performance as a result. VoIP works much better when pushed over Ethernet frames, which fortunately is slowly becoming the de facto L2 for telecom. j. andrew rogers From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 26 01:34:54 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Stem Cell politics in the US: House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526013454.66505.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Speaking as a fellow scientist (not biotech, but > something else that > disagrees with Bush's agenda) - it's called "dark > humor": when a > situation, even one's own, is so bleak that it's > funny. ;) It's not as bleak as all that. They might be able to take us but they could not hold us. After all, we ARE scientists and the forces of nature are ours to command. We would turn our prayer rugs into gun cotton and blow the place to smithereens. Besides I would hate to think all those years of watching MacGyver would go to waste. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 26 02:14:17 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:14:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <20050525172642.94224.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505260214.j4Q2EBR23736@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... > > But there is enormous > > potential to waaaay downsize, if we assume that we can > > accept vehicles that can only carry one, and that have > > no heater, no air conditioner, no radio, no gears, that > > top out around 40 mph. > > People have tried making and selling cars that violate that hypothesis. > They sell, but not very well. This is widely taken as proof of said > hypothesis. Ja but of course we still have oil so eager to come out of the ground it spews forth in great black geysers in some parts of the world. > > (A few theoretical reasons why: no heater + no AC = a drive that > commuters won't accept, and if they won't accept it then you won't get > them driving it period; 40 mph = dangerously slow on highways and some > city streets, to the level of "safety hazard" even if you say it's > theoretically only for streets it is safe on; 40 mph = extra hours > added to commute time, to the point where the gas savings don't make > up for the productive time lost, making this even more of a waste of > money than buying a SUV purely for commuting purposes.)... Adrian, all you have said is true, and I agree, under current conditions. The radical downsizing and downspeeding I described would happen only in a world in which we are operating mostly or entirely on renewable fuels. Those will be expensive, which will motivate many to give up the commute style to which we have all become so fondly accustomed. The biggest driver in this direction will not be reduced oil coming out of the ground, but rather greatly increasing demand for motor fuels from China and India. Those two outfits alone have over 2e9 right feet, eager for a gas pedal under them, eager for the freedom of mobility that we have enjoyed in the west. My notion is that driving will not change all that much in the next 10 to 20 years, but that eventually we will do some of that radical downsizing. It will not happen to a great extent until we burn up all the easy oil, all the stuff that can be pumped cheaply. Until all of that is gone, government efforts to curb our thirst for oil is a waste of time. The sitch is not desperate however. I can imagine some plug-in hybrids on very small frames, so that our one-seaters will run partly on corn-derived alcohol and partly on the coal that the local power plant burns. It won't be that bad, really. A bit less comfortable, somewhat more dangerous and slower, but life as we have known it will go on. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 26 02:30:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526023034.85022.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > The biggest driver in this direction will not be reduced oil > coming out of the ground, but rather greatly increasing demand > for motor fuels from China and India. Those two outfits alone > have over 2e9 right feet, eager for a gas pedal under them, eager > for the freedom of mobility that we have enjoyed in the west. > The idea of 2e9 right feet all making the morning commute does not lend itself to the phrase "freedom of mobility". > My notion is that driving will not change all that much in > the next 10 to 20 years, but that eventually we will do some > of that radical downsizing. It will not happen to a great extent > until we burn up all the easy oil, all the stuff that can be pumped > cheaply. Until all of that is gone, government efforts to curb > our thirst for oil is a waste of time. Geeze Spike, you are going over to the dark side. Silicon valley brownouts notwithstanding, for other reasons, Peak Oil is a shibboleth. > > The sitch is not desperate however. I can imagine some plug-in > hybrids on very small frames, so that our one-seaters will run > partly on corn-derived alcohol and partly on the coal that the > local power plant burns. It won't be that bad, really. A bit > less comfortable, somewhat more dangerous and slower, but life > as we have known it will go on. Nah, I forsee pebble bed nuclear plants across the country being used to recharge metal hydride fuel tanks for fuel cell power plants, right before we figure out how to turn a metal hydride battery into a cold fusion power plant. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 26 02:38:51 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:38:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <200505260214.j4Q2EBR23736@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200505260238.j4Q2ckR27541@tick.javien.com> > > Adrian, all you have said is true, and I agree, under current > conditions. The radical downsizing and downspeeding I described > would happen only in a world in which we are operating mostly or > entirely on renewable fuels... > > spike I will take that one step further, Adrian. You are a young enough man that you may not recall the transition from the gas guzzlers of the 1960s to the strangled, anemic econoboxes of the 1980s. During the transition, when new smog control standards were being introduced seemingly on a yearly basis, I wondered if 60s era cars would become the ride of choice. They have such wonderful power. To some extent that happened, but mostly only for those who actually drove guzzlers as teens. If I go to the local high school today, I see so many shameful little civics and geos. Some have loud pipes, but still lack the power to pull the skin offa day-old rice pudding. The proletariat accepted the transition from V8s to wimpy little front wheel drive 4 bangers. I conjecture that the proletariat will likewise accept a future transition to liter-class twin cylinder buggies, then eventually half-liter class single cylinder single seaters. It will not be manly, it will not be fun. Children being born today will not even realize how they suffer. But they will marvel at how fast old cars can go. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 26 02:51:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:51:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <20050526023034.85022.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505260251.j4Q2p8R29502@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey ... > The idea of 2e9 right feet all making the morning commute does not lend > itself to the phrase "freedom of mobility"... Ja I will be eager to see how they work that. {8^D They have a huge problem with cities that were built without cars in mind. The Chinese seem to have less of a problem with tearing stuff outta the way to make room for modernization however (reference the great dam going in). > > > My notion is that driving will not change all that much in > > the next 10 to 20 years... > > Geeze Spike, you are going over to the dark side. Silicon valley > brownouts notwithstanding, for other reasons, Peak Oil is a shibboleth. Ja I don't believe oil production will peak very soon. But I will give them that it will *eventually* peak. When it does, we will be OK. > Nah, I forsee pebble bed nuclear plants across the country being used > to recharge metal hydride fuel tanks for fuel cell power plants, right > before we figure out how to turn a metal hydride battery into a cold > fusion power plant. > > Mike Lorrey OK, hope you are right Mike. Keep in mind that those technologies have been studied extensively. The energy- in-the-road infrastructure doesn't seem to be on the immediate horizon. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 26 02:54:37 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526025437.82295.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > > > Adrian, all you have said is true, and I agree, under current > > conditions. The radical downsizing and downspeeding I described > > would happen only in a world in which we are operating mostly or > > entirely on renewable fuels... > > > > spike > > I will take that one step further, Adrian. You are a > young enough man that you may not recall the transition > from the gas guzzlers of the 1960s to the strangled, > anemic econoboxes of the 1980s. During the transition, > when new smog control standards were being introduced > seemingly on a yearly basis, I wondered if 60s era > cars would become the ride of choice. They have such > wonderful power. To some extent that happened, but > mostly only for those who actually drove guzzlers as teens. > > If I go to the local high school today, I see so many shameful > little civics and geos. Some have loud pipes, but still lack > the power to pull the skin offa day-old rice pudding. The > proletariat accepted the transition from V8s to wimpy little > front wheel drive 4 bangers. I conjecture that the proletariat > will likewise accept a future transition to liter-class > twin cylinder buggies, then eventually half-liter class > single cylinder single seaters. It will not be manly, it > will not be fun. Children being born today will not > even realize how they suffer. But they will marvel > at how fast old cars can go. I am reminded of a Larry Niven short story titled "A Veil of Anarchy", in which future humans, living in a world of the ever present State, with population controls, licensing of babies, and legally mandated mood attenuating pharmocoepia, there are parks, built on the surfaces of the old interstate highways, where anarchy reigns, though with hovering nanny-robots to make sure nobody hurts anybody else.... until someone figures out how to shut down the robots, all of them, and the power for the park gates at the same time (accidentally). In the anarchy park, there is still a segment of highway used to race old cars. Powerful, dirty, smelly, gasoline burning noisy cars. Anarchy in a park, what a concept.... kind of like putting liberty in a museum.... safely away from persons who might be dangerous to the state if they were free. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 26 03:03:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526030355.83098.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > > Geeze Spike, you are going over to the dark side. Silicon valley > > brownouts notwithstanding, for other reasons, Peak Oil is a > shibboleth. > > Ja I don't believe oil production will peak very soon. But > I will give them that it will *eventually* peak. When it > does, we will be OK. I am a big believer of the idea that technological singularities create sustainable living. > > > Nah, I forsee pebble bed nuclear plants across the country being > used > > to recharge metal hydride fuel tanks for fuel cell power plants, > right > > before we figure out how to turn a metal hydride battery into a > cold > > fusion power plant. > > > > Mike Lorrey > > OK, hope you are right Mike. Keep in mind that those > technologies have been studied extensively. The energy- > in-the-road infrastructure doesn't seem to be on the > immediate horizon. I watched an interesting lecture on video about hydrogen car technologies and learned that the claim that hydrogen brittlizes transpot pipes is false. Diatomic hydrogen doesn't embrittle pipelines, it is ionized hydrogen that is the problem, which comes from pipe systems using synthetics and/or dissimilar metals without proper grounding. BTW: Natural gas pipes have the embrittlement problem because natural gas can be anywhere between 10-40% hydrogen depending on the source. So I've changed my mind about developing hydrogen distribution infrastructure. We can use the pipes that exist, we just need them more networked. Speaking of which, just as we are looking for easy sources of hydrogen.... Don't need energy in the road, just need a gas pipeline to the gas stations. Metal hydride fuel storage and the new metal hydride battery/fuel cell dual device breakthrough seem to me to be the answer. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From giogavir at yahoo.it Thu May 26 17:07:12 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:07:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526170712.29982.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> i am working on a n environment plannning project caled terraforming planet earth. part of it we mention future personal transportation system i am sending a draft . comments and feedbacks are welcome Giorgio Personal transportation vehicle (PTV) Car diffusion in recent times have created more problems than benefits. Originally the introduction of the car, enthusiastically received by all societies and the symbol of the beginning of its affluence allowing unlimited mobility and personal freedom improving everybody?s lifestyles. Entire cities, especially in the USA with its suburban society, were built around the car. Commuting for work, schooling , using the car for weekly shopping at commercial centers, for week end and long distance vacations became the way of life for the large majority of the population. Car diffusion has reached saturation points in many areas, in particular in North America, western Europe, Japan and Korea with a diffusion rate of 1 car per 2 people. Using such standard we can see that there is still a lot of room for increasing car diffusion especially in those areas that are developing at fast rates such as the former communist Europeans countries, India, China and other South East Asian countries. To reach saturation point for all the existing population of 6 billion people we would require 3 billion cars against the existing 400 million. Such numbers will only exponentially increase current problems discussed later on. In reality the car is part of a more complex system involving roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, refuelling, maintenance, insurance, first aid, traffic, parking, tolls and others that have not keep the same pace of progress that the car diffusion. The increased car diffusion has lead to major problems such as the high rate of accidents with its related death and incapacity toll, extreme pollution that has obliged many cities to impose traffic bans to reduce the air composition to breathable conditions, waste of precious non renewable resources like oil and gas, their high costs for production and transportation with additional pollution consequences, high costs for the fuel itself, for the car acquisition, its maintenance, insurance, tolls and other related items connected to its utilization. W have reached a paradoxically situation in societies where fuel costs reached 6$ per gallon. We need the car for going to work, but we are working mostly to support the car itself. We must break this vicious circle with an innovative approach going back to the basics, especially considering that the car is a mobility instrument that cannot be eliminated but must be at the service of all the community.. What is the purpose of the car? To move a limited amount of people, from one location to another, Such function must be performed in the safest way, without wasting unnecessary non renewable resources (oil and gas) moving oversized and heavy vehicles, avoiding traffic jams, at the lowest possible costs to the user and to the community, without polluting the environment in the process. Such assumptions easily demonstrate that no car in the market today satisfy all the above goals. The most successful cars in history, the Ford T and the Volswagen answered the first question essential for the time of their introduction. At the moment the car diffusion and people dependence on it has changed completely such picture. We need a completely new PTV that answer all goals in an integrated and more complex transportation system. Let?s define the design goals for the new PTV: -limited size the minimum size and minimum weight in accordance wit ergonomic factors -powered by clean energy from renewable sources -completely non polluting -low cost for acquisition and maintenance -standardize vehicle structure for several body adaptations -minimum power requirement -modularity for cargo requirements Having established such basic goal let?s analyse the proposed solutions In this proposal the PTV is composed of two parts. -A structure, containing all mechanical systems, wheel engines, batteries , fuel tanks, transmission and all control parts for a total height not to exceed 20 cm. The exterior part of such structure is composed of nanoengineered choc absorbing material, rubber like, that can absorb the deformation of a crash and return to the original shape. -The body which can be fitted in the structure and can have any suitable shape and dimension compatible with the structure. The above system can be introduced in several phases in accordance with the technological levels of the society. Phase 1 The first and immediate possibility is to introduce such vehicles utilizing a hybrid type of propulsion system and utilizing the existing refuelling network system with necessary updates. Phase 2 A more efficient electrical engine can take care of all autonomy. The road system can be equipped with a power cable that can send remotely by microwave or other means the needed power to the sensor of the vehicle running in the road. Such system is similar to the existing trolley bus equipment only without the trolley and with a wireless power transmission. Where there is no embedded cable the vehicle can proceed with its own engine. Phase 3 The PTV will run in a network of equipped roads with mag lev propulsion system and automatic guidance, giving a destination point part of the network. Power will be assured by decentralized solar, wind or other systems provided by the rod network utilizing clean and renewable sources. The needed power will be transmitted to the vehicle through the mag lev system. The proposed TransNet system is the best solution for this type of vehicle and can incorporate other collective or cargo transportation systems with the same locally generated power concept. --- Mike Lorrey ha scritto: > > --- spike wrote: > > > > The biggest driver in this direction will not be > reduced oil > > coming out of the ground, but rather greatly > increasing demand > > for motor fuels from China and India. Those two > outfits alone > > have over 2e9 right feet, eager for a gas pedal > under them, eager > > for the freedom of mobility that we have enjoyed > in the west. > > > > The idea of 2e9 right feet all making the morning > commute does not lend > itself to the phrase "freedom of mobility". > > > My notion is that driving will not change all that > much in > > the next 10 to 20 years, but that eventually we > will do some > > of that radical downsizing. It will not happen to > a great extent > > until we burn up all the easy oil, all the stuff > that can be pumped > > cheaply. Until all of that is gone, government > efforts to curb > > our thirst for oil is a waste of time. > > Geeze Spike, you are going over to the dark side. > Silicon valley > brownouts notwithstanding, for other reasons, Peak > Oil is a shibboleth. > > > > > The sitch is not desperate however. I can imagine > some plug-in > > hybrids on very small frames, so that our > one-seaters will run > > partly on corn-derived alcohol and partly on the > coal that the > > local power plant burns. It won't be that bad, > really. A bit > > less comfortable, somewhat more dangerous and > slower, but life > > as we have known it will go on. > > Nah, I forsee pebble bed nuclear plants across the > country being used > to recharge metal hydride fuel tanks for fuel cell > power plants, right > before we figure out how to turn a metal hydride > battery into a cold > fusion power plant. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > "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://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu May 26 17:31:39 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 10:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Car of the (near) future In-Reply-To: <20050526170712.29982.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050526173139.80009.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > i am working on a n environment plannning project > caled terraforming planet earth. > part of it we mention future personal transportation > system > i am sending a draft . > comments and feedbacks are welcome Not to be harsh, but...you really need to work on your capitalization and other grammar for a formal proposal. Funding agencies (and most audiences that matter) tend to round-file proposals with this many errors, without ever giving a moment's thought to their potential merits. (If you're still learning English, consider this an incentive to get much better in a hurry.) For example: > Personal transportation vehicle (PTV) Should be "Personal Transportation Vehicle" if you're going to make an acronym of it. > Car diffusion in recent times have created more > problems than benefits. "Car diffusion" is a singular noun, referring to one broad class of actions. Ergo, you should use "has" instead of "have". (Also, minor error: "car diffusion" is not a term in general use, ergo you should define it when first using it, or better yet find an equivalent term that is in general use. For instance, "The growing use of cars".) > Originally the introduction of the car, > enthusiastically received by all societies and the > symbol of the beginning of its affluence allowing Run-on sentence: you probably want a comma after "affluence". (General rule: try saying the sentence aloud, only taking a breath where you have commas or other punctuation breaks. If you run short on breath between commas, you need another comma.) > unlimited mobility and personal freedom improving Spacing error: should only be one space in "personal freedom". > everybody?s lifestyles. > Entire cities, especially in the USA with its suburban You should probably insert blank lines between paragraphs, so as to make the paragraphs easier to distinguish from one another. > society, were built around the car. And you definitely want to keep one-sentence paragraphs to a minimum. (Remember: this is not standard Internet e-text, but a formal proposal. Formal writing has much stricter grammar rules!) > Commuting for work, schooling , using the car for You should have no space between "schooling" and the comma after it. And so forth. These may seem nitpicky, but you have to be structurally almost perfect before those who review proposals would proceed to actually consider the ideas contained in your proposal. From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu May 26 19:06:38 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] prejudices/tribalism biologically "hardwired" In-Reply-To: <200505201227.j4KCR2R07789@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050526190638.48734.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> Extropes, Tribalism (ethnic, religious, nationalistic, linguistic, etc affiliation--with tribes any "us", any "them") is perhaps viewed as a kind of cultural accident (of birth, for the most part). Concurrently, there is the view that prejudice is a character flaw slash moral defect. Not! It's all in the genes. Another very good reason for genetic "reengineering" slash enhancement. (Somehow, I wasn't real impressed by this study--so caveat emptor. Still, it's a place to start.) *********************************** Prejudices evolved, says ASU study "While evolution prepared our minds to be prejudiced, however, our environment influences the specific targets of those prejudices and how we act on them" http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/asu-pih052405.php ************************** Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu May 26 23:35:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] MYTH: Debunking popular myths about the US In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050526233501.24242.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Debunking popular myths about the U.S. By Craig J. Cantoni May 23, 2005 Listed below are 15 commonly-held myths about social, economic, health and environmental conditions in the United States, followed by facts that debunk the myths. The facts have been gleaned from the Pocket World in Figures 2005, published by the The Economist magazine. Myth # 1: The U.S. ranks low in human development. Fact: On the Human Development Index, which measures literacy, life expectancy and income levels, the U.S. ranks above Japan, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Austria, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and 38 other countries. Myth #2: The U.S. is uncompetitive in global markets. Fact: The U.S. is the world's biggest exporter, twice as big as Japan and three times as big as China. It also ranks first in manufacturing output, with 80 percent more output than Japan and more than twice as much output as either China or Germany. And it is surpassed in per-capita Gross Domestic Product by only Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland, all of which are tiny, lily-white countries. The social-welfare countries of Germany, France and Italy have a per-capita GDP that is only 66 percent, 67 percent and 57 percent, respectively, of the per-capita GDP of the U.S. Myth #3: Because the U.S. doesn't produce enough scientists and engineers, it has lost its edge in innovation. Fact: It ranks first on the Innovation Index, which is a measure of human resources skills, market incentive structures and the interaction between the business and scientific sectors. It also ranks first in the number of Nobel Prize winners in economics, medicine, physics and chemistry. The first-place rankings are in spite of the U.S. ranking fifth in R&D spending as a percentage of GDP and dropping to 10th place on the Index of Economic Freedom. Myth #4: American roads are congested due to a lack of mass transit. Fact: The U.S. ranks 42nd in the number of vehicles per kilometer of road. Germany, a country with a lot of mass transit, ranks third. Myth #5: The U.S. is the most car-crazy country. Fact: It ranks 12th in the number of cars per 1,000 people, surpassed by such countries as New Zealand, Luxembourg, Iceland, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Australia. Myth #6: The U.S. has a high rate of auto accidents. Fact: It ranks 31st in the number of people injured per miles traveled. Italy, Canada, Belgium, Israel and Germany have more injuries. Myth #7: The U.S. ranks low in educational achievement. Fact: Only one nation, South Korea, ranks higher than the U.S. in the percentage of the population enrolled in post-secondary education, in spite of the U.S. having a large number of immigrants from third-world countries. Myth #8: The U.S. leads in breast cancer, lung cancer and diabetes. Fact: It does not make the top-20 list in deaths per 100,000 people for breast cancer. The top five countries for breast cancer are Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, United Kingdom and Hungary. The U.S. ranks eighth in lung cancer, surpassed by the Netherlands, Italy, Croatia, United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium and Hungary. And it ranks 14th in diabetes, surpassed by such countries as Canada, Spain, Italy, Greece and Singapore. Myth #9: Americans don't read books. Fact: The U.S. is tied with Singapore in fourth place for book sales per capita. Japan, Norway and Germany rank first, second and third, respectively. France is in 17th place. Myth #10: American teenagers watch the most TV and drink the most alcohol. Fact: The U.S. ranks tenth in the percentage of 15-year-old males who watch TV four or more hours a day on weekdays. Ukraine is in first place. The U.S. does not make the top-14 list in 15-year-olds who drink alcohol weekly. Myth #11: Americans are heavy smokers and drinkers. Fact: The U.S. does not make the top-20 list in per-capita smoking. Greece is in first place. In beer consumption, the U.S. is in 11th place; and in alcohol consumption, it doesn't make the top-23 list. The Czech Republic ranks first in beer consumption, and Luxembourg ranks first in the consumption of alcoholic drinks. Myth #12: The U.S. leads in crime. Fact: The top ten countries for serious assaults per 100,000 people are in rank order: Australia, Sweden, South Africa, Belgium, Ghana, Swaziland, Fiji, Jamaica, Netherlands, United States. The top ten countries for theft are: Australia, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Belgium, France, Austria, United States, Germany, Iceland. Myth #13: The U.S. leads in defense spending. Fact: When measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the United States does not make the top-39 list. North Korea is first, Israel is tenth, and Singapore is nineteenth. Most Arab countries are on the list, and many rank near the top. For example, Saudi Arabia is fifth, Kuwait is sixth, and Jordan is eleventh. Myth #14: The U.S. leads in threatened species. Fact: It is in 21st place in mammal species under threat and in 10th place in bird species under threat. Indonesia, China, India and Brazil rank in the top five in both categories. Myth #15: The U.S. leads in sprawl and deforestation. Fact: It ranks third in the amount of forested land and second in the amount of land under protected status. It doesn't make the top-48 list of nations with the highest rural population density. __________ Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. His new book, Breaking from the Herd: Political Essays for Independent Thinkers by a Maverick Columnist, retails for $18.95 but can be purchased directly from him for $10. You can contact him at either ccan2 at aol.com or haalt1 at aol.com. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From brentn at freeshell.org Fri May 27 00:16:33 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:16:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] MYTH: Debunking popular myths about the US In-Reply-To: <20050526233501.24242.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (5/26/05 16:35) Mike Lorrey wrote: >Myth #3: Because the U.S. doesn't produce enough scientists and >engineers, it has lost its edge in innovation. > >Fact: It ranks first on the Innovation Index, which is a measure of >human resources skills, market incentive structures and the interaction >between the business and scientific sectors. It also ranks first in >the number of Nobel Prize winners in economics, medicine, physics and >chemistry. The first-place rankings are in spite of the U.S. ranking >fifth in R&D spending as a percentage of GDP and dropping to 10th place >on the Index of Economic Freedom. > >Myth #7: The U.S. ranks low in educational achievement. > >Fact: Only one nation, South Korea, ranks higher than the U.S. in the >percentage of the population enrolled in post-secondary education, in >spite of the U.S. having a large number of immigrants from third-world >countries. While I'm sure these are technically false, they are materially true: In regards to Myth 3, all of the "facts" used to "debunk" this are static - they don't count the trend towards lower and lower domestic enrollment in science and engineering disciplines that has been occuring over the past 5-10 years. This may not be "common knowledge" amongst non-technical people like the author of this book, but it is has been studied ad nauseum by the ACS, APS, and AAAS. In regards to Myth 7, the metric used to "debunk" it is utterly irrelevant. While our children are enrolled in school, their performance on reasonably objective tests of learning and reasoning place them well behind children of other First World countries. Simply being in class doesn't guarantee learning takes place. For that, you need motivated students and competent teachers, which the US lacks sorely. Good thing the book is "essays for independent thinkers." Other people might not catch the BS in time. :) B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri May 27 04:13:57 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:13:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Out There Damned Spot Message-ID: <000c01c56272$813f99f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/05/26/titan.ap/index.html From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 27 04:57:56 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Out There Damned Spot In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050527045756.34100.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> I wonder if there is any water on Titan. Titan has some of the highest concentrations of hydrocarbons of any body in the solar system. The infrared spot indicates a heat source of some type. If there heat, water, and hydrocarbons. . . --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/05/26/titan.ap/index.html The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Fri May 27 05:48:20 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 17:48:20 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Out There Damned Spot Message-ID: <20050527054821.54085.qmail@web31510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ah, the joy of the jarring. The allure of anomaly. The esoteric eccentricity. The deviation in the data. Infrared heat, of course, is a major tell-tale sign of technology. I'm sure that there is always the wild hope in the back of everyone's mind: ALIEN ARTIFACT! :D It is intriguing. From the news clip: "At first glance, I thought the feature looked strange, almost out of place," Robert Brown, a member of the Cassini project, said Wednesday. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Fri May 27 09:25:27 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:25:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Out There Damned Spot Message-ID: >I wonder if there is any water on Titan. deuterated methane see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=deuterated+methane+titan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search Amara From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri May 27 12:58:16 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 08:58:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Out There Damned Spot In-Reply-To: <000c01c56272$813f99f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <000c01c56272$813f99f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <17986ca424189900e5711af743e1a517@bonfireproductions.com> Tidal force vulcanism as per Io, my guess. Titan's orbit is pretty eccentric, afterall. I don't know if the plasma disk composition outside of Titan's orbit is any indication of formation/content. ]3 On May 27, 2005, at 12:13 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/05/26/titan.ap/index.html > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Fri May 27 14:07:09 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:07:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] MYTH: Debunking popular myths about the US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Isn't post-secondary college? If so then that's a pretty good stat. It's also telling that since a large portion of US population is in school, more people take the test and so the average will trend down. If other nations have a lower percentage of kids in school then the worst performers won't be taking the standard tests administered to students. BAL >From: Brent Neal >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MYTH: Debunking popular myths about the US >Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:16:33 -0400 > > (5/26/05 16:35) Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >Myth #3: Because the U.S. doesn't produce enough scientists and > >engineers, it has lost its edge in innovation. > > > >Fact: It ranks first on the Innovation Index, which is a measure of > >human resources skills, market incentive structures and the interaction > >between the business and scientific sectors. It also ranks first in > >the number of Nobel Prize winners in economics, medicine, physics and > >chemistry. The first-place rankings are in spite of the U.S. ranking > >fifth in R&D spending as a percentage of GDP and dropping to 10th place > >on the Index of Economic Freedom. > > > >Myth #7: The U.S. ranks low in educational achievement. > > > >Fact: Only one nation, South Korea, ranks higher than the U.S. in the > >percentage of the population enrolled in post-secondary education, in > >spite of the U.S. having a large number of immigrants from third-world > >countries. > > > >While I'm sure these are technically false, they are materially true: In >regards to Myth 3, all of the "facts" used to "debunk" this are static - >they don't count the trend towards lower and lower domestic enrollment in >science and engineering disciplines that has been occuring over the past >5-10 years. This may not be "common knowledge" amongst non-technical >people like the author of this book, but it is has been studied ad nauseum >by the ACS, APS, and AAAS. In regards to Myth 7, the metric used to >"debunk" it is utterly irrelevant. While our children are enrolled in >school, their performance on reasonably objective tests of learning and >reasoning place them well behind children of other First World countries. >Simply being in class doesn't guarantee learning takes place. For that, you >need motivated students and competent teachers, which the US lacks sorely. > >Good thing the book is "essays for independent thinkers." Other people >might not catch the BS in time. :) > >B >-- >Brent Neal >Geek of all Trades >http://brentn.freeshell.org > >"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri May 27 14:26:43 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 07:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Out There Damned Spot In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050527142643.42245.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > I wonder if there is any water on Titan. Titan has > some of the highest concentrations of hydrocarbons of > any body in the solar system. The infrared spot > indicates a heat source of some type. If there heat, > water, and hydrocarbons. . . > Yeah, but HOW MUCH heat is the question. Its obvious they had to scan hard to spot the difference. I doubt that it winds up being more than a few degrees above ambient. I also wonder if this heat could come from a natural chemical decomposition of hydrocarbons in response to UV or other radiation. > > --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/05/26/titan.ap/index.html > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From John-C-Wright at sff.net Fri May 27 14:35:12 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 09:35:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism Theory and Practice Message-ID: <200505271435.j4REZHR24955@tick.javien.com> On May 11th, Samantha Atkins wrote: "Careful who and what you claim as your own. Do you claim Pat Robertson as your own? If so I don't think it is in my nature to be insulting enough." Surely I should have answered this in a more timely fashion. I hope you will forgive me if draw the conversation for a moment back to a point it has past, and a small point at that. Television evangelists are certainly figures of fun to modern intellectuals, what with their high hair and southern accents. We can all get a moment of cheap, malicious pleasure from contemplating our superiority to them, can we not? But look at the other side of the equation. I know a man who gave up cigarettes and strong drink because he heard Billy Graham preaching. I have heard of a man who was comtemplating suicide, who had the pistol loaded and sitting next to him, but who decided to watch one last television show before doing himself in: by coincidence (though I call it providence), the television station happened to be carrying a southern preacher, preaching against suicide. He put off his dark deed for a time: when next he was tempted, he again loaded his pistol, and again snapped on the television for one last show before his end. By coincidence (though I call it providence), the television station had made a mistake, and rebroadcast the same sermon. This coincidence and this sermon changed the man's mind, his heart, and his life, and he put his pistol and his desire for self destruction away. Now, you may feel free to mock these men and what they do: but as for me, I have never saved anyone's life by my words, nor convinced anyone to give up a bad habit. To insult others is also in my nature, Miss Atkins: indeed, a lifetime of practice has made me expert at it, and it is only with the greatest effort that I forebear when barbed and petty wit rises to my lips or bubbles from the end of my pen. My humble suggestion is that if you are interested in your own spiritual development, or if you wish to live the life worthy of a philosopher or a hero, a life of reason, self-command, temperance and justice, that you also forbear. I apologize if this bit of advice sounds condescending, for I do not mean it in that way; but the danger of indulging in a malicious nature is that malice soon begins to seem normal: we come to enjoy it. To answer your question, I am happy and proud to claim Pat Robertson or any other Christian as one of my brothers. For that matter, I am happy and proud to claim men of other religions, even shallow modern inventions, as my brothers, or, if they will not have me, as my cousins. Perhaps you have in mind a list of every wicked or embarassing thing a television evangelist has ever done, so you wonder how I can claim kinship with such Tartuffes. It is because I have in my mind a list of every wicked thing I have done, and I leave to a judge more stern and more just than I am to deal with the sins of other men. From pgptag at gmail.com Fri May 27 16:25:57 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:25:57 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: The most dangerous idea on earth? Message-ID: <470a3c520505270925336cb3e6@mail.gmail.com> Financial Times- A growing number of people think it will soon be within our reach to become something more than human - healthier, stronger, cleverer. All we have to do is live long enough to be around when science makes these advances. If we are, then we may just live forever. This idea, known as transhumanism, is steadily spreading from a handful of cranks and Star Trek fans into the mainstream and across the Atlantic. But it is an idea that Francis Fukuyama, famed for proclaiming the end of history when US-style liberal democracy triumphed in the cold war, has described as the most dangerous in the world. This FT article is reasonably balanced and tries to explain both side's viewpoint. Besides Fukuyama's book, the article quotes and outlines MORE THAN HUMAN by Ramez Naam, FANTASTIC VOYAGE by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, and CITIZEN CYBORG by James Hughes. Conclusion: The biotechnology revolution has caused Fukuyama to revise his contention that we have reached the end of history - history rolls on, but driven by scientists instead of kings. What all these writers have in common is the firm belief that the biotech era will shake up the old political allegiances and create new dividing lines. On one side will be those who believe such meddling unnatural and unwise. On the other, those who want to take the offerings of the biotech revolution and become something more than human. Won't you be tempted? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 27 16:35:11 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:35:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPEAKER: Needed for International Technology Conference Message-ID: <126050-220055527163511500@M2W110.mail2web.com> A well-known international conference is taking place in Northern California in July. Max More was invited to deliver the keynote speech. Unfortunately Max will be at another conference giving a talk and cannot attend to deliver the keynote. However, this conference is adamant about having a well-informed speaker from Extropy Institute deliver the keynote on transhumanist ideas relating to change and technology: "...[deliver a] philosophical component into our Conferences that focuses on the need for caution in the development and evolution of the new technologies such as nano-, bio-, info-, etc. as well as a perspective on the evolution of mankind and society ..." If you would like to discuss our recommending that you deliver the talk, please contact ExI as soon as possible, or contact Max personally at max at maxmore.com Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President 011.512.263.2749 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 27 16:57:34 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:57:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: The most dangerousidea on earth? Message-ID: <274060-220055527165734603@M2W032.mail2web.com> Good article, except: "... spreading from a handful of cranks and Star Trek fans into the mainstream and across the Atlantic..." Even transhumanists have added fuel to this type of ugly commentary by journalists about transhumanism. It always comes back to bit us in the behind. We need to be careful what we say and what we write because we are in this culture together, no matter how we try to create individual subsets be it political, religous, or otherwise. We don't have to be on close terms with everyone, but we do have a responsibility to respectful. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 27 17:22:55 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:22:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moral Relativism Theory and Practice In-Reply-To: <200505271435.j4REZHR24955@tick.javien.com> References: <200505271435.j4REZHR24955@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <9BE92618-F379-4A09-8C06-250601535879@mac.com> On May 27, 2005, at 7:35 AM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > On May 11th, Samantha Atkins wrote: "Careful who and what you claim > as your own. > Do you claim Pat Robertson as your own? If so I don't think it is > in my nature > to be insulting enough." > > Surely I should have answered this in a more timely fashion. I hope > you will > forgive me if draw the conversation for a moment back to a point it > has past, > and a small point at that. > > Television evangelists are certainly figures of fun to modern > intellectuals, > what with their high hair and southern accents. We can all get a > moment of > cheap, malicious pleasure from contemplating our superiority to > them, can we not? > This hardly has anything to do with it. Especially for me. I am from the deep south originally and I still have a bit of the Southern drawl and speech patterns almost three decades after leaving that part of the country. But I digress on top of your digression. Why would you start with such a pointless and utterly false characterization of what I find utterly contemptible about Brother Pat? > But look at the other side of the equation. > > I know a man who gave up cigarettes and strong drink because he > heard Billy > Graham preaching. I have heard of a man who was comtemplating > suicide, who had > the pistol loaded and sitting next to him, but who decided to watch > one last > television show before doing himself in: by coincidence (though I > call it > providence), the television station happened to be carrying a > southern preacher, > preaching against suicide. He put off his dark deed for a time: > when next he was > tempted, he again loaded his pistol, and again snapped on the > television for one > last show before his end. By coincidence (though I call it > providence), the > television station had made a mistake, and rebroadcast the same > sermon. This > coincidence and this sermon changed the man's mind, his heart, and > his life, and > he put his pistol and his desire for self destruction away. > So what? I could recount such anecdotes from all sots of proximate causes all day myself. But if you have listened to and read the books of Brother Pat you know that he preaches a level of hate and fear mongering of when the "culture war" fills the streets with blood that is far beyond any "Good News" or conversions. He has done so and been very influential for a good number of years. It is for these reasons that I brought him up as the icon of all I doubt that you or any rational good human being would want to be associated with. It would have been good if you had done your homework about the man before assuming such trite objections on my part. > Now, you may feel free to mock these men and what they do: but as > for me, I have > never saved anyone's life by my words, nor convinced anyone to give > up a bad habit. > > To insult others is also in my nature, Miss Atkins: indeed, a > lifetime of > practice has made me expert at it, and it is only with the greatest > effort that > I forebear when barbed and petty wit rises to my lips or bubbles > from the end of > my pen. My humble suggestion is that if you are interested in your > own spiritual > development, or if you wish to live the life worthy of a > philosopher or a hero, > a life of reason, self-command, temperance and justice, that you > also forbear. I > apologize if this bit of advice sounds condescending, for I do not > mean it in > that way; but the danger of indulging in a malicious nature is that > malice soon > begins to seem normal: we come to enjoy it. > Thanks for the moral advice. What I said was no insult. This creature has earned a place at the deepest level of whatever hell may exist. > To answer your question, I am happy and proud to claim Pat > Robertson or any > other Christian as one of my brothers. For that matter, I am happy > and proud to > claim men of other religions, even shallow modern inventions, as my > brothers, > or, if they will not have me, as my cousins. > You utterly miss the point. I am one of the most inclusive and generally altruistic people you could wish to meet. This isn't about me. It is about how you separate wheat from chaff in your new found faith. It is about where you stand. It is about whether you retain the ability and willingness to draw important distinctions. > Perhaps you have in mind a list of every wicked or embarassing thing a > television evangelist has ever done, so you wonder how I can claim > kinship with > such Tartuffes. It is because I have in my mind a list of every > wicked thing I > have done, and I leave to a judge more stern and more just than I > am to deal > with the sins of other men. Thanks for the hackneyed philosophy. Please respond again when you know enough and are honest enough to actually address the question. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri May 27 17:47:36 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:47:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: The mostdangerousidea on earth? References: <274060-220055527165734603@M2W032.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <005201c562e4$39a90190$d3ef4d0c@MyComputer> Wrote: > Good article, except: > "... spreading from a handful of > cranks and Star Trek fans into the mainstream and across the Atlantic..." I would also have to have to disagree with the following statement: "The astonishing advances in medicine over the past 20 years." The advances in understanding how biology works has indeed been astonishing but except for a few very rare diseases the advancement in medicine has been tiny over the last 20 years. The last true breakthrough in medicine happened more than 50 years ago with the invention of Penicillin, nothing since has come close. John K Clark From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri May 27 18:40:57 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:40:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: The mostdangerousidea on earth? In-Reply-To: <005201c562e4$39a90190$d3ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <274060-220055527165734603@M2W032.mail2web.com> <005201c562e4$39a90190$d3ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: I don't know, John - fetal surgery for spina bifida, treatment for pediatric leukemia, reversal of certain types of diabetes, the human trials of stem cell treatment for muscular dystrophy, organ transplant in general... not to mention 8 Molar glycerol! ]3 On May 27, 2005, at 1:47 PM, John K Clark wrote: > Wrote: > >> Good article, except: >> "... spreading from a handful of >> cranks and Star Trek fans into the mainstream and across the >> Atlantic..." > > I would also have to have to disagree with the following statement: > > "The astonishing advances in medicine over the past 20 years." > > The advances in understanding how biology works has indeed been > astonishing > but except for a few very rare diseases the advancement in medicine > has been > tiny over the last 20 years. The last true breakthrough in medicine > happened > more than 50 years ago with the invention of Penicillin, nothing since > has > come close. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 May 27 20:01:50 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 15:01:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Terabyte DVD patent Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050527150029.01e66df8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7432 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 27 20:23:11 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: The mostdangerousidea on earth? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050527202311.42296.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > I would also have to have to disagree with the > following statement: > > "The astonishing advances in medicine over the past > 20 years." > > The advances in understanding how biology works has > indeed been astonishing > but except for a few very rare diseases the > advancement in medicine has been > tiny over the last 20 years. The last true > breakthrough in medicine happened > more than 50 years ago with the invention of > Penicillin, nothing since has > come close. You are forgetting: CAT,MRI, PET, vaccines for dozens of deadly diseases, whole new classes of drugs such as hormones for birth-control or growth, antivirals for HIV and herpes and phosphotase inhibitors like viagra , gene-therapy, advanced life support, the whole human genome, and resuscitation technology. Essentially, if you have been dead for less than ten minutes, we can bring you back. If you have been dead for longer, we can still bring your mindless-body back to life and keep it alive indefinately. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri May 27 20:37:24 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:37:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~ Message-ID: <005901c562fb$e42c9ed0$0200a8c0@Nano> The Nanogirl News May 27, 2005 A V6 Engine for the Nano-Age. The world of the very small is about to receive a very powerful engine. Berkeley Lab scientists have created the world's smallest electric motor that may someday power nanoscale devices that walk, crawl, swim, and fly. Although it is too early too determine what the motor will propel - perhaps probes that deliver disease-fighting drugs inside the body or winging nanobots that sniff out explosives - it packs a big kick in its tiny frame. The motor measures only 200 nanometers long (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter), but its power density is 100 million times greater than that of a 225-horsepower V6 engine. It draws its enormous power from surface tension, the same cohesive force between liquid molecules that allows bubbles to form and insects to walk on water. (Berkeley Lab 5/13/05) http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/May/05-nanoengine.html Tiny Bundles Seek And Destroy Breast Cancer Cells. A Penn State College of Medicine study shows for the first time in an animal model that ceramide, a naturally occurring substance that prevents the growth of cells, can be administered through the blood stream to target and kill cancer cells. "Ceramide is the substance that accumulates in cancer tissues and helps to kill cancer cells when patients undergo chemotherapy and radiation," said Mark Kester, professor of pharmacology, Penn State College of Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. "By boosting the amount of ceramide through an injection in the bloodstream, our study in mice suggests that we can provide a stronger cancer-killing therapy without additional side effects." This study, titled "Systemic Delivery of Liposomal Short-Chain Ceramide Limits Solid Tumor Growth in Murine Models of Breast Adenocarcinoma," was published in the May issue of Clinical Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. (Penn State 5/24/05) http://live.psu.edu/story/12180 NASA Goes Nano for Air Purification. "For human space flight missions, NASA must continually monitor air quality and toxicity levels to ensure the health and safety of the crew," said Spacehab Chief Operating Officer Michael Bain. But, he added, "developing, transporting and installing large, complex detection and classification equipment in orbit is extremely problematic."...The NASA/Spacehab project aims to further reduce the size down to that of a stack of playing cards. To create a device that small, Spacehab has enlisted the help of Zyvex, a company that specializes in nanotechnology. (NASA 5/25/05) http://www.newsfactor.com/news/NASA-Goes-Nano-for-Air-Purification/story.xhtml?story_id=12100002KFS3 Nanotech Finds Tumors Before Visible on MRI. Biomedical engineers have used nanotechnology to find human melanoma tumors in mice while the growths are still invisible to conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Earlier detection can potentially increase the effectiveness of treatment. This is especially true with melanoma, which begins as a highly curable disorder, then progresses into an aggressive and deadly disease. A second benefit of the approach is that the same nanoparticles used to find the tumors could potentially deliver stronger doses of anti-cancer drugs directly to the tumor site with fewer side effects. (ScienceBlog 5/19/05) http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/7940 New opportunities from old chemistry in surface science, say Purdue chemists. Gold surfaces are often used as baseplates of sensors and in nanomaterials, and scientists have been searching for stable organic coatings they can attach to gold to form an interface between the organic and inorganic worlds. Findings suggest that amines may be the best candidate group of such materials. (Purdue U 5/26/05) http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050526.Wei.sensor.html ORNL nanoscience center 'Jump Starts' medical compound device. A device that could create custom-tailored medical compounds faster than ever before is one of the first projects launched under the new Center for Nanophase Materials Science at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Project director Joseph Matteo, founder and CEO of the local research firm NanoTek, is building a small, microfluidic machine to quickly and reliably synthesize drugs, medicines, diagnostic imaging agents and other compounds. (ORNL 5/24/05) http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20050524-00 Nanotechnology Makes Packaging Intelligent, Smart and Safe. According to a new market study developed by Helmut Kaiser Consultancy nanotechnology has been significantly increasing its impact on the food and beverage packaging industry during last three years. The sales of the nano-related packaging products have been rising from US$ 150 million in 2002 to $ 860 million in 2004 worldwide. Nonetheless, compared with the over $100 billion food and beverage packaging industry, the growth potential of the nanopackaging is still enormous. It is predicted that nanotechnology will change 25% of the food packaging business in the next decade, that means a yearly over $ 30 billion market. (nanotechwire.com 5/26/05) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=1961 Rice unveils 'green' microcapsule production method. Chemical engineers from Rice University have developed a fundamentally new approach - the most environmentally sensitive yet devised - for making tiny hollow spheres called microcapsules. Microcapsule research is one of the most active fields in applied nanotechnology, with dozens of companies either developing or using the tiny containers - usually smaller than living cells - to deliver everything from drugs and imaging agents to perfumes and flavor enhancers. In research appearing on the cover of this month's issue (Vol. 17, Issue. 9) of the journal Advanced Materials, Michael Wong and his research group describe an approach for making microcapsules that involves mixing a solution of polymer and salt with tiny particles of silica that contain just a few hundred atoms apiece. (EurekAlert 5/26/05) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/ru-ru052605.php Nanotechnology Can Play Vital Role in Forest Products Industries. The future of the U.S. forest products industries, which employ some 1.1 million Americans and contribute more than $240 billion annually to the nation's economy, could depend on how well those industries embrace the emerging science of nanotechnology, according to a report just released by a panel of leading researchers from industry, government labs, and academic institutions. The hundred-page report, titled "Nanotechnology for the Forest Products Industry: Vision and Technology Roadmap," can be read or downloaded for free from: http://www.nanotechforest.org. It will also be available on other websites including those of the USDA Forest Service's Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) (http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us) and the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) ( http://www.tappi.org/content/pdf/nanotechnology_roadmap.pdf ). TAPPI also plans to publish a hard-copy version. (Nanotechwire 4/5/05) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=1795 Little Answers To World's Biggest Problems: Top 10 Nanotech Applications To Aid Poor. In a new study by researchers at the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics (JCB), published in PLoS Medicine, the open access global health journal, an international panel of 63 experts were asked to rank the nanotechnology applications they think are most likely to benefit developing countries in the areas of water, agriculture, nutrition, health, energy and the environment in the next 10 years. The study is the first ever ranking of nanotechnology applications relative to their impact on development. See the list by clicking this news story. (ScienceDaily 5/3/05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050503103638.htm >From attograms to Daltons: Cornell NEMS device detects the mass of a single DNA molecule. Some people are never satisfied. First, nanotechnology researchers at Cornell University built a device so sensitive it could detect the mass of a single bacterium--about 665 femtograms. Then they built one that could sense the presence of a single virus -- about 1.5 femtograms. Now, with a refined technique, they have detected a single DNA molecule, weighing in at 995,000 Daltons -- a shade more than 1 attogram -- and can even count the number of DNA molecules attached to a single receptor by noting the difference in mass. The devices, which fall in the class of nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS), could be made even more sensitive through increased miniaturization, the researchers say. The technology, they suggest, can be combined with microfluidics to perform genetic analysis of very small samples of DNA, even the amount present in a single cell. (Cornell 5/18/05) http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/DNAcount.ws.html Nanotechnology comes to the lead-free rescue. Like it or not, lead-free requirements and RoHS compliance are impending realities. While many companies have processes and products that meet these requirements right now, there are many reasons to be concerned about the use of lead-free solders. Conductive adhesives with nano-engineered fillers have shown some promise toward addressing those concerns. Much of this work is being done in the US by Professor C.P. Wong's group at the Georgia Institute of Technology. (Ferret 5/19/05) http://www.ferret.com.au/articles/da/0c02feda.asp US worried about losing nanotechnology dominance. Although the US remains the world leader in nanotechnology research and development (R&D), a new White House report warns that US nanotech dominance is under threat as other countries improve their own programmes. The report, released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) on 18 May, says that the US, through its National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), must do more to address societal concerns and the potential risks - both environmental and health - of this developing technology. (Cordis 5/20/05) http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=EN_RCN_ID:23852 Like The Famous Doughboy, Nanotubes Give When You Poke 'Em. In a recent study, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology, along with colleagues from the IBM Watson Research Center and the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne in Switzerland, found that while nanotubes are extremely stiff when pulled from the ends, they give when poked in the middle. The larger the radius, the softer they become. The finding, which is important for the development of nanoelectronics, is published in the May 6, 2005 edition of the journal Physical Review Letters. (Georgia IT 5/17/05) http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=565 Nanotube water doesn't freeze - even at hundreds of degrees below zero. A new form of water has been discovered by physicists in Argonne's Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS) Division. Called nanotube water, these molecules contain two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom but do not turn into ice - even at temperatures near absolute zero. Instead, inside a single wall tube of carbon atoms less than 2 nanometers, or 2 billionths of a meter wide, the water forms an icy, inner wall of water molecules with a chain of liquid-like water molecules flowing through the center. This occurs at 8 Kelvins, which is minus 445 Fahrenheit. As the temperature rises closer to room temperature, the nanotube water gradually becomes liquid. (Argonne 5/13/05) http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/IPNS050513.html Buckyballs batter bacteria. For the first time, researchers have shown that aggregates of C60-better known as fullerenes or buckyballs-can form nanosized, crystalline structures that inhibit the growth and respiration of certain bacteria. In a paper recently posted to ES&T's Research ASAP website (eso48099n), researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Rice University have also found that these nanocrystals may be more mobile in water than expected. Both results strengthen the argument that nanoparticles have different properties than their bulk counterparts, but those differences are not reflected in current procedures for safe handling. (Environmental Science & Tech 5/4/05) http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/science/rp_nanocrystals.html (Book Review) Eco-friendly and Nano Smart, in Theory. Louis Theodore, a chemical engineering professor at Manhattan College, and Robert G. Kunz, an environmental consultant and former environmental engineering manager at Air Products and Chemicals, argue that nanotechnology will reshape industry in the near future. They offer the textbook "Nanotechnology: Environmental Impli-cations and Solutions" as a way to introduce nanotechnology to the next generation of environmental managers as well as to instill some environmental awareness into nanotechnology professionals. "One of the key features of this book is that it could serve both academia (students) and industry," they write in the preface. "Thus, this book offers material not only to individuals with limited technical background but also to those with extensive industrial experience. As such, it can be used as a text . and as a training tool for industry." (Smalltimes 5/25/05) http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=76&document_id=9139 Nanotech Meets Medicine. Nanotechnology is a developing field that is showing promise in a number of areas. One such area discussed at the 11th annual Food & Drug Administration Science Forum last month is medicine. The size of nanoparticles is on the same order of magnitude as biological materials; thus, nanotechnology can aid in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of things like drug delivery and bioimplants. (C&E 5/16/05) http://pubs.acs.org/cen/nanofocus/top/83/8320medicine.html Have a nice weekend. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 27 21:28:09 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPEAKER: Needed for International Technology Conference In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050527212809.40442.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > > A well-known international conference is taking > place in Northern > California in July. Max More was invited to > deliver the keynote speech. > Unfortunately Max will be at another conference > giving a talk and cannot > attend to deliver the keynote. > > However, this conference is adamant about having a > well-informed speaker > from Extropy Institute deliver the keynote on > transhumanist ideas relating > to change and technology: > > "...[deliver a] philosophical component into our > Conferences that focuses on the need for caution > in the development and evolution of the new > technologies > such as nano-, bio-, info-, etc. as well as a > perspective > on the evolution of mankind and society ..." I would nominate Samantha Atkins. She has a good grasp of transhumanism, she lives relatively close to the conference, and since she plans on starting a religion, the public speaking practice will do her good. ;) Of course, that is IF she thinks she will be done with her moving and is willing to do so. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri May 27 23:46:25 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 09:46:25 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: Themostdangerousidea on earth? References: <20050527202311.42296.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009801c56316$4b9e8f00$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- John K Clark wrote: >> I would also have to have to disagree with the >> following statement: >> >> "The astonishing advances in medicine over the past >> 20 years." >> >> The advances in understanding how biology works has >> indeed been astonishing >> but except for a few very rare diseases the >> advancement in medicine has been >> tiny over the last 20 years. The last true >> breakthrough in medicine happened >> more than 50 years ago with the invention of >> Penicillin, nothing since has >> come close. > > You are forgetting: CAT,MRI, PET, vaccines for dozens > of deadly diseases, whole new classes of drugs such as > hormones for birth-control or growth, antivirals for > HIV and herpes and phosphotase inhibitors like viagra > , gene-therapy, advanced life support, the whole human > genome, and resuscitation technology. Essentially, if > you have been dead for less than ten minutes, we can > bring you back. If you have been dead for longer, we > can still bring your mindless-body back to life and > keep it alive indefinately. Perhaps John sees means clinical medicine as opposed to diagnostic tools and enabling technologies. Which vaccines for deadly diseases did you have in mind? Which gene-therapies are available to clinicians? I'm sceptical that its true as a generalisation that a person dead for 9 minutes and 59 seconds or less can be brought back. There would be some unusual circumstances where that could indeed be true but they are unusual circumstances of what is still 'heroic' medicine. And as for keeping the mindless-body alive indefinately, that doesn't seem to be within the range of existing general clinical medical practice either. There is plenty of human condition yet to improved upon and we have very much work still to do. Regards, Brett Paatsch From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 27 23:52:18 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:52:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] sunjammer, beamrider Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050527185058.03346a88@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://planetary.org/solarsail/prelaunch_report1_20050523.html Cosmos 1, the world's first solar sail spacecraft, has shipped in preparation for a launch period that opens on June 21, 2005, traveling from the test facility of Lavochkin Association in Moscow to Severomorsk, Russia. The innovative and first-of-its-kind solar sail, a project of The Planetary Society and Cosmos Studios, will launch atop a converted ICBM from a submerged Russian submarine. It will deploy in Earth orbit and attempt the first controlled flight of a solar sail. ... An experiment to accelerate the spacecraft with a microwave beam from Earth will be conducted during a later stage of the mission. Led by James Benford of Microwaves Sciences, Inc. and Prof. Gregory Benford of the University of California-Irvine, their team will use a NASA Deep Space Network radar antenna to send the beam to the spacecraft. The Planetary Society must approve the activation of the experiment and will do so only after the prime mission objective of controlled solar sail flight is achieved. From aiguy at comcast.net Sat May 28 03:40:41 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 23:40:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPEAKER: Needed for International TechnologyConference In-Reply-To: <20050527212809.40442.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200505280340.j4S3erR11995@tick.javien.com> Are any hard copy, tapes or mp3 transcripts available for a fee from such conferences. While I do currently do not have the financial resources available to attend such events, I may have the limited resources to help support such events after the fact if such materials were available. If so is there a website that serves as a purchasing portal for such materials? vitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote: > > A well-known international conference is taking place in Northern > California in July. Max More was invited to deliver the keynote > speech. > Unfortunately Max will be at another conference giving a talk and > cannot attend to deliver the keynote. > > However, this conference is adamant about having a well-informed > speaker from Extropy Institute deliver the keynote on transhumanist > ideas relating to change and technology: > > "...[deliver a] philosophical component into our Conferences that > focuses on the need for caution in the development and evolution of > the new technologies such as nano-, bio-, info-, etc. as well as a > perspective on the evolution of mankind and society ..." From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat May 28 04:55:36 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: The mostdangerousidea on earth? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050528045536.94185.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> organ transplants, polio vaccine, breast augmentation, diabetic self regulation, viagra, cancer cures, among others. There have been advances in medicine, some significant. BTW: pennicillin wasn't invented, it was discovered. blue-green mold 'invented' it millenia or more ago.... --- John K Clark wrote: > Wrote: > > > Good article, except: > > "... spreading from a handful of > > cranks and Star Trek fans into the mainstream and across the > Atlantic..." > > I would also have to have to disagree with the following statement: > > "The astonishing advances in medicine over the past 20 years." > > The advances in understanding how biology works has indeed been > astonishing > but except for a few very rare diseases the advancement in medicine > has been > tiny over the last 20 years. The last true breakthrough in medicine > happened > more than 50 years ago with the invention of Penicillin, nothing > since has > come close. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 28 05:31:07 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 00:31:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] `boundary sciences' in TIME Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050528002653.032da638@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1064461,00.html From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Sat May 28 06:58:45 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 18:58:45 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Out There Damned Spot Message-ID: <20050528065845.99587.qmail@web31514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A more in-depth article on the spot in 'The Universe Today': http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/mystery_spot_titan.html?2652005 It may not actually be a hot-spot. Other possibilities are being considered. Curiouser and Curiouser... "Other bright spots have been seen on Titan, but all have been transient features that move or disappear within hours, and have different spectral (color) properties than this feature. This spot is persistent in both its color and location. "It's possible that the visual and infrared spectrometer is seeing a cloud that is topographically controlled by something on the surface, and that this weird, semi-circular feature is causing this cloud," said Dr. Elizabeth Turtle, Cassini imaging team associate, also from the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory." --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz Sat May 28 07:26:56 2005 From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 19:26:56 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [extropy-chat] On the Inevitability and Goodness of Superlongevity Message-ID: <20050528072657.2010.qmail@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Fascinating, Dr Walker, fascinating. >It is >somewhat surprising to me that some people get more >bothered about >superlongevity than other possible types of >enhancements. I think the main worry people have is that it is somehow 'selfish' or 'narcisstic' to want to live a long time. Probably things haven't been helped by all those bad sci-fi movies where the budding immortalist is always portrayed as a mad braking mad egoist. I think it needs to be made claim that we are advocating for longevity in a *utilitarian* sense, not an *egoist* sense. That is, we want to get life extension technology out to as many people as possible. Just on a side-note, it was interesting that you mentioned the ethical debate between what you called welfarists (who want to maximize utility in the sense of happiness) and perfectionists (who emphasize growth as the highest good). I'm inclined to think that ethics is some sort of *combination* of the two (that is: I think that both welfarists and perfectionists are both half right). Note that welfarists emphasize the *intrapersonal* (individual internal positive experiences), where as perfectionists emphasize the *interpersonal* (the role individuals play in the world, or how they interact with the external world and the people around them). So welfarists are dealing with *intrapersonal* ethics (what personal values to pursue), where as perfectionists are dealing with *interpersonal ethics*(how we should relate the external world). For *intrapersonal* ethics, I think welfarism equates to Eudaimonia (which I interpret as a combination of health and happiness). For *interpersonal* ethics, I think perfectionism equates to what I have called Volition (a constant striving for perfection requires growth, which amounts to a constant expansion of over-all choice or freedom - Volition). So remember my handy formula for morality. Here it is: Morality = Eudaimonia x Volition Eudaimonia is welfarism, Volition is perfectionism and the multiplication sign indicates that I think ethics is some sort of interaction or combination of the two. --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat May 28 07:36:52 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 00:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: Themostdangerousidea on earth? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050528073652.43348.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Which vaccines for deadly diseases did you have in > mind? Polio, smallpox, influenza, measles, mumps, tentanus, hepatatitis B, and many others. In fact, the diseases for which there are no vaccines for are rather exceptional in this day and age, essentially either consisting of newly emergent diseases like SARS (which doesn't seem to be a big public health concern any more) and really tricky ones such as HIV. Some of the newer vaccines in the works are against certain forms of cancer, nicotine (for people who can't quit smoking) and one against tooth decay. For the most part, we now have the technology to develop vaccines for most diseases within a year's time. Whether there is funding for the technology to be brought to bear upon a particular disease however depends a lot on congress, lobbyists, and whether pharmaceutical companies think they can turn a profit. My point however is that the average American has little to fear from infectious diseases. (Bush's flu vaccine debacle excepted of course) > Which gene-therapies are available to clinicians? Well the most successful to date has been against ADA deficiency otherwise known as SCIDs or "bubble boy" syndrome. In the cases where it was used, the genetic defect was essentially cured. There has been a temporary halt to development however because 2 individuals out of some dozens or so have contracted leukemia potentially as a result of the gene therapy. Therefore progress on gene therapy has slowed down considerably in the past couple of years. > I'm sceptical that its true as a generalisation that > a person > dead for 9 minutes and 59 seconds or less can be > brought > back. Oh they can be. They will never be quite the same but generally speaking at room temperature, the window for resuscitation is between 5-10 minutes. The brain damage starts very quickly however so obviously the sooner medical attention is recieved, the better. Note that even at the lower end of this window of 5 minutes still results in some brain damage but generally less than 10 minutes is the "salvage" window. There have been numerous anecdotal cases of people who have been "dead" at very cold temperatures (bottoms of frozen lakes and what not for periods of 30 minutes or more that have been successfully brought back. There would be some unusual circumstances > where > that could indeed be true but they are unusual > circumstances > of what is still 'heroic' medicine. Nah, its pretty routine actually. One of the post docs in my lab (an infectious disease specialist) has brought back a dozen or so himself during his residency. I mean you could still think of it as "heroic" but it happens several times a day in most big hospitals. > > And as for keeping the mindless-body alive > indefinately, > that doesn't seem to be within the range of existing > general > clinical medical practice either. It isn't normal practice, but that is for ethical and financial reasons and not due to technological reasons. Schiavo for example could have lived well into old age if they hadn't unplugged her. > There is plenty of human condition yet to improved > upon > and we have very much work still to do. I agree with that, but it still doesn't mean that the practice of medicine hasn't changed or had "break throughs" since penicillin. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From pgptag at gmail.com Sat May 28 10:01:58 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 12:01:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spore: simulated evolution In-Reply-To: <470a3c520505280300468c1905@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520505280300468c1905@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205052803015debe190@mail.gmail.com> After SimCity and the Sims, Spore : Spore starts you off as a single cell inside a tide pool, consuming harmless cells and avoiding hostile ones, accumulating points all the while. Eventually you'll be able to develop your single cell into a stronger multicelled organism, then a complex reptile or mammal - which can mate, create offspring and evolve into an intelligent tribe that must compete and cooperate with other tribes developing independently on other parts of the planet. (Sound familiar?) Once your tribe develops the technology, you can travel to other planets, solar systems and galaxies, colonizing your way through the universe as benevolently or maliciously as you see fit. It has been suggested that artificial life and artificial intelligence will emerge "naturally" out of the worls of computer games, this is a step in that direction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat May 28 10:20:54 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 11:20:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spore: simulated evolution In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205052803015debe190@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520505280300468c1905@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c5205052803015debe190@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/28/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > After SimCity and the Sims, Spore: > Spore starts you off as a single cell inside a tide pool, consuming harmless > cells and avoiding hostile ones, accumulating points all the while. > > It has been suggested that artificial life and artificial intelligence will > emerge "naturally" out of the worls of computer games, this is a step in > that direction. > Not scheduled for release until Q3 2006. It is mostly just vaporware and a small Flash demo at present. But his track record is good, so wish him luck. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 28 13:46:55 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 08:46:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPEAKER: Needed for International TechnologyConference In-Reply-To: <200505280340.j4S3erR11995@tick.javien.com> References: <20050527212809.40442.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> <200505280340.j4S3erR11995@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050528084611.02745b90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Please contact me off list to discuss. Thanks, Natasha > > A well-known international conference is taking place in Northern > > California in July. Max More was invited to deliver the keynote > > speech. > > Unfortunately Max will be at another conference giving a talk and > > cannot attend to deliver the keynote. > > > > However, this conference is adamant about having a well-informed > > speaker from Extropy Institute deliver the keynote on transhumanist > > ideas relating to change and technology: > > > > "...[deliver a] philosophical component into our Conferences that > > focuses on the need for caution in the development and evolution of > > the new technologies such as nano-, bio-, info-, etc. as well as a > > perspective on the evolution of mankind and society ..." > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 28 13:47:57 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 08:47:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPEAKER: Needed for International TechnologyConference In-Reply-To: <200505280340.j4S3erR11995@tick.javien.com> References: <20050527212809.40442.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> <200505280340.j4S3erR11995@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050528084730.0305a1d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Please contact me off list to discuss. Thanks - Natasha > > > > A well-known international conference is taking place in Northern > > California in July. Max More was invited to deliver the keynote > > speech. > > Unfortunately Max will be at another conference giving a talk and > > cannot attend to deliver the keynote. > > > > However, this conference is adamant about having a well-informed > > speaker from Extropy Institute deliver the keynote on transhumanist > > ideas relating to change and technology: > > > > "...[deliver a] philosophical component into our Conferences that > > focuses on the need for caution in the development and evolution of > > the new technologies such as nano-, bio-, info-, etc. as well as a > > perspective on the evolution of mankind and society ..." > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 28 16:17:57 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 11:17:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "BEST OF LIST": Editors Needed for ExI Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050528110301.02d55638@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Extropy Institute's email list is the longest running transhumanist email list in the world! Well, you have been asking for it, and finally we are doing something about it. ExI is compiling Best of the List, going back to the earliest ideas posted on list way back in 1991! Thanks to ExI's Board member David McFadzean who will be the key person behind this sorely needed and highly worthwhile compilation of posts outlining the history of ideas that formed transhumanism. Greg Burch, ExI's VP, will be performing the final editing, but we are looking for someone to work with us in the initial stages. For anyone who loves digging through history and finding cutting-edge master minds in action, then this is the job for you! Please contact me at 011.512.263.2749 or email me at natasha at extropy.org. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sat May 28 16:58:32 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 12:58:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: Themostdangerousidea on earth? References: <274060-220055527165734603@M2W032.mail2web.com><005201c562e4$39a90190$d3ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002301c563a6$8bd88130$67ee4d0c@MyComputer> "Bret Kulakovich" > I don't know, John - fetal surgery for spina bifida, treatment for > pediatric leukemia, reversal of certain types of diabetes, the human > trials of stem cell treatment for muscular dystrophy, organ transplant in > general... not to mention 8 Molar glycerol! I'm all for stem cells, I think they have enormous potential, but as of today they have helped few if any people, the same is true for gene therapy. If you got sick today and were taken to a hospital today would your treatment be "astonishingly" better than it would have been in 1985? I think not. Unfortunately there is no Moore's Law for medicine. John K Clark From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat May 28 19:22:02 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 12:22:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Transhumanism: menace or threat? Message-ID: <4298C4DA.3050004@mindspring.com> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c7eb8502-cda3-11d9-9a8a-00000e2511c8.html The most dangerous idea on earth? By Stephen Cave and Friederike von Tiesenhausen Cave Published: May 27 2005 12:42 | Last updated: May 27 2005 12:42 ---------- It is easy to see how you could be tempted. It might start with genetically screening your children for a lower risk of a hereditary cancer. Or perhaps with a pill that promised to keep your memory fresh and clear into old age. But what if, while you were having your future children engineered to be cancer-free, you were offered the chance to make them musically gifted? Or, if instead of taking a memory-enhancing pill, you were offered a neural implant that would instantly make you fluent in all the world?s languages? Or cleverer by half? Wouldn?t it be difficult to say no? And what if you were offered a whole new body - one that would never decay or grow old? A growing number of people believe these will be the fruits of the revolutions in biotechnology expected this century. And they consider it every individual?s right to take advantage of these changes. They think it will soon be within our reach to become something more than human - healthier, stronger, cleverer. All we have to do is live long enough to be around when science makes these advances. If we are, then we may just live forever. This idea, known as transhumanism, is steadily spreading from a handful of cranks and Star Trek fans into the mainstream and across the Atlantic. But it is an idea that Francis Fukuyama, famed for proclaiming the end of history when US-style liberal democracy triumphed in the cold war, has described as the most dangerous in the world. ... Fukuyama?s answer to the threat of transhumanism is straightforward: stringent regulation. Despite the current deregulatory mood in America, his views chime with those of the anti-abortion right, a core constituency of the Bush administration. When President George W. Bush first came to power, he set up his Council on Bioethics to, as he put it, ?help people like me understand what the terms mean and how to come to grips with how medicine and science interface with the dignity of the issue of life and the dignity of life, and the notion that life is - you know, that there is a Creator?. Members of the president?s Council on Bioethics, on which Fukuyama sits, are widely credited with crafting Bush?s stem cell policy, which saw a ban on federal funding for research on new stem cell lines. This propelled the question of regulating biotechnology to the top of the political agenda. During the Democratic Party Convention last year, presidential candidate John Kerry mentioned stem cell research more often than unemployment. ... -- "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 megao at sasktel.net Sat May 28 19:28:25 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 14:28:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism: menace or threat? In-Reply-To: <4298C4DA.3050004@mindspring.com> References: <4298C4DA.3050004@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4298C659.1070501@sasktel.net> The case to date is that when leaders of religeon or politics view something as undesireable they make an edict, law or regulation which the masses dutifully obey. So indeed a worldview by leaders to not change the human condition, but to let the majority of the population die off of natural causes...and ageing might indeed forstall whole populations from taking the risks/unknowns that go with life-extension technology. There of course will be some who disobey and use the technology. As we have seen with Stem Cell Technology. Will this be a lesson to the population... not yet it seems....? All the while those who feel strongly and pay the price to access the technology become the pioneers to use, benefit from and likely commercialize the technology. This might mark the single greatest event in the natural selection the human species has experienced since cro-magnons and such were eliminated from the gene pool. I wonder if any opinion polling has been done that might indicate under what conditions the general population might break from the mould and commit civil disobedience to better individual each person's individual circumstance? Terry W. Colvin wrote: > http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c7eb8502-cda3-11d9-9a8a-00000e2511c8.html > > The most dangerous idea on earth? > By Stephen Cave and Friederike von Tiesenhausen Cave > Published: May 27 2005 12:42 | Last updated: May 27 2005 12:42 > > It is easy to see how you could be tempted. It might start with > genetically screening your children for a lower risk of a hereditary > cancer. Or perhaps with a pill that promised to keep your memory fresh > and clear into old age. > But what if, while you were having your future children engineered to > be cancer-free, you were offered the chance to make them musically > gifted? Or, if instead of taking a memory-enhancing pill, you were > offered a neural implant that would instantly make you fluent in all > the world?s languages? Or cleverer by half? Wouldn?t it be difficult > to say no? And what if you were offered a whole new body - one that > would never decay or grow old? > A growing number of people believe these will be the fruits of the > revolutions in biotechnology expected this century. And they consider > it every individual?s right to take advantage of these changes. They > think it will soon be within our reach to become something more than > human - healthier, stronger, cleverer. All we have to do is live long > enough to be around when science makes these advances. If we are, then > we may just live forever. > This idea, known as transhumanism, is steadily spreading from a > handful of cranks and Star Trek fans into the mainstream and across > the Atlantic. But it is an idea that Francis Fukuyama, famed for > proclaiming the end of history when US-style liberal democracy > triumphed in the cold war, has described as the most dangerous in the > world. > ... > Fukuyama?s answer to the threat of transhumanism is straightforward: > stringent regulation. Despite the current deregulatory mood in > America, his views chime with those of the anti-abortion right, a core > constituency of the Bush administration. When President George W. Bush > first came to power, he set up his Council on Bioethics to, as he put > it, ?help people like me understand what the terms mean and how to > come to grips with how medicine and science interface with the dignity > of the issue of life and the dignity of life, and the notion that life > is - you know, that there is a Creator?. > Members of the president?s Council on Bioethics, on which Fukuyama > sits, are widely credited with crafting Bush?s stem cell policy, which > saw a ban on federal funding for research on new stem cell lines. This > propelled the question of regulating biotechnology to the top of the > political agenda. During the Democratic Party Convention last year, > presidential candidate John Kerry mentioned stem cell research more > often than unemployment. > ... From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 28 20:41:42 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 13:41:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPEAKER: Needed for International TechnologyConference In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050528084611.02745b90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050527212809.40442.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> <200505280340.j4S3erR11995@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050528084611.02745b90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Does this well known conference have a name and URL? - s On May 28, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Please contact me off list to discuss. > > Thanks, > Natasha > > > > >> > A well-known international conference is taking place in Northern >> > California in July. Max More was invited to deliver the keynote >> > speech. >> > Unfortunately Max will be at another conference giving a talk and >> > cannot attend to deliver the keynote. >> > >> > However, this conference is adamant about having a well-informed >> > speaker from Extropy Institute deliver the keynote on transhumanist >> > ideas relating to change and technology: >> > >> > "...[deliver a] philosophical component into our Conferences that >> > focuses on the need for caution in the development and evolution of >> > the new technologies such as nano-, bio-, info-, etc. as well as a >> > perspective on the evolution of mankind and society ..." >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bjk at imminst.org Sun May 29 04:45:46 2005 From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein) Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 23:45:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Film Preview & Conference In-Reply-To: References: <20050527212809.40442.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> <200505280340.j4S3erR11995@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050528084611.02745b90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <429948FA.3040600@imminst.org> Fellow ExI members, If you wish to receive a free 20 min. DVD preview of the Immortality Institute (ImmInst) film "Exploring Life Extension" reply to my email address (bjk at imminst.org) with your physical mailing address. Also, I hope you may join us at ImmInst's first Life Extension Conference in Atlanta, GA - Nov 5, 2005: ? Anti-aging - de Grey ? Artificial Heart - Houghton ? Artificial Intelligence - Yudkowsky ? Brain-computer Interfacing - Passaro ? Cryobiology - Wowk ? Cryonics - Merkle ? Cryonics Affordability - Hoffman ? Cryopreserving the Brain - Best ? Design for Change - Vita-More ? Diachronous Self - More ? Immortalizing Brains - Goertzel ? Neurological Remediation - Hughes ? Technology Studies - Arrison http://www.imminst.org/conference Bruce Klein http://www.imminst.org/bjklein From mark at permanentend.org Sun May 29 13:17:57 2005 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 09:17:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] On the Inevitability and Goodness of Superlongevity References: <20050528072657.2010.qmail@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001601c56450$d4fa9380$9a00a8c0@markcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Geddes" > Just on a side-note, it was interesting that you > mentioned the ethical debate between what you called > welfarists (who want to maximize utility in the sense > of happiness) and perfectionists (who emphasize growth > as the highest good). I'm inclined to think that > ethics is some sort of *combination* of the two (that > is: I think that both welfarists and perfectionists > are both half right). > > Note that welfarists emphasize the *intrapersonal* > (individual internal positive experiences), where as > perfectionists emphasize the *interpersonal* (the role > individuals play in the world, or how they interact > with the external world and the people around them). > So welfarists are dealing with *intrapersonal* ethics > (what personal values to pursue), where as > perfectionists are dealing with *interpersonal > ethics*(how we should relate the external world). > > For *intrapersonal* ethics, I think welfarism equates > to Eudaimonia (which I interpret as a combination of > health and happiness). > > For *interpersonal* ethics, I think perfectionism > equates to what I have called Volition (a constant > striving for perfection requires growth, which amounts > to a constant expansion of over-all choice or freedom > - Volition). > > So remember my handy formula for morality. Here it > is: > > Morality = Eudaimonia x Volition > > Eudaimonia is welfarism, Volition is perfectionism and > the multiplication sign indicates that I think ethics > is some sort of interaction or combination of the two. > > I agree about the incompleteness of both welfarism and perfectionism as it is traditionally stated. However, I am writing a paper that argues that perfectionism can accommodate the sorts of things that welfarism typically points to, e.g., the role of pleasure and happiness in the good life, whereas welfarism cannot accommodate the insights of perfectionism. So, if we opt for a monistic conception of the good, then perfectionism is this good. Thanks for you input. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 29 21:24:41 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 16:24:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Framework for Humane Globalism/Capitalism/Politics Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529160426.0272cb20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Does anyone have an essay or article that provides a transhumanist perspective on a humane approach to globalism, capitalism or politics? I am using these three terms because they are that are often used in conjunction with a sense of angst society feels about the rate of progress in a rapidly changing world where fears concerning advances in technology are prevalent. Many thanks! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 29 21:26:53 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 16:26:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Framework for Humane Globalism/Capitalism/Politics Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529162540.02e29320@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Does anyone have an essay or article that provides a transhumanist perspective on a humane approach to globalism, capitalism or politics? I am using these three terms because they are that are often used in conjunction with a sense of angst society feels about the rate of progress in a rapidly changing world where fears concerning advances in technology are prevalent. Many thanks! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 29 22:00:44 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 17:00:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS! Extropy Satellite Conference at TransVision 2005 Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529165310.028038d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> If you have not already made your reservation and booked your flight do it soonest! TransVision 2005 in Venezuela in July should be one of the best TransVision conferences yet! Why? Because Extropy Institute is holding a satellite conference during TransVision, which will be a great way for us to get together and discuss the latest extropic news. (Psst ... don't look at the website for this yet. The site is under construction and new pages will not be up until next week.) So, is anyone going to Venezuela? Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Mon May 30 00:27:47 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 02:27:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Framework for Humane Globalism/Capitalism/Politics In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529162540.02e29320@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050530002748.95135.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> --I am writing this book which i am sending the summary If there is anything that you feel could be of interest I'll send it to you Regards Giorgio- Giorgio Gaviraghi CHALLENGING THE FUTURE TERRAFORMING PLANET EARTH Table of contents: Foreword 1-Introduction -mapping the future: main long range results 1-where we stand: The future of history 2-alternatives of growth 3-Reach phase 1-a planetary society 1-challenges and goals 2-proposals and methodology 3-general schedule for phase 1 4-Single Master Plans for K1 a-political b-standardization c-security d-pollution -energy -education -economy -health, the immortality plan: phase 1 eliminate disease and aging - technology -space - transportation system -infrastructural system -asteroid deflection -Terraforming -grid system -transnet -new building types -clusters, districts, metropolis, megalopolis Reach Phase 2- an interplanetary society -starting conditions -general master plan, goals and schedules -immortality plan phase 2 enhanced humans-immortal life forms -space -manned human settlements -new life forms economy -interplanetary economy and technology Reach Phase 3 an interstellar society -starting conditions -interstellar society , challenges, strategies and issues -alien life encounters -the new posthuman condition -interstellar expansion-ringworlds and artificial planets technologies -goals and schedules Natasha Vita-More ha scritto: > Does anyone have an essay or article that provides a > transhumanist > perspective on a humane approach to globalism, > capitalism or politics? > > I am using these three terms because they are that > are often used in > conjunction with a sense of angst society feels > about the rate of progress > in a rapidly changing world where fears concerning > advances in technology > are prevalent. > > Many thanks! > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More > http://www.natasha.cc > [_______________________________________________ > President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org > [_____________________________________________________ > Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > http://www.transhumanist.biz > > Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. > Alvin Toffler > Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From dirk at neopax.com Mon May 30 00:28:22 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 01:28:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] prejudices/tribalism biologically "hardwired" In-Reply-To: <20050526190638.48734.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050526190638.48734.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429A5E26.1070903@neopax.com> Jeff Davis wrote: >Extropes, > >Tribalism (ethnic, religious, nationalistic, >linguistic, etc affiliation--with tribes any "us", any >"them") is perhaps viewed as a kind of cultural >accident (of birth, for the most part). Concurrently, >there is the view that prejudice is a character flaw >slash moral defect. Not! It's all in the genes. > >Another very good reason for genetic "reengineering" >slash enhancement. > > > True - that my tribe! -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.2.0 - Release Date: 27/05/2005 From giogavir at yahoo.it Mon May 30 01:05:26 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 03:05:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism: Themostdangerousidea on earth? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050530010526.13489.qmail@web26205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I agre with John, after penicillin, nearly 80 years ago actually, we never had a real breakthrough. Many advances in every field of medicine but we only gained some more survivability Penicillin put the word END on major diseases since then we are waiting for a breakthrough to put the word END to cancer, diabetes and heart disease, just to name a few. Cell , genome,gene therapy, transplants, and other advamces in diagnostics or treatment are still promising, but we still die from the above diseases, we only postpone the final demise. We need not only breakthroughs but a Manhattan style plan to defeat diseases, with well defined goals, schedules, milestones and activities tht can direct the research efforts in the right direction. with a well defined and managed plan we will achieve one by one, all needed results Giorgio--- John K Clark ha scritto: > "Bret Kulakovich" > > > I don't know, John - fetal surgery for spina > bifida, treatment for > > pediatric leukemia, reversal of certain types of > diabetes, the human > > trials of stem cell treatment for muscular > dystrophy, organ transplant in > > general... not to mention 8 Molar glycerol! > > I'm all for stem cells, I think they have enormous > potential, but as of > today they have helped few if any people, the same > is true for gene therapy. > If you got sick today and were taken to a hospital > today would your > treatment be "astonishingly" better than it would > have been in 1985? I think > not. Unfortunately there is no Moore's Law for > medicine. > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 30 01:26:45 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 11:26:45 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism:Themostdangerousidea on earth? References: <20050528073652.43348.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006a01c564b6$a4d2c8b0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Which vaccines for deadly diseases did you have in >> mind? > Polio, smallpox, influenza, measles, mumps, tentanus, > hepatatitis B, and many others. Yes, its my impression anyway that these have certainly helped significantly, (I don't have hard statistics on hand but in general), your point is well made and taken here. However influenza still kills a lot of people as I understand it, particularly the elderly and the weak in underdeveloped countries. From memory, my microbiology is a little rusty, it is really a cluster of diseases associated with a genera or family of microbes rather than a single disease. It rapidly mutates into forms that evade the hosting species resistence mechanisms that are built up against it. >In fact, the diseases > for which there are no vaccines for are rather > exceptional in this day and age, essentially either > consisting of newly emergent diseases like SARS (which > doesn't seem to be a big public health concern any > more) and really tricky ones such as HIV. Some of the > newer vaccines in the works are against certain forms > of cancer, nicotine (for people who can't quit > smoking) and one against tooth decay. To your knowledge, is there a single database of available vaccines anywhere? > For the most > part, we now have the technology to develop vaccines > for most diseases within a year's time. Hmm, what about heart disease and stroke? Degenerative brain diseases like alzheimers and parkinsons? Because cancers are mutated human cells, vaccines would be problematic in many cases wouldn't they, in that, the vaccine would be homing in on antigens that might occur naturally in the human body? Again my rustiness in molecular biology and immunity may be showing me up. >...................................................Whether there > is funding for the technology to be brought to bear > upon a particular disease however depends a lot on > congress, lobbyists, and whether pharmaceutical > companies think they can turn a profit. My point > however is that the average American has little to > fear from infectious diseases. In general, this point is well made and well taken. (Bush's flu vaccine > debacle excepted of course) I wasn't aware of that from Australia. What IS the Bush flu vaccine debacle to which you refer? >> Which gene-therapies are available to clinicians? > > Well the most successful to date has been against ADA > deficiency otherwise known as SCIDs or "bubble boy" > syndrome. In the cases where it was used, the genetic > defect was essentially cured. There has been a > temporary halt to development however because 2 > individuals out of some dozens or so have contracted > leukemia potentially as a result of the gene therapy. Yes there was a french boy affected from memory. > Therefore progress on gene therapy has slowed down > considerably in the past couple of years. That's what I thought. Real progress, but with some substantial setbacks. Nonetheless life is genuinely complex, one does not have to have a faith based worldview to be reasonably concerned and mindful of the unintended consequences of treaments and therapies that are not necessary well understood in terms of their effects especially over substantial periods of time. >> I'm sceptical that its true as a generalisation that >> a person dead for 9 minutes and 59 seconds or less can be >> brought back. > Oh they can be. They will never be quite the same but > generally speaking at room temperature, the window for > resuscitation is between 5-10 minutes. The brain > damage starts very quickly however so obviously the > sooner medical attention is recieved, the better. Note > that even at the lower end of this window of 5 minutes > still results in some brain damage but generally less > than 10 minutes is the "salvage" window. There have > been numerous anecdotal cases of people who have been > "dead" at very cold temperatures (bottoms of frozen > lakes and what not for periods of 30 minutes or more > that have been successfully brought back. I'm still sceptical, Eugen often champions this area, but I don't think I can put my hand on a reliable peer reviewed case of a human being surviving (essentially intack brainwise) after 30 minutes at the bottom of a frozen lake. Can you? > There would be some unusual circumstances >> where that could indeed be true but they are unusual >> circumstances of what is still 'heroic' medicine. > > Nah, its pretty routine actually. One of the post docs > in my lab (an infectious disease specialist) has > brought back a dozen or so himself during his > residency. I mean you could still think of it as > "heroic" but it happens several times a day in most > big hospitals. Hmm. Its not clear to me what infectious diseases has to do with this. Btw: when you say your lab, do you mean the lab in which you work or do you head up a lab? I would have thought the former rather than the latter. >> >> And as for keeping the mindless-body alive >> indefinately, >> that doesn't seem to be within the range of existing >> general >> clinical medical practice either. > > It isn't normal practice, but that is for ethical and > financial reasons and not due to technological > reasons. Schiavo for example could have lived well > into old age if they hadn't unplugged her. Lived yes, but "well"? As I understand it she could not have formed the words to opine that she was in even a "satisfactory condition". >> There is plenty of human condition yet to improved >> upon >> and we have very much work still to do. > > I agree with that, but it still doesn't mean that the > practice of medicine hasn't changed or had "break > throughs" since penicillin. Depends, I suppose on what we mean by "break through", incremental progress does not, to my mind, constitute a "break through. Its hard to have serious conversations on these matters when we used phrases like "break through" without putting numbers or context around them. Cheers, Brett Paatsch From jbloch at humanenhancement.com Mon May 30 01:30:20 2005 From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 21:30:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Report from Balticon Message-ID: <429A6CAC.7050208@humanenhancement.com> I've just returned from a most extraordinary visit to Balticon (http://www.balticon.org), the annual convention of the Baltimore Science Fiction Society. I had arranged to get an exhibitor table, and was scheduled (along with fellow WTA member Jeff Medina, who also held the banner high for SIAI and was a welcome expert on the many questions that came up on the subject of artificial general intelligence) to give two talks on >H as part of the science track of presentations on Saturday (family commitments prevented me from staying through Monday, even though the convention was still going strong when I left). I arrived on Friday afternoon and set up the info table with a number of flyers (downloadable from the WTA website-- http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/resources/) I had printed out, as well as literature from Alcor (http://www.alcor.org), the New Jersey Transhumanist Association (http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta) and my own Center for Human Enhancement (http://www.humanenhancement.com). I didn't stay around on Friday night, as I was due at some friends' house, but figured a few interested early-comers might take some flyers. Boy, did they! When I arrived to man the table on Saturday morning, almost all of the flyers I had left the night before had been taken. I know it wasn't a case of someone just cleaning off the table, as _everything_ wasn't gone, but 90% of what had been there wasn't there any more. I was starting to feel good about this event. I put out more of the literature I had brought with me, set up the signs and literature-holders, and hung up the 6' vinyl WTA banner in front of the table, and even before I could sit down, folks were coming up and asking me questions about Transhumanism; turns out some of them had read the flyers from the day before and wanted to know more! Many folks stopped by and said they had seen our presentations in the convention schedule and were very interested and planning on attending. I was definitely feeling good about this. In fact, by the time Saturday was over, four new people had signed up as WTA members on the spot, and many more said they would do so on the website. Throughout the morning, there was such a crush of people asking questions, taking literature, and so forth that I barely had time to take a ten-minute break and scan through the dealers' area for souvenirs for my wife and daughter. Certainly I wasn't going to be attending any of the programming myself. In the nick of time, Jeff showed up for our first presentation at 1 PM, "An Introduction to Transhumanism". Without the benefit of any PowerPoint slides, any script, or really any preparation, we held an audience of 40 or so people enthralled with our description of the promise of Transhumanism. Almost as soon as our first sentence had been uttered, hands went up with questions, and the hour went by in an instant. Folks followed us back to the table, engaged in deep and thoughtful conversations. The 6 PM presentation, "Anti-Transhumanist Themes in 'Star Trek'" (based on a paper I am submitting to JET) was an even better success. The audience was completely engaged, asking really deep, penetrating questions, and the whole thing was completely fun, being bound together by examples from the various 'Star Trek' series that the audience could relate to directly. Naturally, it wasn't all on a science fiction plane, as we took pains to keep reminding everyone that these technologies are going to be here long before the 23rd century. After this presentation was over, we stayed in the room for a full 45 minutes past the end, chatting and answering questions from the audience, until we were compelled to leave by the staff (we were the last presentation in the room, but it needed to be set up for the costume contest later that evening). The conversation continued, once again, as we repaired to our exhibitor table. (Both presentations were videotaped, and I'll try to make a digitized version available on the WTA website as soon as practical.) This was such a different experience from my time at Lunacon. I can only think that it is the nature of the convention which accounts for the difference in response. Lunacon is primarily a literary science fiction convention, without any sort of science programming, and I think the people who attend reflect that emphasis. Balticon is a much larger convention, and has a well-established science programming track, and some people come just for that. Even those people who never go to the science programming are more (pro-)scientifically-oriented, and I think they regard the science programming track much like some people regard the existence of their city's philharmonic orchestra; they don't want to go see it, but they feel a certain comfort that it is there. This isn't to say that everything was wine and roses, of course. There were a few folks who were cautious at best regarding >H's claims regarding the promise of technology, and they certainly gave spirited arguments. Some folks had their own axes to grind, and imposed their expectations on >H and found it lacking. But on the whole, >H was extremely well-received by many people at Balticon, and I find the experience completely positive overall. I will hopefully be attending several more such conventions in the coming year. We've been invited back to Balticon next year, and I will certainly take them up on it. And next time, I'll have a few PowerPoint presentations with me. Joseph Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": http://www.humanenhancement.com New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated today!) From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon May 30 02:06:12 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 12:06:12 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] "BEST OF LIST": Editors Needed for ExI References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050528110301.02d55638@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <009001c564bc$276c37c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Good idea ! I can't commit time to this at present, though that might change in the future (please don't wait), but I think it augurs well for the project that David (with his IT skills) and Greg (with his legal skills - potentially relevant to copyright issues etc) will be involved in it. For sometime I have intended to try and extract into some sort of sensible form my own postings to the Exi list. I think my thinking in some key areas has developed over a couple of years of posting and as a result of discussing issues with other posters. So far I have not gotten around to it. And I have found (on really not much effort expended to be honest) that it isn't as easy to extract the info I'd like in the way that I'd like. Regards, Brett Paatsch ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Cc: futuretag at yahoogroups.com ; transhumantech at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 2:17 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] "BEST OF LIST": Editors Needed for ExI Extropy Institute's email list is the longest running transhumanist email list in the world! Well, you have been asking for it, and finally we are doing something about it. ExI is compiling Best of the List, going back to the earliest ideas posted on list way back in 1991! Thanks to ExI's Board member David McFadzean who will be the key person behind this sorely needed and highly worthwhile compilation of posts outlining the history of ideas that formed transhumanism. Greg Burch, ExI's VP, will be performing the final editing, but we are looking for someone to work with us in the initial stages. For anyone who loves digging through history and finding cutting-edge master minds in action, then this is the job for you! Please contact me at 011.512.263.2749 or email me at natasha at extropy.org. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Toffler If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show. Leary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: From mike99 at lascruces.com Mon May 30 02:44:06 2005 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 20:44:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wtaboard] Report from Balticon In-Reply-To: <429A6CAC.7050208@humanenhancement.com> Message-ID: Joseph, Bravo! Excellent work at Balticon! 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 "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system." -- Eugen Leitl Member: Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/ Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org > -----Original Message----- > From: wtaboard-bounces at transhumanism.org > [mailto:wtaboard-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 7:30 PM > To: WTA Board of Directors List; wta-chapter-officers at yahoogroups.com; > World Transhumanist Association Discussion List; ExI chat list > Subject: [wtaboard] Report from Balticon > > > I've just returned from a most extraordinary visit to Balticon > (http://www.balticon.org), the annual convention of the Baltimore > Science Fiction Society. I had arranged to get an exhibitor table, and > was scheduled (along with fellow WTA member Jeff Medina, who also held > the banner high for SIAI and was a welcome expert on the many questions > that came up on the subject of artificial general intelligence) to give > two talks on >H as part of the science track of presentations on > Saturday (family commitments prevented me from staying through Monday, > even though the convention was still going strong when I left). > > I arrived on Friday afternoon and set up the info table with a number of > flyers (downloadable from the WTA website-- > http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/resources/) I had printed out, as > well as literature from Alcor (http://www.alcor.org), the New Jersey > Transhumanist Association (http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta) and my own > Center for Human Enhancement (http://www.humanenhancement.com). I didn't > stay around on Friday night, as I was due at some friends' house, but > figured a few interested early-comers might take some flyers. > > Boy, did they! When I arrived to man the table on Saturday morning, > almost all of the flyers I had left the night before had been taken. I > know it wasn't a case of someone just cleaning off the table, as > _everything_ wasn't gone, but 90% of what had been there wasn't there > any more. I was starting to feel good about this event. I put out more > of the literature I had brought with me, set up the signs and > literature-holders, and hung up the 6' vinyl WTA banner in front of the > table, and even before I could sit down, folks were coming up and asking > me questions about Transhumanism; turns out some of them had read the > flyers from the day before and wanted to know more! Many folks stopped > by and said they had seen our presentations in the convention schedule > and were very interested and planning on attending. > > I was definitely feeling good about this. In fact, by the time Saturday > was over, four new people had signed up as WTA members on the spot, and > many more said they would do so on the website. > > Throughout the morning, there was such a crush of people asking > questions, taking literature, and so forth that I barely had time to > take a ten-minute break and scan through the dealers' area for souvenirs > for my wife and daughter. Certainly I wasn't going to be attending any > of the programming myself. > > In the nick of time, Jeff showed up for our first presentation at 1 PM, > "An Introduction to Transhumanism". Without the benefit of any > PowerPoint slides, any script, or really any preparation, we held an > audience of 40 or so people enthralled with our description of the > promise of Transhumanism. Almost as soon as our first sentence had been > uttered, hands went up with questions, and the hour went by in an > instant. Folks followed us back to the table, engaged in deep and > thoughtful conversations. > > The 6 PM presentation, "Anti-Transhumanist Themes in 'Star Trek'" (based > on a paper I am submitting to JET) was an even better success. The > audience was completely engaged, asking really deep, penetrating > questions, and the whole thing was completely fun, being bound together > by examples from the various 'Star Trek' series that the audience could > relate to directly. Naturally, it wasn't all on a science fiction plane, > as we took pains to keep reminding everyone that these technologies are > going to be here long before the 23rd century. After this presentation > was over, we stayed in the room for a full 45 minutes past the end, > chatting and answering questions from the audience, until we were > compelled to leave by the staff (we were the last presentation in the > room, but it needed to be set up for the costume contest later that > evening). The conversation continued, once again, as we repaired to our > exhibitor table. (Both presentations were videotaped, and I'll try to > make a digitized version available on the WTA website as soon as > practical.) > > This was such a different experience from my time at Lunacon. I can only > think that it is the nature of the convention which accounts for the > difference in response. Lunacon is primarily a literary science fiction > convention, without any sort of science programming, and I think the > people who attend reflect that emphasis. Balticon is a much larger > convention, and has a well-established science programming track, and > some people come just for that. Even those people who never go to the > science programming are more (pro-)scientifically-oriented, and I think > they regard the science programming track much like some people regard > the existence of their city's philharmonic orchestra; they don't want to > go see it, but they feel a certain comfort that it is there. > > This isn't to say that everything was wine and roses, of course. There > were a few folks who were cautious at best regarding >H's claims > regarding the promise of technology, and they certainly gave spirited > arguments. Some folks had their own axes to grind, and imposed their > expectations on >H and found it lacking. But on the whole, >H was > extremely well-received by many people at Balticon, and I find the > experience completely positive overall. I will hopefully be attending > several more such conventions in the coming year. > > We've been invited back to Balticon next year, and I will certainly take > them up on it. And next time, I'll have a few PowerPoint presentations > with me. > > Joseph > > Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": > http://www.humanenhancement.com > New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta > PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated today!) > _______________________________________________ > wtaboard mailing list > wtaboard at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wtaboard > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 30 08:06:41 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 01:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS! Extropy Satellite Conference at TransVision 2005 In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529165310.028038d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050530080641.48603.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Sheesh... why can't you ever have one of these things in Los Angeles? :) --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > If you have not already made your reservation and > booked your flight do it > soonest! TransVision 2005 in Venezuela in July > should be one of the best > TransVision conferences yet! Why? Because Extropy > Institute is holding a > satellite conference during TransVision, which will > be a great way for us > to get together and discuss the latest extropic > news. > > (Psst ... don't look at the website for this yet. > The site is under > construction and new pages will not be up until next > week.) > > So, is anyone going to Venezuela? > > > Natasha Vita-More > http://www.natasha.cc > [_______________________________________________ > President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org > [_____________________________________________________ > Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > http://www.transhumanist.biz > > Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. > Alvin Toffler > Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon May 30 08:20:22 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 01:20:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] prejudices/tribalism biologically "hardwired" In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050530082022.35689.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> > Jeff Davis wrote: > > >Tribalism (ethnic, religious, nationalistic, > >linguistic, etc affiliation--with tribes any "us", > any > >"them") is perhaps viewed as a kind of cultural > >accident (of birth, for the most part). > Concurrently, > >there is the view that prejudice is a character > flaw > >slash moral defect. Not! It's all in the genes. > > > >Another very good reason for genetic > "reengineering" > >slash enhancement. > > > > > > > True - that my tribe! Ug. No. Character flaw. What bout caveman from 2 tribe like mongrel dog. How gene make prejudice? Who make prejudice? Papa tribe? Mama tribe? All tribe? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dirk at neopax.com Mon May 30 12:12:10 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 13:12:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] prejudices/tribalism biologically "hardwired" In-Reply-To: <20050530082022.35689.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050530082022.35689.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429B031A.4040502@neopax.com> The Avantguardian wrote: >>Jeff Davis wrote: >> >> >> >>>Tribalism (ethnic, religious, nationalistic, >>>linguistic, etc affiliation--with tribes any "us", >>> >>> >>any >> >> >>>"them") is perhaps viewed as a kind of cultural >>>accident (of birth, for the most part). >>> >>> >>Concurrently, >> >> >>>there is the view that prejudice is a character >>> >>> >>flaw >> >> >>>slash moral defect. Not! It's all in the genes. >>> >>>Another very good reason for genetic >>> >>> >>"reengineering" >> >> >>>slash enhancement. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>True - that my tribe! >> >> > >Ug. No. Character flaw. What bout caveman from 2 tribe >like mongrel dog. How gene make prejudice? Who make >prejudice? Papa tribe? Mama tribe? All tribe? > > > Your prejudice is that its prejudice. It most certainly isn't when it comes to belief eg religion, as quoted as a criteria in the original post. Somehow I don't think genes have much to do with me (and you presumably) not including Pat Buchanan in our particular tribe. Except, of course, in the utterly trivial manner of 'genes make us choose things'. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.0 - Release Date: 30/05/2005 From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 30 16:39:45 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 11:39:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS! Extropy Satellite Conference at TransVision 2005 In-Reply-To: <20050530080641.48603.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529165310.028038d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050530080641.48603.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050530113924.02f6a060@pop-server.austin.rr.com> We did! All though the 1980s, 1900s! We had lots of events! N At 03:06 AM 5/30/2005, you wrote: >Sheesh... why can't you ever have one of these things >in Los Angeles? :) > > >--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > > If you have not already made your reservation and > > booked your flight do it > > soonest! TransVision 2005 in Venezuela in July > > should be one of the best > > TransVision conferences yet! Why? Because Extropy > > Institute is holding a > > satellite conference during TransVision, which will > > be a great way for us > > to get together and discuss the latest extropic > > news. > > > > (Psst ... don't look at the website for this yet. > > The site is under > > construction and new pages will not be up until next > > week.) > > > > So, is anyone going to Venezuela? > > > > > > Natasha Vita-More > > http://www.natasha.cc > > [_______________________________________________ > > President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org > > >[_____________________________________________________ > > Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > > http://www.transhumanist.biz > > > > Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. > > Alvin Toffler > > Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > >The Avantguardian >is >Stuart LaForge >alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > >"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't >attempted to contact us." >-Bill Watterson > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site >http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ >_______________________________________________ >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 Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 30 16:41:01 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 11:41:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS! Extropy Satellite Conference at TransVision 2005 In-Reply-To: <20050530080641.48603.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529165310.028038d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050530080641.48603.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050530114000.02f24030@pop-server.austin.rr.com> We did have lots of extropic transhumanist events all though the '80s and 90s. We will again :-) N At 03:06 AM 5/30/2005, you wrote: >Sheesh... why can't you ever have one of these things >in Los Angeles? :) > > >--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > > If you have not already made your reservation and > > booked your flight do it > > soonest! TransVision 2005 in Venezuela in July > > should be one of the best > > TransVision conferences yet! Why? Because Extropy > > Institute is holding a > > satellite conference during TransVision, which will > > be a great way for us > > to get together and discuss the latest extropic > > news. > > > > (Psst ... don't look at the website for this yet. > > The site is under > > construction and new pages will not be up until next > > week.) > > > > So, is anyone going to Venezuela? > > > > > > Natasha Vita-More > > http://www.natasha.cc > > [_______________________________________________ > > President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org > > >[_____________________________________________________ > > Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > > http://www.transhumanist.biz > > > > Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. > > Alvin Toffler > > Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > >The Avantguardian >is >Stuart LaForge >alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > >"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't >attempted to contact us." >-Bill Watterson > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site >http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ >_______________________________________________ >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 Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 30 21:44:14 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:44:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [ART-tac] A Framework for Humane Globalism/Capitalism/Politics In-Reply-To: <429B8306.3040106@skinnydevil.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529160426.0272cb20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <429B8306.3040106@skinnydevil.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050530164154.0276ff30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:17 PM 5/30/2005, David M. McLean wrote: >Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Does anyone have an essay or article that provides a transhumanist > > perspective on a humane approach to globalism, capitalism or politics? > >Yes. Didn't Max write a piece on "deep anarchy" where he discussed >capitalism & globalism? Yes, but it is transhumanist in scope. >Max also had some down-right brilliant things to say regarding an >extropian view of government over-stepping it's bounds (especially in >regard to emmerging technologies like cloning), the economic avantages >of globalism, and the like...though detractors might find it too >"libertarian" (a label Max does not embrace, of course) and >less-than-humane, but I think his detractors don't think very efficiently. Well Max always has something brilliant to say :-) And yes, some detractors do find his ideas political rather than philosophical. And right again, Max is not a libertarian, nor is Extropy. >http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=exploreCO&coid=CO1200318301415 >Why Marx Was Even More Wrong Than You Thought >Poverty, charity, and free markets unleashed (2003) > >http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0106.html >Embrace, Don't Relinquish, the Future (2000) > >http://www.maxmore.com/selfown.htm >Self-Ownership: A Core Transhuman Virtue (1997) > >...and even this interesting piece: > >http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=exploreCO&coid=CO35041146849 >You Don't Own the Customer (2004) > >-- >David M. McLean >Skinny Devil Music Lab >http://www.skinnydevil.com >859.420.2007 > > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.0 - Release Date: 5/30/2005 > > > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> >What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? >Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! >http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/geeolB/TM >--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ART-tac/ > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > ART-tac-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc [_______________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org [_____________________________________________________ Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness..." Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue May 31 02:26:48 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:26:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rotary animation in New Nanotech book by Josh Hall Message-ID: <115d01c56588$328c99c0$0200a8c0@Nano> A snip from my animation blog (http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2005/05/nanofuture-book.html) : "I received my copy of Nanofuture by J. Storrs Hall PhD which is the first book to include an image of my first technical animation Rotary. Although many of my other works have been featured in books, magazines etc. this was the first to publish one of my works that was actually based on a nanoscale design rather than my own general speculative ideas regarding the future of advanced technologies, and often times more whimsical pieces. This is pretty exciting and is motivation to keep focusing my work in a technical direction. You can see a scan from the book here . You can download my animation of this still at my website . This is a wonderful book with a forward by K. Eric Drexler, who's design it was that my Rotary animation was based on. Anyone interested in nanotech should check this book out." As listed on my Nanoindustries front page: "A new (and wonderful) book on nanotechnology has been released: Nanofuture: What's Next for Nanotechnology by J. Storrs Hall PhD Chief Scientist at Nanorex Inc. and fellow at the Molecular Engineering Research Institute and who's "utility fog" concept is renown among the nanotechnology informed. Mr. Hall has published many papers, is knowledgeable in computer science and has generated 3D models of nano mechanical systems as well as developed multiple operating systems.. For more on utility fog see: Utility Fog: The Stuff that Dreams are Made Of " Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 31 02:53:54 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 21:53:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rotary animation in New Nanotech book by Josh Hall In-Reply-To: <115d01c56588$328c99c0$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <115d01c56588$328c99c0$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050530215046.01d9e4b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:26 PM 5/30/2005 -0700, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller wrote: >I received my copy of >Nanofuture >by J. Storrs Hall, PhD which is the first book to include an image of my >first technical animation Rotary. Congratulations! >Mr. Hall has published many papers Indeed he has, but since he holds a PhD I believe that should make JoSH *Dr.* Hall, no? Although I've noticed American usage is a bit random in this regard. Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 31 07:10:00 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 00:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Financial Times on transhumanism:Themostdangerousidea on earth? In-Reply-To: <006a01c564b6$a4d2c8b0$6e2a2dcb@homepc> Message-ID: <20050531071000.28519.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > To your knowledge, is there a single database of > available > vaccines anywhere? > Unfortunately no. Apparently the WHO wants one built but to date I could not find one. A WHO document however gives one a pretty good idea. Excerpt from http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/vacc_plan/vacc_planp37.pdf " . . . most of the vaccines currently in use have been created since the 1930’s (see figure 4). Today, over 20 major human diseases caused by bacteria or viruses can be prevented by the use of vaccines. In the United States, vaccines for such diseases as diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), and poliomyelitis have been available and widely used in children for many years. Recently, new vaccines, such as those for hepatitis B virus and Haemophilus infiuenzae type b (Hib), have been developed, licensed, and recommended for universal use in children. In addition, other licensed vaccines, such as those for influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia, are used in populations at special risk (some of which, such as the elderly, are numerically quite large). Licensed vaccines for other special uses, such as the military or travelers, include those for adenovirus, plague, rabies, yellow fever, salmonella, and Japanese encephalitis." > Hmm, what about heart disease and stroke? > Degenerative > brain diseases like alzheimers and parkinsons? > Because > cancers are mutated human cells, vaccines would be > problematic in many cases wouldn't they, in that, > the vaccine > would be homing in on antigens that might occur > naturally in > the human body? Yes, very true. Those particular diseases do not easily lend themselves to a vaccination strategy. But a combination of good old fashioned surgery and cutting edge therapeutic cloning will do wonders for many cancers as would stem cell assisted immune reconstitution after radiation and chemotherapy. > > I wasn't aware of that from Australia. What IS the > Bush flu vaccine debacle to which you refer? Well I am not sure of all the details but this last winter the USA had a flu vaccine shortage that got hyped up into a near panic by scare-mongering media sources. Bush's leadership in this instance of crisis essentially consisted of him warning Americans against buying flu vaccines from Canada since the socially funded vaccines "were not approved by the FDA". This was despite the fact that Canada had plenty of the vaccine and it was cheaper there. Moreover the Canadian vaccine is made by the same processes as the American stuff. Essentially he was kissing up to big American Pharm by somehow insinuating Canada had inferior vaccine like a bunch of backwater hicks or something. > > I'm still sceptical, Eugen often champions this > area, but > I don't think I can put my hand on a reliable peer > reviewed > case of a human being surviving (essentially intack > brainwise) > after 30 minutes at the bottom of a frozen lake. Can > you? Well that is difficult because for me to say they were brought back from death was actually word-play on my part. What used to be classified as death (cessation of heartbeat and breathing) is no longer so classified. The clinical definition of death is now rather complicated. Not having a heart beat is now just a "condition" called cardiac arrest. Legal clinical death now requires independant determination of death based upon lack of neurological activity as diagnosed by 2 different physicians. See http://www.factbites.com/topics/Clinical-death for lots of links discussing the topics. I doubt that the Guiness Book of World Records counts as "peer reviewed" however they do have a reputation for accuracy. Reference Jan Egil Refsdahl of Norway who was brought back to life (he never actually died) after 4 hours of cardiac arrest when he fell overboard into icy seas on Dec. 7, 1987. His body temp. was only 75 degrees F (24 degrees C) when they rescued him. > > There would be some unusual circumstances > >> where that could indeed be true but they are > unusual > >> circumstances of what is still 'heroic' medicine. > > > > Nah, its pretty routine actually. One of the post > docs > > in my lab (an infectious disease specialist) has > > brought back a dozen or so himself during his > > residency. I mean you could still think of it as > > "heroic" but it happens several times a day in > most > > big hospitals. > > Hmm. Its not clear to me what infectious diseases > has > to do with this. Nothing actually. I just threw it in to demonstrate that if a specialist in some completely unrelated field has, during his training period, brought back dozens of people, it must be routine to the likes of an emergency medicine specialist. > > Btw: when you say your lab, do you mean the lab in > which you work or do you head up a lab? I would > have thought the former rather than the latter. Yes. I am still just a graduate student although that does not prevent my colleagues from taking me seriously. > > >> There is plenty of human condition yet to > improved > >> upon > >> and we have very much work still to do. I absolutely agree. I just wanted to defend the biomedical community from allegations that we have been "sitting on our laurels since penicillin". The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From bchjg at nus.edu.sg Tue May 31 10:16:01 2005 From: bchjg at nus.edu.sg (Jan Gruber) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 18:16:01 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] back from the cold and cancer vaccines Message-ID: <05C5081466660B4A94F371F5D48B59E777D555@MBOX02.stf.nus.edu.sg> Hi - I always enjoy reading the more "technical" discussions here but usually just "lurk". However, this time I thought some references would be helpful .... >> I'm still sceptical, Eugen often champions this >> area, but >> I don't think I can put my hand on a reliable peer >> reviewed >> case of a human being surviving (essentially intack >> brainwise) >> after 30 minutes at the bottom of a frozen lake. Can >> you? [...] >I doubt that the Guiness Book of World Records counts >as "peer reviewed" however they do have a reputation >for accuracy. Reference Jan Egil Refsdahl of Norway >who was brought back to life (he never actually died) >after 4 hours of cardiac arrest when he fell overboard >into icy seas on Dec. 7, 1987. His body temp. was only >75 degrees F (24 degrees C) when they rescued him. PubMed has quite a few case reports of successful rescue after drowning in cold water - all in peer reviewed journals. For example: Modell, J. H.; Idris, A. H.; Pineda, J. A.; Silverstein, J. H. Survival after prolonged submersion in freshwater in Florida. Chest 125:1948-1951; 2004. Schmidt, U.; Fritz, K. W.; Kasperczyk, W.; Tscherne, H. Successful resuscitation of a child with severe hypothermia after cardiac arrest of 88 minutes. Prehospital. Disaster. Med. 10:60-62; 1995. Most of these are children and the times reported are somewhat shorter then 4h (note that the 88min above might not all be prior to start of CPR ...). >> Because cancers are mutated human cells, vaccines would be >> problematic in many cases wouldn't they, in that, >> the vaccine would be homing in on antigens that might occur >> naturally in the human body? Regarding tumour vaccines and how/why tumour antigens are different from antigens normally found in the body (despite deriving form the persons "own" cells), I found this article gave quite a nice overview: Hospital Practice, Dec 15, 2000, Elizabeth M. Jaffee (Johns Hopkins University) http://www.hosppract.com/issues/2000/12/jaff.htm I hope you will find this information interesting, Jan Gruber -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 6554 bytes Desc: not available URL: From max at maxmore.com Tue May 31 14:56:34 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:56:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A Framework for Humane Globalism/Capitalism/Politics In-Reply-To: <429B8306.3040106@skinnydevil.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050529160426.0272cb20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <429B8306.3040106@skinnydevil.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050531095334.05978cd0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue May 31 16:07:50 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:07:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A Framework for Humane Globalism/Capitalism/Politics Message-ID: <298870-22005523116750884@M2W072.mail2web.com> Thanks - but I'm looking for a "humane" perspective, that is not typically known as transhumanist. N I would especially recommend the work of Hernando de Soto (someone who Mark Miller first turned me onto). Here?s a good intro:
?
New Kind of Entitlement??
by Kerry A. Dolan
Forbes, published on 12/23/2002
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1220318618 38
?
Another piece on de Soto:
?
The Philosopher of Progress and Prosperity??
Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has found a way to enrich the poor.
by Art Kleiner
strategy+business, published on 06/01/2004
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 4075
?
?
Other good articles on economic and business approaches to humane/distributed globalization:
?
The World Bank?s Innovation Market??
by Gary Hamel, Robert Chapman Wood
Harvard Business Review, published on 11/10/2002
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1220318618 38
?
?
Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Imperatives to Achieve Superior Performance
by Lynn Sharp Paine
The McGraw-Hill Companies, published on 08/01/2002,
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1117031111 570
?
?
Fields of Online Dreams??
by Mohanbir Sawhney
CIO.com, published on 10/15/2002
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1223021311 1709
?
?
The Great Leap: Driving Innovation From the Base of the Pyramid??
by Clayton Christensen, Stuart L. Hart
MIT Sloan Management Review, published on 10/15/2002
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 4075
?
?
How To Change the World: Lessons for Entrepreneurs from Activists??
by Adam Kahane
Global Business Network, published on 07/01/2000
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 4075
?
?
How To Change The World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas
by David Bornstein
Oxford University Press, published on 12/01/2003
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 4075
?
?
Social Capitalists: The top 20 groups that are changing the world
by Cheryl Dahle
Fast Company, published on 01/01/2004
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1504113518 06
?
?
Innovating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution??
by Peter M. Senge, Goran Carstedt
MIT Sloan Management Review, published on 10/15/2001
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO2280313385 912
?
?
In Defense of Globalization
by Jagdish Bhagwati
Oxford University Press, published on 01/01/2004
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO6220413505 638
?
?
Microcapitalism and the Megacorporation??
by Debra Dunn, Keith Yamashita
Harvard Business Review, published on 08/01/2003
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO8403133027 72
?
?
Turn Public Problems to Private Account??
by Rodman C. Rockefeller
Harvard Business Review, published on 08/01/2003
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1504113518 06
?
?
The New Pluralism
by Peter Drucker
Leader to Leader, published on 08/01/1999
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO3100411145 418
?
?
Lean Consumption
by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones
Harvard Business Review, published on 03/01/2005
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1020311195 142
?
?
The Global Reporting Initiative??
Global Reporting Initiative
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO5160511172 045
?
?
I have the issues of Harvard Business Review, if you want to read the full text of those articles.
?
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
_______________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 31 16:51:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A Framework for Humane Globalism/Capitalism/Politics In-Reply-To: <298870-22005523116750884@M2W072.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20050531165135.88769.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Could you explain what you mean by "humane"? I am failing to see how Max's references fail to meet your criteria. --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > > Thanks - but I'm looking for a "humane" perspective, that is not > typically > known as transhumanist. > > N > > I would especially recommend the work of Hernando de Soto (someone > who > Mark Miller first turned me onto). Here?s a good intro:
> ?
> New Kind of Entitlement??
> by Kerry A. Dolan
> Forbes, published on 12/23/2002
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1220 > 31861838" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1220318618 > 38
>
?
> Another piece on de Soto:
> ?
> The Philosopher of Progress and Prosperity??
> Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has found a way to enrich the > poor.
> by Art Kleiner
> strategy+business, published on 06/01/2004
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119 > 0214234075" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 > 4075
>
?
> ?
> Other good articles on economic and business approaches to > humane/distributed globalization:
> ?
> The World Bank?s Innovation Market??
> by Gary Hamel, Robert Chapman Wood
> Harvard Business Review, published on 11/10/2002
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1220 > 31861838" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1220318618 > 38
>
?
> ?
> Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial > Imperatives to > Achieve Superior Performance
> by Lynn Sharp Paine
> The McGraw-Hill Companies, published on 08/01/2002,
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1117 > 031111570" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1117031111 > 570
>
?
> ?
> Fields of Online Dreams??
> by Mohanbir Sawhney
> CIO.com, published on 10/15/2002
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1223 > 0213111709" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1223021311 > 1709
>
?
> ?
> The Great Leap: Driving Innovation From the Base of the > Pyramid??
> by Clayton Christensen, Stuart L. Hart
> MIT Sloan Management Review, published on 10/15/2002
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119 > 0214234075" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 > 4075
>
?
> ?
> How To Change the World: Lessons for Entrepreneurs from > Activists??
> by Adam Kahane
> Global Business Network, published on 07/01/2000
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119 > 0214234075" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 > 4075
>
?
> ?
> How To Change The World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New > Ideas
> by David Bornstein
> Oxford University Press, published on 12/01/2003
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119 > 0214234075" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 > 4075
>
?
> ?
> Social Capitalists: The top 20 groups that are changing the world
> by Cheryl Dahle
> Fast Company, published on 01/01/2004
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1504 > 11351806" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1504113518 > 06
>
?
> ?
> Innovating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution??
> by Peter M. Senge, Goran Carstedt
> MIT Sloan Management Review, published on 10/15/2001
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO2280 > 313385912" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO2280313385 > 912
>
?
> ?
> In Defense of Globalization
> by Jagdish Bhagwati
> Oxford University Press, published on 01/01/2004
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO6220 > 413505638" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO6220413505 > 638
>
?
> ?
> Microcapitalism and the Megacorporation??
> by Debra Dunn, Keith Yamashita
> Harvard Business Review, published on 08/01/2003
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO8403 > 13302772" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO8403133027 > 72
>
?
> ?
> Turn Public Problems to Private Account??
> by Rodman C. Rockefeller
> Harvard Business Review, published on 08/01/2003
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1504 > 11351806" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1504113518 > 06
>
?
> ?
> The New Pluralism
> by Peter Drucker
> Leader to Leader, published on 08/01/1999
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO3100 > 411145418" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO3100411145 > 418
>
?
> ?
> Lean Consumption
> by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones
> Harvard Business Review, published on 03/01/2005
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1020 > 311195142" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1020311195 > 142
>
?
> ?
> The Global Reporting Initiative??
> Global Reporting Initiative
> href="http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO5160 > 511172045" eudora="autourl"> > http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO5160511172 > 045
>
?
> ?
> I have the issues of Harvard Business Review, if you want to read the > full text of those articles.
> ?
> Onward!

> Max

>

> size=2>_______________________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________________
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From max at maxmore.com Tue May 31 17:05:01 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:05:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A Framework for Humane Globalism/Capitalism/Politics In-Reply-To: <20050531165135.88769.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <298870-22005523116750884@M2W072.mail2web.com> <20050531165135.88769.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050531120311.05923348@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Certainly the references should qualify as "humane". It sounded like the objection was to their being transhumanist. But none of them are transhumanist. So, all are humane, none are transhumanist. How can they not be relevant? So, I too am puzzled. 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue May 31 17:15:50 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:15:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A Framework for HumaneGlobalism/Capitalism/Politics Message-ID: <210780-220055231171550767@M2W099.mail2web.com> I'm very sorry! My mistake. I was using a split screen and the content was transposed with another piece I was reading. Thanks so much for the references. N I would especially recommend the work of Hernando de Soto (someone who Mark Miller first turned me onto). Here?s a good intro:
?
New Kind of Entitlement??
by Kerry A. Dolan
Forbes, published on 12/23/2002
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1220318618 38
?
Another piece on de Soto:
?
The Philosopher of Progress and Prosperity??
Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has found a way to enrich the poor.
by Art Kleiner
strategy+business, published on 06/01/2004
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 4075
?
?
Other good articles on economic and business approaches to humane/distributed globalization:
?
The World Bank?s Innovation Market??
by Gary Hamel, Robert Chapman Wood
Harvard Business Review, published on 11/10/2002
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1220318618 38
?
?
Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Imperatives to Achieve Superior Performance
by Lynn Sharp Paine
The McGraw-Hill Companies, published on 08/01/2002,
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1117031111 570
?
?
Fields of Online Dreams??
by Mohanbir Sawhney
CIO.com, published on 10/15/2002
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1223021311 1709
?
?
The Great Leap: Driving Innovation From the Base of the Pyramid??
by Clayton Christensen, Stuart L. Hart
MIT Sloan Management Review, published on 10/15/2002
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 4075
?
?
How To Change the World: Lessons for Entrepreneurs from Activists??
by Adam Kahane
Global Business Network, published on 07/01/2000
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 4075
?
?
How To Change The World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas
by David Bornstein
Oxford University Press, published on 12/01/2003
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1119021423 4075
?
?
Social Capitalists: The top 20 groups that are changing the world
by Cheryl Dahle
Fast Company, published on 01/01/2004
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1504113518 06
?
?
Innovating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution??
by Peter M. Senge, Goran Carstedt
MIT Sloan Management Review, published on 10/15/2001
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO2280313385 912
?
?
In Defense of Globalization
by Jagdish Bhagwati
Oxford University Press, published on 01/01/2004
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO6220413505 638
?
?
Microcapitalism and the Megacorporation??
by Debra Dunn, Keith Yamashita
Harvard Business Review, published on 08/01/2003
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO8403133027 72
?
?
Turn Public Problems to Private Account??
by Rodman C. Rockefeller
Harvard Business Review, published on 08/01/2003
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1504113518 06
?
?
The New Pluralism
by Peter Drucker
Leader to Leader, published on 08/01/1999
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO3100411145 418
?
?
Lean Consumption
by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones
Harvard Business Review, published on 03/01/2005
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO1020311195 142
?
?
The Global Reporting Initiative??
Global Reporting Initiative
http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO5160511172 045
?
?
I have the issues of Harvard Business Review, if you want to read the full text of those articles.
?
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
_______________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 31 17:25:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] prejudices/tribalism biologically "hardwired" In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050531172512.69768.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > Jeff Davis wrote: > > > > >Tribalism (ethnic, religious, nationalistic, > > >linguistic, etc affiliation--with tribes any "us", > > any > > >"them") is perhaps viewed as a kind of cultural > > >accident (of birth, for the most part). > > Concurrently, > > >there is the view that prejudice is a character > > flaw > > >slash moral defect. Not! It's all in the genes. > > > > > >Another very good reason for genetic > > "reengineering" > > >slash enhancement. > > > > > > > > > > > True - that my tribe! > > Ug. No. Character flaw. What bout caveman from 2 tribe > like mongrel dog. How gene make prejudice? Who make > prejudice? Papa tribe? Mama tribe? All tribe? Ask someone who is 1/4 african-american or 1/12th native american why they identify with the majority or minority ethnicity: because they choose the tribe that gives them what they feel is more power as individuals over their lives. This sense of affiliation may change over time and may change from day to day depending on which tribe one is with at any given moment. The gene doesn't make you automatically black-supremacist, it makes you likely to strongly identify with one group and engage in group behaviors to enforce that groupism. Are some confused? Certainly, especially if both groups they are members of reject them or see them as 'other'. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From dirk at neopax.com Tue May 31 17:54:38 2005 From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 18:54:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] prejudices/tribalism biologically "hardwired" In-Reply-To: <20050531172512.69768.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050531172512.69768.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429CA4DE.9060101@neopax.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- The Avantguardian wrote: > > >>>Jeff Davis wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Tribalism (ethnic, religious, nationalistic, >>>>linguistic, etc affiliation--with tribes any "us", >>>> >>>> >>>any >>> >>> >>>>"them") is perhaps viewed as a kind of cultural >>>>accident (of birth, for the most part). >>>> >>>> >>>Concurrently, >>> >>> >>>>there is the view that prejudice is a character >>>> >>>> >>>flaw >>> >>> >>>>slash moral defect. Not! It's all in the genes. >>>> >>>>Another very good reason for genetic >>>> >>>> >>>"reengineering" >>> >>> >>>>slash enhancement. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>True - that my tribe! >>> >>> >>Ug. No. Character flaw. What bout caveman from 2 tribe >>like mongrel dog. How gene make prejudice? Who make >>prejudice? Papa tribe? Mama tribe? All tribe? >> >> > >Ask someone who is 1/4 african-american or 1/12th native american why >they identify with the majority or minority ethnicity: because they >choose the tribe that gives them what they feel is more power as >individuals over their lives. This sense of affiliation may change over >time and may change from day to day depending on which tribe one is >with at any given moment. The gene doesn't make you automatically >black-supremacist, it makes you likely to strongly identify with one >group and engage in group behaviors to enforce that groupism. Are some >confused? Certainly, especially if both groups they are members of >reject them or see them as 'other'. > > > > It can be even simpler than that, esp with small self selected tribes. I have joined the 'Asatru Tribe' (as have most) because its culture is a perfect fit for my personality, and I enjoy being with people who are 'like me'. Ditto the 'Transhumanist Tribe' to a lesser extent. How much of ones personality is genetically influenced? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.2 - Release Date: 31/05/2005 From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue May 31 17:57:47 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:57:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Podcast - radio online Message-ID: <69950-220055231175747163@M2W032.mail2web.com> Does anyone know how to create a do-it-yourself, online radio program? I have a bevy of people to interview and it would be great to have the show online for ExI members and Transhumanists Arts & Culture website to listen to. All suggestions are welcome, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From pgptag at gmail.com Tue May 31 18:05:15 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 20:05:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Podcast - radio online In-Reply-To: <69950-220055231175747163@M2W032.mail2web.com> References: <69950-220055231175747163@M2W032.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050531110526bd2c4d@mail.gmail.com> Radio is quite easy I think, ask James Hughes. I think he records the show himself and uploads to a service provider. Podcasting is just a fashionable buzzword for a downloadable radio show. G. On 5/31/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Does anyone know how to create a do-it-yourself, online radio program? > > I have a bevy of people to interview and it would be great to have the show > online for ExI members and Transhumanists Arts & Culture website to listen > to. > > All suggestions are welcome, > > 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 31 18:52:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 11:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rotary animation in New Nanotech book by Josh Hall In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050531185250.42631.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:26 PM 5/30/2005 -0700, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller wrote: > > >I received my copy of > >Nanofuture > > >by J. Storrs Hall, PhD which is the first book to include an image > >of my first technical animation Rotary. > > Congratulations! > > >Mr. Hall has published many papers > > Indeed he has, but since he holds a PhD I believe that should make > JoSH *Dr.* Hall, no? Although I've noticed American usage is a bit > random in this regard. Depends on the circumstances. I understand that, Damien being in an academic environment, is used to calling colleagues doctor, and certainly expecting students to do so. Generally, here in the US, we first pay attention to the preferences of the person holding the degree, if we know them. Many such people dislike being called 'Doctor' by friends and/or colleagues, particularly when outside the academic setting. Even in the medical field, friends of mine who are medical doctors prefer first name usage, while I call any such "Doc" at the least when I am in the hospital seeking health care. We have the Constitutional prohibition against titles of nobility here, so it is a long standing cultural bias against formal and consistent use of even earned titles like Doctor, Esquire, "Your Honor"/Judge, various military officer ranks, or even Senator or Congressman, particularly outside the professional milieu in which those titles have meaning. The idea is that the title only means something within the milieu it refers to, like a Judge only has judicial immunity within the courtroom or otherwise in his official capacity as a public servant, he isn't a public servant when not on the clock, he is a private citizen and no more or less deserving of special treatment than anyone else. Using titles outside the professional milieu is a matter of age differential and degree of familiarity and respect one has for the titled person, as well as the setting (i.e. introducing at a formal event vs greeting at a backyard barbecue.) In this respect, it can easily be said that we have the very sort of de-equalizing complex rules of social etiquette for professional titles that we sought to get away from by eliminating titles of nobility from our society. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 31 19:20:25 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:20:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rotary animation in New Nanotech book by Josh Hall In-Reply-To: <20050531185250.42631.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050531185250.42631.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 May 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 07:26 PM 5/30/2005 -0700, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller wrote: > > > > >Mr. Hall has published many papers > > > > Indeed he has, but since he holds a PhD I believe that should make > > JoSH *Dr.* Hall, no? Although I've noticed American usage is a bit > > random in this regard. > > Depends on the circumstances. [snip] > We have the Constitutional prohibition against titles of nobility here, > so it is a long standing cultural bias against formal and consistent > use of even earned titles like Doctor, Esquire, "Your Honor"/Judge, > various military officer ranks, or even Senator or Congressman, > particularly outside the professional milieu in which those titles have > meaning. > [snip] He was referred to as *Mr.* Hall. If we're going to give him a title at all, at least it should be the correct one! Since the conversation appears to be about his professional publishing, the use of the title would be appropriate, IMHO. Regards, MB From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue May 31 20:05:02 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Podcast - radio online In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050531200502.41565.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It isn't tough, depends on what features you want to include, like commercial sponsorship, listener call-ins, phone-in interview subjects, etc. I know the guys who run FreeTalkLive.com, one of the top podcasts, which is also a syndicated talk radio program. Ian, Manwich and the bunch are always willing to help. Try emailing "FTL_Ian" from their website, tell him I recommended you email him. Also: http://radio.about.com/od/podcastin1/a/aa030805a.htm http://peteashton.com/05/01/22/how_to_podcast.html In particular, if you are running a Mac, an app called Panther is an entry-level solution. Essentially any app that can create MP3 files is needed, plus whatever other features you need to be able to do: telephone input, microphone input (single or multiple), etc. There are advanced sound/media cards you can get for your machine that have lots of such features and jacks built in which you can buy at BestBuy, Circuit City, etc. plus the peripherals to plug into those jacks. Beyond that, pure talent is all that is needed, which I am sure you won't have a problem with. --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Does anyone know how to create a do-it-yourself, online radio > program? > > I have a bevy of people to interview and it would be great to have > the show > online for ExI members and Transhumanists Arts & Culture website to > listen > to. > > All suggestions are welcome, > > 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 > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue May 31 20:33:53 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:33:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rotary animation in New Nanotech book by Josh Hall References: <115d01c56588$328c99c0$0200a8c0@Nano> <6.2.1.2.0.20050530215046.01d9e4b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <007f01c56620$12dcbd10$0200a8c0@Nano> Thank you for pointing this out Damien, I modified the information on my site last night. : ) Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Rotary animation in New Nanotech book by Josh Hall At 07:26 PM 5/30/2005 -0700, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller wrote: >I received my copy of >Nanofuture >by J. Storrs Hall, PhD which is the first book to include an image of my >first technical animation Rotary. Congratulations! >Mr. Hall has published many papers Indeed he has, but since he holds a PhD I believe that should make JoSH *Dr.* Hall, no? Although I've noticed American usage is a bit random in this regard. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ 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: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue May 31 21:16:51 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:16:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Podcast - radio online Message-ID: <42380-220055231211651917@M2W071.mail2web.com> Perfect thanks! Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:05:02 -0700 (PDT) To: nvitamore at austin.rr.com, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Podcast - radio online It isn't tough, depends on what features you want to include, like commercial sponsorship, listener call-ins, phone-in interview subjects, etc. I know the guys who run FreeTalkLive.com, one of the top podcasts, which is also a syndicated talk radio program. Ian, Manwich and the bunch are always willing to help. Try emailing "FTL_Ian" from their website, tell him I recommended you email him. Also: http://radio.about.com/od/podcastin1/a/aa030805a.htm http://peteashton.com/05/01/22/how_to_podcast.html In particular, if you are running a Mac, an app called Panther is an entry-level solution. Essentially any app that can create MP3 files is needed, plus whatever other features you need to be able to do: telephone input, microphone input (single or multiple), etc. There are advanced sound/media cards you can get for your machine that have lots of such features and jacks built in which you can buy at BestBuy, Circuit City, etc. plus the peripherals to plug into those jacks. Beyond that, pure talent is all that is needed, which I am sure you won't have a problem with. --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Does anyone know how to create a do-it-yourself, online radio > program? > > I have a bevy of people to interview and it would be great to have > the show > online for ExI members and Transhumanists Arts & Culture website to > listen > to. > > All suggestions are welcome, > > 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 > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH "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://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 31 21:47:38 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] back from the cold and cancer vaccines In-Reply-To: <05C5081466660B4A94F371F5D48B59E777D555@MBOX02.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <20050531214738.98059.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jan Gruber wrote: > > Hi - I always enjoy reading the more "technical" > discussions here but usually > just "lurk". However, this time I thought some > references would be helpful .... > I have a habit of assuming some things are common knowledge when they are apparently not. I don't have time to drag up references for everything I casually say, so thanks for covering my back. Not bad at all for a "lurker". ;) Feel free to post more often, Jan. You strike me as being in a biotech laboratory yourself and as such you qualify as a "professional" opinion. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From John-C-Wright at sff.net Tue May 31 23:00:59 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 18:00:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality. Message-ID: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com> Brett Paatsch writes: "I'd certainly object to the use of the word "child" if it was intended as a non perjorative term to describe the whole class of living human entities from fertilization to just before birth nine months later. Such a single classification could not be more biased or more misleading." He also calls the use of the term child "perjorative" (sic) which means: "having negative connotations; especially tending to disparage or belittle." In this case, in other words, he is claiming that my calling an unborn human entity a child is an insult, a disparagement, to the child. This is a mildly puzzling use of the term. As if to be a "child" were a lower dignity than to be an "entity"? As I said, I have not the patience to debate the point. With all due resect, his argument is that a certain term, used commonly enough by enough people that at least one standard, commonly used dictionary (Merriam Webster) lists it, not as an obscure or archaic meaning, but as the primary meaning. In other words, the argument here is that a word in its primary common meaning, (that is, the meaning as understood by most speakers of the word) is misleading. But to be misleading means to use the word in a fashion to mean one thing when most everyone understands the word to mean something else. The argument is absurd. Please note that no one in this discussion misunderstood to which unborn human entity my word referred. There was no misunderstanding: I violated a political taboo common to a certain stance that I do not share. The pretense is that all "intelligent" right-thinking men speak the same way using the same euphamisms on the approved topics. My apologies if I offend, but I am not a conformist to these particular doctrines, speech codes, habits, or taboos, and it would be wrong for me to talk as if I were. JCW From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 31 23:20:57 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 00:20:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality. In-Reply-To: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com> References: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0505311620488822d1@mail.gmail.com> On 6/1/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > Please note that no one in this discussion misunderstood to which unborn human > entity my word referred. There was no misunderstanding: I violated a political > taboo common to a certain stance that I do not share. The pretense is that all > "intelligent" right-thinking men speak the same way using the same euphamisms on > the approved topics. My apologies if I offend, but I am not a conformist to > these particular doctrines, speech codes, habits, or taboos, and it would be > wrong for me to talk as if I were. While I happen to be on the pro-choice side of the abortion issue, John has a point here. There's enough slack in the definitions of the words involved that neither usage can be struck out on technical grounds. John chooses words that reflect the way he sees things, just as his opponents in the debate choose words that reflect theirs. He does not demand other people modify their language to match his views; he is perfectly entitled to refuse to modify his to match theirs. - Russell From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 31 23:42:51 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 18:42:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality. In-Reply-To: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com> References: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050531183917.01d52d70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:00 PM 5/31/2005 -0500, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: >He also calls the use of the term child "perjorative" (sic) > using the same euphamisms It's petty of me, I suppose, but I think if you're going to (sic) someone for a typo you might try getting your own subject line and in-text spelling of "euphemism" right. Damien Broderick